THE TWO KINDS OF FORCE.
pro TUN EDITOR Or THE "SPROFATOR,"1 have read with much interest several articles which have appeared in the Spectator lately under the headings " A New Way of Life," "Why Should the Nations Wage War ? " .&e. I hope I may be Pardoned if I say that the writers seem to me occasionally to feel that they are giving rather shocking advice, and that they would like to find it little more justifica- tion than they can for the moment lay hand upon, at the smile time that they have good enough instincts to know that all they say is both justifiable :tad necessary. If these articles were not both justifiable and necessary, I feel sure the Spectator would not have been weak enough to publish them. But I cannot see why there should be any hesitation, tenta- tiveness, or " would-it-were-otherwise " about the matter. That a 'nation should keep itself strong and healthy is surely as right and reasonable as that a man should keep his body strong and healthy. The man is enabled thereby to avoid both the taking and giving of infection; why should it not enable the nation to avoid both the suffering and infliction
cf evil and oppression P If, as we believe the general course of. history has shown to be true, England can claim to be the least selfish among the nations, why should we now forgo the power to exercise what we believe to be our beneficent influence? That is the only test of whether the preparation and use of force are justifiable or no,—to see whether that force is put to selfish or unselfish purposes. But to think that inactive unselfishness can benefit the world at large is tantamount to holding either that there is no such thing as evil, or that evil can be overcome best by letting it alone. If the former be true, it is sad that we must all be condemned
to live under a perpetual delusion; if the latter, then those
Tibetan fanatics who immure themselves for life in their cells should have succeeded in regenerating the world long ago. The simple fact is that there are only two kinds of force, selfish and unselfish, and the evolution of the world, for good or evil, is the outcome of the combat between these two forces., If we are to live and do and grow, we must choose in which camp we will be. We can either be good or evil, or else—slugs.
Now it must be patent to any fair thinker that selfish aggression is foreign to the national spirit of England. It
must be equally patent that there are many other nations with whom it is otherwise. Are we going to be ready to meet unjustifiable force with justifiable, or are we going to become, slugs P We should, no doubt, make eminently blameless slugs; but we may be quite as blameless if we are ready to teach aggressors that they must stick to a more humanitarian diet than neighbours' entrails. We often see in family life an illustration of what I mean. We see two sisters in a house- hold, one selfish and the other entirely unselfish. The un. selfish one gives way on every occasion to her sister's selfish- nese, and the result is deplorable. It only makes the selfish sister more and more selfish, not only towards her unselfish sister, but towards everybody around her. Every one suffers. Will anybody deny that the unselfish sister would be justified in resolutely checking the other's selfish tendencies? The truth is that evil must always be mot by force. I do not mean tyranny. There is nothing of the unkindness and in- justice of tyranny in force used for an unselfish purpose. Your article on Calvin in last week's Spectator might well be read by persons of the "slug" school. Were the results of Calvin's forcefulness in Geneva beneficial or not? And could Calvin justly be called a selfish or unrighteous man ? Christ Himself used force with the money-changers in the Temple. And were His methods of approaching the selfish Pharisees remarkable for their peaceful and let-alone spirit? I adiu ire the outspoken letter of "Pastor Ovium," and I think he would have been fully justified in making much of Christ's saying that He came to send not peace but a sword.
There is a short note in last week's Spectator which may well make Englishmen sad. You say : "Our rulers know perfectly well that if a great emergency arose we should have to improvise troops." It is only too true. It means that we are determined not to suffer aggression if it comes, but that we are quite ready to sacrifice great numbers of lives which would be spared if our rulers had sufficient courage now to make us prepare and learn how to defend ourselves with the least expenditure of blood when the time comes. We did it in the Boer War: we are ready to do it again on a vastly greater scale. And we call that our love of peace and the blessings of peace. We try to think like men while we act like slugs, well knowing that the time may come when vast numbers of our poor slugs will have to perish before the rest can learn to not like men. Let us have no more shilly-shally, but prepare and be ready to use that force which in England's case is not only justifiable but righteous in the sight of God.
Previous page
