the Hague. The sanction by which arbitration would become really obligatory, he declared, would be the refusal of the workers of the world to fight for any Government that declined to submit its differences to arbitration. The supreme command of the people to the Governments should be "Arbitrate before you fight; make your choice between the alternatives of arbitration or revolution." M. Jaurès makes no reservation about vital interests, honour, or independence. It is arbitration without limits or restrictions of any kind. The State that refuses arbitration becomes by that act the enemy of mankind. "It is not necessary to inquire which Government is the attacked and which the attacker. The aggressor, the enemy of civilisation, is that Government which refuses arbitration. And," added M. Jaurès in a And," added M. Jaurès in a sentence that created an immense sensation in France, "the Government that thus becomes the enemy of civilisation, and especially of the working classes, should expect to see the weapons which it has placed in the hands of the people turned not against the enemy, but in revolution against 'that criminal Government' in order to destroy it."

revolt against a Government that refuses arbitration. But he has done good service in pointing out that the refusal to arbitrate is the best test of the reality of the professions of a Government in favour of peace. And it is excellent advice that any Government that refuses arbitration ought to be treated as an enemy of the human race, though it is not necessary to resort to armed resistance. Passive resistance would be quite as effective. The passive refusal to fight or to vote the necessary money for a war that has not been preceded by an arbitration would probably be sufficient to make arbitration really obligatory, not only in the case of selected categories of subjects, but in all questions. The principle of attaching a penalty to the

refusal to arbitrate is still in its infancy. The proposal of General Porter adopted by the Hague Conference marks the first step: If you refuse arbitration your debts will be collected by force, otherwise not. The next step is a proposal advocated by M. Barbosa, of Brazil, but not adopted by the Conference: If you refuse to arbitrate no conquest that you make will be recognised. The third step is that proposed by M. Jaurès: If you refuse to arbitrate your subjects will not fight for you, but against you. The financial boycott is more prosaic, but it would be probably even more effective than the Socialist appeal to revolution. If England, France, Germany and the United States would agree to prohibit all war loans to Governments that had refused arbitration, that instrument would become the Magna Charta of the peace of the world.

The Pope's Jehad against Modernism.

The Encyclical which Pius the Tenth has launched against what he calls modernism is naturally creating a great sensation among the more liberally-minded Catholics. In July His Holiness issued a Syllabus of errors, wherein were specified some sixty-five propositions "to be condemned and proscribed." These propositions broadly represent the applications to religion of the principles of evolution, "the higher "the higher criticism," and "the new theology" which are associated with the name, in Italy of Fogazzaro, in Germany of Schell, in France of Loisy, and in England of Tyrrell. The Encyclical traces these " errors to their alleged source in agnostic philosophy and to their alleged inevitable issue in materialism, moral anarchy and atheism. But the import ance of the new document lies not in its theoretical arguments, but in the practical measures, which it demands shall be taken for the proscription of the obnoxious views. All "modernist" books and newspapers are to be shut out of Catholic colleges and seminaries, and are to be "torn out" of the hands of the faithful. No ecclesiastic may henceforth edit or direct any periodical without his Bishop's permission. More productive of dismay is the command to establish in every diocese a college of censors. This seems to mean the mobilising of a vast army of heresy hunters all over Catholic Christendom. The immense powers of organisation which the Roman Church possesses are to be called into play in order to stamp out the new liberalism. As a retort to his critics and as a guide to his flock the Pope announces his intention to found an institution which shall gather together "the most illustrious representatives of Catholic science for the progress of everything that can be called true science and erudition."

"Rock v. "Vine."

