PARTY POLITICS. 66 BY THE REV. WILFRID RICHMOND, M.A. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth."-I COR. viii. I. A POLITICAL leader, alluding to the subject only by way of illustration in the course of a philosophical treatise, has recently made use of words minimizing the part played by political discussion and political measures in the furtherance of the interests of society. "We perceive," he said, "that they supply business to the practical politician, raw material to the political theorist; and we forget, amid the buzzing of debate, the multitude of incomparably more important processes by whose undesigned co-operation alone the life and growth of the state is rendered possible." Such language suggests, though it cannot be said. to commend, a separation, if not a divorce, of social progress from political activity. Social reformers on their side are inclined to protest that in the strife of political parties social questions are neglected. Plain men, not committed to any party allegiance or to the advocacy of any special measures of social reform, are apt, with something of the same feeling, to cry, "A plague o' both your houses!" And it must be confessed that it needs something of an effort to view political life as what it is, a branch of our general social life, subject to the same social principles as the rest, and that means, for a Christian, to Christian principles. To put it baldly, it sounds like a fatal combination of truism and paradox to say that party politics should be governed by the principles of Christian charity. And yet a suggestive parallel may perhaps be drawn between the evils of party strife in politics and in religion. The need for religious toleration is often enforced by men of the world. Is there no need for political toleration? Religious people of various sects and parties are told to dwell on their points of agreement rather than on their points of difference. Do politicians never forget that they have a common end in view? We are told that we waste our forces in internecine warfare, when we might combine them against the common foe. Both parties in politics are at least accused of obstruction, and their combinations for a common object are notable and fruitful, but comparatively rare. The man of the world, as a spectator of religious divisions, expresses surprise at a disunion so inconsistent with the Christian profession. Have we no common political ideal? Might not an observant foreign admirer of our self-governing constitution express a little surprise, that so much of our force is spent on preventing the machinery of self-government from producing its normal and natural result. Theological hatred is a byword; but if I were in the company of a man who differed from me both in theology and in politics, I think I had rather, for the sake of charity, that the conversation turned to the subject of my deepest religious beliefs than to even the personal character of my political leaders. Would you not say yourself that you had more often offended the political susceptibilities of your friends than the religious prejudices of those to whom you are most opposed? "The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity." Where is that so true as in politics? Our political intercourse is poisoned by political abuse. It is not our political leaders who are the most to blame. Leaders might be named on either side who seldom add unnecessary bitterness to necessary strife. It is we, the rank and file, who afford the best example of the party spirit which is the exact antithesis of charity— the spirit which does vaunt itself, and is puffed up, and does behave itself unseemly, and does seek its own, and is easily provoked, and thinks all the evil it can, and does rejoice in iniquity far more, it must be confessed, than it rejoices in the truth. Sometimes, it is true, our leaders play to the gallery; but we are the gallery, and if they are to catch from us the spirit in which they are to play their part, it is from those who express their appreciative criticism of the political drama by utterances that might perhaps be less mischievous if they were even more inarticulate, but whose worst mischief is in their tone-rancous, reckless, sibilant. And if we were challenged on the matter, I suppose we should be inclined to plead in self-defence the strength of our political convictions. "Perhaps," a man might say, "I have no right to dogmatize as to the motives of such or such a political leader, but at least I know that the policy he pursues is fatal to the interests of the state and of society." "I know" -that is just where St. Paul strikes in with his dictum to religious partisans. We know? "We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." Observe what is the line St. Paul takes. There is a division in the Church on a very arguable point. The heathen feasted on meat that had been offered to idols. One party among the Christians said, "If you eat the meat that has been offered to idols, you are a sharer in the idolatrous worship." Another party said, "We don't believe in |