MILITARY SERVICE IN AUSTRALIA pages 311-313

OPERATION OF NONCOMBATANT LAW IN AUSTRALASIA*

During the Great War, but little difficulty, comparatively, was experienced in Australasia over the question of Sabbath exemption or noncombatant privileges, because some years before the war we had been fortunate enough to secure, from the governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand, exemption from military training on Sabbath, and noncombatant privileges in time of war.

In 1909 compulsory military or naval training was provided for all boys of British nationality from twelve to fourteen years of age in the Junior Cadets; and from four- teen to eighteen years of age in the Senior Cadets; and for all men from eighteen to twenty-six years of age in the Citizen Forces. From military service ministers of religion, doctors and nurses, judges and legislators, were ex- empted, as well as “persons who satisfy the prescribed authority that their conscientious beliefs do not allow them to bear arms.” The Defense Act also provided, “No member of the Forces who has conscientious objection shall be compelled to answer any question as to his religion, nor shall any regulation or other order compel attendance at any religious service.”

Another valuable privilege was granted in 1910 which exempted from military training “students at a theological college, … or theological students as prescribed.”

During the war some military officers were disposed to ignore the privileges which had been granted to us by the government; and at times it was necessary for me, as religious liberty secretary, to make very strong protests to military authorities against the actions of certain men who were inclined to regard noncombatants and Sabbathkeepers as unworthy of any special privileges. Occasionally it was necessary for me to do things which in time of war were positively dangerous to one’s liberty.

But somehow the Lord helped us through the whole of the war in a most remarkable way; and I believe the privileges we enjoyed were due very largely, under the blessing of God, to the groundwork we had done with the government in times of peace, prior to the war. The fact that we were recognized as a noncombatant people, and that provision was made in the Defense Act for our ex- emption from combatant duty in time of war, was of tre- mendous assistance to us in our arguments with the military authorities whenever any questions arose. Many times during the war I was exceedingly grateful that the Lord had led us to secure exemption for our members from combatant service and from Sabbath duties in connection with the military service, before the war broke out.

In New Zealand our brethren have, since the war, won further privileges for our boys who are liable for military training. For they are not only exempt from Sabbath duties, as we are here in Australia, but the New Zealand government has recognized us as an entirely noncombatant body, exempt even from military training as such. We have not so far succeeded in winning this privilege in Australia. Our boys are still liable for military training, but they are exempt from Sabbath duties, and also from combatant service in times of war. For the most part, our boys are given training in Red Cross work, or army serv- ice corps responsibilities; and we have nothing to complain of in this country concerning the attitude of the military authorities to our religious privileges. Of course we have had some battles during the years with officious military authorities who thought they could compel us to serve on the Sabbath or engage in combatant duties. But an appeal to the higher authorities has always been successful so far.

During the war we had several men in New Zealand who were brought into difficult circumstances owing to the adoption of conscription in New Zealand; and some of them had to go to jail because they refused combatant service and Sabbath duties. But eventually we won even a greater degree of freedom in New Zealand than we have so far succeeded in obtaining in Australia.

* Statement contributed to this publication by A. W. Anderson, religious liberty secretary of the Australasian Union Conference.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ITOW/ITOW1936/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=286

————————————–

Abstract:

We have learned many lessons from events since our last conference. Some have taught that the Christian cannot be a citizen of earthly governments. They overlook Paul’s use of his Roman citizenship. Our views have evolved over the past four years. Hard circumstances have helped us think. With careful study of EGW’s counsels we could have avoided this non-citizen error. Our relationships are of a dual nature: God and Caesar; Love God and love our neighbors. We must recognize the duality of our obligations. We are to be as conscientious in fulfilling our obligations to the state as we are in fulfilling our obligations to God. God demands that we render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. As a non-combatant people, after a time of disagreement among us, we came to accept that our boys could submit to the draft. They were to keep the Sabbath and be non-combatants while they served their country in time of war. We are a denomination of non-combatants, but we have never claimed absolute exemption from any military service whatsoever. Caesar is God’s minister against evil. We are to help this agent of God in his work. It is our privilege to refuse combatant assignments. Our governments have honoured this. These privileges have been hard won by our Religious Liberty people. In these times we need to be absolutely sure of our principles before making requests of government. We have learned by hard and bitter experiences to render loyal service as citizens. EGW counsels us to maintain an obvious loyalty to our country and its laws.

————————————–

Religious Liberty Department

DURING the past four years we, in common with the rest of the world, have learned many lessons. It has been a period of correction, which, under the providence of God, may be turned to profitable account by all who are willing to be taught by the daily unfolding of events.

A glance backward to the last meeting of this Conference at St. Leonards, and a brief review of some of the events which have taken place during the intervening period, will be sufficient to show how circumstances have tended to teach us some salutary lessons which it was very necessary for us, as a people, to learn..

Some years ago it was held by a number of our people that—Whereas a Christian is a citizen of the heavenly kingdom, and whereas a man cannot be a citizen of two kingdoms at the same time, therefore a Christian could not be a citizen of any earthly kingdom. Those who taught and accepted this teaching either overlooked or ignored the fact that the apostle who wrote concerning our heavenly citizenship also claimed and exercised the right of Roman citizenship. The theory was held so tenaciously by some that they were prepared to say that Paul’s claim to Roman citizenship was a grave error on his part, and one which led him into dire trouble.

I am mentioning these facts so that we may see what a wonderful process of evolution we have passed through during the last quadrennial period. Experience, after all, is the best teacher. No amount of reading matter, or lecturing, or sermonising, would have produced such an evolution. The taskmaster of hard circumstances has driven us to see things as God would have had us see them long ago. Had we studied “Great Controversy” and the Testimonies more carefully we should not have been led into such erroneous teaching, and would have been saved much perplexity.

We should never forget that as long as God sees fit for us to remain upon this mundane sphere and be subject to the governments of this world, our relationships are of a dual nature. We should not only render to God the things that are God’s, but we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. The latter duty is just as explicitly set forth as is the former. In fact, they stand side by side, and form the basis of Christian duty. We are not only to love God and give Him our adoration and worship, but we are to love our neighbours as our selves. We are exhorted to “fear God” and “honour the king.” The quality of our obligations is set forth so clearly in the Scriptures that it is amazing how anybody could fail to discover it.

During the Reformation there were those who troubled Luther by teaching that to obey princes was to attempt to serve both God and Belial.” (” Great Controversy,” page 191.) Such teaching, of course, is quite contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures. “The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.”

