“Now explain to me,” I said to Frederick, as we got into our carriage, which was in waiting in front of Aunt Cornelia’s villa, “why you asked the consistorial councillor—”
“To a conference with you? Do not you understand? That is to serve me as material for study. I want to hear once more—and this time to take note of—the arguments by which priests defend public murder. I put you forward as the leader in the fray. It better becomes a young lady to nourish a doubt from the Christian point of view as to the lawfulness of war than a ‘gallant colonel’!”
“But you know that my doubt is not from a religious, but a humanitarian point of view.”
“We must not lay this at all before the reverend consistorial councillor, or else the discussion would be transferred to a different field. The efforts after peace of free thinkers suffer from no internal inconsistency, but it is this very inconsistency existing between the maxims of Christianity and the orders of military authorities which I should like to hear explained by a military chaplain, i.e., a representative of militant Christianity.”
The clergyman was punctual in his arrival. The prospect was evidently an inviting one for him of having to preach a sermon of instruction and conversion. I on the contrary looked forward to the conversation with somewhat painful feelings, for the part assigned to me in it was a dishonest one. But, for the good of the cause to which Frederick had devoted his services henceforth, I was easily able to put some constraint on myself, and comfort myself with the proverb: “The end justifies the means.”
After the first greetings—we were all three seated on low, easy-chairs before the fire—the consistorial councillor began thus:—
“Allow me, dear lady, to enter on the object of my visit. The matter is to remove from your soul some scruples, which are not destitute of some apparent grounds, but which can easily be refuted as sophistical. You think, for example, that Christ’s command to love your enemies, and also the text, ‘He who takes the sword shall perish by the sword,’ are inconsistent with the duties of a soldier, who no doubt is empowered to injure the enemy in body and life.”
“Certainly, reverend councillor, this inconsistency seems to me irreconcilable. Then there occurs also the express command of the Decalogue, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ ”
“Oh, yes, to a superficial judgment there is some difficulty in that, but on penetrating deeper all doubt vanishes. As regards the fifth commandment, it would be more correctly given (as it is actually in the English version of the Bible): ‘Thou shalt not murder.’ Killing for necessary defence is not murder. And war is in reality only necessary defence on a large scale. We can and we ought, following the gentle precept of our Saviour, to love our enemies, but that does not mean that we are not to venture to defend ourselves from open wrong and violence.”
“Then does it not follow of course from this that only defensive wars are justifiable, and that no sword-stroke ought to be given till the enemy has invaded the country? But if the opposing nation proceeds on the same principle, how then can the battle ever begin? In the late war it was your army, reverend councillor, which first crossed the frontier, and—”
“If one wishes to keep the foe off, dear lady, as we have the most sacred right to do, it is utterly unnecessary to put off the favourable opportunity, and to wait until he has first invaded one’s country. On the contrary, the sovereign must, under all circumstances, have freedom to anticipate the violent and unjust. In doing so he is following the written word: ‘He who takes the sword shall perish by the sword.’ He presents himself as God’s servant and avenger on the enemy, because he strives to make him, as he has taken the sword against him, perish by the sword.”
“There must be some fallacy in that,” I said, shaking my head. “It is impossible that these principles should justify both parties equally.”
“And as to the further scruple,” pursued the clergyman, without noticing my remark, “that war is of and by itself displeasing to God, this must depart from every Christian who believes in the Bible, for the Holy Scriptures sufficiently prove that the Lord Himself gave commands to the people of Israel to wage wars, in order to conquer the promised land, and He granted them victory and His blessing on their wars. In Numbers 21:14, a special ‘book of the wars of the Lord’ is spoken of. And how often in the Psalms is the assistance celebrated which God has granted to His people in war! Do you not know what Solomon says (Proverbs 21:31): ‘The horse is prepared against the day of battle, but safety is of the Lord’? In Psalm 144 David thanks and praises the Lord, his strength, ‘who teacheth his hand to war, and his fingers to fight.’ ”
“Then a contradiction prevails between the Old and the New Testament—the God of the ancient Hebrews was a warlike Deity, but the gentle Jesus proclaimed the message of peace, and taught love to neighbour and to enemy.”
“In the New Testament also, Jesus speaks in a figure (Luke 14:31) without the least blame of a king who is going to make war against another king. And how often, too, does not the Apostle Paul use figures from the military life? He says (Rom. 13:4) that the magistrate does not bear the
