Part 130 (2/2)
Those who knew of the Fernald boys' endeavor (and who in that friendly radius did not?) looked at them eagerly. Those who recognized Miss McCoy looked at her, too, and they were many. She sat, fanning herself, with a small, straight-handled palmleaf fan, striving to appear unconscious.
”When the time was up,” the clear voice went on remorselessly, ”the year of struggle and privation, and the eager hearts of childhood expected the reward; instead of keeping the given word, instead of the money promised, each child was given a paid life members.h.i.+p in our society!”
Again the house drew in its breath. Did not the end justify the means?
He went on:
”I have conferred with my fellow members, and we are united in our repudiation of this gift. The money is not ours. It was obtained by a trick which the heathen themselves would scorn.”
There was a shocked pause. Miss McCoy was purple in the face, and only kept her place for fear of drawing more attention if she strove to escape.
”I name no names,” the speaker continued, ”and I regret the burden laid upon me to thus expose this possibly well-meant transaction, but what we have at stake to-night is not this handful of silver, nor the feelings of one sinner, but two children's souls. Are we to have their sense of justice outraged in impressionable youth? Are they to believe with the Psalmist that all men are liars? Are they to feel anger and blame for the great work to which our lives are given because in its name they were deceived and robbed? No, my brothers, we clear our skirts of this ignominy. In the name of the society, I shall return this money to its rightful owners. 'Whoso offendeth one of these little ones, it were better that a millstone be hanged about his neck and he cast into the depths of the sea.'”
A QUESTION
Why is it, G.o.d, that mother's hearts are made So very deep and wide?
How does it help the world that we should hold Such welling floods of pain till we are old Because when we were young one grave was laid-- One baby died?
IS IT WRONG TO TAKE LIFE?
”Thou shalt not kill.”
This is about as explicit as words can be; there is no qualification, no palliating circ.u.mstance, no exception.
”Thou”--(presumably you and I, any and every person) ”shalt not”--(a prohibition absolute) ”kill”--(take life: that is, apparently, of anything).
How do we read this? How apply it?
Some have narrowed it to a.s.sa.s.sination only, frankly paraphrasing the simple law, as ”Thou shalt do no murder,” and excepting the whole range of war-slaughter, of legal execution, of ”self-defence” and ”justifiable homicide.”
Some have widened it to cover not only all human beings, but all animal life as well; the Buddhist and his modern followers sparing even the ant in the path, and the malaria-planting mosquito.
Such extremists should sit in sackcloth and ashes over the riotous carriage of their own phagasytes; ever ruthlessly destroying millions upon millions of staphyllococci and similar intruders.
Where should the line be drawn? And why? Especially why? Why is it wrong to kill?
If we hark back to the direct command, we find that it could not have been intended as universally binding.
”Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed,” and all the explicit directions as to who should be killed, and how; for such and such offences, certainly justify the axe and rope of the executioner; and beyond that come numbers of inspired commands as to the merciless extermination of opposing tribes in which men, women and children were ”put to the sword”--even to babes unborn. Killing seemed highly honorable, even compulsory, among the people on whom this stern command was laid.
Scholars teach us that the ten commandments were in truth not given to the Israelites until after the return of Hezekiah; that may alter the case a little, but a.s.suredly if we are to believe the Old Testament at all there was no blame attached to many kinds of killing.
The Prophets and Psalmists particularly yearned to have their enemies destroyed, and exulted in their destruction.
<script>