innermost circle enjoys profound calm, though surrounded with tempests of opposition and trouble. “Think ye,” He asks, “that I am come to give peace in the earth? I tell you nay, but rather division." Yet His peace dwells with those who obey Him, and carries forward the blessed influences which tend to make all men peaceable towards each other. We must not forget, however, that "even as all men have not faith," so, now at least, all men are not imbued with the spirit of righteousness which produces peace. The Christian man is enjoined to "live peaceably with all men," 'so far as in him lieth," but peace, nevertheless, may not be possible, because “when he speaks of peace," others may "make themselves ready for battle." Does not the same hold good of a Christian nation? However much it may desire and aim at peace, there is no kind of security that it may not be compelled to war. The advocates of "peace at any price," however, say that a nation is wrong if it engage in war under any circumstances. The Society of Friends attempts to interpret Our Blessed Lord's precepts literally. If you are smitten by sea, surrender your fortresses on land. Give up everything rather than use force. "Resist not the evil." But I reply, that if you were to apply these principles to your daily life, you would find them go far towards making society impossible. If, for example, I were to give to everyone that asketh of me, I should soon become a beggar myself, besides encouraging idleness. And if, when a man had smitten me unprovokedly on one cheek, I were to turn to him the other, should I not be giving way to the swaggerer, the bully, and the coward, without helping him to amend? Nay; more than this. Though I might seem to obey the Lord's command in the letter, I should be breaking it in the spirit; at least I should be going against His own example, which is the best interpretation of His words. For, when He was unjustly buffetted, he used a gentle remonstrance: "Why smitest thou Me?" "The Gospel," says Matthew Henry, "makes men peaceable, but not cowardly." How, then, can a people suffer others to strip them of their treasures, and their churches, or throw down their forts, without attempting to defend them, trusting that God will miraculously protect them, or that such a beautiful example of non-resisting weakness would win approval from a foe, and change him into a friend? This is a beautiful theory, but I do not think it is God's will. I should like to put this theory to the test of some practical examples derived from past history. Consider, for instance, that vast flood of invasion which swept over Western Europe, of which the Saxon invasion of our isle formed a part. Were not these uncivilised tribes following a natural instinct in seeking new homes? Was not their headlong course directed by the providence of God? On the other hand, was not the Roman empire justified in trying to defend itself? Or, take another case. If Christians had done their duty, Europe would not have had to trouble itself with the Sick Man at Constantinople all these years. Why was the sword of Mahomet so mighty, and why did his false, pernicious system become the religion of a great part of the Christian world? It was because the Christians had lost moral fibre. They could quarrel with one another, but they had no courage to resist their common enemy. And when, in later times, the Ottoman forced his way into Europe, it was because the Christian powers failed in their duty, through mutual jealousies and intrigues. Had they combined manfully in a righteous and persevering spirit, Europe would in all all human probability have been spared many wars. Certainly she would have escaped many dangers and perplexities, all of which have come upon her through her own past faithlessness. Although, then, it is doubtless true that "they who take the sword," as the Mahometans have done, in pursuance of an aggressive career of ambition and violence, "shall perish with the sword"; it is, also, I think, equally true that they who shun the sword, when duty puts it into their hands, shall suffer from the sword.

But before a nation resolves on war-indeed, before it can rightly judge whether duty requires such "dread arbitrament," every peaceful solution of the quarrel must be tried. And it is at this stage that Christian principles may exert great influence. To put away suspicion, to believe the best of those who are opposed to us until deceit be proved; to waive doubtful points whether of interest or honour; to consider the rights and feeling of others with due concern; to bear with misrepresentation in hope of better things; all these and other like efforts are as much within the power of a nation as of an individual, and are, therefore, an imperative duty. And past experience encourages the hope that the war spirit will gradually give way, as the nations of the world learn more and more that their real interests are identical, and that, "if one member" of Christendom "suffer, all the members suffer with it." And this happy result ought to engage the study and the prayer of the Church. We may be, and probably are, very far distant from any practical scheme of international arbitration. For such a plan seems to require universal empire to give it power; unless, indeed, it be itself the product of a state of settled peace, which would render it needless. At the present time, certainly, it would be exceedingly difficult to select a suitable arbitrator of any important or real quarrel. Nor does the fact, if it be a fact, that, whereas in the last forty-five years, there have been no fewer than thirty-six cases in which disputes have been peaceably settled by this method, since 1856, no resort has been made to it (see Canon Freemantle's "Pleading against War," p. 27) tend to show that the principle is gaining favour. Prince Bismarck's reference to the Pope may be taken as an indication that the tide is turning. Let us hope so. Meanwhile, the Church will preach the righteousness of God's holy will, both in war and peace-si vis pacem, para bellum. To have the sword in hand, to be well equipped and prepared, does not lead of necessity to actual war, but rather disposes warlike rivals to accept reasonable proposals through a well-grounded fear of con sequences. Let men be taught to fear war, as a scourge in God's hand for the chastisement of insolence, pride, and covetousness. Let our soldiers and sailors continue to cultivate that temper of humanity which now distinguishes them, and to regard themselves as "God's ministers, to execute wrath on evil doers." While they study the arts of war, and hold themselves ready to sacrifice even life itself for their country, let them, most of all, long for peace, preferring the honours of "saving' and improving men's lives to any glory that may come from destroying them. The time is not yet come, but it will come when " wars "shall be no more.