It is of the utmost importance that we should fully recognize the duality of our obligations. Because our citizenship is in heaven we are not therefore absolved from the obligations of earthly citizenship. The Christian is under the necessity of paying taxes where taxes are due, rates where rates are due, respect where respect is due, and honour where honour is due.” (Rom. 13:7, Twentieth Century version.) We are acting contrary to the teaching of Scripture if we fail in any of these points; and, moreover, we should be just as conscientious in fulfilling our obligations to the state as we are in fulfilling our obligations to God. The man who professes to fear God alone, while neglecting his obligations to his fellow men and to the government under whose protection he lives, is exhibiting a very questionable kind of love to God, for after all is not our love to God measured by our actions towards our fellow men? “He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” Furthermore, in the judgment the eternal destiny of every individual will be decided by the attitude he assumed towards his fellow men. Those who neglect their earthly obligations, even to prophesy in the name of the Lord, or to cast out devils, or to do many wonderful works, will hear the awful verdict, “I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” When the Lord separates the sheep from the goats the division will be effected by examining the relationships which each individual sustained to his fellow men.’ Inasmuch as ye did it,” or

“Inasmuch as ye did it not.”

God is looking for an exhibition of a living faith—a faith which works by love, for “faith without works is dead.” We shall only deceive ourselves if we maintain that as long as we fulfil our obligations to God that is all that is expected of us. We are most certainly under the necessity of rendering to God the things that are God’s, but God Himself demands of us that we shall also render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

In times of peace we had but little difficulty in recognising the claims that Caesar made upon us. Our first great test in this Union Conference came when the Defence Act was put into operation. Being a non-combatant people, many of our number thought we should not consent to have our boys trained for military service. Gradually, however, we settled down to the new conditions, provided that our boys were exempt from duties on the Sabbath, and were also exempt from combatant service in time of war. The next step in this evolutionary process was taken when our government became embroiled in war. A new set of conditions was to be faced, especially should conscription carry, and all men be forced to render service. However, as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, all military service abroad is still voluntary, but in New Zealand all fit men are liable to be drafted into the army. Very wisely the denomination by a resolution adopted at the Union Conference Council in 1916 determined that we would be loyal to the government, provided that our non-combatant privileges were still recognized, and that we should be exempt from duties upon .the Sabbath. This wise decision, however, was not unanimously approved of at the time of its adoption. But gradually circumstances have taught us the wisdom of the course which was followed.

We are a denomination of non-combatants, and, as such, claim exemption from combatant service. But as a denomination we have never in all our history claimed absolute exemption from any military service whatsoever. To do so would be to fail to. render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. The state is God’s minister appointed or ordained “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” To refuse to assist the state to carry on its God-appointed work is tantamount to refusing to assist God’s appointed agent to do His work. It is the privilege of every man who conscientiously objects to bear arms to refuse to render combatant service, and the governments whose protection we enjoy have recognised this right, and have made provision for us to render valuable assistance to Caesar without violating conscience. For instance, in New Zealand our young men who have been drafted have been given the privilege of serving the state by working upon state farms, with exemption from Sabbath duties. What more could we ask for? In the Commonwealth every young man who has enlisted and asked for non-combatant service has been allotted work in the Red Cross or some other non-combatant arm of the service, and has been granted exemption from service on the Sabbath. What more could we ask for?

These privileges, however, have not been won by merely sitting down and expecting them to drop down upon us like the dews of heaven. Much work has been done by our various Religious Liberty secretaries in Australia and New Zealand, and many long interviews have been held with Ministers’ of the Crown and officers of the Defence Departments. Never in the history of Australia has it been so necessary to keep in touch with public affairs as during the period of war, and never before has it been so necessary for us to study first princi ples and to be absolutely sure of our ground before making requests of the governments under whose protection we live.

The fiery trial through which we have been passing has removed much dross and has clarified our vision. We have learned by hard and bitter experiences that loyalty to the government means much more than a mere sentiment. Loyalty to the government means much more than to refrain from disloyal acts. A neutral is expected to refrain from such acts, but a citizen is not only expected to refrain from disloyal acts but to actually render loyal service. We are exhorted by the servant of the Lord to “exercise great care lest we be understood as putting ourselves in opposition to the civil authorities. . . . Everything should be carefully considered, lest we place ourselves on record as encouraging disloyalty to our country and its laws.” (Vol. VI, p. 394.)

more to come…

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/AAR/AAR1918-V22-22/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11

College Notes (Avondale)

… IT had been arranged to secure for our ambulance classes this year the St. John Ambulance Association’s certificate. The outbreak of hostilities in Europe made this subject assume greater importance, especially in the eyes of our young men ; therefore the number of classes was in creased, and now four are held daily. These are attended by all of the young men and many of the young ladies. Dr. Stuttaford, of the Health Retreat, delivers two lectures weekly, and it is expected that Dr. Sherwin will conduct the examinations. It is hoped that in the event of our young men being called into action, the possession of these certificates will make non-combatant work possible for them…

RHAE ALBON.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/AAR/AAR1914-V18-37/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=8

——————————————–

Australasian Record, July 5, 1915, page 3

Actions Taken at the Recent Union Conference Council

Plans and Recommendations

THE Committee on Plans and Recommendations submitted the following resolutions which were adopted:

2. That in view of the great military crisis facing the world at the present moment, we hereby affirm that as Seventh- day Adventists we are non-combatants. We therefore advise our people to endeavour to acquire a knowledge of ambulance work so that whenever they shall be called upon to perform military service they may possess the necessary certificates which will enable them to perform non-combatant duties.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/AAR/AAR1915-V19-27/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=3

——————————————–

Australasian Union Record, July 26, 1915

An Explanation

AT the recent Union Conference Council the following recommendation was passed :

“That in view of the great military crisis facing the world at the present moment, we hereby affirm that as Seventh-day Adventists we are non-combatants. We therefore advise our people to endeavour to acquire a knowledge of ambulance work, so that whenever they shall be called upon to perform military service they may possess the necessary certificates which will enable them to perform non-combatant duties.”

Many of those who have read this recommendation are wondering how it will be possible for them to put into effect the advice to acquire a knowledge of ambulance work and receive certificates for the same.

An organization known as the St. John Ambulance Association, with branches throughout the world, has been in existence for many years, the object of which is to organise and supervise classes in First Aid and Home Nursing, etc. Recognized certificates are issued by this Association to candidates who have attended the prescribed course of lectures, and passed the examination on them.

In order to form a St. John Ambulance Association class, procure the names of all the men in your locality who are willing to join the class. Try to secure at least eighteen names. Then call a meeting of those interested in forming the class, and obtain the consent of the mayor or some other prominent resident to occupy the chair. First resolve at this meeting to form a class. Then elect a chairman, an honorary secretary, and an honorary treasurer. It shall be the duty of the secretary to keep a roll of the members, and mark their attendances at the lectures, as well as to make all preparations for the lectures.

