do what they believed to be wrong. And many of their representatives today are as noble of spirit as they.

In recent times the pacifist position has been maintained by arguments which are drawn not from Scripture, but from a certain philosophy of human nature. Man is not primarily prone to evil, but to good, it is said. He will not resist the appeal to the generosity, the humanity, that is latent in him. If you trust a man, he will respond to your trust. If you refuse to resist his physical attack, he will be ashamed and withhold the hand that was raised to strike. In the long run, it is urged, though not in every individual case, the refusal to fight will result in the greater good. It is an extension of this argument when philosophical anarchists hold that the root of all social disorder is to be found in the use of physical force by the governments of the world. The use of force, it is said, calls out and encourages the evil in man. Remove that incubus from the history of society, and the inherent goodness of human nature will spring to light. Men will be honest if you do not force them to it. Men will be pitiful if all men desist from revenge or physical retaliation. This line of thought has gradually allied itself with the religious position described above, in a very interesting and subtle way. Assuming that human history is under the guidance of God and

that in all men there is a spark of the divine, the true attitude of every reverent soul is to leave the governance of the race to the persuasive, all-pervasive Spirit of God. He who resists evil takes the scepter out of the hands of God. He smites his fellowman for a wrong done, while punishment ought to be left with Him who alone dispenses justice with unerring wisdom and absolute sympathy. Moreover, the supreme rule of God over man is through the appeal of perfect love. It is not the divine terror but the divine mercy that is the source of salvation and hope. Rather than resist evil with physical force Jesus died on the cross, and from that sublime act of self-devotion the fountain of life has sprung for all the race of men. He had faith in the power of sacrificial love to win the victory, and history is slowly but surely justifying His confidence.

From these facts, and facts they are, the conclusion is drawn that all men who follow Christ ought to make the same appeal to human nature. In the long run it will respond. Love will prove itself omnipotent. The most selfish and most cruel fiends will at last give way before the irresistible appeal of innocence that remains meek, and lovingkindness that refuses all resistance or revenge. If any one nation would wholly disarm and pursue no policy but that of purest honor, no other nation would dare to attack it. Its courageous helplessness

would disarm its foes. But since no government has yet been found Christian enough to accept this as its law of life and rather die as a government than fight an assaulting foe, there is nothing left for individual followers of Christ, and the communities which they compose, but to refuse obedience to any government which would enlist them in even a defensive war against the most indefensible and wicked assault by another people.

The argument of reasoned pacifism might be elaborated, but these are its fundamental positions, and I have tried to put them as fairly and sympathetically as I can. I hope it may not be too personal a matter, but may help the reader himself, if I say that I who write at one time occupied this position. In boyhood I was brought directly and indirectly under powerful and gracious Quaker influence. In young manhood I gave much thought to the problem of Peace and War, and was proud to have some of my public statements reproduced, with compliments that a young man welcomes, in The Herald of Peace, of London, England. As I look back I can remember that, strange to say, the first stirrings of doubt arose when I was reading Tolstoi. His sheer individualism in religion, his arbitrary and wayward dealing with the New Testament and even with the teaching of Him whom he accepted as his supreme Authority and Master, led me at last through other lines of thought

to see that the argument outlined above, persuasive and pious as it is, rests upon foundations that are too narrow to carry the weight of the world's life. Gradually it became clear that the following fundamental matters must be reconsidered.

3. First, war must be considered as a function of national government. The ordinary puzzle put to pacifists, "What would you do if a man assaulted you?" is irrelevant. Even the further question, "What would you do to a man who tried to murder your wife?" does not present an exact parallel, but only a partial illustration of what is meant by war. War is a national act; and its moral significance can be studied only by investigating what we mean by the State, what its nature and functions are, and what those duties are which rest upon the individual as the citizen of a definite country, ruled by a definite government.

Second, the Christian man is not by his conversion separated at once from all secular relations and obligations. He remains a member of a family, perhaps a family of unbelievers. He remains the citizen of a country, where he lives and whose government both protects him and exacts from him certain duties, even although it be not a professedly Christian government.

Third, the Christian man is a member of the specific organization or community called the Church. From the beginning, from the hour when

Jesus deliberately founded and taught and ruled this community in His own lifetime on earth, on, through its fuller establishment after His death and resurrection, into its rich and multiform history in the world, it has found itself related to the State in many intricate ways. The one institution has acted upon the other continuously. At times they have seemed to be rivals. One has sought to subdue and absorb the other. At the best they have been but imperfect coadjutors in the great task of perfecting the conditions and the character of human history. Today, in most countries of the world, they are recognized as separate, complementary institutions, each having its own sphere of influence, its characteristic work to do.

The problem of war which we are discussing in these pages can only be solved, if solved at all, by means of a careful consideration of these two supreme institutions in human life. What is the meaning (or telos) of each? How does each stand related to the will of God? How does the spirit of the one affect the spirit of the other? What does each do for the individual, and what shall the individual do for each? These are some of the questions which we must investigate if we are to have any chance of answering the main inquiry which we have set before us.