DISCUSSION.

The Rev. R. M. GRIER, Vicar of Rugeley, Prebendary of Lichfield, and Rural Dean.

I FEAR that I have little to say: when I sent in my card I thought I should have heard a more vigorous defence of war than that which has been put forward by any of the speakers, and I meant to reply: for whilst I do not maintain that war is never necessary, or that in the present state of Europe we should disarm; I still hold that the warlike spirit is not one which needs any kind of encouragement in this country; that the horror and the consequences of war are contrary to the spirit of the Christian religion, and that "war is a game which, were their subjects wise, kings would not play at." In the Church at the present time, we sorely want men of varied qualifications to lead the army of the living God, and fight the bloodless battles of the Cross. We cannot find them: and yet men highly cultivated, with the very finest of intellects, are pressing into a service from which in middle life they may be ejected on

a miserable pittance, and in which they have to face the greatest hardships, and it may be a most cruel death. I do not wish to say a word against the spirit of selfsacrifice, but those who make this self-sacrifice in war are the men we want in our large towns to do the Lord's work, and win people to Christ. We know what sort of men they are. We have heard them speak-as I only wish the great body of the clergy could speak-with great religious earnestness and eloquence in this Church Congress, and I cannot help wishing that they were clergymen. But forgive a quiet, peaceful Irishman, the member of an oppressed nationality, for saying you English people are a very combative race. You have been fighting ever since you were a nation everywhere except at home. It is impossible at the moment to mention the various places where England has fought battles, but if you look into the matter I think you will find that almost everywhere except in this country war has been carried on in the name of the honour and interests of England. It seems to me a reflection on the Church of England, that it has been left to a small sect of Nonconformists, again and again, to raise their voices in protest against the unjust wars which this country has too frequently waged. I do not, however, agree with the most eloquent champion of that body, that the great basis of peace is to be found in commerce. A great many of the unjust wars that have been waged have been waged in the name of commerce. Most of us will agree that indirectly it was commerce which led to the wars we waged in China. It was in the name of Free Trade that we went to China and blew up the forts, and slaughtered the natives of that Empire. The greed of gain has been the cause of war in all ages of the world. Here, as in other ways, the love of money is the root of all evil, and you cannot by any possibility convert it into a virtue. Again, I am not at all sure that the spirit of peace will grow with the growth of a democracy. Many people think that when political power passes from the hands of the few into the hands of the many we shall have universal peace. That, I am sure, is an error. War has again and again been popular with the masses, because there is a feeling that the havoc of war is a kind of providential arrangement for keeping within proper bounds the population, and enabling those who remain at home to find employment. We want other instructors in peace besides merchant men, and other restraining influences against war besides a democracy, and those instructors must be priests of the Church of England, diffusing the spirit of the Gospel. But there are difficulties in the way of clergymen dealing with the question of war. One difficulty is that clergymen do not care to speak frequently on the subject, lest they should be termed "political parsons." I for one have not the slightest objection to being so termed, though I should not like to be considered a violent partisan. I feel that a clergyman has to do something more in the present day than to preach doctrine affecting individuals, and that he is in his place when he attempts in his ministrations to guide the policy of a Christian country, and that on a question of peace or war, he is absolutely bound to give good advice to the people. What Mr. Trinder has said is no doubt true. What we ought to do is to teach the people that the great end to be aimed at is righteousness. But if this truth were universally learned, there would be no war. It appears to me that from Cressy to Abu Klea there has hardly been a battlefield in which the armies of this country ought to have appeared. Another difficulty comes now, the teaching of the Old Testament on the subject of war. On this subject, however, enough has been said; we are not under the Law, but under Grace. In his Christian Doctrine, Milton has produced 39 passages on the conduct of war, and of these only one is from the New Testament. It is this, "What king going to war with another king sitteth not down first and counteth the cost.' But in spite of this silence of the New Testament on war, during the 640 years up to 1815, this Christian country was something like 260 years at war with France. If Russia and England should remain great empires for 640 years more, probably 260 years of that time may have to be spent in struggles between the two countries. Hallam has somewhere said that England is continually alarmed at the supposed designs of some particular enemy and rival. At one time it was France, at another it was Spain, and now there seems to be signs that it may be Russia. If this is the case, surely it behoves all those who teach the people in the name of the Lord to proclaim everywhere that they ought to seek peace and ensue it.