Then select a legally qualified medical practitioner who is willing to give the instruction to the class. His name must be submitted to, and approved by the executive committee
of the Association. When this approval is obtained, classes may begin. To make the instruction efficient, choose for the lectures a room well ventilated, well lighted, ample in size, and away from all disturbing noise.

Each course consists of five lectures, and during the present European crisis permission has been granted to complete the course within a fortnight if necessary, instead of in five weeks as formerly.

Each member should provide for the lectures a First Aid book, and one, or preferably two, triangular bandages. Splints are usually improvised, and the sizes can be obtained from the lecturer. The individual class fee is 3s. 6d. A class having a smaller enrolment than eighteen is permitted, but a collective fee of £3 3s. is required by the Association. Therefore the larger the class the less it will cost each member. Mixed classes of men and women are not permitted.

The lecturer should nominate another duly qualified medical practitioner to conduct the examination of the class at the termination of the course of lectures. This nomination is sent to the central executive committee of the Association, which appoints the examiner and pays him a minimum fee of £1 1s. out of the class fees. Printed class rolls and examination forms are supplied on application to the Secretary of the Association at the central office in each state, and the address can be obtained from a directory or a telephone book. The address of the New South Wales office of the St. John Ambulance Association is 350 George Street, Sydney.

A further course of study on Home Nursing is open to those who have taken the First Aid course; and the regulations for this course are exactly the same as for First Aid.

The textbook used is the “St. John Ambulance Association First Aid,” by Dr. Cantile, or the “British Red Cross First Aid,” also by Dr. Cantile. The latter book is to be preferred.

That all our brethren between the ages of seventeen and sixty are liable to be called upon for military service is becoming more evident now that the authorities have undertaken a census of all such. The knowledge of First Aid and Home Nursing principles will not only make it possible for our brethren, in time of compulsory military service, to perform non-combatant duties, especially ambulance duties, but this knowledge will be of practical value in the home life.

If our brethren and sisters will undertake the organization of ambulance classes in their locality, it will give them a most favourable opportunity of becoming acquainted with their neighbours, and many doors will open to receive the truths for this time.

Those who are so isolated as to be unable to organise a class should procure the books and study at home.

T. A. SHERWIN.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/AAR/AAR1915-V19-30/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6

Compulsory Military Training.

Some of the delegates will doubtless call to mind the resolution which was drafted at our last session, to place in the hands of Members of Parliament. The resolution, which also assumed the form of a petition, was as strong a document as the conference felt free to draft on the military question. A goodly number of the government ministry were interviewed by our religious liberty secretary, Pastor Hennig, and this petition was placed before them. They seemed to recognise our claim, and pledged themselves that nothing should be admitted into the bill that would work a hardship to anyone. Thousands of pages of literature were placed in the hands of leading men all throughout the Commonwealth. Many letters were written from various States, asking that the compulsory feature of the bill be struck out. This bill was simply the compulsory feature added to the 1903-1904 Defence Act.

It has been a very delicate matter to do anything in this without being misunderstood. It is one of those questions which meets with quite a diversity of sentiment. The question of bearing arms is one that must be left to the individual to decide for himself. But what feature of the entire problem will meet the unanimous support of the body of commandment-keepers? We must show our loyalty to the government, and at the same time we must be loyal to God in the promulgation of the third angel’s message.

Notwithstanding that the Federal Government ministry changed hands several times, the question of defence seemed to be outside of politics, and the bill was finally passed with few alterations. An exemption provides that one whose conscientious convictions forbid his doing military service may be given non-combatant or civil service instead. The burden of proving his eligibility to exemption rests with the one seeking exemption.

A similar act has been enforced in the Dominion of New Zealand. But in neither act is there a direct exemption from training or other service on the Sabbath. If this is obtained, it must be from the Governor General in Executive Council, and must be so stipulated in the regulations. To meet this phase of the question, the Union Conference Committee has lodged a petition with this honourable body, asking that when the regulations are drawn up, that provision be made for exemption from all kinds of naval, military, civil-service, and and non-combatant services on the Sabbath, from sunset Friday evening until sunset Saturday evening. We await with considerable interest to see what the council will do with our petition.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/AAR/AAR1910-V14-45,46/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=59

 
Union Conference Record (Australasian), September 5, 1910

An Interesting Interview

FOR several weeks past the Federal Parliament has had under consideration the Commonwealth Defence Act, and it was thought by the brethren that this would be an opportune time to make some representations to the Government about the position Seventh-day Adventists would have to take concerning the Act.

The British people, for many centuries past, have enjoyed immunity from compulsory military service; the nation has depended solely upon volunteers for the defence of the Empire, and for wars of aggression. Increased naval and military preparations by other nations seem to make it necessary for Great Britain and its dependencies to depart from their traditional policy, and to make provision for universal compulsory drill and service. Plans are now being perfected by our Government making arrangements for the military training of the boys and young men of this country, and the question now before Seventh-day Adventists is, What shall our boys do in this emergency?

The opinions of our church members are about equally divided. Some have strong convictions that a Christian ought not to fight under any circumstances, and that he should spend no time in preparing for it. Others, just as conscientious, think that occasions may arise when they would be justified in bearing arms in the defence of their country. On this phase of the military question it was evident we could make no representation to the Government. We were not agreed, and there are no immediate prospects of our being agreed. No one must be forced to subscribe to the convictions of others. If one thinks he ought not to bear arms, he must be granted the liberty of his convictions; if another one thinks he can bear arms under certain conditions, he also must be free to exercise his right.

There is only one plank on which we can all take a united stand. All are agreed that our young men must not be compelled to do military or non- combatant services on the Sabbath day. With this thought in mind a petition was drafted, of which the subjoined is a copy, and it was signed by the members of the Union Conference Executive Committee.

A request was sent to Senator Pearce, the Minister for Defence, that he would receive a deputation of Seventh- day Adventists on the question of military drill and non-combatant service on the Sabbath day. To this request he quickly and courteously consented.

Brethren Hoopes and Andersen and the Writer were deputed to wait upon the minister, but on account of Brother Hoopes’s indisposition Brother F. W. Paap took his place on the committee. Senator Pearce received us very kindly, and asked us to state our case. We explained to him that we required for conscientious observers of the seventh day, the same consideration that would be willingly conceded to similar observers of the first day. Mr. Pearce said that that would complicate matters very much. He could more easily accommodate us if exemption from military service was what we needed; but that we would have to put in the time at non-combatant duties. We explained to him that it was exemption from all work on the Sabbath day that we must have. He wanted to know if our house were burning down on the Sabbath would we put out the fire, or if our ass fell into a ditch would we rescue it on the Sabbath? Yes, we told him, but we would not engage in fire practice on the Sabbath, or in drill for the injured. There was a great difference between drill for an emergency, and the actual emergency itself.

