u 
 
 Zl 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 B M 237 EMS 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 WAR AND RELIGION 
 
 A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY 
 
 BY 
 
 RABBI ELI MAYER 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA., 1918 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN 
 
 PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 
 THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
EXCHANGE 
 
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 WAR AND RELIGION 
 
 A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY 
 
 BT 
 
 RABBI ELI MAYER 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA., 1918 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN 
 
 PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 
 THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 

 Copyright, 1918 
 RABBI ELI MAYER 
 
DEDICATED 
 
 TO 
 
 My Inspibation, Mt Love, Mt Wife 
 JESSIE STRAUS 
 
 381334 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 Preface 7 
 
 Introduction 9 
 
 Chapter I, "War and Religion in Theory" 13 
 
 Chapter II, "War and Religion in Fact" 20 
 
 Section A — War Among Remote Ancestors: "Men of the Old 
 
 Stone Age" and of "the Bronze and Iron Age." 
 Section B — Religion Among Remote Ancestors. 
 
 Part 1 — " Men of the Old Stone Age" and of the " Bronze Age," 
 Part 2 — "Contemporaneous Ancestors." 
 
 A — Introductory Remarks; B — Tasmanians; C — Aus- 
 tralian Aborigines; D — American Indian; E — Torres 
 Straits; F — Melanesians; G — African Aborigines; H — 
 Todas; I — Aboriginal Siberia; J — South American 
 Aborigines; K — Summary. 
 
 Chapter III, "War and Religion in Fact." Period of Immediate Ancestors, 32 
 Section A — Bird's-eye View of War in the First Part of the Period. 
 Section B — War and Religion Among the Most Ancient of Our Im- 
 mediate Ancestors. 
 
 Part 1 — The Egyptians. 
 
 Part 2 — The Babylonians and Assyrians. 
 
 Part 3 — Zoroastrians. 
 
 Part 4 — Buddhists of India. 
 
 Part 5 — Chinese. 
 
 Part 6 — Japanese. 
 
 Part 7 — Greeks. 
 
 Part 8 — Romans. 
 
 Part 9 — Semites. 
 Section C — War and Religion Among Christian and Mohammedan 
 Peoples. 
 
 Chapter IV, "W^ar and Religion Among Contemporaries" 60 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 Part A — Christ. B — Old Testament vs. New Testament. 
 C — Germany Christian or un-Christian. D — Religious Claims 
 in General. E — Quakers. F — Tolstoy. G — Bernhardi. H — 
 Summary. 
 
 Chapter V, "Conclusions from the History of War and Religion" ... 79 
 
 Bibliography on "War and Religion" 88 
 
 References in the Text of "War and Religion" 90 
 
Preface to War and Religion 
 
 THIS prefatory word is to serve a double purpose. It aims to 
 furnish a general background for this work; and further, to 
 explain the unusual amount and length of quotations. 
 
 The exposition of the background of this work involves the introduc- 
 tion of the personal element. The writer is an officiating minister. He 
 was born and raised in the peaceful American atmosphere so wholly- 
 conducive to the idea that religion, above all else, must mean a reasoning 
 relationship among men for the settlement of all difficulties. The isola- 
 tion of the United States, the traditional American sentiment against 
 entangling alliances, the genuine religious idealism pervading this land, 
 conjured a picture of internationalism and universal arbitration that 
 eliminated the lurid colors of warfare. The writer was not unmindful 
 of the rehgious doctrine of the "God of Battles." He was generally 
 aware of the war gods of the old national ploytheisras. But for the 
 reasons given above, and for others of less importance, he felt that the 
 prophetic vision of "nations not learning war any more" was most near 
 of reahzation. Science had made religion adjust itself to this era of 
 evolutionary thinking. Religion, thus newly oriented, could look for 
 lofty ranges of spirituality from science. Religion and science seemed to 
 have agreed that "God's in His Heaven — all's right with the world!" 
 made winter's weary war-wastes but a passing phase to peaceful earth's 
 eternal spring. But war stalked across the land. Where was God? 
 
 When able, earnest men of God changed their peace themes of yester- 
 day to war themes of today, the impossible seemed to have transpired. 
 Of course man cannot speak in absolutes; but the zeal of the ideal 
 rehgionist is so proverbial, that one felt that the modern seer who said : 
 "Thus saith the Lord of Peace" could not readily shift to "Thus saith 
 the God of War." Conviction in religion is so intense that it would seem 
 natural to posit as religion's best watchword: "One with God is a 
 majority." 
 
 But when this reversal took place, it occurred to the writer to inquire 
 whether this veering, so unlocked for, was an exception. Despite his 
 vague impressions that religion had been caught in the net of war, he 
 cherished the idea that it was an unwilling captive. He approached, there- 
 fore, this subject, with a certain hope, if not prejudice, that he would 
 show a nobler record for religion than that made by her living supporters. 
 But despite this bias, the evidence rolled in, in one steady stream, sup- 
 porting full well the present-day attitude of all religionists in granting 
 their blessings to each and ev^ery country's cause. 
 
 The question then arose as to the manner of handling the mass of 
 evidence that was gathered. The easiest method would have been to 
 give a summary of a few typical instances, and merely add the comment 
 that these were characteristic of the relations of war and religion every- 
 where and always. But the subject is of such deep concern to the world 
 at large, and the idea is so widespread that religion means peace and 
 only peace, that it was feared such a method would prove unfair to all 
 
War and Religion 
 
 concerned. It would provoke, justly, the criticism that the author put 
 his own interpretation upon the facts instead of letting the facts speak 
 for themselves. Obviously it is not the most exalted task to string 
 together long series of quotations. But it was concluded to be the wisest 
 and most convincing method for this first part of the study on war and 
 religion, dealing exclusively with the data of history. 
 
 This evidence is so absolutely consistent that it seems safe to predict 
 that theology will be revolutionized, at least in the United States, after 
 the war. Not that the writer does not believe that the God concept 
 must and will survive. As long as mystery baffles man, so long must 
 man assume an attitude towards it. But the law which history appar- 
 ently estabhshes as to the relations between war and religion, cannot but 
 constitute either a challenge to religion to become the primary factor in 
 life, or a confirmation of its historic role of supporting the hands of war. 
 This latter alternative appears to be the path of least resistance; and if 
 the law of inertia be applicable here, then religion will continue to be 
 one of the chief aids of war, as in the past. If religion, however, takes 
 the leading strings, it can decree war or peace. 
 
 The writer prefers to reserve further expression of opinion until the 
 close of his studies on the psychological and biological aspects of the 
 subject. In the meantime, he looks for sound and thorough criticism 
 of his theses; but he trusts that all may find his effort filled with the 
 spirit of fairness, honesty and reverence for all faith which he holds 
 most dear. Eli Mater. 
 
Introduction 
 
 This study of "War and Religion" is planned wholly along the lines 
 of Sociology. This means that the following pages do not contain any 
 plea, whatsoever, either against war and for religion, or for war and 
 against religion. As a sociological study, it aims to presents first of all, 
 authoritative data throwing light on the mutual relationship between 
 war and religion ; and after assembling the material in a manner approxi- 
 mating as closely as possible to scientific standards, to draw the plain, 
 inevitable conclusions which the statements of history, human thinking 
 and research must lead to. In brief, the canons of science and not the 
 arts of rhetoric and appeal will be sedulously followed, however much 
 the subject may lend itself to, or seem to demand, the hortative and the 
 emotional. 
 
 The subject of the investigation naturally suggests both the lines of 
 research and the result that will be obtained. While the biological and 
 psychological are as fundamental to social science and theory as the 
 historical, it became quickly apparent that a preliminary consideration 
 of "War and Religion" must be narrowed more or less to the historical. 
 And even in this field the ground to be covered seems so interminable, 
 that one finds himself grateful for the concession of science, in its valida- 
 tion of evidence on the basis of a fair sample. For a study of war involves 
 the vast ranges of all human history; and delving into recesses of religion 
 means an effort almost parallel to the course of man as a fighter. This 
 much then the title surely conveys that a resume will be given of the 
 record of man pugnacious and man religious. 
 
 May it be presumed that the name given to this essay makes equally 
 clear the truths that are expected to be established? "War and Religion" 
 by the very juxtaposition of the words themselves, gives more than a 
 hint that there is an essential connection between these two terms. And 
 this is the first conclusion that may be drawn from the evidence to be 
 submitted. Further proof may be aflForded readily to show, that the 
 dependence of war on religion and vice versa is not only essential, but 
 also thoroughgoing, thus furnishing ample warrant for binding these 
 pages under the title selected. And finally, the chronicles of humanity 
 seem to aflBrm, that in this relationship between war and religion, the 
 latter is the secondary factor, war being the primary and for that reason 
 it is placed first in the caption. 
 
 But this skeleton outline of the territory to be covered and the goal 
 to be reached gives little hint of the delimitations of the subject matter 
 and of the method of procedure. Here the first real diflSculties are 
 encountered partly, because the sciences of Sociology and the History 
 of Religions are so comparatively new, and partly because diligent search 
 has failed to reveal among the many titles that express or point to a 
 treatment of war and religion, any that approach the theme, wholly 
 or in part, from the scientific viewpoint alone. Two small books were 
 found that may be regarded as corollaries of the main theorem: — "LES 
 ENSEIGNES — Cultes Militaires De Rome," by Charles Renel (Lyon et 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Paris 1903); and "Die Religion Des Romisches Heeres," by Alfred 
 von Domaszewski (Trier 1895). But the greatest number of volumes 
 are briefs taking sides; they are of the domain of theological apologetics 
 or theories of war and its governance. One, therefore, has to grope after 
 a method in handling the unwieldy material, and offer it as a tentative 
 one for the working out of the problem. But the present undeveloped state 
 of the sciences mostly involved is a great source for bewilderment, 
 because nomenclature is so scanty and dubious; and, most troublesome 
 of all, definitions are almost as cumbersome as they are varied and 
 numerous. Perhaps it is best to get the less of the two obstacles out of 
 the way first. 
 
 As the great body of literature that had to be gone through loomed 
 continually larger, it became apparent that a complete survey of it all 
 would necessitate useless and wearisome repetition. An effort was 
 therefore made to confine the attention to the most important phases of 
 religion and to the wars deemed most critical in history. The first care in 
 selecting items from the bibliography was, of course, directed to the 
 scientific value of the author and book. At the same time, however, an 
 effort was made to use such authorities, more particularly, in the realm 
 of religion, who combined the characteristics of the impartial searcher 
 after truth with a warm, sympathetic interest in the religion under 
 analysis. 
 
 The easiest method of arranging the material seemed to be the chrono- 
 logical. Justification for this supposition was amply afforded as the 
 study progressed. Accordingly three major divisions were plotted. To 
 describe them, one is beset with the anomalies that the nomenclature of 
 a developing science presents. For the present, therefore, the three great 
 periods will be called vaguely, first that of remote ancestors; the next 
 that of immediate ancestors; and finally, that of contemporaries. In 
 each of these epochs human behavior will be studied in its fairly typical 
 reactions to war and religion. 
 
 This much may suflSce for the way in which the facts will be marshalled, 
 deferring detailed remarks till the unfoldment process itself is begun. But 
 a somewhat longer delay must be submitted to in discussing definitions. 
 
 What has been stated to be the primary factor, war, may be defined 
 very readily. The language of any up-to-date dictionary may be quoted 
 first. The Standard Dictionary (New York 1910) goes to the following 
 length: "War, . . .A contest, as between nations or states, or between 
 different parties in the same state, carried on by force and with arms, 
 commonly either for defense, for avenging insults and redressing wrongs, 
 for the extension of commerce and acquisition of territory, or to obtain 
 and establish the superiority and dominion of one of the belligerents over 
 the other; also the condition of things created by such a contest." Then 
 follows an equally lengthy note amplifying the preceding statement. 
 These ideas may show the limits of the war concept as interpreted by 
 modernity, but warfare is an institution that antedates vastly both states 
 and nations. More scientific therefore appear to be the terms in which 
 Bertrand Russell equates war when he says': "War is a conflict be- 
 tween two groups, each of which attempts to kill and maim as many 
 as possible of the other group in order to achieve some object which it 
 
 10 
 
War and Religion 
 
 desires. The object is generally either power or wealth." This definition 
 fits in better with the bellicosity of man as he emerges into the dawn of 
 primeval history many millennia ago; and on the basis of the claim and 
 counterclaim of present-day belligerents, it measures in no less apt terms 
 the meaning of war to this latest of the generations. 
 
 Assuming that the idea "war" is now clear, the much more difficult 
 task is encountered in attempting to define "religion." M. Jastrow, Jr., 
 in his "The Study of Religion" (London and New York 1902) devotes 
 an entire chapter of forty-four pages to the topic of "The Character and 
 Definitions of Religion." Further, R. R. Marett, in a more recent 
 publication frankly confesses: "Definitions of words are always trouble- 
 some; and Religion is the most troublesome of all words to define"." 
 
 As it is hardly within the scope of this book to undertake a lengthy 
 consideration of this very moot topic, it is necessary not to say desirable 
 now to reach some sort of a definition of religion that \\all appear at least 
 to embody, in however crude a manner, the essential idea or ideas com- 
 mon to the large majority of opinions expressed. Either a superficial 
 or intensive look into the literature seems to reduce all thought and 
 speculation on religion to a common denominator which may be expressed 
 by the word " mystery." One is tempted here to roam into psychological 
 by-ways especially with Leuba and possibly Marett, but again logical 
 sequence forbids. To return then to this element of mystery posited as 
 a, if not the, fundament in religion, most striking confirmation of the 
 appeal of the mysterious, as the soul of religion, is found in a little volume 
 published ostensibly to prove that "the scope of religion in society has 
 been declining all along the ages from the primitive world to ours*." 
 Yet the lasting impression which the booklet leaves is the thought 
 of the never-dying power of this sense in man mainly because it is rooted 
 in mystery. The author may speak for himself in the words*: — "The 
 potency of the mysterious is the fundamental historical basis of religion." 
 Continuing elsewhere, this sentiment is disclosed^: — "There are two 
 things which make awe and reverence eternally possible. And they are 
 the two which set us going along the whole path of this evolution, from 
 primitive man to ourselves, life on the one hand, and matteron theother — 
 
 and both are mysteries These are final mysteries, and there is 
 
 no fulcrum in all the universe to move them from our path, however we 
 strain on the lever." And he sums up his ideas in this conclusion*: — 
 "Indeed since we now see the mystery in life itself which we used to find 
 in death, as long as life endures the tremulous note of reverence will 
 sound across the still clear spaces of the mind. But the tone from that 
 eternal thrill will be moulded, under the control of reason, into other 
 forms than that fantastic, barbaric and discordant theme which has 
 held and still so largely holds the drama of our ancient myths — and our 
 theologies." 
 
 This same note is struck, though perhaps not with the same emphasis, 
 by Leuba in his "Psychological Origin of Religion." For present pur- 
 poses it may be sufficient to quote this sentence or two\ "The necessity 
 of a Maker is, no doubt, borne in upon the savage at a very early time, 
 not upon every member of the tribe, but upon some peculiarly gifted 
 individual who imparts to his fellows the awe-striking idea of a mysteri- 
 
 11 
 
War and Religion 
 
 ous, all-powerful Creator. The form under which the Creator is imag- 
 ined is, of course, derived from the beings with which his senses have 
 made the savage familiar." In somewhat similar vein runs the thought 
 
 of Toy who writes': — " in the vegetable world and in the life of 
 
 man in which nature's productivity is easily recognizable, life has been 
 perpetually unfolding itself under men's eyes as a mysterious process, 
 which by virtue of its mysteriousness, has become religious material and 
 has entered into systems of worship." Finally there should be quoted 
 Marett's telling words': — "I define the object of religion to be what- 
 ever is perceived as a mystery and treated accordingly." On the basis, 
 therefore, of these and many similar expressions the following definition 
 of religion is ventured more especially for the purposes of this disserta- 
 tion. Religion is an attitude to mystery. This appears to be inclusive 
 enough to provide for pre-human manifestations of brain development 
 and also to embrace the speculations of the most modem thinkers as 
 quoted above. 
 
 From these introductory considerations concerning the title and its 
 implications, the content and conclusions involved, the definitions of 
 war and religion, the way is cleared for a review of some basic theories 
 on man as a battler and man as struck by the mystery inherent in things. 
 