The Rev. J. COWDEN COLE, Vicar of Upton, Somerset.

I FIND myself in some little difficulty in following the previous speakers. There is one thing that has been said with regard to the difference of standpoint on this question between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and it appears to me that there is a considerable difference between the two standpoints. That difference, I believe, arises in this way-that the Old Testament is, in reality, not the history of individual servants of God, but the pourtrayal of the history of a nation, while the moral standpoint of the New Testament is clearly that of the individual. The two ethical standpoints, I venture to think, are not quite the same, and I am of opinion that the moral precepts which ought to influence the life and conduct of the individual, will not necessarily apply to the political state and progress of a nation. I think every person, whether a clergyman or not, must, as a matter of the individual conscience, disapprove of the barbarous method of settling the affairs of the world by bloodshed and war. But, as a nation, we have certain interests of the body politic to maintain and uphold. In the time of the Cæsars, for instance, the Roman Empire was, in the main, an empire whose motto was "peace;" but before arriving at that state of development, Rome had to pass through a long course of wars, both foreign and civil. She had to justify herself for her wars, and I believe in the enlightened policy the Empire carried out, she did so. England, it may be said, is an analogous case to that of Rome, and I think we may safely say that the best instincts of the people are now against war. I believe, however, that before the stage of empire is reached, and while a nation is in the process of "making," it is next to impossible to avoid war. And we must remember, too, when we think of and condemn what we are accustomed to call the "horrors of war," that war is a means of calling forth many of those heroic qualities and characteristics which go to produce the greatness and grandeur of the world in which we live.

The Rev. C. LLOYD ENGSTRÖM, Rector of St. Mildred's, Bread Street, City, and Secretary of the Christian Evidence Society. "THERE was," we are told, "war in Heaven," from which we infer that since "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon," they were not members of the Peace Society. Speaking gravely, Revelation xii. 7 justifies the principle of war under certain circumstances. The conflict in Heaven was, we may fairly assume, that of right against wrong, of truth against falsehood, of good against evil, and on the eternal distinction and consequent opposition between these hostile forces rests the whole principle of the morality of war. So long as there is a right to be promoted, and a wrong to be got rid of, it is our bounden duty to strive to increase the right and to lessen the wrong. So far, we must surely all be agreed. But then the further question arises-Does this apply to anything beyond the range of spiritual forces? Does it apply to cases where the sword and the cannon-ball come in? Does it allow the expenditure of life and treasure? Though I largely disagree from Canon Mozley's tour de force, as it has been well named by the Rev. Aubrey Moore, I must yet allow that a nation, having no earthly tribunal to appeal to, does not stand in the position of an individual under ordinary circumstances, when he can invoke the majesty of the law, but rather resembles one who under extraordinary circumstances can plead the necessity of taking the law into his own hands. For there are cases in which we feel compelled to say that a woman has the right to do the deeds of a Jael or a Judith in defence of her own honour. Now are there any crises in which a nation may, in like manner, be justified in protecting itself, at the same time that it promotes the interests of international morality? Were, for instance, the Israelites justified in their wars? My own opinion is that they were intended by God to stand exactly in the position of that celebrated institution of Dr. Arnold, the "Sixth Form" of Rugby. That school, when he first came to it, was in a very bad and seemingly hopeless condition, and the title of that great schoolmaster to rank as a man of practical genius lay in this, viz., that he originated the idea of substituting for a well-meant but vain attempt to make the whole school pari passu better, the effort to first leaven with his own noble impulses and aspirations an elect portion, and then to eventually raise the tone and morality of the non-elect portion also. The boys in the Sixth Form had, amongst