The Society of Friends (Quakers) petitioned for a conscientious clause for those who have scruples against the shedding of blood. The petition has been granted. But that will not help us on the Sabbath question, for provision is being made for them that they will have regular non-combatant duties to perform. Those of our people who object to military drill can come under that provision, but we must also have exemption from Sabbath labour.

The minister could see the justice of our claims, but he thought the matter would be somewhat difficult to adjust, as most of the drilling would be done on Saturdays, and there were so few Adventists that separate corps could not be formed. Also he was afraid that others might pretend to be conscientious observers of that day in order to shirk duty, or to attend games, etc. We pointed out to him that we did not request that they should necessarily leave the camp, but that they should not be required to work; and that this right was preserved to us by the 116th clause of the Federal Constitution, which requires that, “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

We also called his attention to the fact that those who observed the Sabbath could be put on full duty on Sundays. We endeavoured to impress upon him that we did not desire to shirk our responsibilities as citizens, and that we were loyal to the Commonwealth Government, and that we appreciated the liberties and privileges we enjoyed in this country.

The minister promised that he would give the matter careful consideration, and would confer with the Attorney-General concerning it; and also that he would communicate with us further on the subject. He thought a regulation could be drafted that would meet the situation. We urged him to incorporate it in the Act itself so that it would be permanent; but he thought that would scarcely be necessary, as there was nothing in the Act concerning Sunday.

Brethren, let us pray that the Lord will direct the minds and actions of our legislators, so that Satan may not succeed in having framed such laws as will prove to be a source of discouragement to our young men. We have enjoyed the liberties of good government so long that sometimes we are likely to under-estimate the blessings that are so common to us, but which our brethren in other countries would appreciate so highly.

GEORGE TEASDALE

 
Petition for Exemption from Naval and Military Duties under the Commonwealth Defence Act

To HIS EXCELLENCY the Earl of Dudley, P.C., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., Governor-General and Commander-in- Chief of the Commonwealth of Australia, and its dependencies, in council with the Honourable the Members of the Federal Executive Council:

We, the members of the Executive Committee of the Australasian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, on behalf of all conscientious observers of the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, commonly called Saturday, as enjoined by the fourth precept of the Decalogue, do earnestly petition his Excellency, and the Honourable the Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Australia, That when framing regulations pertaining to the Compulsory Naval and Military Defence Act, (1) That due consideration be given the 116th clause of the Federal Constitution, which preserves to all citizens in the Common wealth, “the free exercise of any religion.” (2) That all who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week, beginning at sunset Friday evening and continuing until sunset Saturday evening, be exempt from Naval, Military, Non-combatant, and Civil services (acts of mercy excepted), on said seventh day.

(Signed by the members of the Executive Committee of the Australasian Union Conference).

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/AAR/AAR1910-V14-36/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2

An Interesting Interview

FOR several weeks past the Federal Parliament has had under consideration the Commonwealth Defence Act, and it was thought by the brethren that this would be an opportune time to make some representations to the Government about the position Seventh-day Adventists would have to take concerning the Act.

The British people, for many centuries past, have enjoyed immunity from compulsory military service; the nation has depended solely upon volunteers for the defence of the Empire, and for wars of aggression. Increased naval and military preparations by other nations seem to make it necessary for Great Britain and its dependencies to depart from their traditional policy, and to make provision for universal compulsory drill and service. Plans are now being perfected by our Government making arrangements for the military training of the boys and young men of this country, and the question now before Seventh-day Adventists is, What shall our boys do in this emergency?

The opinions of our church members are about equally divided. Some have strong convictions that a Christian ought not to fight under any circumstances, and that he should spend no time in preparing for it. Others, just as conscientious, think that occasions may arise when they would be justified in bearing arms in the defence of their country. On this phase of the military question it was evident we could make no representation to the Government. We were not agreed, and there are no immediate prospects of our being agreed. No one must be forced to subscribe to the convictions of others. If one thinks he ought not to bear arms, he must be granted the liberty of his convictions; if another one thinks he can bear arms under certain conditions, he also must be free to exercise his right.

There is only one plank on which we can all take a united stand. All are agreed that our young men must not be compelled to do military or non- combatant services on the Sabbath day. With this thought in mind a petition was drafted, of which the subjoined is a copy, and it was signed by the members of the Union Conference Executive Committee.

A request was sent to Senator Pearce, the Minister for Defence, that he would receive a deputation of Seventh- day Adventists on the question of military drill and non-combatant service on the Sabbath day. To this request he quickly and courteously consented.

Brethren Hoopes and Andersen and the Writer were deputed to wait upon the minister, but on account of Brother Hoopes’s indisposition Brother F. W. Paap took his place on the committee. Senator Pearce received us very kindly, and asked us to state our case. We explained to him that we required for conscientious observers of the seventh day, the same consideration that would be willingly conceded to similar observers of the first day. Mr. Pearce said that that would complicate matters very much. He could more easily accommodate us if exemption from military service was what we needed; but that we would have to put in the time at non-combatant duties. We explained to him that it was exemption from all work on the Sabbath day that we must have. He wanted to know if our house were burning down on the Sabbath would we put out the fire, or if our ass fell into a ditch would we rescue it on the Sabbath? Yes, we told him, but we would not engage in fire practice on the Sabbath, or in drill for the injured. There was a great difference between drill for an emergency, and the actual emergency itself.

The Society of Friends (Quakers) petitioned for a conscientious clause for those who have scruples against the shedding of blood. The petition has been granted. But that will not help us on the Sabbath question, for provision is being made for them that they will have regular non-combatant duties to perform. Those of our people who object to military drill can come under that provision, but we must also have exemption from Sabbath labour.

The minister could see the justice of our claims, but he thought the matter would be somewhat difficult to adjust, as most of the drilling would be done on Saturdays, and there were so few Adventists that separate corps could not be formed. Also he was afraid that others might pretend to be conscientious observers of that day in order to shirk duty, or to attend games, etc. We pointed out to him that we did not request that they should necessarily leave the camp, but that they should not be required to work; and that this right was preserved to us by the 116th clause of the Federal Constitution, which requires that, “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

We also called his attention to the fact that those who observed the Sabbath could be put on full duty on Sundays. We endeavoured to impress upon him that we did not desire to shirk our responsibilities as citizens, and that we were loyal to the Commonwealth Government, and that we appreciated the liberties and privileges we enjoyed in this country.