 12 
 
/. War and Religion in Theory 
 
 It was stated in the introductory observations that this study was to 
 be regarded as a preliminary one, making wholly preponderant the his- 
 torical element. While the all-important biological and psychological 
 foundations cannot and will not be slighted, it was felt that it was wisest 
 to deal with such highly developed social human institutions as are war 
 and religion from the standpoint of the abundant evidence which history 
 in its broadest lines affords. When the tale of this age-old witness had 
 been impartially told, an accurate conclusion could be arrived at; and 
 then seemed to be the proper time to marshal the discoveries and 
 theories of those special sciences that scrutinize the mechanism of the 
 organisms and more especially their mentations. In a word, it seemed 
 that history at its best must needs have a minimum of theory whereas 
 the disciplines so closely related to Sociology that deal with the life 
 processes would appear to have a maximum of hypothesis. Of course 
 like most distinctions, the differences are more apparent than real; for 
 ultimates are eternally facing one and the only anchorages are supposi- 
 tions. Nevertheless a conscious and continuous effort has been made to 
 steer clear of speculation by remaining on the broad expanse, on the 
 plainly evident ocean of centuries of vouched-for occurrences in the long 
 story of human evolution. To get under way then, this modicum of 
 attention to theories concerning war and religion must preface the record. 
 
 This prefatory theoretical section will be extremely limited and narrow 
 both in order to hew close to the purpose of these pages and to preserve 
 as much as possible unity of thought. Hence there will be given no 
 heed to a scientific Euhemerus in his efforts to rationalize religion nor 
 to such as are of the ilk of the Church Fathers who theologize divinity 
 into statute and ordinance. Nor again can the ancient classic thinkers 
 find a place here with their theories of war and society; and the same 
 scant courtesy must be shown to a Hobbes and Malthus as to a Gum- 
 plowicz. Mainly to fit into the spirit of what follows, this short excursus 
 into the hypothetical wall deal almost entirely with but a few of the most 
 modern thinkers, if not of contemporaries. 
 
 Just as the greater part of all thinking on the problem of religion, of 
 speculation past as well as present, sifts down to the idea of the attitude 
 to mystery, so the residuum of the greatest part of human thought 
 regarding the origin of all human institutions and endeavor points to 
 society, to the social complex, as the womb whence thoroughly evolved 
 man derived his being. In a word, these theories have it that apart from 
 society man would have been and is unthinkable. 
 
 To cite testimony there may be quoted the fairly recent opinion of 
 Marett. "Psychology" says he' "must preside over the investiga- 
 tions of Comparative Religion. It remains to make explicit what anthro- 
 pologists of the British school have hitherto recognized but vaguely, 
 that a Social, not an Individual, Psychology can alone be invested with 
 this function." And again, he posits firmly": — "I hold that religion 
 in its psychological aspect is, fundamentally a mode of social behavior." 
 
 1.3 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Practically in similar vein runs the thought of Russell when he states^ : — 
 "Devotion to the nation is perhaps the deepest and most widespread 
 religion of the present age. Like the ancient religions, it demands its 
 persecutions, its holocausts, its lurid and heroic cruelties; like them it is 
 noble, primitive, brutal and mad." 
 
 This school of sociological thought finds, perhaps, its best exponent 
 in Durkheim, especially as reflected in his "The Elementary Forms of 
 the Religious Life." This work, from cover to cover, misses no oppor- 
 tunity to insist that "religion is something eminently social*." Durldieim 
 sees the power of society in making the furniture of the mind, as for 
 example the categories of time and space. While recognizing the indi- 
 vidual element in man, it is the social which represents the highest. " In 
 so far as he belongs to society, the individual transcends himself, both 
 when he thinks and when he acts*." In his lengthy definition of reli- 
 gion, it is the "eminently collective" element that he emphasizes*. 
 
 He argues at great length' to show that "totemism is tightly bound up 
 with the most primitive social system which we know, and in all prob- 
 ability of which we can conceive." It is hardly pertinent to digress here 
 for a discussion of the claim to priority of totemism, or animism, magic, 
 teratism, shamanism or any other form of belief that has been posited by 
 scientists as first in religious evolution. Further, the discussion of a 
 definition of religion in the preceding chapter obviates the necessity of 
 pausing for Durkheim's definition of totemism, unless it be to note in 
 passing that he seems to dwell here more upon the mysterious than upon 
 the social factors^. It is valuable to mention that as he strives to make 
 wholly clear the totemic principle, he touches briefly on a matter that is 
 close to the heart of this general survey of the relations of war and reli- 
 gion. The totem, as the source of the moral life of the clan, binds the 
 members thereof together with definite duties of assistance, vendetta, 
 etc' Connecting the totemic principle with aboriginal ideas of wakan, 
 orenda, and mana, he concludes that "the idea of force is of religious 
 origin*"." 
 
 The socializing or integrating power of totemism centers in its symbol- 
 ism". He develops this idea of the symbol at great length using the 
 analogy of the flags of modern nations to make his thought vivid*^. He 
 logically turns then to a sort of "crowd psychology" interpretation of 
 social evolution*^. He clearly states that "it is in the midst of these 
 effervescent social environments and out of this effervescence itself that 
 the religious idea seems to be born." The cause of all these incitements 
 to the emotions is the omnipresent totem image, "just as the flag or 
 national emblem meets the citizen of a state in all places and events*^." 
 
 Durkheim now reaches the core of his interpretation of totemism**. 
 After dealing with the phenomena of tatooing, he traces the cause of 
 these emblematic images. He finds that animals were naturally brought 
 most in contact with nations of hunters and fishers, because "the animal 
 constituted an essential element of the economic environment*'." He 
 then turns to his original thesis in his summary when he repeats that 
 
 "This conception of totemism shows how logical evolution is 
 
 closely connected with religious evolution and how it, like this latter, 
 depends upon social conditions*^." 
 
 14 
 
War and Religion 
 
 In this interpretation then of the elementary forms of the religious life, 
 all emphasis is placed upon society, upon that integrative potentiality 
 inherent in humanity which renders group life the sine qua non of human 
 existence and survival. All human institutions find their origin and 
 maintenance in the gregarious instinct; and whatever has been and is 
 must stand the test of sociality. The lengthy work found room, only in 
 a footnote, for the importance of the individual; and even this brief 
 reference seems to have been written^^ in the spirit of showing how com- 
 pletely subservient is the unit to the whole. This thin piping note is 
 really lost in the heavy swell by which the main theme is exploited; for 
 practically, the closing words but duplicate the opening ones, when near 
 the very end of the volume, he says: "If religion has given birth to all 
 that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of 
 rehgion"." 
 
 Durkheim gave practically no attention to war, in this volume. But 
 if his dictum : " If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society" 
 be taken on its face value, his theory logically necessitates the corollary 
 that war is one of these by-products of religion. For whatever has been 
 and is in society must be essential to society. This is Durkheim's own 
 reasoning. He finds religion all pervasive in society, therefore, it is 
 essential to society. But is it any the less true that warfare has been and 
 is as surely a characteristic of society, and accordingly must have been 
 somewhat vital to the development and continuation of society.'* Grant- 
 ing this, war must be attributed to religion. For if religion has given 
 birth to all that is essential in society, and war is such an essential, then 
 war must be laid at its door. This reverses the stand established by this 
 study which aims to show that religion is secondary to war rather than 
 that war is subsidiary to religion. But Durkheim's logic seems to main- 
 tain the first contention of this work that there is a connection between 
 war and religion and that this connection is an essential one. And as for 
 the position of religion itself, he makes it secondary and altogether subor- 
 dinate to the social instinct in man. The question then that Durkheim 
 leaves concerns the relations of war and society. Does war necessarily 
 work for the ends of society, or does society inevitably mean war. This 
 larger field has been industriously ploughed, and results will be noted 
 later. For the present moment attention will be restricted to the thoughts 
 of other authorities on the relations of the social and the religious. 
 
 Leuba does not go to the extremes of Durkheim in paying tribute to 
 the powder of society, but he unhesitatingly asserts that traditional reli- 
 gion was a "pedagogical device in the interest of social and individual 
 mo^ality^^" He finds that the rejection of the two fundamental dogmas 
 of Christianity, i. e., God and immortality, is apparently "destined to 
 extend parallel with the diffusion of knowledge and the moral qualities 
 that make for eminence in the scholarly pursuits^^." His conclusion is 
 that moral ideals and moral energy have their source in social life^. It 
 is most interesting here to find his wholesale discount of religion in all 
 that makes for heroism and self-sacrifice^^. Most apropos of this sub- 
 ject of war and religion, is a remark, seemingly incidental, which Leuba 
 injects into the closing part of his work. He says: "In the monstrous 
 war we are now witnessing, is there a less heroic defense of home and 
 
 15 
 
War and Religion 
 
 nation, and less conscious self-renunciation for the sake of others among 
 the non-believers than among the professed Christians'^*?" 
 
 Jevons likewise endorses this social interpretation but with a stronger 
 accent on the religious factor. He finds that the lack of uniformity in 
 nature is the element provocative of the earliest glimmer of the light of 
 religion. Success in working the mechanism of nature man took to him- 
 self; "but when the machinery did not work, he ascribed the fault to 
 some overruling, supernatural power. In fine, when the natural ended 
 the supernatural began^^." "He must, therefore, from the beginning 
 have been brought to confront a mysterious power which was beyond 
 both his calculation and his controF'^." Jevons credits the origin of 
 Social Obligation to the taboo institution^^. It is not necessary to include 
 here his theory of the rise of totemism through the blood feud and super- 
 naturalism^^ A summary is aflForded by his own words: " . . .from the 
 beginning, religion was not an affair which concerned the individual only, 
 but one which demanded the co-operation of the whole community; and 
 a religious community was the earliest form of society*"." 
 
 It is difficult, however, to place one's finger on Jevons. At one point*' 
 he speaks of the development of religion in terms akin to Spencerian 
 organic evolution. But anon, one reads, inter alia, ". as the laws of 
 nature were in existence and in operation long before they were formu- 
 lated by man, so before the truth was formulated that God is Love, His 
 
 love was toward all His creatures so his heart responded with 
 
 love to the divine love Man, being by nature religious, began by a 
 
 religious explanation of nature'^." 
 
 These last words quoted gainsay the impression given at the beginning 
 of the book that it was the unusual, the catastrophic, the diseases, the 
 blood feuds with man and beast, the wars, that roused man to the state 
 of being aware of that mysterious power which was beyond both his cal- 
 culation and control. If this is so, then it is not unfair to bring Jevons 
 to support the assertion that there is an essential connection between war 
 and religion. Whether Jevons would regard this connection as thorough- 
 going is open to question. That war, however, is the primary factor, the 
 argument of Jevons would abundantly establish. For, according to him, 
 it is the cataclysm which crashes the truths of religion into man's mind, 
 and war is certainly of the nature of the cataclysmic. 
 
 One remains somewhat uncertain as to Keane's ideas on religion, 
 though he seems to affirm the dominating force of society^'. These 
 theories, however, on the place of religion in society, are best closed by 
 adverting briefly to Spencer, more especially as his words dovetail most 
 neatly into the second part of this chapter dealing with theories of war. 
 
 The Spencerian "Ghost Theory" has it that ancestor- worship is at the 
 root of every religion'*. His analysis of social grouping on the militant 
 and the industrial basis'* brings him to present, in a nutshell, the histori- 
 cal reaches of this study. Militant societies have religions of a militant 
 character and of enmity'^. The ecclesiastical organization follows the 
 lines of the political. " Generally where the militant type is highly devel- 
 oped, the political head and the ecclesiastical head are identical — the 
 king, chief descendant of his ancestor who has become a god, is also chief 
 propitiator of him'^." 
 
 16 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Spencer here gives a real bird's-eye view of the projected contents of 
 this volume. Along with a similarly sketchy reference in a most recent 
 book by Brandes to be referred to later, here is stated by Spencer the 
 nearest approximation of the goal to be reached by this study. Spencer 
 places war as the primary factor. Religion is placed in an essential and 
 secondary relationship to war; but the connections are not thorough- 
 going. Industrialism will bring peace. 
 
 In passing now from these theories concerning religion to those dealing 
 with war, Spencer may be referred to first not only because it conduces 
 to consecutiveness, but principally for the reason that there is hardly an 
 account to be found anywhere that gives in clearer and more convincing 
 fashion the all-potent role that warfare has played in the onward move- 
 ment of the social complex. 
 
 Spencer finds that "as at first, so afterwards, the wars of societies with 
 one another have all-important effects in developing social structures or 
 rather certain of them'^." It is pressure, and difficulty in evading that 
 pressure, that make for social integration^^. It is warfare between socie- 
 ties that originates governmental structures and increases their efficiency'"'. 
 " . . . .so the governmental-military organization of a society is initiated 
 by, and evolves along with, the warfare between societies''^" He traces 
 the influences of war on the horde, and the uncivilized. "In the semi- 
 civilized societies the conquering commander and the despotic king are 
 the same; and they remain the same in civilized societies down to late 
 times*2." 
 
 Pitt-Rivers seems to glory in conditioning the evolution of culture in 
 the past, present and future, on war. The struggle for mastery is most 
 literally construed by him. He places it beyond the possibility of a 
 doubt that "from the remotest age in which we find evidence of organized 
 beings, war has been ordained to an important function in the creative 
 process^'." He pities Utopian peace dreamers for "we find no more evi- 
 dence in nature of a state of society in which wars shall cease, than we do 
 of a state of existence in which we shall support life without food, or 
 propagate our species by other means than those which nature has 
 appointed**." One is prepared then for his striking rhetorical question: 
 
 "Who can doubt that an instinct so widely disseminated and so 
 
 identical in men and animals, must have been ordained for special 
 objects*^?" 
 
 The champions, however, of the idea that war has played such a deci- 
 sive part in man's past are legion; and they are so redoubtable that only 
 a few more scattering references will be included before closing this 
 section. 
 
 Strange as it may appear, Jevons must be included in this group*'; for 
 despite his idyllic picture of divine and human love, his pages contain 
 more than one statement to the effect that "In the view of early man, 
 war is a holy function; before going into battle, the sacrifice is offered to 
 the clan-god, the warriors are consecrated to him, and are placed under 
 the taboos ordinarily imposed on those who are in direct and special 
 communion with the clan-god*^." 
 
 Thomas throws a most illuminating side-light on this whole discussion 
 with his remarks on race prejudice. He closes his analysis of this fixed 
 
War and Religion 
 
 and instinctive trait of the mind by saying that "This is not a laudable 
 attitude, but it has been valuable to the group, because a bitter and con- 
 temptuous feeling is an aid to good fighting. No race or nation has yet 
 freed itself from this tendency to exalt and idealize itself^*." 
 
 A slightly more idealistic picture of man, the jBghter, is given by Kellogg 
 in his short but intensely interesting work: "Beyond War." The book 
 is all the more valuable because it appeared a scant two years before this 
 war broke out. He finds that man's beginnings, both phyletic and 
 ontogenic, are dominated by instinct, until slowly and painfully, reason 
 and control are in the ascendant, and "the grown race looks back with 
 horror to the brutish life of its glacial life beginnings."*^" While there are 
 remnants of these fighting instincts still inhering in man of today, the 
 dominating reason and soul of man is deliberately eliminating them^". 
 As evolution made man a fighter, it will also make him a peaceful crea- 
 ture substituting reason and altruism for instinct and egoism^'. 
 
 But Russell cannot find such roseate promise in the progressive use of 
 reason*^. The nub of the matter for him is the turning of the impulses 
 and passions into channels opposite to those that lead to war. "Blind 
 impulse is the source of war, but it is also the source of science, and art, 
 and love^*." So it is not the weakening of the life of impulse but the 
 directing of it that is the important thing. The crux of the matter for 
 him is "That the ultimate fact from which war results is the fact that a 
 large proportion of mankind have an impulse to conflict rather than har- 
 mony, and can only be brought to co-operate in resisting or attacking a 
 common enemy^." Basing himself on this belief, he encompasses the 
 whole range of human history in the few words: "In spite of the fact 
 that most nations at most times are at peace, war is one of the most per- 
 manent institutions of all free communities^^." 
 
