9

1

9

download/literature/watchtower/1911-5.pdf

../literature/watchtower/1911/5/1911-5-1.html

Vout. XXXII No. 4 BROOKULYN, N. Y., FEBRUARY 15, 1911 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER DANGER POINT IN GERMANY NEAR Years ago the German Emperor, although ostensibly the head of a Protestant church, found it necessary to conciliate the representatives of the Centrist-Catholie Party, which previously had been decreed by his government to be the ‘‘powers of darkness.’’ By now the Socialists and other radical parties in Parliament are numerically so strong and so opposed to the Kaiser’s schemes that his government policies would fail without the Catholie support. Socialists in the Reichstag (Parliament) twit the Emperor and the Catholics with the suggestion that as the Catholics were once officially known as the ‘‘powers of darkness,’? and opposed to the government which represents the divine will, so their coming into powcr with the government should be understood as a return of divine favor toward them; and that now that Socialists are coming into power, this should be regarded by the Empcror and all as the latest manifestation of divine will. The Emperor is secking to impress the people with the thought that they are his subjects, and that he is responsible to God for their government. Thus politics and religion are more strongly than ever united. And the Pope’s wishes become practically the law in Germany. Meanwhile the present Pope is asserting himself against what he styles modernism—higher eritical infidelity, ete. Ile has reeently issued an edict that all ministers of the Catholic church shall be examined and sworn as respects their loyalty to the Bible and to the church of Rome—the tests extending even to theological students, and requiring of them an oath annually. The Catholie priests of Germany receive support from the German treasury, as do the Protestant ministers. The latter are resenting the Pope’s demands, while the Emperor inclines to support them. Thus a new cause of friction is introdueed into German affairs. The Emperor must stand by the Catholic party in Parliament, in order to have passed his schemes for a great navy and militarism in general. The Socialists and Liberals in Parliament are demanding separation of church and state, such as we have in the United States; such as has recently been established in France and Portugal. The conflict between Parliament, the law-making body, and the Emperor and his executive board of administration of government grows in intensity. The Emperor’s pronouneement that he reigns not by the will of the German people, but by the grace of God, is publicly declared in Parliament to be an attack upon the people and their Parliament. The theory opposed to the Emperor is that he holds his authority in the State of Prussia by the gift of the people there, and that his title as emperor of ail the Germans eame to him from the German Parliament, which, having created him an emperor, is his superior and fully qualified te take from him the Emperorship, and, if it choose, to ereate a Republic. Dr. David recently declared in Parliament that the Kaiser had written into the ‘‘gold book’’ of the German people, as intended for cternity, the message, ‘‘by divine right I am king; henec, am responsible to the Lord alone. The weighty responsibility, therefore, which the king bears for his people gives him the right to expect faithful co-operation on the part of his subjects.’?’ “«But,’’ said Dr. David, ‘‘we are no subjects. We are free citizens of a State. The people gave the Prussian king his erown in the battles of liberty, and, as for the crown of the Empire, the matter is clear that the Kaiser received it from the Reichstag’’ (Parliament). Another representative, Ledebour, said that German citizenship is standing face to face with a question of destiny. ‘Perhaps this question is being raised for the last time,’’ he continued. .. ‘*We eould fight our battle alone, and the result would be that all the men of people’s parties who disdain the divine right of kings, etc., would ultimately come on our side. If we (Socialists) fight together with you (Liberals) we will still maintain our aims. We hold fast to our Republican demands. As in other Jands, so in Germany. Republicanism must be fully developed. The spirit of the times, which the Kaiser had declared pernicious, must be victorious. ... If you will fight with us, we will ultimately win. And if the world were full of devils, we would, nevertheless, succeed.’’ The approaching issue in Germany is equal and unlimited franchise to rich and poor alike. The Socialists believe that this point gained will mean a peaceable revolution in Germany. Others fear that rather than permit the Parlia (51-52) ment to be thus freed from the imperial control, the Emperor, acting upon his claim of divine right to reign, would put the country under imperial law without a Parliament, and reign as an autocrat. It is further feared that such a move would mean civil strife, anarchy, bloodshed. All seem agreed that the issue between the Kaiser and the people cannot long be deferred of solution. The German Chancellor is quoted as using the following language: ‘‘The revolutionary character of the Socialist party becomes more pronounced and brutal in its character. Dr. Carl Liebknecht, a Social-Democrat of the Prussian Diet, in an address delivered in the United States recently, said that the conditions in Germany were such as might cause the German crown to be blown away in a single night, just as was the case with Portugal. Our nation must have a clear answer to expressions of such character. The Socialists and all those teaching the masses that prosperity can come to them only after the overthrow of the present form of government, are responsible when the masses draw practical conclusions from such teachings. For this reason I hold the Socialists responsible for the excesses that were recently committed and the strife in Moabit, Berlin, and elsewhere. “Whoever sows wind will reap a whirlwind.’ ”’ CONSCIENCE IN ACCUSATION It is a fact that in their offensive tactics many of our public men are deficient either in conscience or in manner, or in both. They make charges against their opponents recklessly. They say things which they cannot prove and which it is only charitable to their intellectuals to assume they do not believe. It seems to be the idea that if you throw enough mud some of it will stick, and none of it will spatter yourself; that if you throw enough clubs some will land, and none return, boomerang fashion, on your own head. We say this notion is wrong. We believe that men who are careless in their words are equally careless in their acts. The man who, without justification, calls another a rogue is the man who will bear watching, for too often he credits the other man with the same motives that control himself, and assumes that the other man has done what, with the same opportunities, he would do himself. Bearing false witness, however, is more than an unfavorable symptom. It is itself an offense almost cqual— in the scales of eternal justice probably held entirely equal —to the offense charged. The habit is not even good politics. It goes against average human nature, which is sportsmanlike and fair; and even the brutalized atmosphere of the ringside instinetively hisses the foul blow. What does it profit one to exhibit himself as a man eager to win, regardless of everything else? There is real chivalry in human nature. Every manifestation of it has a universal response. Why should it be considered bad politics? Maybe we are wrong, but our theory is that conscienceless accusation derives as much from ignorance as from malice. Many public men conduct campaigns on personalities because they have not qualified to conduct them on issues. It is easier to accuse, to clamor, to rail, than it is to get clear to the bottom of a political or economic issuc, understand it yourself, and then so present it that others can understand it. The most sobering thing in the world is adequate know]edge of a subject, an appraisal of it from all sides. Those who achieve this knowledge necessarily speak words of truth and soberness. They have neither the inclination nor the time to utter anything else—New York Evening Mail. * * * The lack of conscientiousness noted by the Mail amongst politicians seems equally noticeable amongst theologians and others who, in professing the name of Christ, imply that they respect the standards of God’s Word, while their words and conduct give the lie to their professions. PRESBYTERIAN MINISTERIAL UNBELIEF The New York Presbytery not long since licensed Rev N. M. Thomas to preach the Gospel as representative of the Presbyterian denomination. The vote granting the license was thirty-four against ten who protested—and the ten are not active Pastors in charge of churehes. The mental atti tude of the Presbyterian Ministers of the New York Presbytery is, therefore, reflected in the faith of Rev. Thomas, which may be judged from the following items of protest:— ‘‘He did not accept the authority of Holy Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith and practise as sufficient to finally determine his faith. This appeared in his re [4762]