The minister promised that he would give the matter careful consideration, and would confer with the Attorney-General concerning it; and also that he would communicate with us further on the subject. He thought a regulation could be drafted that would meet the situation. We urged him to incorporate it in the Act itself so that it would be permanent; but he thought that would scarcely be necessary, as there was nothing in the Act concerning Sunday.

Brethren, let us pray that the Lord will direct the minds and actions of our legislators, so that Satan may not succeed in having framed such laws as will prove to be a source of discouragement to our young men. We have enjoyed the liberties of good government so long that sometimes we are likely to under-estimate the blessings that are so common to us, but which our brethren in other countries would appreciate so highly.

GEORGE TEASDALE

 
Petition for Exemption from Naval and Military Duties under the Commonwealth Defence Act

To HIS EXCELLENCY the Earl of Dudley, P.C., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., Governor-General and Commander-in- Chief of the Commonwealth of Australia, and its dependencies, in council with the Honourable the Members of the Federal Executive Council:

We, the members of the Executive Committee of the Australasian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, on behalf of all conscientious observers of the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, commonly called Saturday, as enjoined by the fourth precept of the Decalogue, do earnestly petition his Excellency, and the Honourable the Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Australia, That when framing regulations pertaining to the Compulsory Naval and Military Defence Act, (1) That due consideration be given the 116th clause of the Federal Constitution, which preserves to all citizens in the Common wealth, “the free exercise of any religion.” (2) That all who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week, beginning at sunset Friday evening and continuing until sunset Saturday evening, be exempt from Naval, Military, Non-combatant, and Civil services (acts of mercy excepted), on said seventh day.

(Signed by the members of the Executive Committee of the Australasian Union Conference).

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/AAR/AAR1910-V14-36/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2

The Example of This Nation, A.T. Jones

ONE of the surest tokens of the apostasy of the United States is that the example of the other nations is cited as a justification of the present course of this nation in the matter of its island possessions. For the United States to justify itself by the course of the other nations is to deny itself, and cease to be what it always has been, and become only as the other nations. No other state now in the world, or that ever was in the world, was founded as the United States was founded. Every one of these states was founded upon conquest, with appeal solely to force; and, with them, until this nation set the better example, the only question as to the doing of things, or in the doing of them, was, Have we the power to do it? As for any rights, or the liberties of mankind, or the principles of justice, no such thing was thought of. “The way in which governments generally obtain their power,” is excellently stated by Macaulay, thus: —

“A nation of barbarians pours down on a rich and unwarlike empire, enslaves the people, portions out the land, and blends the institutions which it finds in the cities with those which it has brought from the woods. A handful of daring adventurers from a civilized nation wander to some savage country and reduce the aboriginal race to bondage. A successful general turns his arms against the state which he serves. A society, made brutal by oppression, rises madly on its masters, sweeps away all old laws and usages, and, when its first paroxysm of rage is over, sinks down passively under any form of polity which may spring out of the chaos. A chief of a party, as at Florence, becomes imperceptibly a sovereign, and the founder of a dynasty. A captain of mercenaries, as at Milan, seizes on a city, and by the sword makes himself its ruler. An elective senate, as at Venice, usurps permanent and hereditary power. It is in events such as these that governments have generally originated.—Essay on “Gladstone on Church and State.”

With the United States it was altogether different. This nation was founded upon self-evident truth and inalienable natural right; and its appeal in the beginning was solely to the principle, and the Author, of justice. It was only loyalty to these truths and to these rights, to justice, and to the Author of all, that forced them to separation from the mother country, and to the establishment of an independent nation. And when their declaration and defense of these truths and principles had proved successful, the purpose of the establishment of the government was declared in the fundamental law of the nation to be, “to form a more perfect union, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” All idea of conquest is utterly excluded.

To espouse self-evident truth, the inalienable rights of mankind, and justice; to submit, in writing, to a candid world the official statement of their claims; and to appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for the rectitude of their intentions in it all, — all this was a new thing in the world: no such thing had ever been known in the history of the nations. And now for this nation to abandon or ignore these grounds of right and justice, and appeal to the example of the other nations, is only for it to abandon the supreme place that it has occupied in the world, and to become like all the other nations.

And the other nations are recognizing this. – The Manchester (England) Guardian of April 25, 1899, remarks as follows:—-

“The United States is the one modern nation which has laid any public formal claim to a character, and has openly professed on paper to have laid its foundations on the golden rule. General Butler used to say that he never had a happy day until he had got rid of his character. The American nation has not yet got rid of its character, and is consequently very unhappy at the turn events have taken in the Philippines. We envy its unhappiness at the idea of a brutal commonplace European conquest, and would do nothing to diminish it. If America is to recover its happiness and self-esteem, it must do one of two things. Either it must lose its character, like General Butler, or it must apply the “golden rule” of its own constitution to the problem of the Philippines. “

And, last winter, Hon. Carl Schurz, in his speech at the convocation of the University of Chicago, spoke as follows, on this point: —

“We hear much of the respect of mankind for us having been greatly raised by our victories. Indeed, the valor of our soldiers and the brilliant achievements of our navy have won deserved admiration. But do not deceive yourselves about the respect of mankind. Recently I found in the papers an account of the public opinion of Europe, written by a prominent English journalist. This is what he says: ‘The friends of America wring their hands in unaffected grief over the fall of the United States under the temptation of the lust of territorial expansion. Her enemies shoot out the lip and shriek in derision over what they regard as the unmistakable demonstration which the demand for the Philippines affords of American cupidity, American bad faith, and American ambition. ‘We told you so,’ they exclaim. That is what the unctuous rectitude of the Anglo-Saxon always ends in. He always begins by calling heaven to witness his unselfish desire to help his neighbors, but he always ends by stealing his spoons! “

“Atrocious, is it not? And yet this is substantially what the true friends of America and what her enemies in Europe think. I mean those friends who had faith in the nobility of the American people, who loved our republican government, and who hoped that the example set by our great democracy would be an inspiration to those struggling for liberty the world over; and I mean those enemies who hate republican government, and who long to see the American people disgraced and humiliated. So they think; I know it from my own correspondence. Nothing has in our times discredited the name of republic in the civilized world as much as the Dreyfus outrage in France, and our conquest furor in America: and our conquest furor more, because from us THE WORLD HOPED MORE.

“No, do not deceive yourselves. If we turn that war which was so solemnly commended to the favor of mankind as a generous war of liberation and humanity into a victory for conquest and self-aggrandizement, we shall have thoroughly forfeited our moral credit with the world. Professions of unselfish virtue and benevolence, proclamations of noble humanitarian purposes, coming from us, will never, never, be trusted again. Is this the position in which this great republic of ours should stand among the family of nations? Our American self-respect should rise in indignant protest against it.”