 At this point, the review of theories concerning war will rest. It may 
 have seemed strange that so far no word has been written of Darwinian 
 theory. It was decided to postpone touching upon it until the closing 
 chapter. Thus in a most rapid and perhaps somewhat arbitrary fashion 
 there have been sketched some theories concerning war and religion. The 
 sum total of the authorities consulted yields more than a tithe of evidence 
 to support the original propositions of this study. Religion has been 
 found to be secondary whether society or war be placed first. Many 
 regard the role of religion as one devoted to the ends of society or war. 
 The large school of thinkers, who look upon society or sociality as the 
 rock-bottom factor in the evolving of the human type, was represented by 
 Durkheim, because his work is a most recent study, and he forges his 
 chain of reasoning with material which he regards as the earliest religion 
 of man, i. e., the system of totemism. On the basis of his statement: "If 
 religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because 
 society is the soul of religion;" there was found ample ground to sustain 
 the claim that religion is essentially connected with war. Similar support 
 was yielded by Jevons, in his interpretation of the influence of the super- 
 natural. With a word or two from several other scholars, the argument 
 from religious theories was closed with Spencer's plain expressions of the 
 subserviency of religion to the social process; and his equally unvarnished 
 inductions on the functional importance of war opened the second part 
 
 18 
 
War and Religion 
 
 of this chapter. A fitting complement was found in the assumptions of 
 Pitt-Rivers, who, in his "Evolution of Culture," which was issued in 
 1906 with an introduction by Henry Balfour, gives a most frank confes- 
 sion of faith in a Providence that has created organic life in such a way 
 that it must lead a warring existence. Several books were then referred 
 to that were published within the last three or four years, one of which 
 read that the same evolution which planted the pugnacious instinct in 
 man would also root it out. Finally, Russell's theory that the primary 
 impulse to war should be turned into channels, equally rousing and 
 passionate, but constructive instead of destructive, closed this glance 
 into the vast reaches of theory that men have evolved from many cen- 
 turies ago to the present day. The "prehistory" which was made so dis- 
 tinct in the sweeping view of Russell and Kellogg serves the course of 
 this study well as it turns now from theory to fact. The discussion of 
 "War and Religion in Fact" will begin with a search of the meager 
 records of the so-called men of the Stone Age, who were the remote 
 ancestors of the men of today. 
 
 19 
 
//. War and Religion in Fact 
 Section A — War Among Remote Ancestors 
 
 As the knowledge of the remote ancestors of mankind grows slowly, 
 but surely, in volume, the conviction becomes proportionately stronger 
 that the terminology used to describe them is unscientific and unfair. Of 
 course names often become so conventionalized that their implications 
 are no longer considered as judgments passed on their bearers; or they 
 become so fossilized that they survive through sheer inertia. As the 
 Fiji Islanders or tribes of Africa are thought of as pagans, or cannibals, or 
 savages, so men of the great Glacial Age are called prehistoric with all 
 the pride that a self-conscious civilization can put into the term. This 
 pride may be justified by the argument of Thomas quoted above, as of 
 survival value. But when placed in proper perspective, the whole scene 
 is rearranged. An enthusiast over the achievements of those most ancient 
 men will not be slow to turn the tables the other way. Even such appella- 
 tions as "men of the Stone Age" and especially "the primitive peoples" 
 have a ring to them, qualitatively, that should make for their disuse, in 
 the light of scientific fact. The view which Thomas gives^ of the mental 
 life and education of those men, so inconceivably removed from us in 
 time, ought to go far toward the reconstruction of language-technique, if 
 only for the sake of ordinary justice. A single quotation from the "Source 
 Book for Social Origins" may make this point most clear. "Modern inven- 
 tions" says Thomas "are magnificent and seem quite to overshadow the 
 simpler devices of primitive times ; but when we consider the precedents, 
 copies, resources, and accumulated knowledge with which the modern 
 investigator works, and on the other hand the resourcefulness of the 
 primitive man in materials, ideas, and in the inventive habit itself, I 
 confess that the bow and arrow seems to me the most wonderful inven- 
 tion in the world^." Further, it means but a most cursory reading of 
 O. T. Mason's account of "Woman's Share in Primitive Culture" to 
 complete this new attitude assumed to the people of long ago. 
 
 In the light of all this, it would be manifestly unfair not to say unsci- 
 entific to think of those folk of that far-off yesterday in any other way 
 than as the forbears of the present inhabitants of the earth. Hence these 
 pages will refer to them as Remote Ancestors. The name may be awk- 
 ward, but it is habit after all that rounds the edges of things. This train 
 of thought was started several years ago upon reading Thomas' "Source 
 Book for Social Origins," In it, he refers^ to tribal society as being a 
 "virtually delayed civilization, and the savages are a sort of contempo- 
 raneous ancestry." This last phrase "contemporaneous ancestry" was so 
 illuminating, suggestive, and above all so utterly frank and fair, that it 
 persisted in thought, and led to the idea of dividing this study into the 
 three major parts of Remote Ancestors, Immediate Ancestors, and Con- 
 temporaries. In whatever spirit this may be taken, it is safe to say that 
 some revision of concepts is necessary when thinking of the groups that 
 flourished millennia ago. What implications this may have for theories of 
 civilization and progress, may be touched upon subsequently. 
 
 20 
 
War and Religion 
 
 It may be well now to be more definite as to the time limits of the 
 periods to be treated. The first, that of Remote Ancestors, will include 
 those countless ages stretching from the dawn that first saw man as man 
 on this earth, to the budding of what is usually referred to as the period 
 of the early civilizations, such as Egj^pt, Babylon, Assyria. But in this 
 study these early civilizations will mark but the beginning of the second 
 large division called that of Immediate Ancestors. This latter period 
 extends to the present generation, referred to as the period of Contem- 
 porary Peoples. 
 
 The first, vast period, that of Remote Ancestors, will consist of two 
 large sections. The so-called "Men of the Old Stone Age" will be con- 
 sidered first. While not satisfactory, one must use perforce the usual 
 terms employed in speaking of men of this era as Eolithic, Palaeolithic 
 and Neolithic. The second section will deal with the " Contemporaneous 
 Ancestors" or the so-called ethnic groups, such as the aborigines of Tas- 
 mania, Australia, Siberia, North and South America, India and Africa. 
 
 The second large division will have three main sections. The first will 
 review war and religion among the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, 
 Zoroastrians, Buddhists of India, Chinese and Japanese. The second 
 .section will embrace the Greeks, Romans and Semites. The third will set 
 forth the attitude of Christianity and Mohammedanism. 
 
 The following chapter will give a survey of contemporary thought on 
 war and religion. Attention will naturally be concentrated on the imme- 
 diate present, A closing chapter will summarize conclusions and will 
 contain a word on a theory of progress. 
 
 Though these many groups will be investigated only as regards their 
 reactions to war and religion, the material at hand is so very bulky that 
 every effort will be made to keep strictly within due proportions the fair 
 samples of each that will be presented. The authorities to be most drawn 
 upon for the first part dealing with Remote Ancestors are H. F. Osborn, 
 in his "Men of the Old Stone Age" and T. E. Peet in his "The Stone and 
 Bronze Ages in Italy and Sicily." 
 
 Osborn considers, at some length, problems that belong more to the 
 biological and psychological fields, in presenting the dawn age of man. 
 As these factors are to be treated in a separate work, this study can now 
 present but the fact that the erect attitude enabled upright simians to 
 emerge from their ancestral forests in societies, armed with sticks and 
 stones "and with the rudiments of all the powers that eventually enabled 
 them to conquer the world^." The psychological analysis of these semi- 
 human creatures leaves no doubt that they were essentially fighters, with 
 no suggestion of rudimentary religion in their make-up*. 
 
 Europe was not the only scene of these struggling groups. The first 
 periods of human life, called Pre-Chellean and Chellean have left their 
 traces all over the world. They are not due to the transmission of culture 
 from one center, but arose spontaneously everywhere because of the 
 ubiquity of the needs of war, the chase and domestic life^. Life was passed 
 mainly in open camps with the rare exceptions, when caverns were sought 
 for protection from enemies and as rain shelters rather than as retreats 
 from a bitter, cold climate^. The workers of the Acheulian flints w^ho 
 were probably for the most part members of the Neanderthal race pene- 
 
 21 
 
War and Religion 
 
 trated all parts of western Europe except the Scandinavian and Alpine 
 ice-fields*. " It is only in late Acheulian times that human burial rites or 
 interments begin and that skeletal remains are found^." But as this 
 part is to deal with war among these Remote Ancestors, further reference 
 to these first evidences of religion must be deferred until the part con- 
 cerned with religion is reached'". Osborn states that "In many charac- 
 teristics the Neanderthal skull is shown to be nearer to that of the anthro- 
 poid apes than to that of Homo Sapiens"." 
 
 It is especially valuable to include here the reasoning of Broca in 
 explaining the superior mean capacity of the skull of early man. He said 
 that the average capacity of the skull in civilized nations must be lowered 
 by the preservation of a considerable number of individuals, weak in mind 
 and body, who would have been promptly eliminated in the savage state, 
 whereas in the savage state the average includes only the more capable 
 individuals who have been able to survive under extremely hard condi- 
 tions of life'-. 
 
 But this turn to the speculative must be curbed'^ to note the rigorous 
 climatic conditions'^ that enforced closer association among the Neander- 
 thals with the resulting impetus to social integration^^. This chance for 
 development, however, did not last long, speaking in terms of geologic 
 time, for "between twenty and twenty-five thousand years before our 
 
 era no trace of the survival of the pure Neanderthal type has been 
 
 found in any of the Upper Palaeolithic burial sites." It is presumed that 
 this sudden disappearance of the Neanderthals was due in part to degen- 
 eration, in part to the very severe conditions of life of the fourth glacia- 
 tion, but to no small extent to the entrance into Europe of the superior 
 Cro-Magnon race who dispossessed the Neanderthals of their principal 
 stations and drove them out of the country or killed them in battle. It 
 would seem that this new race possessed the bow and arrow. This alone 
 constituted a tremendous advantage over the Neanderthals who had 
 only wooden weapons and the stone headed dart and spear'^. These Cro- 
 Magnons belong to Homo Sapiens. Men of the modern type, therefore, 
 entered Europe somewhat over twenty-five thousand years ago. The 
 culture they brought to Europe bespeaks connections with the East, 
 "making it probable that their evolution had taken place somewhere on 
 the continent of Asia'^." 
 
 The fact that no evidence has thus far been found that even the Nean- 
 derthal women were spared or allowed to remain in the country is grim 
 proof of the methods of warfare of the Cro-Magnons. This new race, how- 
 ever, was a comparatively highly cultured one, excelling especially in the 
 aesthetic sense'*. It is noted that "the brain capacity of the Cro-Magnon 
 woman surpasses that of the average male of today'^." In art, this race 
 reached such a high point of excellence that Osborn refers to them as "the 
 Palaeolithic Greeks'-"." The highest point of development they reached 
 is known as the period of the Magdalenian Culture which began about 
 16,000 B. C.'-' It is inferred that these people had a form of tribal organ- 
 ization. Certain implements of reindeer horn, known as "batons de com- 
 mandement," which will be touched upon later, constituting one of the 
 common finds from this age, are supposed to have been insignia of author- 
 ity borne by the chieftains-. An enumeration of the weapons used by 
 
 22 
 
War and Religion 
 
 this race includes the description of javeUn points artistically decorated, 
 but also having deep grooves "perhaps intended for the insertion of 
 poisonous fluids or the outlet of blood-^." 
 
 Osborn thinks that "the decline of the Cro-Magnons as a powerful race 
 may have been due partly to environmental causes and the abandonment 
 of their vigorous, nomadic life;" or it may be they "had reached the end 
 of a long cj'cle of psychic development which we have traced from the 
 beginning of Aurignacian times. We know as a parallel that in the history 
 of many civilized races a period of great artistic and industrial develop- 
 ment may be followed by a period of stagnation and decline without any 
 apparent environmental causes-''." 
 
 The last phases of the Old Stone Age are believed to have extended 
 from about 10,000 to about 7,000 B. C. It is said that the entrance to 
 the final cultures is marked by a transition even more abrupt than the 
 preceding changes. As Osborn saw mostly warfare at the remote begin- 
 ning, so he lays greatest emphasis on this omnipresent element, in evolu- 
 tion, in his general summary. "No doubt each invasion, each conquest, 
 each substitution of an industry or a culture had within it the impelling 
 contest of the spirit and will of man, the intelligence directing various 
 industrial and warlike implements, the superiority either of force or of 
 mind^^." 
 
 Pitt-Rivers, of course, fully avers that the art of war was dominant in 
 the infancy of society-®. Keane affords similar testimony^^. Kellogg, while 
 more extreme in his chronology, agrees entirely that Glacial Man was 
 exclusively a hunter and killer. Fighting was carried on both intra- and 
 inter-group. Coming down to the last stages of the Stone Age, he con- 
 nects Neolithic Man with his bows and arrows, his strategy, cavalry, his 
 fighting at greater distances, and in groups as armies, with the wars of 
 Crete, Mycenae and Egypt^. Thomson thinks that the keen and literal 
 struggle, in the early days, round the platter of subsistence "wrought a 
 natural selection to which we of today owe much." Later, when self- 
 assertiveness supervened, the deadly inter-tribal wars favored not only 
 strength but also solidarity, and thus made for the civilization and prog- 
 ress of the present^^. Spencer assuredly finds that the co-operation 
 most urgent at the outset "is that required for dealing with environing 
 enemies and prey^**." 
 
 This tale could be extended almost ad infinitum ; for the facts which 
 have been so painstakingly revealed from the caverns and kitchen-mid- 
 dens and excavations tell the same story of man pre-eminently the fighter. 
 His struggle for existence is a most bloody one; and it is safe to say that 
 the pugnacious instinct is as active as are the instincts of food and sex. 
 Of religion, the accounts of earliest man are all silent. In the Ught of 
 facts, therefore, war is the primary factor in human evolution, long 
 existent before any manifestations of religion appear. When and how 
 religion enters the pattern that evolution is weaving is to be dealt with 
 now. 
 
 23 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Section B — Religion. Part 1 — Remote Ancestors 
 
 It seems generally agreed that it is impossible to state exactly how and 
 when man started on his religious evolution. Of course in theory, genet- 
 ics invariably proceed from pre-human stages. Religion may not be an 
 exception to this rule; but as facts, in the strictest sense of the term, are 
 now of uppermost interest, the argument will presume religion to be a 
 human institution. The evidence so far yielded by exploration and 
 research tends to show that when man assumed an attitude to the 
 mystery of the death of certain individuals, his thought and action meant 
 the beginning of religion. However Euhemeristic or Spencerian this may 
 sound, the facts all point that way. 
 
 One must be clear first on man's earliest attitude to death. It would 
 appear to be reasonable to say that death in general was as ordinary a 
 phenomenon to remote man as were all events in nature. Opinion 
 inclines to the view that the bodies of the dead and of the aged were 
 thrown out to the hyenas or simply neglected by the way. Osborn is 
 vacillating but lends weight to this view^^ Brinton argues for simple 
 exposure of the body, for beasts and birds to consume^^. Kellogg agrees 
 with this. He says that the earliest known human culture did not include 
 the crudest elements of religion, at least as they are made discernible by 
 any special care of the dead^^. While Leuba thinks contrariwise, his 
 words seem to apply more to ethnic societies of the present day, though 
 he does say that any person belonging to the human species must have an 
 aversion for casting to the dogs the body of a person liked and respected*^. 
 
 But the facts all seem to point to a time when man gave no heed to the 
 dead; and on the face of it, it is most reasonable to suppose that there 
 was such a time. However uncertain Osborn may appear to be, yet he 
 is authority for the statement: "It is only in late Acheulian times that 
 human burial rites or interments begin and that skeletal remains are 
 found^^." 
 
 What brought man to the practice of burial rites and ceremonial 
 interments? 
 
 A rational explanation may be found in the following. The Durk- 
 heim school lays all emphasis on the power of sociality. It goes, if one 
 may venture the opinion, to the mistaken length of reducing the individ- 
 ual's role to nil. But if earliest man was for the most part a fighter, his 
 group or herd instinct was most valuable if it was guided by skilful 
 leaders. Both reason and history testify to good leadership as a survival 
 factor. Sociality is extremely valuable; but leadership is equally so. 
 The mystery of the genius of leadership must have worked powerfully 
 upon man; just as the mystery of the social bond must have reacted 
 powerfully upon the leader. The unusual, the exceptional, the super- 
 natural, as Jevons uses the term, was evinced when one being, apparently 
 no different from the rest, came forward at the critical moment, and 
 brought the group to do what it deemed to be the impossible. This inter- 
 pretation may be dubbed atavistic, a resurrected hero-worship idea; but 
 the facts of earliest man, and the entire range of human history, support 
 it. It must have been the dead body of the powerful leader that still 
 evoked those feelings of regard, inspired by him while alive, that made 
 
 24 
 
War and Religion 
 
 the group first bestow some attention upon a corpse. Thus may have 
 arisen ceremonial burial and with it the beginnings of religion. 
 
