In considering this position I would point out first of all that no one whatever accepts, the letter of these commands as applicable without exception to every situation in life. In interpreting such words as these, we do not make void the command by distinguishing between "the spirit" and "the letter." It was the spirit of Christian love which prompted these words, and to the spirit of Christian love expressed in them, we are everyone bound to render an absolute obedience.
It would carry me too far afield to discuss the character of this authoritative spirit.of Christian love, Suffice it to say, at the moment, that it is the love which respects one's fellow-men as children of God, endeavours to maintain fellowship with them, and attempts the best possible for them, Such love obviously permits and demands, at times, resistance to evil, e.g. when the evil is obvious, gross and eas preventable. The force involved in the administration of criminal law may be cited by way of illustration. No one really could object to a drunken brawler being forcibly shown the way home. Prof, G. N. C. Macgregor, in his bool The New Testament Basis of Pacificism," makes this concession, He says: "Just as God's universe has laws which react against the evil-doer, so must our society have laws which similarly react, and similarly demand penalties, otherwise no moral order of society could exist."
The question, then, turns not on the legitimacy of force as such, but on the legitimacy of the type of force regarded as necessary for the establishment of an international order, namely military measures, or war. This is the point at which the issue is really joined between those who believe heartily in the League of Nations policy, and those who, like the late Rev. Dick Sheppard, Canon Raven and Prof. Macgregor, believe that, in the international sphere, only non-violent resistance is permissible.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.