What a picture that is, of the friends of the United States in other countries wringing “their hands in unaffected grief over the fall of the United States” from its high station before the world! There is, also, in connection with this, the serious consideration that when the United States thus adopts the principles of the other nations by taking their course as an example, those other nations will not “wring their hands in unaffected grief,” but will greedily grasp this as a strong confirmation of their example, and so will plunge deeper and deeper into the maelstrom of world conquest. Thus, whichever way the United States may go, it is, and will be, a world’s example even in spite of itself.

So far, this nation has been what those who made it expected it to be,—the world’s example of justice in government—of appeal to principle, as to liberty, rights, and justice. By the powerful influence of this example with respect to things both civil and religious, the nations of the world have been forced away from the old, barbarous, and despotic course of force and conquest, and into at least an outward recognition of better things; and this because, if they did not show such recognition of justice, rights, and the liberty of the individual, the United States was an open asylum, to which the oppressed subjects of those nations would certainly flee. But now, when this nation abandons all that, and pursues abroad, (and, by reflex action, at home) the precise course of the other nations; when the original principles of the nation are denounced as the greatest falsehoods “palmed off by the devil upon a credulous world;” and when appeal and allegiance to the original principles of the nation are denounced as treason, then what hope is there here for the oppressed of other nations? And, when the other nations find their course confirmed in that of the United States, even the formal recognition and limited practise of the principles of right, liberty, or justice, to which this great example has driven them, will be abandoned; and with this restraint removed, the condition of the peoples of the nations will be worse than before.

Yet more than this: the influence which the example of the United States has exerted upon the nations has been a restraint for good: it has held the nations face to face with the divine principles of truth, of right, and of justice in governments; and when this restraint is not only taken away, but that which caused it is actually turned back into an open confirmation of the old course of force and conquest, regardless of right, liberty, or justice, the last state of those nations will be worse than the first. If it were so that the restraint were merely removed, the result could not but be bad; but, when the restraint is not only removed, but is changed into an active confirmation of the opposite, oh, then what but infinite evil can possibly be the result? And, in these times, when everything goes at the swiftest, it can, in the nature of things, be but a little while until the nations shall be completely engulfed in the floods of their own making: and these destructive floods not only let loose, but urged on and increased by this mighty example, set originally to infinitely better things, but now perverted to the evil course that has been the ruin of all former nations.

Everything in the tide of present-day affairs speaks with a loud voice that the end of all things is at hand, and that the day of the Lord is near. “Get ready. Get ready. Get ready.”

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1899-27/index.djvu

WASHINGTON NOTES.

OUR country seems to be on the borders of, if not already in, a transition period, in which the traditions of the past are almost forgotten, or at least looked upon as belonging to a by- gone age, when this nation was in her swad- dling-clothes. The opinion seems to prevail that the time has now come for her to assume her proper position, and take a leading part in the affairs of the world. As the people realize that in wealth and resources our nation is the greatest in the world, it is only natural for them to aspire to the most important position they can occupy. It is also true that no such op- portunity has ever offered itself to this nation to come to the front as the present. The colonial possessions of Spain are already within the grasp of this country; and these, if retained, will greatly extend her domain and influence. This touches the ambitious designs of foreign nations; and they have been, and are still, threatening intervention. This has brought about a rapid change of public sentiment in favor of closer relations with Great Britain, whose interests at present seem to bo identical with those of the “United States, and may lead to an Anglo-American alliance. This tendency is plainly seen in the debates and the state- ments of members of Congress, many of whom are in favor of such a movement. An alliance of this kind would be the most formidable in the world, as it would control the seas and many countries, and would doubtless be joined Jby other nations.

Whatever may be the outcome of the war with Spain, trouble seems almost sure to arise when the settlement is made. Whatever change may be made with the Philippine Is- lands, is sure to awaken jealousies and cause trouble, as all questions touching the far East are exceedingly sensitive at the present time.

The annexation of the Hawaiian Islands now seems certain. With this .the policy of extend- ing the national domains far from our own shores will be inaugurated, and no one can tell where it will end. One thing seems to be sure,— that the United States is to play an important part in the closing history of this world.

An interesting local matter touching the Sunday question js the arrest of a few smallboys last week for crying the Sunday paper’s on Sunday morning. They were fined one dollar each, and charged not to do so again. The police regulation, however, forbidding news- boys to cry their papers, or hucksters their goods, on Sunday, was immediately modified, with the result that they are now permitted to do so, provided they do not halloo too loud. This was doubtless due to a strong sentiment in the District against Sunday regulations.

GEORGE B. WHEELER.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1898-26/index.djvu

THE WAR SPIRIT OP THE WORLD.

J. COEURDELIS. (Ottawa, Canada.)

THE June magazines abound in discussion of the Hispano-American war, and its probable effect upon the world at large. It is not strange, considering that men generally view matters from a selfish standpoint, that so great a diversity of opinion exists. While some see only great good to come from the present struggle, others see unmixed evil to all nations following its trail. But what does seem strange in this discussion is that, notwithstanding the difference of opinion entertained regarding the general effect of the war upon the political and commercial relations of the world, nearly all agree that the war is justifiable, as a humanitarian and Christian measure, and should therefore be prosecuted by the United States to the bitter end.

This is well illustrated by the words of a writer in McClure’s Magazine, who, in describing the spirit of the American marines before Havana, says: “It seems to me that the men I saw knew that they were not simply embarking upon a war like other wars, the puppets of human passion, but upon the duty which the Prince of Peace imposed with the words: ‘Feed my lambs.’ ”

This would seem a wretched travesty on the principles of the Christian religion, were it not that leading church organs encourage such a view. They call it a “war of conscience;” and because the people in general have become imbued with a desire to settle national disputes by sheer force, with a view to the decimation or destruction of the weaker power, they call such passion “conscience.” Its impulses are advocated as right, because the sentiment has become general. An article entitled “The Church in the War,” printed in the Religious Review of Reviews, advocates the necessity of the pulpit’s seconding the voice of the people in this direction, on the ground that “the conscience of a great people is the voice of God bidding them to their duty. It is the office of the prophet to understand and interpret that voice; not to ignore it and speak of other things, but to study it, to comprehend it, and to give it expression.”

It is true that in such times as these, current events should be considered by spiritual leaders, but not to uphold them because they are being acted under the direction of a nearly united sentiment of the nation. The national sentiment of the Jews was in favor of destroying Christ, and expression was given to the sentiment by religious teachers of the day; but that did not prove it to be the voice of God. Ministers are not chosen of God to voice the sentiment of men, but are heaven’s ambassadors, and, as such, are to speak only as the oracles of God.