 This interpretation is not meant to be an exclusive one. There may 
 have been other causes at work prior to and simultaneous with this 
 system of interment, making for the development of religious thought 
 and practice. But there is no tangible evidence of these. And as theory 
 is being eschewed for the present, it is safe to assert that all facts point 
 to the tombs of the chiefs as the first and greatest evidence that man was 
 assuming an attitude to mystery, that is, he was beginning to think 
 "religiously." 
 
 A. H. Quiggin finds that our only guides to the religion of Primeval 
 Man are the few hints found in prehistoric graves^^. "... .to the Neo- 
 lithic Age belong some of the most impressive funeral monuments ever 
 erected by man, ranking justly among the wonders of the world. The 
 most characteristic and remarkable forms of burial (probably reserved 
 for chiefs and important persons) were those in the long barrows and 
 those associated with megaliths or stone monuments'^." Here Leuba can 
 adduce some helpful testimony'^. In general, he says that one finds very 
 early and in many tribes that "warriors and chiefs are assigned to a bet- 
 ter and special heaven, etc.'^" Jevons finds that "blood, babes and 
 corpses" are three classes of objects that are inherently taboo*". Keane 
 proves from neolithic architecture that it was in burial, in veneration 
 (fear) of the dead that the first glimmerings of religious sentiment 
 appear*^ Brinton discusses this material at some length*^ and mentions 
 specifically the theory that religion began when the living thought 
 seriously of the dead, which he characterizes as a hasty assertion"**. 
 Nevertheless he finds also that the characteristic feature of the neolithic 
 period is the funeral monument. "Then the full meaning of Death 
 seems to have broken suddenly on man, and his whole life becomes little 
 more than a meditatio mortis, a preparation for the world beyond the 
 tomb**." Kellogg finds only Glacial and early post-Glacial Man to have 
 possessed the beginnings of religion, "at least that basic feature of it 
 betrayed by special attention to the dead body*^." He refers specifically 
 to Neohthic Man with his convention for the burial of the dead*®. 
 
 It is, of course, from Osborn and Peet that convincing evidence in 
 abundance can be secured. Osborn gives a detailed account of the most 
 recent discoveries in the Dordogne region*^. The ceremonial burials dis- 
 covered there and elsewhere, enabled him to conclude that "the Neander- 
 thal race was imbued with reverence for the dead ..." The Cro-Magnons 
 followed the burial customs of the Neanderthals in many respects**. 
 There were interred with the remains, implements of industry and war- 
 fare together with offerings of food*^. His general conclusion is that 
 "The religious sense, the appreciation of some power or powers behind 
 the great phenomena of nature, is evidenced in the reverence for the 
 dead, in burials apparently related to notions of a future existence of the 
 dead, and especially in the mysteries of the art of the caverns^"." 
 
 Peet finds even more true for the Bronze and Iron Ages what Osborn 
 established for the Palaeolithic^^ He also speaks of the considerable 
 funeral furniture and special methods of sepulture^'. He shows that 
 there was a very elaborate cult connected with the burial of the dead^. 
 
 25 
 
War and Religion 
 
 From resemblances noted with the finds made in other parts of Europe, 
 he concludes that the neolithic inhabitants of Italy were of the same stock 
 as those of other parts of Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor^. 
 
 He calls the period succeeding the Neolithic, the Eneolithic, the dis- 
 tinguishing feature of which is the rock-hewn chamber-tomb*^. This period 
 is the link uniting our Immediate Ancestors with our Remote Ancestors; 
 and it is best mirrored, so far, in the remains on the island of Sardinia 
 with its inhabited caves, rock-tombs, "Giants' Graves," dolmens, men- 
 hirs and nuraghi*^. Of these, the nuraghi seem to be the most interesting 
 as they were the fortresses of the head of the tribe, "the centers perhaps 
 of the tribal religion"*^. Peet says that the advent of the first weapons of 
 copper is the distinguishing feature of the period. The influence of Crete 
 and the Spanish peninsula are apparent in Sardinia^. 
 
 Turning to the Lake Dwellers and the Terramara folk, Peet discloses 
 the type cultures of the late eneolithic and of the bronze*^. Here again 
 connection with the iEgean area is evident in cemeteries with elaborate 
 tombs and rich funeral furniture^". Some interments show the transition 
 stage from bronze to iron^^ 
 
 A summary of all this material must show how thoroughly it substan- 
 tiates the ideas formulated in this study. When man looms on the hazy 
 horizon which the light of scientific data is making clearer every day, he 
 is found engaged in a deadly struggle for existence with a self-preserva- 
 tion program of "kill or be killed." Of the more than scanty remains of 
 those millennially distant days, there is nothing to show that man had 
 originally any religious ideas at all. As this instinctive program of self- 
 preservation developed the horde and horde-leadership, there emerge 
 into the realm of fact the first discovered bits of evidence that man was 
 aware of some mystery inhering in things. His first attitude to this 
 unknown and unknowable is shown presumably in the care with which 
 he regarded the apparently useless dead body of his leader. Osborn'.s 
 supposition that "batons de commandement" were insignia of authority 
 borne by the chieftains^- is helpful here, more especially when he testifies 
 that "Geographically, the batons spread from the Pyrenees into Belgium 
 and eastward into Moravia and Russia^." 
 
 At all events, the facts reveal man showing particular regard to some 
 dead bodies; and the evidence for the ofiice of chief, though slight, makes 
 it not unreasonable to suppose that early man's respect, love, fear and 
 reverence for his living chief roused the earhest religious thoughts over 
 his dead body. For the chief had shown himself a conqueror of every- 
 thing else except that mystery which stole the chief's breath, or made the 
 life-blood run out of his body, or subjected him, the otherwise all-power- 
 ful, to the same ordinary process of decay and drivelling age that all other 
 mortals had to pass through. The nature of the regard for the dead was 
 .shown in the funeral furniture, the most common objects of which were 
 the weapons used in the life-struggle. 
 
 As life became more complex, it can hardly be doubted that social 
 integration exalted to an ever higher plane the leaders who did so much 
 to secure the survival of the group. A people that could reach the 
 remarkable art level, so vividly described by Osborn and others, must 
 have enjoyed an unusual degree of social complexity which was built on 
 
 26 
 
War and Religion 
 
 a substratum of division of labor and specialization in functioning. 
 Wliile some scholars see in the marvellous cave-art, connections with 
 religion, the weight of opinion seems justly placed on the contrary view. 
 It does appear to imply too much of sophistication to read magical prac- 
 tices into these artistic endeavors of our Remote Ancestors. For this 
 reason, this accomit lets the matter rest by quoting Osborn's reference to 
 the men of the Magdalenian Culture as "the Pala^lithic Greeks." 
 
 The distinctive religious fact of those earliest races of man was that of 
 the burial rite, the ceremonial interment. This becomes clearer as 
 Neolithic and Eneolithic Man unfold their story, the main features of 
 which deal with their respect and regard for the dead. This closing period 
 of the life of our Remote Ancestors was marked by the erection of the 
 giant tombs that could have been intended only for the leaders, the chief- 
 tains, especially those head men who had led their hosts to victory. 
 
 This unfoldment, then, of the earliest evidence concerning man in his 
 reactions to war and religion shows that war was primary, and existent 
 long before religion entered upon the scene. As social grouping increases, 
 the men who excel in fighting and in directing the battles of the group 
 arouse such sentiments in their followers that they persist beyond the 
 leader's life. The dead body is honored by careful burial. This ceremonial 
 interment preserved, to this day, the first proof so far discovered, that 
 man had started on his religious evolution. The memory of the dead chief 
 was a source of power for his successor and for the group. The religious 
 tradition may be said to have started, as far as the evidence goes, for 
 the ends of war; and to have grown and have been perpetuated for the 
 same reason. Hence religion was essential and secondary to war; and 
 its connection with war was thoroughgoing throughout this first period, 
 after it appeared in the ceremonial burials of Palteolithic Man, and was 
 continuously evinced in the megalithic monuments that were the dis- 
 tinguishing feature of the closing days of our Remote Ancestors. 
 
 Instead of continuing the thread into the clear, historic weaving of our 
 Immediate Ancestors, it was deemed best to pause here to consider those 
 present-day helpless folk whose culture is supposed to parallel, to some 
 extent, the life of our Remote Ancestors; and who have already been 
 referred to, in the words of Thomas, as our Contemporary Ancestors. 
 
 Section B — Part 2 — War and Religion Among Contemporaneous Ancestors 
 
 Tylor, in his "On the Limits of Savage Religion," gives a timely 
 reminder that missionary influences have affected the beliefs of these 
 humble folk for hundreds of years^. Granting this to be a fact is of no 
 special concern to this study. For the present interest is to observe 
 man's reactions to war and religion. It is immaterial what extraneous 
 influences affected his position. 
 
 Tylor in his "On the Tasmanians as Representatives of Palaeolithic 
 Man," portrays a picture of these recently vanished folk that resembles in 
 broad outlines the characteristics of our Remote Ancestors as sketched 
 above*^. H. L. Roth in "Aborigines of Tasmania" fills in many details**. 
 Much of their religious thinking centered about death". Of three forms 
 of taboo, two related to death®^. As for war, they were perpetually 
 
 27 
 
War and Religion 
 
 engaged in savage battling among themselves**^. Further references 
 would but show that they had a minimum of religion and a maximum of 
 war. (See further references, 70-75, in the Reference Section.) As they 
 are, in part, of the stock of the Australian Aborigines, the outline of war 
 and religion among these latter will atone for this curt treatment of the 
 Tasmanians. 
 
 The connection between the Tasmanians and the Australian Aborigines 
 is set forth in the up-to-date, scientific studies of Baldwin and Spencer.^* 
 They refer to the Tasmanians as of the Pala?olithic type. While the 
 Australian tribes are described as being quite pacific in their mutual rela- 
 tions'^ '^, there is abundant material to prove that this is relatively, 
 rather than absolutely, true'^. 
 
 Sacred ceremonies play a very large part in the life of these people. 
 They are all connected with the ancestors of the tribe*". "In every tribe 
 there exists a firm belief in the reincarnation of ancestors*^" Totemism 
 is all prevalent; and it is very valuable to note here that most of the 
 totemic groups believe that they arose as the direct offspring of one great 
 eponymous ancestor*^. This brings some support to the notion that reli- 
 gion had its rise, in part, at the tomb of the dead leader. The belief in 
 the Wollunqua totem most vividly illustrates this supposition. (Refer- 
 ences 83, 84, 85 and 86.) 
 
 Of direct bearing on the matter of warfare among these tribes are the 
 bloody rites of initiation^'; the practice of infanticide**; and the fire 
 ceremony** which was a form of personal arbitration of old quarrels. 
 All ceremonies were handed down to them from the Alcheringa ancestors 
 who were a kind of supermen**'. They believed in good and evil spirits*'. 
 The Avenging Party is a common institution*^. The medicine man aids 
 the Party to find the guilty man*^ **. The authors say that year after year 
 an endless kind of vendetta is maintained among these tribes, though 
 fortunately, it sometimes happens that there is more noise than blood- 
 shed**. Their weapons and implements are typical of both the Palaeo- 
 lithic and Neolithic Periods. (References 96 to 98.) 
 
 Particularly noteworthy are the Churinga which are specially marked 
 sticks kept in a sacred storehouse called the Ertnatulunga. These are the 
 most sacred possessions of the tribe. These sticks represent not only the 
 living members of the tribe but also the dead ones, notably the special 
 men of the Alcheringa, described roughly before as a kind of supermen 
 ancestors. The Churinga of these dead are especially valuable for battle, 
 giving to the possessor courage and accuracy of aim**. This may serve as 
 a climax to the abundant testimony, afiForded by these volumes, of the 
 close connection between war and religion among these Australian 
 Aborigines; and at the same time of the large part the important dead 
 play in their warfare. (See further references 100 to 106.) 
 
 This testimony from the Australian Aborigines is fully confirmed by a 
 study of the American Indian (see references 107 to 1 15) ; by a most super- 
 ficial review of the "Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedi- 
 tion to Torres Straits" (see references 116 to 122); in Codrington's 
 account of the Melanesians. Codrington shows how the concept "Mana" 
 is closely bound with success in warfare. The test of Mana in the ghost 
 of a great departed warrior is the victory he helped his folk to obtain. 
 
 28 
 
War and Religion 
 
 (See references 123 to 127.) The aboriginal folk of Africa also have 
 beliefs and customs which show how vital is the bond that unites war 
 and religion. (See references 128 to 145.) W. H. R. Rivers in his work 
 on the Todas of India (see references 146 to 153) gives pjeculiarly inter- 
 esting support to the weighty evidence already alluded to. The traits of 
 war gods and of a warrior people survive among this isolated group in 
 India with slightly greater functioning power than that which marks a 
 vestigial organ. Rivers almost apologetically explains that "This disuse 
 of weapons has indeed so obvious an explanation that it cannot be treated 
 as an instance of degeneration." Does not this opinion betray the uncon- 
 scious thought processes that associate war and its weapons with all that 
 is virile, alive and possibly regenerative and progressive in humanity? 
 Traversing Asia from tropic India to bleak Siberia there are discovered 
 tribes whose blood feuds, blood-revenges, warfare and Shamanism paral- 
 lel all the preceding record. Passing note should be made of groups 
 referred to as Palaeo-Siberians, who leave the corpse a short distance 
 from the door of the hut to be eaten by dogs. (See references 153 to 163.) 
 Turning to the Inca of South America, it is found that they claimed 
 divine origin for themselves thus giving a religious character to the wars 
 of conquest they carried on. Other South American Aborigines wor- 
 shipped war gods by pouring out to them the blood of prisoners or offer- 
 ing the hearts of prisoners to them. Ancestor worship was generally 
 practiced. Careful attention was given the disposal of the dead. There 
 was an abundance of funeral furniture, not the least item of which was 
 the weapon. (See references 164 to 170.) 
 
 The foregoing makes it amply clear that it is in the death of the head 
 man that these Remote and Contemporaneous Ancestors find a great 
 stimulus for thought on the mystery in things. It is the ghost or spirit 
 of the departed, with its Churinga, its Mana, its power, that is appealed 
 to in various ways mainly for the sake of success in warfare. Haddon 
 summarizes it well in saying that the sacred principle of the African 
 Aborigines and their ilk is: "Do unto your ancestors as you would they 
 should do unto you." (Compare preceding reference 130.) 
 
 But whether the death of certain individuals did or did not initiate 
 to a great extent man's religious evolution is at present beside the mark. 
 This rapid glance at these groups commonly known as the men of the 
 Stone Age, and as ethnic societies such as the Tasmanians, Australians, 
 American Indians, Torres Straits inhabitants, African tribes, Todas of 
 India, Siberian folk and South American Aborigines, reveals the close 
 interrelations that have ever been maintained between war and religion. 
 War, death and religion seem to constitute a trilogy of the drama of 
 human unfoldment. The struggle for existence did not become the less 
 bloody because man was developing a superior brain, and concomitantly 
 evolving the mysterious sanctions of religion. On the contrary, an 
 essential part of the ceremonious care of the dead was the dispostion of 
 weapons beside the corpse. 
 
 The question may be raised as to the legitimacy of referring to these 
 isolated ceremonial burials of the Stone Age, if not to the bloody rites 
 and practices of the ethnic folk, as being of a religious nature. But it may 
 be justified on the basis of the definition of religion used in this study, as 
 
 29 
 
War and Religion 
 
 simply an attitude to mystery. This can include the recognition of a 
 faith with a god or gods or without them. The mysterious power or 
 powers in and about man may be vaguely referred to as Churinga, Mana, 
 Manitou, spirits or ghosts. It may be evidenced in the special forms of 
 interment alone. It may call for sacrifices of the bloodiest character or 
 merely for beautiful prayers. It may consist of magical rites or on the 
 other hand of a tenuous system of charitable and ethical endeavor with 
 vague intimations of the impossibility of penetrating beyond the veil. 
 But the heart of it all is the mystery inherent in things. 
 
 This sense of mystery seemed to baffle man first, as far as actual testi- 
 mony so far wrested from a fabulously ancient past goes, when he stood 
 by the corpse of the leader who helped him conquer in war. For it was 
 in war that man needed most his genius. The conquests of beasts of prey 
 and animals for food could not have pricked his mental processes beyond 
 the stage reached by the wariest and most cunning animals which had 
 accomplished as much for themselves. Again, however, be it emphasized, 
 that this does not mean that man may not have been dimly aware of 
 mystery when the elements of nature baffled and overpowered him. 
 Teratism may have preceded the incitement of the war-hero's corpse and 
 tomb, in opening man's mind to the elements of religion. But the only 
 evidence from the dim past comes from the grave, the tomb, the dolmen, 
 the megalithic monuments. 
 