And I must

other duties, to keep in check, and to speak plainly, to mercilessly thrash the bullies of the school, who were making bad, impure, and cruel practices a permanent element of boy life. And I take it that the position of the Israelites was very much on a par with that, only on a very grand scale. Now if this view has anything in it worthy of notice, it may show that there are circumstances which justify military defence, and even military attack. But, on the other hand, as the cases alleged are undeniably exceptional, I, for one, feel strongly that a nation is in duty bound to make great national sacrifices in the interests of international peace and progress. Nations, like individuals, have a conscience, and ought to look, not only on their own, but also on another's wealth. Is it not even conceivable that the wonderful self-sacrifice made by Telemachus the monk in the gladiatorial arena, might be right in the case of a nation? For were a nation composed of that body whose average of true Christian feeling and action seems higher than that of any other Church-I mean the Moravians-to suffer itself to be destroyed, such martyrdom might for ever abolish the present state of feeling and action as regards war. I am not prepared to say absolutely that it would be right, but I think it is a subject specially worthy of consideration. confess that, in taking an opposite view, Canon Mozley did not, in my judgment, at all prove his point. Without desiring to offend any of Teuton blood who may be present, I must say that many features of the policy of Prince Bismarck do not seem to me to be based on Christian principle. His policy has been distinctly that of welding together and lifting the Teutonic race, by an enormous expenditure of "blood and iron," and any country which pursues such a policy will in the nature of things very soon come to some great disaster. With regard to our own country, may we not say that although it may be compelled sometimes to go to war, there are two or three principles by which its policy ought to be regulated? There can be no excuse for wars of aggression, and no excuse for wars of mere pride, and still less excuse for what is the peculiar temptation of a democracy, wars of wild passion. Some time ago I addressed 700 or 800 men in a church at Northampton, and afterwards a number of them put questions to me in an adjoining school-room respecting my sermon. My answer to the question always put in such debates, "How can you reconcile Christianity with wars?" was, "And what do you say to Mr. Bright, as the most distinguished representative of the peace society? Can you say that a superior love for peace has characterised his political career? Is he not rather the most pugnacious of statesmen? But, if so, unless he is wrong, why confine such pugnacity to internal politics? Why not allow it to be justifiable in international questions?" This reply took remarkably well with all who were present, for they at once saw the principle involved. What is really wanted is more consistency. I for one find no fault with Mr. Gladstone for his efforts to promote international amity, and to lead rival people to submit to arbitration, which in principle has my warmest sympathy, but I think him highly inconsistent in not applying these Christian principles more fully to his own parliamentary action! The question of slavery has been referred to. When that subject was mentioned, I thought of William Lloyd Garrison, a great and noble man, whose only daughter, a daughter in many respects worthy of her sire, I had the privilege of meeting at Rome, in 1868. He acted on the principle referred to by some of the speakers to-night, but his anxiety to put down an enormous evil-slavery -plunged the United States into another frightful evil, the greatest war of our times. For as we were told a few years ago in the Modern Review, he would not consent to act with Dr. Lyman Beecher in a less violent propagandism of non-slavery principles. It is, therefore, difficult to see how we can rightly realise our Christian ideal, that of peace, unless we remember the many other Christian principles, equally binding on us. And as to recognise our whole duty, instead of narrowly carrying out one fragment of it, is one of the highest virtues of Christianity, it is but no bad answer of the question to say that, in the main, we are thrown back upon the old fashioned solution of seeking for more and higher individual devotion to Christ. To sum up very briefly what I have tried to say, I have ventured to suggest that war in principle is right, whenever it is waged, whether spiritually or physically, in defence of right against wrong, and, while fully admitting the responsibility that lies upon nations of acting as far as possible in the same way that a Christian individual would be bound to act, yet that war can never cease till the average of individual Christian attainment reaches a far higher level than seems at present probable, I should add, possible, were I not, as a believer in the Gospel of Christ, bound to ascribe to it an altogether superhuman power of sometimes rapidly, but always eventually, putting down evil in every form and of every kind.