But the author of the article referred to emphasizes his position by the statements: “The movement of the people is a movement of a conscience not to be gainsaid or resisted.” ” It is the duty of the ministry to understandand to interpret this voice of national con- science.” “It is for the ministry to make the voice of conscience heard; the pulpit and the Sabbath afford the opportunity.”

It is well to follow the three steps advocated in these statements, and note their tendency: First, a general movement of the people, from whatever motive, is a conscience which none may resist; second, ministers must interpret from the pulpit the voice of the national conscience; third, they must also make this voice of conscience heard; that is, cause it to be enforced.

Upon this ground, no matter what mania may seize upon, and quicken the pulse of, the general public, no one should have a differing mind; the popular sentiment must not only be proclaimed from the pulpit, but must be made forcible by decree. With such sentiment popularized, no extremes would be too great to reject; no scheme too fierce or too black to be discarded. But because it was hatched by public sentiment, it must be endorsed as religious verity, and proclaimed as Christian duty.

Think of it! Even the act of deliberately shooting men down in cold blood is thus justified by religious teaching, simply because the war spirit has become general. After this method of reasoning, no one, not even Satan himself, need fear condemnation, since the most diabolical acts of the past have, at differ- ent times, been justified by public sentiment. And yet, in view of this open tendency of religious teaching, many are heard to say that the religion of Christ has so far softened and subdued the human heart as to have prepared the world for an earthly reign of the Prince of Peace. How true that evil men and seducers are grown bold in deception! Not only have they deceived others, but in thus practising upon others, they have deceived themselves as well. ” Can ye not discern the signs of the times?”

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1898-26/index.djvu

A LESSON IN OBEDIENCE.

Present Truth.

MANY people imagine that the times when quiet, unoffending people could be made to suffer real persecution for their loyalty to God and his word, are in the past, and that men in these days are too enlightened to persecute their fellow men for conscience sake; but we have had under close observation for nearly a year a case which shows that all the elements of religious persecution are everywhere present as much as they ever were; and that more extended and relentless persecution than has ever yet been known is not only possible, but is highly probable, yes, actually inevitable, since careful and systematic preparations are being made for it. The case in question is highly interesting and most instructive; and as the whole affair is now ended, we will give a brief account of it.

NARRATIVE OF THE CASE.

Early in 1897 Christen Rasmussen, a young man nineteen years of age, from Hurup, Denmark, was called to perform the military service that is demanded of every able-bodied young man. At that time he was not converted; but during a short visit at his home, he gave himself to the Lord, accepting Christ as his Saviour, and fully decided to obey his heavenly Master in all things, according to his holy word. This was no mere formal matter with him, as his subsequent history shows.

He should have presented himself at military headquarters at one o’clock, April 10, 1897; but as that day was the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath day according to the commandment of the Lord, to whose service he had given himself, he did not put in an appearance until after sunset. For this seeming dilatoriness, he received a reprimand, and was thereafter assigned to his duty.

During the week he made a request to the captain to be exempted from service on Sabbath days, but the answer was that nothing could be done for him in that direction. The young man, however, had no question in his own mind as to whether the king of Denmark or the King of the universe had the first claim upon his service.

Accordingly, the next Sabbath morning when the soldiers appeared for inspection, he remained in his room reading his Bible. A corporal came with orders for him to take his place, but he answered, “I cannot, because it is the Lord’s Sabbath.” Then a lieutenant came, and commanded him to take his place in the ranks, but he replied, “I cannot.”

“Why not?” said the lieutenant.

“Because it is the Sabbath.” Finally he accompanied the lieutenant outside, but could not be induced to take his place in the ranks.

NO PLACE FOR GOD’S LAW

He was brought to the captain, who said, “Why do you not take your place?”

“Because the Lord has said, ‘The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.’ ”

“Well, you are a soldier, and must obey; nothing of that kind is taken into consideration here. Take your place,” said the captain.

“I cannot, sir.”

Without further parley a sergeant was ordered to take “No. 52″ to prison, which was done.

Before the military court he had nothing else to answer than this: “The God who created heaven and earth has said, ‘On the seventh day, which is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, shalt thou do no work,’ and I cannot do anything other than obey him.” He was thereupon sentenced to three times five days’ solitary confinement in a dark cell, on bread and water. The successive periods of five days’ darkness were separated by one day’s imprisonment in the light.

At the close of this sentence, he was asked by his friends how he had it in prison. “O,” said he, ” it was somewhat lonesome at times; but I prayed to the Lord, and sang praises to him, and so my heart was glad.”

AN EXCELLENT CHARACTER.

It should be stated that the military authorities gave the young man an excellent character. His reputation for activity and soldierly ability was good. The officers said that he was the best man in the company. At target practise he proved himself superior to all the rest. The colonel who had to send a report of the case to the king talked with him, and told what a good report he had heard of him from the officers, and said, “You are a clever marksman; can you shoot as well at the Germans, when you get into battle?”

“No,” was the reply; “I can not shoot or kill a fellow man, since God’s law forbids it.”

“O, yes,” said the colonel; “I believe you are a faithful man to do what you believe to be right. You will fear God, and live for him. I have nothing bad to report about you, but I must write that you are deluded.”

Several times was young Rasmussen before the military court for insubordination, the only charge made being that he would not work on Sabbath and as often must he undergo punishment; so that, as an Aarhus (Denmark) paper said, in giving an account of his case, he spent the greater part of the summer in discharging penalties, which were naturally made more severe one after the other. Dark cells and bread and water were every-day affairs with him. The closeness with which one punishment followed another depended only on whether he came out of prison the first or the last day of the week; for as surely as Saturday came, there was the refusal to work, and the swiftly following sentence.

“ACCOUNTED MAD.”

At last he was sent to the insane asylum, to be kept under observation for three months, to see if he was of sound mind. Here his surroundings were by no means pleasant; but the Lord whom he served did not forsake him, and he always maintained his courage. Whenever his friends saw him in the intervals of his imprisonment, he seemed glad and happy in the Lord, and had not a hard word to say of those at whose hands he was made to suffer.

In the insane hospital the doctor had naturally many talks with him, but could find in him nothing different from other men, except his loyalty to what the Bible says, and his confidence and happiness in the Lord. The doctor’s report of his first examination ran some- thing as follows: —

“The patient was sent in for examination as to his state of mind, because he, as an Adventist, had, ever since his call to military service, refused to work on Saturday, and had therefore undergone one punishment after another. His behavior in the hospital has been good, and one cannot note any other abnormal symptom in him than his defense of the sacredness of Saturday, which he supports with innumerable texts from the Bible.”