 Again, teratism, or animatism, or animism, or totemism, or Frazer's 
 pre-religious stage of magic, or taboo seem to imply thoughts far beyond 
 earliest man. Further, none of them seems close enough to the demands 
 of primeval struggle. Food is the fundamental problem of life. Sex is 
 almost equally so. Food and sex questions become acute when life is 
 lived in groups. The mighty, stimulating problem, then, must have been 
 the one of group against group. The array of evidence from Remote 
 Ancestors, so thoroughly supplemented by the bloody tale of Contem- 
 poraneous Ancestors with its great homage paid to the powerful ancestors 
 of the Alcheringa, to the war-chiefs, the men with Mana, or to the Only 
 Inca, must reveal how true it appeared and appears to these folk that 
 when they kill their enemies they are serving a most sacred, holy cause. 
 The successful leader of the group seems to be the most natural source for 
 arousing thoughts on the mysterious. This was early man's most pressing 
 need in the life struggle; and it is not insignificant that the only evidence 
 that man pondered on the mysterious in those remote ages should come 
 from the ceremonial burials. Nowhere have any objects been unearthed, 
 connected with the Stone Age, that show man reflecting on the mystery 
 of lightning, thunder, earthquake, volcano, flood and whirlwind. It 
 does seem reasonable to say that these baffling elements must have early 
 stirred within him intimations of that Power so variously called and 
 called upon, by him as well as by our Immediate Ancestors and by men 
 of today. But these did not represent continuously pressing needs. It 
 was leadership that was vital. The man with organizing and executive 
 genius, especially to win the battle, was the man who gave intimations of 
 that greater power which invested everything the great man touched 
 with his Mana. 
 
 Whether all religion followed from this, or it was one of the principal 
 
 30 
 
War and Religion 
 
 manifestations of the dawning of the rehgious sense, the all-important 
 fact remains that when religion does appear on the scene, it is the abettor 
 of war. No matter in what part of the globe men of this early estate are 
 studied, they are found spending much, if not most of their time, battling 
 or preparing for battle. Religion enters upon the scene approving, incit- 
 ing and blessing the hosts thnt ceremoniously lay weapons about the 
 carefully interred corpse; or that go forth with sacred sticks and stones, 
 the Churinga. the Shaman's box, the dead body of the warrior blessed 
 with Mana, to defeat and slay their enemies. War is primary; religion is 
 essential and secondary to it. Religion finds its usefulness, in great part, 
 throughout this entire period of Remote Ancestors, in insuring the suc- 
 cess of its battling votaries. 
 
 If it be grudgingly or ungrudgingly agreed that such relations between 
 war and religion were a vital part of the metamorphosis of religion as well 
 as of the social process as a whole, still comfort is often sought by those 
 who show extreme, if not laudable concern for a theory of progress, in 
 the prospect of the marvelous spiritual advance that man was to make in 
 the so-called historic era. Balm is found in the reflection that all begin- 
 nings are crude. He who sees the artist merely drawing lines, mixing 
 colors, and making a few daubs, and has never seen complete the inspired 
 work of the artist's vivid imagination, would have, necessarily, but 
 derision for art. 
 
 Accordingly one is urged to look at the glorious pictures of the earliest 
 and, more especially, of present-day civilizations. The intimation is that 
 religion will be found to be as quahtatively different from and superior 
 to the attitude assumed to mystery by our Remote Ancestors, as modern 
 scientific man is different from the so-called savage. To satisfy such 
 natural if not just expectations, the light of history is, therefore, turned 
 on the scenes which once filled with such pomp and grandeur the banks 
 of the Nile, Euphrates and Tigris; which reveal Persian pageantry and 
 the perfervid life of India, the quaintness of China and Japan, the dazzl- 
 ing intellectual and artistic eminence of Greece, and the trappings of 
 Imperial Rome, and the mystic visions which the Semite beheld in the 
 barren desert. And the report of these very visions was carried with 
 incredible swiftness by the Roman Eagle with its Hellenistic wings to the 
 north and west, where it was translated into the symbol of the Cross, 
 which has been carried for almost two thousand years by the marching 
 hosts of Christendom in Europe and America. To the south and east the 
 report of these visions was carried by the intrepid rider of the Arabian 
 steed; and made over into the symbol of the Crescent, became the stand- 
 ard of the mighty Mohammedan world. 
 
 After one has given regardful attention to this kaleidoscopic view of 
 these nations, which constitute the period of our Immediate Ancestors, 
 one is prepared to form a judgment on the relations of war and religion 
 throughout this second period, compare it with the results found in the 
 case of our Remote Ancestors; and then proceed with an investigation 
 of Contemporaries. 
 
 31 
 
///. War and Religion in Fact: Period of 
 Immediate Ancestors 
 
 Section A — Bird's-Eye View of War in the First Part of the Period 
 
 Breasted, in his "Ancient Times" says that the men of Stone Age 
 Europe, alter fifty thousand years of progress carried on by their own 
 efforts, reached a point, about 3,000 B. C, where they could advance no 
 farther. It is in the Orient, therefore, that he finds the beginning of 
 civiHzation which is between five and six thousand years old. When 
 Europe ac(iuired the use of metals and writing from the Orient, it was 
 then that civilized leadership both in peace and war shifted slowly from 
 the Orient to Europe^ As Thomas waxed eloquent over the inventions 
 of our Remote Ancestors, so Breasted writes enthusiastically about the 
 discovery, by the Egyptians, of the art of writing. This discovery, he 
 says, is "more important than all the battles ever fought and all the 
 constitutions ever devised^." 
 
 While Egypt was the first to develop highly the arts of peace, its evo- 
 lution was, nevertheless, marked by internal and external warfare. The 
 first general of history, the greatest of Egyptian conquerors, the Napo- 
 leon of Egypt, was Thutmose III, who, about 1500 B. C, waged years 
 of warfare and crushed the cities and kingdoms of Western Asia, solidi- 
 fying them into an empire. At the same time his war fleet carried his 
 power to the iEgean, and one of his generals became governor of the 
 iEgean Islands'. 
 
 But the palm for the first and highest development of the arts of war is 
 awarded to the civilizations built on the banks of the Euphrates and the 
 Tigris. War was the constant state of affairs in the early history of the 
 Sumerians from about 3050 to 2750 B.C.* And most bellicose were their 
 successors, the Assyrians whose state was a vast military machine, 
 "more terrible than any mankind had ever yet seen." The Hittites had 
 introduced iron into Assyria, so that the Assyrian forces were the first 
 large armies equipped with weapons of iron. "The Assyrian Empire, 
 especially in its great military organization, marked a long step forward 
 in the gradual growth of the idea of all-including world-power, which 
 culminated at last in the Roman Empire." And it was the warfare of 
 Assyria that roused the Hebrews to that God-concept which "so pro- 
 foundly influenced the entire later history of mankind^." 
 
 But one must hurry to that point at which the author gives one of the 
 most vivid and sweeping views of world-history that it seems possible 
 to find. He limns with a few bold strokes thousands of years of bloody 
 struggle over thousands of miles of territory. He says: "The history of 
 the ancient world, as we are now to follow it, was largely made up of the 
 struggle between this southern Semitic line, which issued from the 
 Southern grasslands, and the northern Indo-European line, which came 
 forth from the Northern grasslands, to confront the older civilizations 
 
 represented in the southern line The two great races face each other 
 
 across the Mediterranean like two vast armies stretching from Western 
 
 32 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Asia westward to the Atlantic. The later wars between Rome and Car- 
 thage represent some of the operations on the Semitic left wing; while 
 the triumph of Persia over Chaldea is a similar outcome on the Semitic 
 
 right wing The result of the long conflict was the complete triumph 
 
 of our ancestors, the Indo-European line, which conquered all along the 
 center and both wings and finally gained unchallenged supremacy 
 throughout the Mediterranean world under the Greeks and Romans. 
 This triumph was accompanied by a long struggle for the mastery 
 between the members of the northern line themselves. Among them the 
 victory moved from the east end to the west end of the northern line, 
 as first the Persians, then the Greeks, and finally the Romans gained con- 
 trol of the Mediterranean and Oriental world®." 
 
 The gigantic proportions and lengthy duration of these combats com- 
 pel one to pass by the Hebrews*, Hittites^, and yEgean and Greek 
 world'" ". The important thing to note is that war is as all prevalent 
 throughout this, the greater part of the period of our Immediate Ances- 
 tors, as it was found to have been among our Remote Ancestors. The 
 critical question concerns the role of religion in the midst of this contin- 
 uous conflict. The religions, therefore, of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Per- 
 sia, Buddhist India, China and Japan will be rapidly reviewed first. 
 Then will follow an investigation of the religious beliefs of the Greeks, 
 Romans and Semites. Finally, for this period of our Immediate Ances- 
 tors, Christianity and Islam will be examined. Of course it must be 
 remembered that this study will limit the observations of all these nations 
 and faiths to the reaction of the respective religionists to war. 
 
 Section B — War and Religion Among the Most Ancient of Our Immediate 
 Ancestors. Part 1 — The Egyptians 
 
 Prehistoric Egyptian life lends color to the generalization drawn from 
 the remains of our Remote Ancestors that it is war which unearths reli- 
 gion, moulds it according to its will, and puts the stamp upon it that 
 makes it current for human circulation. Breasted in his "Development 
 of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt" seems to confirm distinctly 
 this theory. He says: "As the prehistoric principalities, after many cen- 
 turies of internal conflict, coalesced to form a united state, the first great 
 national organization of men in history (about 3400 B. C), this imposing 
 fabric of the state made a profound impression upon religion, and the 
 forms of the state began to pass over into the world of the gods . . " "As 
 the arena of thought and action widened from national limits to a world 
 of imperial scope, when the Egyptian state extended to embrace contig- 
 uous Asia and Africa, the forces of imperial power continually reacted 
 upon the thought and religion of the empire." 
 
 Further detailed examination shows that the main course of the his- 
 tory of the Egyptian religion has to do with the rivalry between the 
 great sun god Re, or by whatever other name he is known, and the great 
 Nile god Osiris^. The sun god is the ally and protector of the king, who 
 
 "hacks up for him all the strongholds of Asia " The god is a kind of 
 
 celestial reflection of the earthly Pharaoh. "This phenomenon," adds 
 Breasted, " is, of course, merely a highly specialized example of the uni- 
 
 33 
 
War and Religion 
 
 versal process by which man has pictured to himself his god with the 
 pigments of his earthly experience." He finds the Messianic king in 
 Hebrew thought but an analogous process^. Moore notes in a similar 
 manner how local political conditions wrought parallel changes in the 
 local gods "under whose banners. . .the rulers of the cantons. . . .fought 
 with one another or against their nominal overlords*." 
 
 Another strong link binding the religious thinking of our Remote 
 Ancestors with that of the Egyptians is the latter's attitude to death. 
 Breasted asserts that there never was a people among whom the idea of a 
 life beyond the grave held such a prominent place. The excavations dis- 
 closing the prehistoric communities along the Nile show that from the 
 fifth millennium B. C. these people must have had an advanced belief in 
 the future life. In the bottom of the pits which these folk dug in the 
 desert gravel, and which were but a few feet in depth, were found 
 thousands of bodies with the "feet drawn up toward the chin surrounded 
 by a meager equipment of pottery, flint implements, stone weapons, and 
 utensils'". . ." The theory that ceremonial burial was accorded first and 
 foremost to the chieftain and leader finds some support in Breasted's 
 discussion of the Pyramids. In fine, he says : "The great pyramids of Gizeh 
 represent the effort of the titanic energies absorbing all the resources 
 of a great state as they converged upon one supreme endeavor to sheathe 
 eternally the body of a single man, the head of the state, in a husk of 
 masonry so colossal that by these purely material means the royal body 
 might defy all time and by sheer force of mechanical supremacy make 
 conquest of immortality'." A discussion of the " Coffin Texts^" and of the 
 "Book of the Dead^" follows, but as its trend is essentially in accord with 
 all the preceding, no further mention need be made of the remarkable 
 regard for the dead that characterized the Egyptian religion. 
 
 Reference has been made already to the expansion of Egypt into the 
 first stable empire in history, in the sixteenth century B. C. This political 
 growth developed the god-idea to monotheistic proportions. Breasted 
 sizes up tersely the situation in the words : " Monotheism is but imperial- 
 ism in religion^"." Egypt proved the truth of this both positively and 
 negatively. The short-lived revolution of Ikhnaton may be said to repre- 
 sent the climax of the monotheistic tendency, built as it was upon the 
 vast conquests of his predecessors. So much for the positive. On the 
 other hand, with the decline of Egypt from the thirteenth century 
 onward, all religious zeal ran into channels of an ever greater increase of 
 mortuary practices and to sacerdotalism. So that religion in Egypt 
 became not only the tool of the state but learnt to covet kingly power". 
 Moore gives the records of this church militant in Egypt with its heredi- 
 tary priesthood, vast estates and large bodies of troops. Finally in the 
 year 1000 B. C. the Theban high-priest who had been the ruler of the 
 land, boldly set aside the fiction of ruling for the king and seated himself 
 upon the throne'^. This is the first link in that long chain of evidence 
 presented by history, that when religion secures the reins of government 
 it becomes the servitor of war equally as much as when the laity is the 
 head of the state. 
 
 These facts from Egyptian history as gleaned from the prehistoric 
 graves with their implements and weapons as funeral furniture; as read 
 
 34 
 
War and Religion 
 
 easily from the gigantic monuments of the Pyramid Age; and as gener- 
 ally noted from the great array of mortuary practices, and from the evo- 
 lution of sacerdotahsm, show that there is an essential connection 
 between war and religion in which religion is secondary; and that for 
 Egypt, this connection was thoroughgoing''. 
 
 As the development of Babylonia and Assyria was synchronous with 
 that of Egypt, war and religion will be briefly investigated in these lands. 
 
 Part 2 — War and Religion in Babylonia and Assyria 
 
 One feels increasingly apologetic for taking the volumes written by 
 erudite scholars to pieces, picking out a few sentences and summaries for 
 substantiating the main ideas presented in these chapters. Thus Jas- 
 trow's searching and systematic study on the religion of Babylonia and 
 Assyria contains a great amount of evidence of very special value for 
 this work; but not only will very much of it have to be omitted for 
 fear of wearying repetition and for the sake of space, but even that 
 which will be included must be boiled down to a point almost un- 
 palatable. 
 
 Jastrow, like Breasted, emphasizes at the outset, that religion is 
 moulded by political and social forces. The local gods of the Babylonian 
 cities grew as their precincts enlarged^ The gods En-Lil, Marduk, Nin- 
 Girsu, Nergal, Nin-ib became either Bel, that is lord par excellence with 
 his worship spread all over Babylonia; or a warrior deity of Bel, and 
 war gods, in proportion as they aided the battling kings to secure victory. 
 Even Shamash, the "god of day," the most continuously popular deity 
 among the Babylonians and Assyrians, and essentially a beneficent deity, 
 puts an end to wickedness and destroys enemies. Of course he does this 
 for the sake of righteousness, to make the weak strong, and prevent the 
 strong from crushing the weak, but be the cause what it will, he is made 
 to serve the ends of war^. For both the Babylonians and Assyrians, 
 Ishtar, the chief goddess is essentially a deity of war and battle'*. Marduk 
 originally a solar deity, sloughs this natural aspect, when he is elevated 
 by the conqueror, Hammurabi, to political headship as the great lord of 
 the city and empire of Babylonia^ ®. An examination of the mythologies 
 cannot be included in this broad survey of the religions of the past and 
 present, otherwise most ample material could be found in the mytholo- 
 gies of Egypt and Babylon for the support of the position taken in these 
 pages on the relations between war and religion'. 
 
 Assyria corroborates so fully this contention that it could be dismissed 
 from the witness stand with but a single sentence. Jastrow puts it 
 briefly: "One receives the impression that in Assyria only a few of the 
 gods invoked by the kings at the side of Ashur exert any real influence 
 on the lives of the people; and such as do, gain in favor through possess- 
 ing in some measure the chief attribute that distinguished Ashur, — 
 prowess in war^." Thus Ishtar is primarily "the lady of war, who 
 arranges the order of battle and encourages her favorites to fight^." It 
 is extremely worth while to note the attitude of Tiglath Pileser I, who 
 was a great and ruthless warrior. He invokes the aid of the beneficent 
 Shamash, the judge of heaven and earth, "who sees the king's enemies, 
 
 35 
 
War and Religion 
 
 and shatters them because of their guilt." Ramman and Marduk also 
 aid the Assyrian hosts to victory'". 
 