This Holy War against modern criticism and philosophy, carried into every Catholic diocese throughout the world, is bound to produce much intellectual and social commotion. The position of Catholics who have already imbibed "modern" notions will be painful in the extreme. The conflict between the conclusions of their reason and the commands of their Church will probably end as usual, for the majority of believers, in loyal submission to the authority of the Pope. But the suffering involved will be very great. The modern man already outside will be less enamoured than ever of the Roman obedience, In the organism of

Western Christendom the Church of Rome represents the rigid skeleton. Many who are glad not to be themselves embedded in the osseous structure are yet thankful that below the soft and yielding and sometimes flabby flesh of modern life there is the firm frame of Catholic rigidity. They feel that "the Church of the Vine" might not be so fruitful were not its soil in the past supported by "the Church of the Rock." All the same, they cannot withhold their sympathy from the devout souls who had contrived to combine intellectual freedom with ecclesiastical loyalty, and are now forced to make the crucial choice. If, as is widely alleged, Syllabus and Encyclical represent only another triumph of Italian obscurantism over the culture of more advanced nations, the best hope of freedom in the Roman Church is for French, German, English, and American. Catholics to permeate Italy with their presence and influence. A more rapid circulation of life through all parts of the papal communion might result in a more general agreement among Catholics and in a less severe strain on Northern and Transatlantic consciences. Meantime, while unbelievers are pronouncing funeral orations over a Faith slain by the hand of its foremost votaries, they would do well to remember one startling fact: Roman Catholics do not restrict their birth-rate as Protestants and Rationalists are doing, and consequently bid fair to out-people the rest! Criticism. may be very convincing, but the cradle carries with it the future. Between the empty cradle of Rationalism and the crowded cradle of Romanism there can be no question as to the Destinies' decision. The formula of the survival of the fittest comes in rather awkwardly for the self-sterilised evolutionist. He may console himself with the retort that the Chinese will probably out-breed the Catholic and leave the last word with Confucius and Buddha.

"The United Methodist Church."

While Rome makes absorption more difficult to other communions, and Anglican Bishops, by defying the marriage law of the realm, make the idea of a National Church less possible than ever, the process of voluntary fusion among the Free Churches goes on apace. The elastic federation known as the National Council of Evangelical Free Churches, with its local branches all over the country, keeps the minds of men familiar with the practice and prospect of closer Christian union; and every few years denominations combine. Last month three bodies became one: the Methodist New Connexion,

numbering 46,000 members; the Bible Christians, with 36,000 members; and the United Methodist Free Churches, with 107,000 members; are henceforth the United Methodist Church. The act of amalgamation was attended by no fewer than four Lord Mayors, municipal stars in the firmament of the new Church: and was consummated in the Cathedral of Wesleyan Methodism-a hint of further unity-in City Road. This happy event marks another step in the direction of the United Free Church of Great Britain; and that is even now hailed as the imminent step towards a United Free Church of Christendom. The Emperor of many rôles has

The

Preaching Kaiser. during the last few weeks been speaking to his people in the tones of the preacher, almost with the accent of the prophet. From Münster in the West to Memel in the East he has appealed to his subjects in the name of the Highest. However cynics may scoff, no serious mind can fail to be touched with the profound sincerity of the Imperial evangelist. Allusions to Divine destiny, vocation and dignity are not infrequent on the Kaiser's lips; but too often they have been directed to himself and to his dynasty. In his latest speeches a deeper and fuller note is struck. It is the Divine calling of the German people rather than of Wilhelm II. or of the house of Hohenzollern that is urged again and again. At Münster his great stress was laid on the duty

"A Dispensation from on High."

But this unity the Kaiser regards as only the means to a far vaster end. "Then," he says, our German nation will become the block of granite upon which the Lord our God can build up and complete His work of civilising the world." This solemn adjuration to his subjects to walk worthy of their high calling was repeated at Memel on the hundredth anniversary of the lowest ebb in the fortunes of Prussia. The contrast between 1807 and 1907 might have tempted a humbler man to vainglory. And the dynasty which has risen from such a nadir to such a zenith might have been par

of all classes and creeds uniting in the work of social reform. Like a good Methodist in class, he told his subjects how his religion helps him to overcome the disinclination to co-operate with men who cause him bitter pain. He says to himself, "They are all human like yourself." He goes on:

Religion, not in the narrow ecclesiastical sense, but as a practical element in everyday life, is the only means by which a union of all classes can be effected. This unity can only be attained in the central person of our Redeemer, in the Man who called us brothers, who lived as an example for all of us and who was the most personal of personalities. Even now He still goes up and down among the nations and makes His presence felt in the hearts of all of us. Our nation must look up to Him and be united.

doned some self-glorification. But the Kaiser urges instead the lesson of national salvation through national repentance. He dissuades from pride and insolence. He extols the marvellous progress of the united Fatherland. But, he adds :

The more we are in a position to win for ourselves a preeminent place in the world in every sphere, the more must all classes and callings of our people remember that in this, too, the hand of the Divine Providence is to be seen. If the Lord our God had not still great tasks in store for us, He would not have endowed our nation with such splendid capabilities. Our first duty is to raise our eyes to Heaven in the consciousness that all our prosperity and success is wrought by dispensation from on high. . . Then we shall be men of action and a resolute nation pressing forward in the knowledge that a great duty and a great task have been assigned to us.

There is a Cromwellian ring about these utterances that stirs the Puritan blood in our British veins. It is a noble thing for a monarch thus to impress on a nation its Divine vocation.

What is the Mission of Germany?

But what is this vocation of Ger

many? The Kaiser is evidently labouring to raise his people to a sense of their mission in the world. What is at the back of his mind? Surely not innumerable battleships, dirigible war balloons, limitless Colonial expansion, world-wide carnage and conquest! He speaks of "civilising," even of "saving," the world. What is his idea? Has he any? Has he the sense of destiny without any glimpse of its direction? Who knows? But the stress on union within the nation which precedes his references to its world-vocation seems to suggest what that vocation may be supposed

to be. Little over a hundred years ago there were, in what is now the German Empire, more separate governments than there are days in the year. Now they are all gathered into the unity of the compactest world-force on the face of the earth. A people that can unify itself has surely a genius for unification-a genius that is a destiny. "The German spirit" which out of a horde of petty princedoms has evolved a united Fatherland is, the Kaiser feels, called to save the world. How, except by the same unifying process carried still further? The Hague Conference lies ready to hand to suggest possibilities and facilities. Once Germany consisted of more than 365 separate Powers; to-day Germany is one. Now the world consists of only forty-four Powers that is their number at the Hague. The "spirit" that unified the 365 surely need not shrink from attempting to

unify the forty-four. Not by the same methods-the methods of blood and iron; but by a "social policy," a "social reorganisation," a mutual conciliatoriness, based on religion and centred in "the Most Personal of personalities." The synthetic genius that has created a united Fatherland, that has made of millions of soldiers a unit of mechanical perfectness, ought, when applied to the task of peacefully uniting all nations in the elastic freedom of a World-State, to produce no mean results. Are these the thoughts that hide behind the Kaiser's prophesying?

The "Lusitania."

The world is shrinking with a rapidity that will soon make us the next-door neighbours of the Antipodes. Seventy years ago it required seventeen days' steaming to reach the New World from the Old. To-day the voyage, thanks to the skill and inventive ability of the engineer, can be accomplished in five. His latest triumph is the Lusitania, the gigantic liner which made her first voyage from Queenstown to New York last month in five days and fifty-four minutes. The construction of this leviathan and her twin-sister, the Mauretania, marks a new stage in the struggle for supremacy in the Atlantic passage. The German liners have for some years past held the record for the swiftest crossing. The attempt of the Lusitania to win back for an

English company "the blue ribbon" of the Atlantic was followed with eager interest on both sides of the ocean as her progress was recorded day by day by wireless telegraphy. Although on her first voyage she did not succeed in beating the record of the Deutschland, there is no doubt that she will do so under favourable conditions. under favourable conditions. As it is, she holds the record for the shortest passage from port to port and for the swiftest maiden voyage of any Atlantic liner yet constructed.

The Progress

of Seventy Years.

The engineer has by no means reached the limit of his resources, and provided he can command a sufficiently lavish supply of money there is no reason to doubt that the time occupied in the Atlantic passage will be reduced still further. The Sirius was the first steam vessel to cross the Atlantic. In 1838 she took seventeen days to reach New York. In 1851 the voyage had been reduced to nine days; in 1882 to seven; in 1897 to six; and now in 1907 to five. The growth in size and horse-power of Atlantic liners has been even more remarkable than the steady persistence with which the time occupied by the crossing has been reduced. The Etruria, with a tonnage of 8,120 and a horse-power of 14,500, was able to cross the Atlantic in 1885 in six days three hours and twelve minutes. Twelve years later the