As with Daniel, the only fault found in him was concerning the law of his God.

On the 2d of last October he was sent back to the army with the declaration that he was perfectly sane, whereupon the old history began to repeat itself. Friday evening soon came, and, as before, he respectfully but firmly refused to continue his work. Judgment followed, quick and strong, and twice more he was obliged to suffer for his faithful “disobedience,” each time five times five days in the dark cell, on bread and water, the last time without any bed. In all this time he uttered no complaint, only expressing the hope that he might soon receive his final sentence of continuous imprisonment.

Finally his case was settled, and he received a sentence of eight months’ hard labor in the penitentiary. This was less than he expected. From the time that he was taken to prison, until a little less than two months later (he was pardoned on the king’s eightieth birthday), nothing was known of him except that the inspector said he must learn to obey; that he had no doubt that they would succeed in teaching him; and that in the prison he would be obliged to work on Sabbath, or else be punished according to the prison regulations.

It seems that on his refusal to work on the Sabbath, he received the mildest punishment prescribed for such an offense. Instead of being flogged, he was obliged to spend each Sabbath in a dark cell, or hole, where, as it was winter, and there was no fire, he suffered much from cold. Now, however, he is free from prison and from all further military service; and as none of the things he endured could spoil his peace, it may well be believed that he is now glad in the Lord, to whose service he is more than ever devoted.

WHO WAS DISOBEDIENT?

We have headed this narrative “A Lesson in Obedience,” and such it is. The military authorities thought all the time that they were engaged in teaching the young recruit obedience to orders; but the fact is that it was he who was giving them a practical lesson in obedience, which most of them were too dull to appreciate, their senses having been blunted by their military training.

It is true that Rasmussen was technically disobedient; but that which, in his case, was called “disobedience,” was the highest kind of obedience. A writer for one of the Danish newspapers well said: “I cherish the highest respect for this young man. The faithfulness and integrity which he exhibits is so rare that it ought to be rewarded by some other means than the house of correction.” In reality, it was the military authorities who were disobedient; for the law which says, ”Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” is for all; and the king on his throne is under the same obligation to keep it that the peasant is.

That Rasmussen’s case is only faintly suggestive of what may yet follow in multiplied instances in every land, is indicated by the following, taken from the Aarhus Folkeblad of February 19:—

“One cannot comfort himself with the thought that this is an isolated case; for that there will soon be many, I know of a certainty. We really come to the heart of the matter only when we see that such a man can come into a yet more serious situation in time of war. For according to what I have been able to learn by conversation with men belonging to the Seventh-day Adventists, they will absolutely refuse to go against an enemy with weapons in hand. They will hold themselves strictly to the fifth [sixth] commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ They will allow themselves to be killed, but they will not kill. If this is correct, and I believe it is, then these men are useless as soldiers, and may, if war should break out, come into the most deplorable condition in that they may be condemned to death and put others in the painful situation of being obliged to pronounce so hard a sentence upon them.”

THE GOD OF WAR.

When one stops to consider how the war spirit is dominating the nations of earth, and what its nature is, it will be apparent that there are indeed perilous times ahead, and that not far distant. The demon whom men call “the god of war” is stern, hard, unyielding, unrelenting, and mercilessly cruel. The groans of the wounded and dying, and the wails of widows and orphans, are music to his ears. Men call him Mars, but he is well represented by the ancient Moloch,— that brazen image into whose red-hot arms living children were flung, while the beating of drums and the blare of trumpets drowned their dying cries, or mingled with them to work the multitudes up to the highest pitch of frenzy.

The Danish people are as kind and courteous and gentle a people as can be found in the world. Moreover, all those who came in contact with young Rasmussen liked him personally, and the officers praised his efficiency and willingness, yet the worship of the military demon begets so false a conception of duty that not one of them would hesitate in obedience to inflict upon him any sort of punishment. Why? — Because, in their minds, human government is greater than God. Young Rasmussen was not punished because the officers had any ill-will toward him, nor because they were hard-hearted men. Far from it. On the contrary, it caused them pain, and they did it at the sacrifice of personal feelings to what they conceived to be their duty. The same thing would be done in any other country in the world, only the punishment might be much more vigorous. The kings and rulers of earth have set themselves against God, and have assumed the right to set aside his law, which says, “Thou shalt not kill;” and as a matter of course, the other portions of that law are as lightly regarded by them.

A FALLACY.

This case shows the fallacy of another idea that is entertained by many; namely, that religious persecution must be prompted by hatred of the religions principles of the ones persecuted. In this case those at whose hands Rasmussen suffered had no religious bias. They cared no more for Sunday than for the Sabbath. It was absolutely immaterial to them what religion the soldiers professed, or if they professed none at all. The only thing that concerned them was to secure implicit and unquestioning obedience to the regulations of the army. If a man disregards them, the fact that he does so in obedience to God’s law is not for a moment taken into consideration; punishment must follow to the bitter end.

MILITARISM ABOVE GOD.

” But there must be discipline in the army, or else its efficiency is at an end; and if partiality is shown, there will be an end of discipline,” will be urged by many, and not last, by any means, by men who occupy places of influence in the church. Think of the wickedness of such a defense! God and his law must be considered of secondary importance to the military machine! It is of more importance that the army should be maintained than that God should be regarded! The mere statement of the case is sufficient to show that it is as gross paganism as ever existed. What hope can there be of peace on earth as long as such principles rule?

The situation will be worse in the future than it has ever been in the past; for war is now sanctioned by the professed ministers of the gospel as it has never been before. It is so easy for the rulers to raise the cry of “humanity” in justification of any war, or else there is always that magic word “patriotism;” and when a country is “Christian,” it is readily argued that to defend its “honor” is a Christian act; so that he who will refuse to disobey God’s law, “Thou shalt not kill,” will be condemned as a traitor to God and his country, and that even by the ministers of religion.

PAGANISM.

Is it not time that the question should be again asked: “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” In so-called “Christian” countries, the worst sort of paganism is assuming overwhelming proportions. The great mass of people seem to think that when the “government” (which is, in the main, only another name for the army) commands disobedience to God’s law, there is no alternative but to disobey it; and those who refuse to transgress God’s law are branded as lawless and disobedient. What is it but heathenism thus to ignore God, and to set the military god above him?

Thank God that there are still faithful witnesses to the truth, lone voices in the desert, saying, “Behold your God!” When the testing time comes, these single voices will be multiplied by thousands, whose quiet lives of humble obedience to God’s law will speak louder than any words, and will result in bringing many from the camp of Satan to enlist under the banner of the Prince of Peace.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1898-25/index.djvu