 But these mighty warriors had not only lofty ideals of righteousness; 
 they also breathed most beautiful prayers'*; their penetential psalms 
 touched high levels of religious and ethical thought''^; and while the 
 Babylonians led in this spiritual development, the Assyrians adopted 
 these psalms as they did other features of Babylonian life and thought, 
 "and enriched the collection by productions of their own, which, how- 
 ever, follow closely the Babylonian models'^." So one may not speak 
 here of crudities, as one is so apt to in discussing these early forms of 
 religion as manifested in Egypt and Babylon. 
 
 Further material to aid the present argument could be found in omen 
 and oracle ritual"; in the idea of the divine right of kings'^; in the sacred 
 calendars'^; and in the legends". But this will all be passed by to close 
 this part with a sentence on the attitude to death. Jastrow says that 
 there are two remarkable chapters in the Old Testament which illustrate 
 the popular view prevailing in Babylonia as to the condition of the dead 
 in the nether world. "The prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel both portray the 
 dead as having the same form they possessed while alive. The kings have 
 their crowns on their heads; the warriors lie with their swords girded 
 
 about them What distinguished the dead from the living is their 
 
 inactivity"." 
 
 Here then is a culture reared by mighty warrior kings who regarded 
 themselves as promoters of justice and lovers of righteousness. The incan- 
 tation texts denounce hatred, cheating, using false measures, removing 
 boundaries, adultery and insincerity. The Assyrian monarch emphasized 
 the fact that "he established ordinances so that the strong should do no 
 harm to the weak"." Yet if war was ever all important, it was surely so 
 in the growth of Babylonia and Assyria. Moore's account of it all 
 reflects the same spirit in his treatment of the religion of these two lands, 
 as that just presented in the work of Jastrow^". And the sum of it all, as 
 far as the relations of war and religion are concerned, is but the strongest 
 kind of affirmation of the conclusion reached from the preceding study 
 of the Egyptian religion. 
 
 Part 3 — The Relations of War and Religion in Zoroasirianism 
 
 From Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria, it might seem more logical to 
 turn now to the Semitic, Greek and Roman world. But as these peoples 
 exerted the most powerful influences for the growth of present-day Occi- 
 dental life and thought, it was thought best to consider them as a whole 
 in the section immediately preceding that dealing with Christianity and 
 Mohammedanism. Further, before approaching so near modernity, it 
 appeared wise to consider the Oriental nations and religions, usually if 
 vaguely held to be saturated with pacifism or quietism. 
 
 The manifestations of Aryan religious thought in the Orient will be 
 traced in the growth and spread of Zoroastrianism rather than in the 
 religions of India, which with the exception of a word or two on Bud- 
 dhism, will not be treated of in this study. For with Moore, one must feel 
 that Hinduism is such a "protean phenomenon; every attempt to 
 
 36 
 
War and Religion 
 
 describe it must confine itself to certain salient features, but in so doing 
 runs the risk of making an impression of simplicity and unity which is 
 widely remote from the truths" Further, any discussion of this subject 
 involves the introduction of the deeply abstruse speculations of the Hindu 
 religious philosophies. It is, of course, only just and fair to render every 
 meed of praise and tribute to the lofty spiritual thinking of India. But 
 Moore emphatically shows that such highly abstract philosophies, by 
 their very nature, could appeal to limited circles only. Whatever dilution 
 of them reached the populace did not disturb the inherited religions, the 
 gods of which grew like other gods, through the victories in war of their 
 adherents. "... the Aryan invasion had made Indra the greatest of the 
 gods of the Rig-Veda^." Indra became the national god of the Aryans, 
 in their wars with their foes, human and demonic, not as the mighty god 
 of tempests, but as the heroic destroyer of the enemy'. Latterly, Civa 
 is the claimant upon the religious attention of the Hindus, sharing this 
 honor with Vishnu. Civa is wholly of the pattern of the warrior god 
 Indra; Vishnu is more civilized^ "The rivalry of the religions of Vishnu 
 and Civa has sometimes led to violent collisions, but in the present they 
 live in the main peaceably side by side, with some degree of mutual 
 recognition." Moore regards the climatic environment and the condi- 
 tions of life as peculiarly potent in the evolution of Hinduism. Moore 
 passes a harsh if not premature judgment on India, as a whole, in saying: 
 "It is not strange that a people who thought so ill of the world should 
 never have played a part in the history of the world, nor have developed 
 a national consciousness in any other form than antipathy to foreign 
 masters^." At all events this verdict does not reveal very much of the 
 spirit of quietism; but coupled with the stamp which war placed upon 
 Hinduism, it suggests possibilities of some active role that India can 
 play in the future. If it does, there is everything in the religious tradi- 
 tion to aid the cause. 
 
 That environmental conditions have played such a large part in Hindu 
 thought is usually made clear by contrasting it with the Iranian. The 
 latter had the same racial inheritance as the Aryan group that conquered 
 India. But while a luxurious nature softened the fiber of the Aryan in 
 India, bringing him to lead the dreamy life of speculative philosophy, the 
 less favored lands of Iran goaded these Aryans to evolve from the one 
 stock of religious ideas that robust dualism of Zoroastrianism, together 
 with the sturdy qualities needed to conquer an empire and especially to 
 organize and govern it "in a degree matched only by the Roman, whom 
 in other respects also they much resemble." "This strenuous and militant 
 type was not first impressed upon the religion by the Zoroastrian reform; 
 it is rather a characteristic of the popular religion which is impressed 
 upon the higher faith®." 
 
 M. N. Dhalla, a present-day officiating Zoroastrian priest gives 
 naturally a sympathetic, yet at the same time, a scientific presentation 
 of his faith in his recently published "Zoroastrian Theology." He finds 
 that Zoroaster's faith was assured a following when the king of kings of 
 Iran and his consort were converted. The zealous king made Zoroastri- 
 anism a church militant. "The holy wars of religion against Turan and 
 the neighboring countries introduced the Avesta and the sacred Fire into 
 
 37 
 
War and Religion 
 
 distant lands'." Dhalla is convinced that Zoroastrianism possesses all 
 the best elements making for a world creed. But at best, he finds that it 
 remained only a national religion. He thinks that in addition to making 
 mankind holy and righteous, a reHgion should aim to make mankind 
 patriotic and heroic. "Zoroaster does not encourage exaggerated 
 unworldhness*'." 
 
 The dualism that is the essential characteristic of Zoroastrianism, 
 lends itself admirably to the ends of war. The Druj, or Lying and Wick- 
 edness, is not a mere negation of x\sha or Righteousness, but has a posi- 
 tive existence. Zoroaster is unsparing and unforgiving in his crusade 
 against the Kingdom of Druj. The ethics of retaliation are in vogue. The 
 end is the ultimate victory of righteousness which is the goal of humanity". 
 
 While this phraseology is reminiscent of Babylonian and Assyrian 
 theology, Moore gives the corrective here that Jastrow applied to the 
 other. While one hears much talk about the "holy wars" and wars for 
 and by religion, it is fairly safe to assert that history affords no instance 
 in which the real cause of war was religion. Religion enters to bless the 
 cause of the leaders in war. Thus what Dhalla found to be a holy war, 
 Moore reduces to a conflict between an agricultural civihzation and a 
 nomadic barbarism. "... .a situation (is here presented) which throws 
 an instructive light on the beginnings of Zoroastrianism^"." He finds 
 further that Zoroastrianism, like Christianity and Mohammedanism 
 and most other rehgions, is intolerant; "in the Gathas believers are 
 exhorted to chastise the misbelievers with the sword^^ . ." Later this 
 intolerance was shown toward Christianity; but Moore sagely adds 
 that "Political considerations also had a good deal to do with the treat- 
 ment of Christians, especially after the Roman Empire became Chris- 
 tian'^." 
 
 But this is anticipating. The Persian empire builders gave fervent 
 thanks to Ahura Mazda for victories secured. Both Darius and Xerxes 
 attribute all their success over the enemy to the all-wise Ahura^'. The 
 Yazatas and Fravashis are in many instances real war divinities. Of the 
 Yazatas, Mithra is the most prominent figure. He measures up to full 
 Martian proportions'^ '^; indeed this very Mithra became the favorite 
 deity of the Roman legions; and Mithraism proved a formidable foe of 
 (Christianity until the end of the fourth century'®. 
 
 Dhalla gives a picture of the Zoroastrian paradise in which "The 
 beatified souls are attired richly, . . . women are bedecked with jewelry 
 and. .warriors with golden arms. . . ."" Moore speaks of the Messian- 
 ism of the faith. A veritable Armageddon is imagined with Turks, 
 Arabs and Christians making a reign of terror. But a Messiah will be 
 born who with gods and heroes on his side will destroy the heathen and 
 their demon allies. "The triumph of God is in this respect more complete 
 than in Christianity, which leaves hell with the devil and his angels and 
 the wicked in torment forever, an unconquered realm of evil'^." 
 
 While these excelling teachings of Zoroastrianism, which bring this 
 faith into close touch with the religions of the most recent of our Imme- 
 diate Ancestors, show a complexity and development of ethical doctrine 
 that compares favorably with present-day morals, it must be equally 
 evident that they are none the less bound up with war. The very dualism 
 
 38 
 
War and Religion 
 
 of this Iranian faith constitutes a most ready and pliant doctrine for 
 warriors. If there be the good principle and the evil principle, it is most 
 easy to identify oneself with the good principle and impute the possession 
 of evil to the neighbor, outsider or foreigner. Zoroastrianism illustrates 
 likewise the subserviency of religion to war throughout the entire Persian 
 ef)och. 
 
 Part Jf. — War and Religion as Reacted to, in Buddhism 
 
 Were it not that a very recent book by A. Coomaraswamy on "Buddha 
 and the Gospel of Buddhism" partook more of the spirit of the theoretical 
 and also of the missionary, it would be useful, if only from the negative 
 standpoint, to include a review of it here. For to a degree, it confirms 
 Moore's estimate of the peacefulness of Buddhist teaching; "nowhere 
 else is gentleness in act and speech so exalted^" Coomaraswamy wrote 
 his book in the midst of this present-world conflict. He is sure that this 
 dire war will give a great impetus to the study of Buddhism-. Its mes- 
 sage: "Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered is unhappy^;" must 
 teach mankind the futility of war. But mankind did not have to wait 
 for Buddhism for this lesson. And the sequel will show how ineffective 
 all of the ideal teachings of this faith have been to eliminate war. On 
 the contrary, Buddhism has followed and blessed the warriors as have 
 other religions. 
 
 But even the Buddhistic interpretation of life as essentially evil^; its 
 heavens and hells'^; the author's jugglery with spiritualism^; the state of 
 Nirvana realizable only after death^; the surrender of the ego^; utter 
 indifference to social welfare^; the impractical nature of the whole 
 system with consequent concessions to the great majority of professing 
 Buddhists", a point, which it has been already noted, Moore had made 
 against these speculative philosophies; direct evidence of Buddhistic 
 intolerance^^ ^' '^ : — all of these items furnish plenty of grist for a fine 
 grinding of the question as to the inner value of Buddhism as a possible 
 peace factor in human evolution. The Buddhist writings contain most 
 beautiful sayings against hatred and revenge^^. But other religions had 
 teachings equally as noble. Moore, as usual, gives a clearer explanation 
 of the rise of this faith. Buddhism did not recognize rank or caste in 
 its requirements of admission into the Order^'. This at once introduces 
 economic and social considerations to explain the rapid spread of this 
 faith in a land such as India where caste lines have ever been most rigid. 
 For the fundamental law for the Buddhist monks, the Ten Command- 
 ments, were practically the same for Brahmans and for other heretical 
 sects like the Jains^*. 
 
 Nevertheless, it is outside of India that Buddhism can best be studied 
 as a living, working creed. It is the fact and not the theory that is of 
 present interest. So one must turn to China and Japan where Buddhism 
 numbers millions of adherents, to obtain a real estimate of this profess- 
 edly quietistic faith. 
 
 Part 5 — War and Religion in China 
 
 China did not need to import any doctrines of non-resistance. It was 
 due to Buddhism's ready adaptability to the prevailing religious system, 
 
 39 
 
War and Religion 
 
 that it gained a hold on the people of the land. For the rest, Moore's 
 dry remark in connection with this phenomenal spread of Buddha's doc- 
 trine gives sufficient explanation of its gro\\i;h. "... it is impossible to 
 have too many patrons and helpers among the powers above^" 
 
 In his account of the growth of the Chinese religion, Moore shows the 
 role which warfare played as carried on by the invading Chinese against 
 the aborigines'^. He defines the religion of China "as a union of nature 
 worship and ancestor worship^. The emperor is called the Son of Heaven 
 and is the religious head of the nation*. Such direct unions of state and 
 church afford most immediate evidence of the inferior role that religion 
 cannot but play to war. It is true that the teachings of Confucius are 
 beautiful as well as practical. His tomb is one of the holiest places in 
 China. In theory, the worship accorded the Sage is for the sake of 
 emphasizing the supreme value of moral education^. But in reality, 
 the Confucian doctrine of loyalty and slavish obedience to the authori- 
 ties is the more comprehensible reason. While Confucius taught the 
 golden rule in a negative form, he insisted at the same time upon the 
 duty of blood-revenge^. Instead of pacifism, then, in China, one is pre- 
 pared to find the same relations between war and religion, as have pre- 
 vailed in the religions already reviewed. And Buddhism in China is no 
 exception to this rule. 
 
 There is ample material for anti-war programs in the teachings of 
 Moh-Tih and even of Mencius. But in Lao-Tse, an elder contemporary 
 of Confucius one can find the most genuine if not sane philosophy of 
 quietism, that all history seems to afford. But Moore, with both eyes 
 open clearly and frankly on the records of history, says of the Taoist 
 doctrine which developed from Lao-Tse's teachings : " It is obvious that 
 such philosophy made no appeal to the masses of men; its adherents 
 were either speculative thinkers of mystical tendency or contemplative 
 recluses such as existed in China before as well as after Lao-Tse. It was 
 not until later, and after great changes, that Taoism became a popular 
 religion*." 
 
 The truth of this judgment passed by Moore is abundantly illustrated 
 by J. J. M. DeGroot in his "Sectarianism and Religious Persecution in 
 China," and in his "Religion in China." He desires to explode the error 
 that China is a land of most remarkable and exemplary tolerance. He 
 shows how Confucianism, the State Religion, destroyed the vitality of the 
 Buddhist branch and hindered the growth of Taoism^. His analysis of 
 the dualism in the Chinese religion analagous to the Zoroastrian^"; of the 
 calendar with its war and cannon gods; of the prevailing system of 
 ancestor worship"; the bitterness of Confucian oppostion to heresy; and 
 the extended notice given to the peace-destroying doctrines of the Fung- 
 Shui^^ are but similar items of evidence in showing the minor part of 
 religion as against that of war, and at the same time the sanction which 
 religion lends to war. 
 
 DeGroot's long and dreary recital of sectarianism and religious perse- 
 cution in China goes far to establish his claim that the Chinese state was 
 the most intolerant and most persecuting of all earthly governments*^. 
 The banner of rebellion was raised by the Buddhists, goaded, as they 
 were, by Confucian fanaticism, as DeGroot puts it. "... the history 
 
 40 
 
War and Religion 
 
 of Buddha's religion under the Ming dynasty was one of tears and 
 bloodshed"." As he quotes from the Chinese official "Law Against 
 Heresy and Sects" he is moved to say that this intolerance "opens our 
 eyes to the truth that even in the Far East the human mind works in the 
 same way as among ourselves; there, as here, it formulates dogmas; 
 there, as here, notions contrary to these dogmas spring up; and so 
 arises "heresy." There, as here, "irrt der Mensch so lange er strebt;" 
 there, as here, in former ages, differences of opinion drives him to vio- 
 lence, and the predominant party oppresses and exterminates other 
 schools of thought^^." 
 
 In the light of the ideals of Buddhism, it is curious to note that the 
 Buddhist sect is the chief object of persecution and is regarded as the 
 mightiest rebel power in the land*^. Christians were also persecuted until 
 treaties with European powers, in 1858, brought relief". Further refer- 
 ence to this bloody tale must be unnecessary^^. And one may not digress 
 to note a strange moral or two which the author draws from his extended 
 research. 
 
