that, if war is wrong from the Christian point of view, it is to be allowed to go on. And though it may seem honourable to the gospel to affirm that its morality is peremptory and will have nothing to do with compromises, we can see that the method of Christ in His ruling of the world does not disdain the partial remedying of evils, the gradual improvement of human society.

I should be making but a futile use of the opportunity given me to-day, if I were to content myself with repeating Christian commonplaces about peace on earth and good will amongst men. It is the wish, I am sure, of those who have organized these lectures that the preachers should in all practical questions come to the point. It is true that international relations belong to "high politics;" but in a democratic age, those who are but units of the population cannot entirely divest themselves of responsibility, and may perhaps exercise some influence, even with regard to matters that must be practically dealt with by experts of administration. We are warranted in assuming that international peace is not only a Divine ideal, commending itself to all the good aspirations of mankind, but also a proper object of the efforts of statesmen and the policy of governments. During centuries of almost unceasing war between the nations, all who have gone to church have been bidden to pray that it may please God to give to all nations unity, peace, and concord. But the Christian Church has not in old time done much-has hardly even laboured with conscious endeavour to prevent wars from occurring. George Fox and his followers have made protests, with a sincerity which they have attested by voluntary sacrifices, against the causing of bodily pain to any one either by individuals or by nations, as an act altogether forbidden to Christians; but the under

standing of Christ's precepts in the letter is mischievously confusing to the Christian conscience, and it is doubtful whether such repudiations as those of the Society of Friends and of Count Tolstoi have not done more to discourage than to stimulate intelligent and general efforts to avoid war. In our own age, however, many causes have been cooperating to awaken the conscience of Christendom on this question, and to set people thinking how peace between nations may best be preserved. Our eyes have been in some degree opened to the kingdom of heaven as a living reality, and we have been led to see that this spiritual kingdom claims all the earth, with its kings and its nations, and all provinces of human life, for its own; and it is evident that when two nations are fighting with each other they are breaking the pax cœlestis, and that one of them certainly, if not both, has been showing disloyalty to its heavenly Lord. The idea of the Catholic Church has at the same time begun to shine with more of steady and attractive light before the minds of all Christians; and the song has a new music to our ears in which the four living creatures and the four and twenty elders pay homage to the Lamb, saying, "Worthy art Thou to take the book"-the book of destiny-" and to open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with Thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon the earth.' And then the immense increase of intercourse and the growing complexity of interests between the different countries on the face of the globe make war more unnatural and more ruinous; whilst the development of the machinery of destruction causes the imagination to quail before the terrors of the battle-field and the siege. So that whilst the

F

childish doctrine that Christians ought never to consent to go to war at all takes no hold of men's minds, many earnest persons are much occupied with anxious thought as to the ways in which war might be superseded, or the chances of its occurring be diminished, or its horrors, if it should occur, be mitigated.

The suggestion that nations should be persuaded to contract together for a proportional reduction of their armaments does not seem to be entitled to much serious consideration. But the movement in favour of referring differences between nations, such as have so often ended in war, to impartial arbitration, is undoubtedly what we call a practical one. The method of arbitration has been actually tried with success; and it is admitted by the most unromantic statesmen that there is promise in it for the future. Apart from the particular cases in which irritating and threatening differences have already been thus settled, the very fact of nations submitting their claims to what they hope will be just judgment, and then acquiescing in any concessions which the judgment imposes upon them, is likely to exercise a very important moral influence. And this submitting of differences to independent judgment is the line which the historic progress of peace in the world has hitherto taken. The savage way of settling quarrels is to fight them out, till the weaker is killed or has had enough. The interest of the community, as soon as a community of the most elementary kind has existed, has always sought to restrain the free indulgence of personal anger, and with that view the ruling power has undertaken to see any complainant righted and to punish the wrong-doer. The ruling power forbids the members of the community to avenge themselves; it pronounces judgment, and enforces its judgment upon all the parties concerned.

And so peace is preserved, in a greater or less degree, in a tribe or a nation. Not only are individuals thus kept from trying what one can do to injure another, but combinations of persons, sometimes embracing large numbers, bring questions of right and wrong into the courts, and submit to the judicial settlement of them. It has been easy to ask, Why should not nations, which are large combinations of persons, have their differences similarly adjusted? And the answer has unfortunately been equally obvious. Nations are not subject to a ruling power. If Europe were divided into a hundred small countries, it might be possible to establish a European federal government, with an adequate force to maintain peace amongst the federated States. But, as things now are and tend to be, we cannot even imagine a central European force that would undertake to treat-say France and Germany-as subjects, and to prevent them from fighting. And we are obliged to admit that the internal peace of communities would have had a poor chance if it had depended on voluntary submission to arbitration.

With regard to the apparent hesitation on the part of the United States to act on the judgment given by the Court of Arbitrators in a recent controversy, it is impossible that the American people could be guilty of such treason to the cause of peace, and so dishonour themselves, as definitely to repudiate the obligation which they have incurred. But the very hesitation is greatly to be deplored.

Whilst, then, the lovers of peace will do all that they can to promote the international use of arbitration in particular cases, and to establish such a custom of submitting disputed points to arbitration as may have some constraining moral influence over statesmen and people, it is idle to hope for any such success in these endeavours as will warrant a

Our

great Power in disarming. When national safety and national honour are at stake, it will not do to trust unreservedly to the kindness and unselfishness of other nations. Arbitration may do mankind the great service of preventing some wars, but no sensible person will persuade himself that it lies in arbitration to abolish war. There are questions which no English statesman would think of referring to arbitration, unless he meant to surrender altogether his country's independence, and to make England the vassal of some Power or Powers outside itself. occupation of Egypt is a living example of such a question. Frenchmen, it is said, will never be heartily friendly to us so long as we retain our control of Egypt. I am afraid there is truth in this statement, and it is a serious one for us to keep in mind. But we cannot imagine any earthly judge or jury to whom we could be expected to submit the simple question whether we are to retire from Egypt or not. It would be equivalent to saying to the court, "You must undertake to govern Egypt, and the British empire, and the world." For there is a second question which would require an immediate answer, "What is to happen in Egypt, not to speak of other parts of the world, if we withdraw?"

But my business in this place is to ask what our Christianity prescribes with regard to international peace; and the direct concern of our faith in Christ is not so much with expedients as with tempers and affections. And the properly Christian spirit, if it responds to the heavenly voice which is bidding it claim public affairs as one sphere of its duty, cannot fail to be a powerful influence in the promotion of international peace.

Magnanimity seems to be the name that will best describe the temper proper to a great Christian nation in its dealings with other nations. A state