142 



THEODORE ROBERTS, ESQ., ON 



Lt.-Col. Hope Biddulph said: — I am sorry that in this fine 

 paper our learned lecturer has referred to the conscientious ob- 

 jectors, as if they were in any way on a par with the heroes men- 

 tioned in the seven cases he has depicted. To be consistent a CO. 

 should not take advantage of police protection, nor cling to paid 

 work which can only be secured by the men who fought. In fact, 

 to paraphrase St. Paul — if he will not fight, neither should he reap 

 the advantages which fighting has secured. A public duty owed to 

 a civilised state cannot be conscientiously ignored if it injures 

 other people. I do not, of course, include acts of worship, or 

 divine homage. 



Mr. W. HosTE said : I think we owe a real debt to Mr. Roberts 

 for his inspiring paper. The criticism of those who belittle the 

 authority of conscience seems hardly reasonable. Because a con- 

 science unillumined by the true light may and does go wrong, 

 conscience is not therefore wrong. It works wrong, because 

 wrongly handled. As to the origin of conscience, surely it was the 

 only thing man gained by the fall, " knowledge of good and evil," 

 without the ability to attain to the former or avoid the latter. 



Of one thing we may be sure, it is never safe to ignore conscience 

 in the moral and spiritual domain. But we must not confound 

 conscience with what may masquerade under its name. We may 

 question whether a Torquemada knew much about conscience. (We 

 must not confound that with religious fanaticism, nor yet with 

 private fads and fancies.) We hear much about conscientious 

 objections " to-day, but much that passes thus may be merely self- 

 opinionatedness, for it operates in spheres where private conscience 

 has no authority. Then conscience becomes a usurper. A man says 

 he has "conscientious" objection to vaccination; these might be 

 medical, traditional, social, but it does not seem clear how they 

 can be "conscientious." Should a "conscience" which endangers 

 the community be respected? That is an "intrusive" conscience 

 which meddles with matters outside its sphere. I must render "to 

 Caesar the things that are Caesar's," — is it for each individual to 

 define "the things that are Csesars " by the light of nature? Csesar 

 may be a bad man (he was when Paul wrote Rom. xiii. 7), and may 

 spend my taxes on bad things. How ctki I support a bad man in 

 bad things? I "conscientiously" object. No, says Paul, "we 

 must needs be subject (i.e., to the powers that be) not only for 

 wrath so as to escape it), but also for conscience sake." " Leave to 

 Csesar his responsibility. He must render an account to God. 

 You pay your rates and taxes !" But if Csesar tells me to worship 

 his gods and not to worship the true God, then he is intruding 

 into the domain of God, to whom I must " render the things of 

 God." But laws, perhaps arbitrary and oppressive, which do not 

 directly infringe on the rights of God I must conscientiously obey. 

 With reference to the closing remarks of our lecturer, need we try 