 It remains to conclude, that whatever of quietism or love universal 
 may have been taught in China, whether by a native genius as the unique 
 Lao-Tse, or derived from Buddhist doctrine, it is fair to say that as far 
 as the relations of war and religion in China are concerned, there is sub- 
 stantially no diflFerence from all that has preceded. The government is 
 omnipotent and uses Confucianism for its own ends. Granting every 
 virtue to Chinese Buddhism, there is no evidence to show that quietist 
 doctrines prevailed. Be the ground for fighting the loftiest possible in 
 the estimation of friend and apologist, it is abundantly evident that the 
 Chinese Buddhist mixed politics and religion with the blood of war, even 
 as did the government which aimed to suppress all heresy. If Buddhism 
 in China does not make this overwhelmingly clear. Buddhism in Japan 
 will afford more than enough proof to convince the most unwilling. 
 However high, noble, ideal, pacific or godly the religious doctrine may 
 be, the adherents of such teachings are found to be comparatively as 
 quarrelsome, vindictive and warlike, as the records show our Remote 
 Ancestors to have been. 
 
 Part 6 — War and Religion in Japan 
 
 Moore says that up to the present day, there are few in Japan who are 
 exclusive Buddhists or exclusive Shintoists: "the greater part seek their 
 welfare by both ways'." Shinto, which means the "way of the (national) 
 gods" is a word derived from China. It was given to the indigenous 
 religion of Japan in the sixth century to distinguish it from the new and 
 foreign Butsudo, or the "way of Buddha^." The Shinto deities are chiefly 
 gods of nature, the sun-goddess being chief. In addition, there are gods 
 who were once men: rulers, heroes or men eminent in various arts and 
 pursuits^. W. G. Aston, in his book on "Shinto" refers to it as essen- 
 tially a religion of gratitude and love. He also speaks of the joyous 
 character of the faith^. He states, however, that bad men as well as 
 good might be deified, such as rebels and robbers, citing the case "in our 
 own day (of) the murderer of Mori, the Minister of Education." He 
 
 41 
 
War and Religion 
 
 further informs one that there were buried with the more eminent dead, 
 food, weapons, ornaments, vessels, pottery and other valuables*. All 
 deities are prayed to, among other things, for the blessing of warlike 
 qualities^. 
 
 As Shinto developed, there grew the need of some visible token of the 
 presence of the god. Such a token is known as a "shintai" or god-body. 
 It varies nuich in form, but is frequently a mirror, a sword, or bow and 
 arrows^ ^. One of the most conspicuous of the later Shinto deities is the 
 war god Hachiman. In 1039 he was given a high place in the state reli- 
 gion^''. Among the offerings deposited at the shrines of the gods are 
 swords, spears, shields, etc." The official liturgy, called norito, includes 
 petitions for the suppression of rebellion, the repulse of invasion and 
 success for the imperial arms'-. 
 
 Aston's account of the relations between Shinto and Buddhism'' will 
 be made to yield to that of Moore's. The latter refers to the Buddhist 
 influence in bringing the medieval warriors to worship Hachiman as the 
 war god. From the eighth century on, the Buddhist monks aspired to 
 rulership as did the Egyptian priests noted before. The monasteries 
 themselves were at strife with one another settling their "controversies 
 over points of doctrine or more worldly issues by force and arms." By 
 the close of the eleventh century the monasteries had large armies and 
 private wars were frequent. "In the civil wars of the period the armies 
 of the church took an active part, and on more than one field proved 
 themselves as hard fighters and as ruthless victors as the doughtiest 
 knights'^." By the sixteenth century, the emperors had all they could 
 do to suppress the church militant. This accomplished, Buddhism was 
 found most useful in the complete suppression of Christianity'* ''. The 
 eighteenth century witnessed a deepening of patriotism and with it a 
 revival of pure Shinto. Motoori, who died at the beginning of the nine- 
 teenth century was a protagonist in the movement. But Aston feels 
 sure that the present belongs to Buddhism, with Christianity looming on 
 the horizon as a great rival in the future. (References 18 to 21.) One 
 must recall the recent wars of Japan with China and Russia, and its 
 present part in the prevailing world war. Then in the light of all these 
 bloody struggles, in which to no small extent, the Buddhist monk doflFed 
 his religious garb to don the soldier's accouterments, the actual, living 
 judgment on Buddhism must be passed. It is found to follow the trail 
 of war as consistently as all other religions have done. 
 
 Section B — Part 1 — War and Religion Among the Greeks 
 
 In "The Higher Aspects of the Greek Religion," L. R. Farnell has a 
 sentence which makes easy the great leap from Japan to Greece. He 
 says: "We have had strong proof from Japan of the social value of 
 ancestor- worship and of the ennobling dead; and we need not doubt 
 that the prospect of such posthumous honors would make the strongest 
 appeal to the self-love of the Hellene and would afford a powerful motive 
 to conduct'." This sentence from the heart of the book brings the Greek 
 religionist close to the followers of the various gods already described; 
 and strikes a most responsive chord in harmony with the main theme of 
 
 42 
 
War and lleligion 
 
 this study, more especially, with that part dealing with the origin of 
 religion among our Remote Ancestors. 
 
 For it was the mystery hovering about the chieftain as a living genius 
 so necessary for the survival of the group, and the potency of the memory 
 of his mysterious influence as revived by the special sepulture accorded 
 his otherwise useless dead body, that played some decisive part in creat- 
 ing the religious attitude. The exigencies of the struggles in war wrought 
 greatly from the remote beginnings when megalithic monuments were 
 common, as well as among Contemporary Ancestors with their Mana 
 concepts, for the growth of religious ideas. Later, the gods with their 
 martial spirit plucked violently at the heartstrings of the marching hosts 
 of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, India, China and Japan, so that 
 men exalted these gods, in their sacred hymns, from puny city guardians 
 to imperial deities. That the spirits of these deities became large enough 
 to cover the mighty walled boundaries of the vast domains conquered 
 with their help, makes it evident that whatever else worked for religion's 
 spread, war most certainly did. For war found in religion such an elec- 
 tric medium for fusing swiftly into a glowing mass the individual human 
 beings, that it could make, at white heat, horde oppose horde, tribe 
 tribe, nation nation, and empire empire. This has been illustrated by all 
 peoples from the men of the Old Stone Age to the Japanese. The more 
 abundant records of the nearer of our Immediate Ancestors, beginning 
 with the Greeks, bring this ceaseless interaction between war and reli- 
 gion, with war having the master hand, down to the very present 
 day. 
 
 Greece may include for the purposes of this study the testimony of the 
 Cretan or Minoan civilization. Ample justification for this is found in 
 J. E. Harrison's "Themis^ '." Moore also noted the Cretan connections 
 of the infant Zeus^. Harrison speculates on Greek origins along the lines 
 of Durkheim's interpretation of the religion of the Australian Aborigines^. 
 There is direct quotation of phrases that represent primitive gods, to a 
 large extent, as collective enthusiasms^. Of immediate value is the 
 author's interpretation of the hoplolatry of the Greeks. A weapon does 
 not, of necessity, owe its sanctity to a god, but a case is cited in which 
 a god grew out of a weapon'. So much for origins. 
 
 Difficulties similar to those encountered in reading Jevons were found 
 in the material offered by Farnell in his work on "The Higher Aspects 
 of the Greek Religion^." He appears at first to yield, but grudgingly, 
 recognition to the power of war as against that of religion^ ^*'. But once 
 well in his book, it is found that "Neither in Greek ethics nor Greek 
 religion can we say that courage apart from its patriotic exercise on the 
 battlefield receives any recognition ..." The closest association of a noble 
 bravery "with religion was attained by the practice of awarding heroic 
 honors to the patriot who fought and died bravely for his country"". 
 Other tendencies of similar purport are noted^^; and again be it observed 
 that the Greek's social creed showed extreme zeal for the morality and 
 religion associated with his family hearth and family tomb. Farnell 
 closes with this thought on Homer: "... a poet who in defiance of omens 
 and superstitions could utter the great phrase, 'Best of omens is it to 
 fight for one's native land,' was capable of shaking off the fetters of con- 
 
 43 
 
War and Religion 
 
 ventional tribal thought and of penetrating to the heart of things moral 
 and religious'*. " 
 
 Moore's bird's-eye view of the entire Greek development makes 
 most clear the relations of war and religion among these intellectual giants 
 of the past. Thus Zeus, the chief god, had as one of his oldest titles Her- 
 keios, the Zeus of the Fort'*. Apollo is in part a helper and defender in 
 the fight. Hermes, closely related to Apollo, is, among other of his activi- 
 ties, the patron of thieves, traders and orators". A deity for such pur- 
 poses reminds one not only of the Japanese custom noted above, but also 
 of the religious professions of the Thugs of India. This is an extreme 
 illustration of Haddon's phrase: "As are men, so are gods." Moore has 
 an observation to the same effect". 
 
 Athena is the warrior maiden representing the superior mind and skill 
 in the art of war rather than brute force. Ares is the warrior god who 
 loves fighting for its own sake and was universally worshipped. Hephais- 
 tos is the special patron of smiths and armorers'^. It is war that 
 brought the principal Greek deities together for the campaign against 
 Troy*". Similarly, it was the social, economic and political changes in 
 Greece that affected profoundly the Greek religion'*. 
 
 A word or two may be devoted to the Greek philosophers^". While they 
 were far from being pacifists, they were assailed by the people, especially 
 when war threatened, because they undermined faith in the gods. When 
 Greece was delivered from the Persian invader, the gods became more 
 than ever beloved and "Athens especially in the meridian of her short 
 century of glory became a very city of the gods^'." Moore brands this 
 persecution of the Athenian state, directed against the philosophers and 
 scientists, as the work of "malevolent orthodoxy;" adding: "The 
 inquisitores haereticae pravitatis have been the blind tools of a tragic 
 irony"." 
 
 That these great thinkers were not opposed to war as such, may be 
 seen in the life of a Socrates who had conscientious scruples, not against 
 performing all his duties as a citizen in war and peace, but against taking 
 an active part in politics^'. Plato's "Republic" may deprecate teaching 
 the Homeric tales of the fighting gods to children^*. But highly curious 
 is the method to be used for instilling into the children those qualities 
 that make for the brave, successful w arrior". As for the rules of warfare 
 — Socrates is made to say that "our citizens ought to adopt these rules 
 in conduct towards their adversaries, while I would have them behave 
 to barbarians as the Greeks now behave to one another^*." The state 
 must be ruled by such "kings who have shown the greatest ability in 
 philosophy and the greatest aptitude for war^^ 2"." 
 
 Whether one investigates, therefore, the popular religion of Greece, 
 or the works of its profound thinkers, the arbitrament of war is a decisive 
 factor for the faith and logic of that remarkable people who, though few 
 in numbers, were yet so influential in their own and succeeding times. 
 In turning to Rome, one may question the necessity of devoting any- 
 thing but passing attention to its history. Its powerful soldier hosts 
 marched victoriously from the wilds of Britain and Gaul and Germany 
 to distant Egypt and Parthia with the blessings of their gods. The spell 
 of the Caesars, and the phrase: "The Holy Roman Empire," are so near 
 
 44 
 
War and Religion 
 
 and so lilting on the tongue, that as brief as possible an account of the 
 relations of war and religion among the Romans ought to suffice. 
 
 Section B, Part 2 — War and Religion Among the Romans 
 
 It was stated in the introduction that no books were found among the 
 many that treated of war and religion that dealt with the question from 
 the scientific standpoint, except two small volumes; and that these were 
 limited to a consideration of a corollary of this subject. Both of these 
 books deal with the religion of the Roman army — the one bearing directly 
 on this topic, the other concerned with a theory of religion in general. 
 Renel takes for granted the war basis for the origin and growth of Rome, 
 and the military cults connected therewith^ Von Domaszewski records 
 with most painstaking details the methods used in having the Roman 
 religion accompany the soldiers in all of their campaigns^ '. He shows 
 how the fates of certain divinities depended upon the outcome of the 
 military expedition^. This material needing but little more than a refer- 
 ence or two to it, ought to enable one to dismiss Rome forthwith. But 
 the Roman spirit is still so prevalent in the world that more extended 
 notice of its wars and its religion is called for. Fowler it is, who says, 
 that "to this day the Catholic Church in Italy retains in a thinly dis- 
 guised form many of the religious practices of the Roman people^." 
 
 Jupiter protected the state in war as well as in peace. As war with 
 neighbors was almost as regular a part of the year's business as sowing 
 and reaping, the gods of battle. Mars and Quirinus, were very prominent 
 in the pantheon*. Again Moore comments on the power of the state in 
 making the gods'. The calendar recorded festivals and holy days marking 
 the chief occupations of the people as husbandry and war*. Disasters, 
 especially war, caused the introduction of foreign deities'. Generals 
 had haruspices on their staflF to help in the campaign^". The climax of 
 all this testimony may be found in the emperor cult" ". 
 
 The rapid spread of the Mithra cult in and by the Roman army has 
 been mentioned before^^. Moore makes very vivid the story of the 
 opposition of the Christian Fathers to this Oriental cult and their zeal in 
 destroying the Mithraea". Cumont shows how the military monarchies 
 of the East "placed in the forefront the warriors who died sword in hand 
 in defence of their country. . ;" quoting Horace to the effect that to such 
 heroes the gates of heaven are opened^^. 
 
 In Fowler's "The Religious Experience of the Roman People," an 
 interesting suggestion is made in connection with the evolution of the 
 familia and the pagus. He connects the latter term with "pax," making 
 the pagus a territory within the bounds of which there is pax^* " ^'. The 
 earliest religious document of Rome, the calendar of Numa, reflects the 
 change of the Roman people from an agricultural to a highly organized 
 political and military City-state^' 20 21 22 
 
 It is of supreme importance to find that these essentially militaristic 
 Romans regarded themselves and their ancestors as "religiosissimi mor- 
 tales." Thus Cicero says that the Romans as compared with other 
 peoples were far superior "in religione, id est cultu." In one of his ora- 
 tions, he says : " We have overcome all the nations of the world, because 
 
 45 
 
War and Religion 
 
 we have realized that the world is directed and governed by the will of 
 the gods." In the age of Augustus, Dionysus asserted that "one needed 
 to know the pietas of the Romans in order to understand their wonderful 
 career of conquest^'." 
 
 Mere mention of the art of divination, which extended in practice into 
 the Christian period, having been countenanced, as most always for 
 war purposes by a Bishop of Rome, is all that should be necessary here. 
 The attitude of the Romans to the gods after the defeat of the Cartha- 
 ginians was entirely similar to that of the Athenians when they were 
 saved from the Persian menace^*. The name of Polybius should at least 
 be given because his theory that religion was invented for political objects 
 is a crude, cynical anticipation of the ends of this entire study^'^. Fowler 
 devotes a large part of the close of his book to Vergil's ^Eneid. The pietas 
 of his hero is proved by the success that came to his arms. As the 
 animadversions of Lactantius on this kind of pietas in contrast to the 
 Christian's peace interpretation of pietas will be included generally in 
 a following chapter, no further notice of it here is needed-^. Fowler, in 
 a more recent book on "Roman Ideas of Deity" gives but parallel 
 evidence of all that is contained in the "Religious Experience^*." 
 
 It is plain, then, that this account of war and religion among the 
 Romans is most convincingly similar to all that has gone before. It was 
 not the call of religion that incited the Roman generals and their cohorts 
 to pursue their policy of world conquest. If the anthropomorphism is 
 pardoned, it may be said that it was war that beckoned on these well- 
 drilled armies; and the worth of the gods was tested by the victories 
 brought to the arms of the Caesars. 
 
 The closing part of this chapter will give a brief outline of the bearing 
 of the Semites, in their reactions to war and religion, on this study. For 
 together with the Greeks and Romans, the Semitic ideas play a promi- 
 nent part in the Christian and Mohammedan development. 
 
 Section B, Part 3 — War and Religion Among the Semites 
 
 W. R. Smith, in his "Religion of the Semites" repeats the more than 
 familiar refrain that religion did not exist for the saving of souls "but 
 for the preservation and welfare of society^" Another commonplace, as 
 far as this study is concerned, is the incessant warfare of ancient times. 
 The small Semitic groups were separated from each other by continuous 
 feuds. The local god of the clan or town was an enemy to the enemies of 
 his votaries. Smith says that the Old Testament testifies abundantly to 
 the truth of this. He cites the history of David and of Ruth; phrases such 
 as the "enemies of Jehovah;" and that the ark of the Lord was taken into 
 battle by the Israelites^. His conclusion is that religion did not lead the 
 way to raise morality to higher ideals but was content to follow or even 
 to lag behind*. 
 
 The Semitic communities were chiefly interested to secure from their 
 god three things: help against their enemies, counsel by oracles or 
 soothsayers in matters of national difficulty, and a sentence of justice 
 when a case was too hard for human decision. Smith finds also, that 
 what is described as a tendency toward ethical monotheism, is in the 
 
 46 
 
War and Religion 
 
 main, nothing more than an alliance of religion with monarchy. While 
 the prophets rose above this, religion in practice did not follow in the 
 steps of these spiritual giants. So that the case here is analogous to the 
 situation in other lands where a Socrates or Buddha or Lao-Tse spoke 
 most lofty sentiments but the stream of life was undisturbed by them^ *. 
 And while the prophets gave to the world the Messianic visions of peace, 
 it is a matter for debate as to what their immediate attitude to war was. 
 The doctrine that God uses the mighty conquering nations to crush a 
 people for its sins is also prophetic. After all, however, this again is 
 theory, and it is the fact that is now to be sought. 
 
 In view of the indirect attention to be given the Jewish interpretation 
 in the succeeding cliapters, it may be considered vain to dwell on the 
 din of warfare that fills so much of the Bible, or to spend any time on the 
 speculations or aphorisms of the rabbis. (See references 6, 7 8 and 9.) 
 A. Cronbach finds that Judaism affords nowhere an anti-militaristic 
 interpretation of the Biblical passages favoring world peace. . . "On the 
 whole Judaism appears rather to disagree than to agree with Socialism in 
 this particular." Judaism is entirely "too nationalistic to be in sympathy 
 with internationalism or to be anything but indifferent to world peace." 
 This is the verdict of Jew ish history despite the fact that there is a wealth 
 of beautiful maxims and teachings on peace^°. 
 
 This completes the second section of this chapter that deals with war 
 and religion among our Immediate Ancestors. Beginning with the 
 Egyptians, and observing in turn the Babylonians and Assyrians, the 
 Persians, Hindus, Chinese and Japanese, the Greeks, Romans and 
 Semites, the general testimony yielded abundant proof to establish war 
 as the primary factor, holding religion fast in its machinery as a most 
 energetic and faithful aid to weave the bloody garment which humanity 
 has draped about itself. 
 
 The closing section of this chapter will deal with the Mohammedan 
 and most extensively with the Christian groups, for they have practically 
 dominated the stage of history from the fall of Rome to the present day. 
 In fact, the relations between the groups professing these two religions, 
 have followed closely the magnificently sweeping view, given by Breasted 
 at the beginning of this chapter, of the mighty battle line stretching 
 along either side of the Mediterranean. Warfare has been all but con- 
 tinuous for these sixteen centuries within these groups and between 
 them. This period will be treated then as a unit. 
 
 Section C — War and Religion Among Christian and Mohammedan 
 
 Peoples 
 
 Because these sixteen hundred years of history to be surveyed are 
 such an intimate part of the life of the Western nations, one is tempted to 
 accord considerably more space to them than has been granted the pre- 
 ceding peoples. But when all is said and done, the great amount of 
 literature on the subject can and must be reduced to simplest, narrow 
 proportions so as not to destroy the balance of these pages and to avoid 
 too much wearisome repetition. To facilitate this process, the Cambridge 
 Medieval History and the Cambridge Modern History will be used 
 
 47 
 
War and Religion 
 
 almost exclusively in this section to show the attitude of the Christian 
 and the Mohammedan to war and religion. 
 
 The Greek and Roman parts of the preceding section are brought well 
 into the heart of the Christian evolution in noting that "the greatest 
 power of the world — that Eastern Roman Empire .... carried down the 
 old Graeco-Roman civilization almost to the end of the Middle Ages^" 
 The outstanding figure of this Byzantine Empire is Constantine. The 
 great question he had to face was with reference to the position to be 
 assumed to the rising power of the Christians. This was the immediate 
 concern of practical politics at the beginning of the fourth century. 
 Passing note only may be taken of the story of the "Shining Cross" with 
 its words "Hoc Vince" that have played so large a part in militant 
 Christianity^. With all due regard for the noble character of Constantine, 
 and the lofty faith and morals of the Christians, it was a matter of expe- 
 diency and not the avowal of some divine aim that linked the causes of 
 the Eastern Empire and Christianity, with Christianity in the minor role. 
 For Constantine handled all the difficult sides of the question with such 
 great skill, that he not only "made the Christians thoroughly loyal, but 
 won the active support of the churches, and obtained such influence over 
 the bishops, that they seemed almost willing to sink into a department of 
 the State^." The best evidence for this is seen in the conduct of the oecu- 
 menical council which the great emperor convoked. Constantine wanted 
 the Nicaean Council, assembled in 325, to eliminate the theological dis- 
 putes that threatened Christian unity. He threw his influence into the 
 sessions to make decisions unanimous rather than to turn the representa- 
 tives one way or the other. If there was uniformity in religion, the 
 Church could then be more useful to the State. For his labors to these 
 ends, he was buried in the cathedral of the Twelve Apostles; and the 
 Greek Church to this day calls him "Isapostolos" — equal to the Apostles*. 
 
 One could devote much space to these factional struggles that marked 
 the early days of the Church. The Arianist, or Donatist, or others, 
 opposed and were opposed by the Church Catholic not merely with 
 spiritual weapons. But after all, these quarrels were only by-products 
 of the long-drawn-out bloody struggles between the Teutonic Tribes and 
 the Imperial forces of the Eastern Empire. The growth of the hierarchy 
 in the Church of Rome^; the factional fights of the Roman Bishops for 
 place and power®, and the political currents that turned men to Rome and 
 away from Jerusalem^ cannot detain one now. Of more pressing impor- 
 tance are the relations of the Church with the Goths, Franks, Vandals, 
 and Teutons, and the battles of these latter with the Altaian Asiatic 
 hordes that swept into Europe. Europe of the fourth and fifth century 
 is all turmoil and warfare. It presents a panorama of imperial ambitions, 
 tribal groupings and shiftings, ceaseless enmity between the Church and 
 all it regarded as heretic. Policies of state and religion are inextricably 
 tangled but it was the lure of dominance that led men on. Both Emperor, 
 Ecclesiastic and even so-called barbarian held in the left hand the Bible 
 which contained many a vision of godly peace and love; but in the right 
 hand was the sword. That is, war led as the primary factor and religion 
 seconded war throughout. "The influence of the Empire upon the internal 
 and external structure of the Church had been felt from the first 
 
 48 
 
War and Religion 
 
 The bargain proposed by Nestorius to Theodosius II, " Give me the world 
 free from heretics and I will give thee heaven," was in a fair way of ful- 
 fillment." These foundations of European thought and action were con- 
 sistently built upon by succeeding generations up to this very period of 
 Contemporaries. (See references 8 to 13.) 
 
 Accordingly it is no surprise to find Justinian, in the sixth century, the 
 great representative of what has been called "Caesaropapism." He 
 realized the political importance of an agreement with the Papacy. He 
 issued, therefore, the severest laws against heretics. "Religious intolerance 
 was transformed into a public virtue.'*" This career of Justinian in the 
 East was matched by that of Clovis in the West. Clovis perceived the 
 strength he would gain by embracing Christianity, for the Bishops 
 helped him not only in his warfare "against the heathen tribes but also 
 against the barbarians who adhered to the Arian heresy'^." 
 
 It should not be difl5cult to imagine what a perfect maelstrom of 
 blood would ensue if these martial-religious rapids of Europe were to be 
 caught in the whirl of another warrior group, with a radically different 
 religion accompanying it, as it foamed in battle. That was what hap- 
 pened when the followers of Mahomet appeared upon the scene at the 
 end of the sixth century, and in mighty floods during the seventh and 
 succeeding centuries. 
 
 It is said that Mahomet rose above the concept of an ethical code 
 based on tribal patriotism. He emphasized "the universal obligations of 
 morality, and above all the duty of forgiving injuries instead of avenging 
 them'^" He recognized the ancient principle of blood-revenge but tried 
 to confine it within narrow limits. He did not take part in the fighting 
 but "remained in a small hut which had been erected for him, praying 
 with passionate fervor and trembling violently." One of his regulations 
 was that all Moslems capable of bearing arms might under certain cir- 
 cumstances be required to serve as soldiers^^. 
 
 In a short time he had subjugated the whole of Arabia, and then in the 
 flush of his power, he looked beyond the Arabian world. In 629, "Islam 
 for the first time came into conflict with the great Christian power 
 against which it was destined to struggle with scarcely any intermission, 
 for a period of eight centuries'*." 
 
 This struggle represents another phase of the age-long warfare between 
 the men of the southern grasslands, as Islam spread along the southern 
 shore of the Mediterranean, and the Christian populations along the 
 northern littoral. This struggle was not for the sake of religion, but again 
 it was religion abetting the ends of the expanding Saracens and Teutons, 
 whose movements "form the basis of the history of the Middle Ages." 
 It was not Christianity nor even the Teuton, but internecine strife in 
 the young Arabian empire that led to its defeat. Nor was it religion that 
 drove the Saracens forward, but "hunger and avarice." The function of 
 religion was to supply "the essential unity and central power. Expansion 
 of the Saracen's religion both in point of time and in itself can only be 
 regarded as of minor import and rather as a political necessity*"." And 
 a contrast drawn between the followers of Christianity and those of 
 Mohammedanism, leaves a balance, as far as their actions are concerned, 
 in favor of neither'^'. 
 
 49 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Turning to Northern Europe, one may hurry by Celtic and Germanic 
 heathenism with its war gods, ValhoU, Valkyries, Vikings and megalithic 
 monuments. The evidence they bring has been abundantly if indirectly, 
 treated in the preceding chapters^^. 
 
 Of more moment are the relations of Charles the Great and the Papacy, 
 While this entire narrative reveals again the subordinate position of 
 Christianity, it is most striking to see the subjection of the Pope to 
 Charles even in matters of Church doctrine. The Holy Father is merely 
 expected to support the royal work by his prayers. Charles is styled: 
 "The Representative of God who has to protect and govern all the mem- 
 bers of God, Lord and Father, King and Priest, the Leader and Guide of 
 all Christians." In stating the significance of Charles for the history of 
 the world, it is important to read that it consisted in his transferring of 
 the theocratic idea of absolute sovereignty from the sphere of the Roman 
 Curia to the Prankish State. "He prepared the way for the social insti- 
 tution peculiar to the Middle Ages, and at the same time opened the 
 source of unavoidable wars^^." It is not an exaggeration to say that prac- 
 tically every page of this ponderous volume, more especially the chapters 
 dealing with the development of the Empire of Charles, its dissolution 
 into the feudal system, the growth of the papacy, the overwhelming of 
 the Eastern Empire by the Mohammedan power, and the great split of 
 the Church into the Eastern or Greek Rite as against the Western, Roman 
 or Catholic Rite: every page yields proof for the substantiation of the 
 central ideas of this study on war and religion. To abbreviate it all, one 
 short sentence may be included from the closing chapter of this second 
 volume of the Cambridge Medieval History. " More and more the divi- 
 sions of the Church were becoming tokens of national rather than reli- 
 gious sympathy 2*." 
 
 This anomalous position of the Church is portrayed again and again 
 throughout the twelve books of the Cambridge Modern History. Its 
 opening generalization deals with the great distinction of the modern 
 world as being "its frank recognition of nationality, and all that it 
 involves." And the starting point of modern history is "the plain issue 
 of a competition between nations." In the large, therefore, modern history 
 should furnish overwhelming evidence of the vital importance which 
 religion was to these national governments, for warfare has been prac- 
 tically incessant throughout this modern period^^. 
 
 The discoveries resulting from the eflForts of the intrepid voyagers who 
 sailed the seas at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth 
 centuries, gave Europe visions of dazzling wealth'®. Utopian dreams 
 that were comparatively idealistic, and wider visions of world domina- 
 tion, alike filled men's minds". But the lure of power exerted the greater 
 force as the modern era advanced on its way. 
 
 If the feverish materialism with which the discovery of the New World 
 inoculated men is not lost sight of, one is prepared to hear with equanim- 
 ity that the great ocean-going Genoese "were accustomed to dealings 
 with the Ottomans: they were the first Christian powers west of the 
 Adriatic that had made a treaty with them, and they had not scrupled to 
 use the alliance of the infidels against their fellow-Christians." As for 
 Venice, "her first thought was not to recover the bulwark of Christendom 
 
 50 
 
War and Religion 
 
 from the hands of the Muslim, but to preserve her own commercial privi- 
 leges under the rule of the infidel sovereign^^." 
 
 This directs attention to the southern grass lands, to watch the trium- 
 phal course of Islam near to the heart of Europe. As internecine war 
 among the Muslims had afforded Europe a breathing spell which the 
 European nations had used to fight among themselves, so now the chain 
 of events connected with the irrevocable break between Rome and Luther 
 gave the Muslims an opportunity for successful incursions northward. 
 Luther, taking his cue in all probability from ancient prophetic doctrine, 
 declared that the invading Turk was a visitation of God upon the 
 Papacy. To resist the Turk, therefore, was to resist God. But some years 
 later, when the infidel directly menaced Germany, Luther agreed to war 
 against the Turks. He was somewhat embarrassed to explain away his 
 previous utterances-^. Lslam was more consistently militaristic than 
 Luther. The code of Ibrahim enjoins the conquest of unbelievers who 
 must be "converted to Islam, subjected to tribute, or destroyed by the 
 sword*"." 
 
 The kaleidoscopic turn of events does not permit one to be detained 
 for any length of time at any point. The clash of arms attracts attention, 
 now here, now^ there. "Greed, ambition, the lust of battle, the interests 
 of dynasties, such are the forces that seem to rule the fate of Italy and 
 Europe. Yet amidst this chaos of blind and soulless strife the scheme and 
 equilibrium of the western world is gradually taking shape"." 
 
 If time and space do not permit a close inspection of all this turmoil 
 from which the nations were born, it can hardly be expected that indi- 
 viduals could arise so far above the melee as to claim even momentary 
 attention. For this reason Savonarola's life cannot be considered though 
 there is much in it of value for this study'-. But Machiavelli mirrors, in 
 his works, so much of the thought and methods that form the basis of 
 modern history, that a word or two cannot but be devoted to him. 
 
 Machiavelli was convinced that human nature was essentially depraved 
 and that imitation rather than initiative was the rule of life. He believed, 
 "like Bacon, that wars are necessary as a national tonic, peace is dis- 
 rupting and enervating; war and fear produce unity." At the same 
 
 time, Machiavelli firmly believed in religion. The Church was to be the 
 great helpmate of the state. Any community which lost or misdirected 
 the religious sentiment greatly weakened itself and "imperiled its own 
 existence." The State was the be-all and end-all of existence. The art of 
 government was not a matter of right or wrong but the welfare and con- 
 tentment of the majority of the inhabitants. As the State was for all, so 
 all must be for the State, "... where the bare salvation of the mother- 
 land was at stake, there no consideration of justice or injustice can find a 
 place, nor any of mercy or cruelty, or of honor or disgrace; every scruple 
 must be set aside, and that plan followed which saves her life and main- 
 tains her liberty''." 
 
 The events transpiring in Europe in the time of Machiavelli proved 
 that his "Prince" was not a monstrosity of the imagination, but a reflec- 
 tion of actualities, if not a somewhat pale one at that. The Papal Tem- 
 poral power by no means set the pace for cruelty and rapacity. Whatever 
 its original association with the Inquisition, this mighty engine against 
 
 51 
 
War and Religion 
 
 lieresy was after all "an eccelsiastical instrument in the hands of the civil 
 I)ower^*." Again it was the poUtical power, with its incessant warring 
 throughout this modern era, that made possible the formulation of such 
 doctrines as Machiavelli enunciated. Such theorists then as Machiavelli, 
 Erasmus and Grotius must be left by the wayside for an inspection of the 
 grim chronicles of the Reformation. 
 
 The Reformation is generally regarded as wholly and entirely a religious 
 movement. 
 
 But the verdict of history will not have it so. For while it is bewildering 
 to trace the currents and counter-currents of the turbulent days of Luther, 
 it is stated that "the motives, both remote and proximate, which led to 
 the Lutheran revolt, were largely secular rather than spiritual." Indeed 
 it is affirmed that the religious changes were incidental; "they were not 
 the object sought but the means for attaining that object'* '*." 
 
 In the first place the Church had become thoroughly secularized. 
 Further, the sale of indulgences represented in its final analysis an eco- 
 nomic oppression of the masses. It is said to be reasonable to conclude 
 that "in its essence the Reformation was due more largely to financial than 
 to religious considerations^^." But the most bitter antagonism was aroused 
 by the power which the Church exercised of "demanding a tithe of all 
 ecclesiastical revenue whenever money was needed under the pretext, 
 generally, of carrying on the war with the infidel." