leave the army at once. It is a fact that there is no proof, but the negative argument is always dangerous; and here it loses sight of the main point. For where Jesus was dealing with a man or woman leading a wrong life, He always said, "Go and sin no more." There is no indication of that here. He does not seem to have forbidden Zaccheus to continue in the service of the State. If the continuance of relations with a military authority were sin for the centurion, it would be impossible that He should not have acted upon the fact. And such action would have been so significant that it could not have escaped a place in the record.

And finally we come to the most significant of all His sayings in this direction. On one occasion the Jewish authorities, seeking to embarrass Him in His political relations, to commit Him to a declaration that would bring Him under the law, challenged Him as to whether it was right to pay taxes to the Emperor or not. Now the answer of Jesus to this question was not a merely clever retort. He did not, as so many have thought, elude the question. Rather was the question much deeper, much more far-reaching in its significance than many of us have supposed, and the answer was a much more powerful determinant of history than appears on the surface. The purpose of the question was to discover whether Jesus would

attach Himself to those who were advocating resistance to the imperial authority. On the other hand, if He approved of the payment of taxes, it would seem that He was denying the worship of the living God. For in those days it had come about that the head of the Roman Empire was spoken of as Saviour and Lord, and worship was rendered to his name. Indeed, long years after this, readiness to offer incense on the altar of the Emperor was one of the tests to which the Christian was set, and many a man and woman was done to death for refusing to worship the Emperor with a pinch of incense cast on the flame. As it has been said, "Loyalty to the State and worship of the deified head of the State became identical in the eyes of the law." This was, then, a question whose answer must make history for Him to whom they addressed it. His reply was, "Pay to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, and to God what belongs to God." In each direction there is a duty. The coin which He held in His hand was proof that they as citizens, as merchantmen, were indebted to Cæsar's Government for the whole order under which they lived and made their living. The tax represented their payment for the security, the order, which they enjoyed. Let this obligation, therefore, be recognized, was the decision of Jesus. Let this duty be paid to Cæsar as a moral obligation. On the other hand, Cæsar is not God. There is no

duty which any human being owes to Cæsar which can be or ought to be paid in religious worship and adoration. That is due only to the living God, Who is over Cæsar himself, the Father of all mankind. To Him the duty of the spirit must be paid in spiritual kind, as the material duty to Cæsar in material kind.

In these words Jesus finally set His seal upon the doctrine that even those citizens who belonged to His own community and were committed to the worship of God in spirit and in truth were indebted also to the State, and must be committed to the payment of all their due obligations to the ruler of the day.

5. The main arguments for pacifism, apart from questions of general ethical principle, are based upon what are considered to be the explicit teachings of Christ as given in the Sermon on the Mount. Of this discourse as a whole it must be said that it is universally regarded as among the most important declarations of moral ideals, among the most glowing revelations of the divine will, which even the Bible contains. Moreover, "In this teaching Jesus aimed at being universally intelligible; and He was so; for through the Christian centuries the kind of life which He here describes has been the guiding star of civilization." In spite of the

3

C. W. Votaw, Hastings's "Dictionary of the Bible," extra volume, p. 1.

fact that the teaching is intelligible and has illuminated the higher life of men, it has also caused infinite perplexity in all generations. What is very clear in statement baffles all efforts to carry it literally into obedience.

The three passages which are chiefly appealed to in support of the doctrine that under no circumstances can a Christian man take part in war are Matthew 5:21-26, 38-42, 43-48. In the first of these passages Jesus quotes the Old Testament law, "Thou shalt not kill," and interprets it as involving the deeper law that men must not cherish hatred or even scorn of one another. From this the conclusion is drawn by some that no follower of Jesus can have any part in the killing of a man under any circumstances whatsoever. Even capital punishment is thus forbidden. It is important to note, however, that the correct translation of the command in the Old Testament is, "Thou shalt do no murder." The command was uttered to a people constantly engaged in warfare. They were at all times surrounded with enemies who were ready to destroy them. Israel could not possibly have demobilized, in obedience to the command that they should kill no one under any circumstances, without being themselves utterly destroyed. When Jesus quotes the law, His development of it must be made in line with the original meaning and application of that law.

In the second passage Jesus refers to an early prescription, according to which penalties for injury to the person were to be proportioned exactly to the injury done. This, again, was a merciful piece of legislation whose intention was not to drive men to revenge, but to make the system of penalties a just one. He who lost an eye must not take two eyes from his enemy, nor should the State that inflicts punishment exaggerate it beyond that which is reasonable in the circumstances. Jesus goes on to deepen the meaning of the command, and does so by means of several successive utterances: "I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matt. 5:39–42).

It is of great interest to note in passing that in v. 41, "Whosoever shall compel thee" would better be translated, "Whosoever shall impress thee." The word is a technical term, referring to a custom of the Roman Government, one prevalent for many ages in the East, of compelling anyone within their reach to aid in the transportation of military baggage. Jesus seems to say that if the Government compels a private citizen to serve it in this way,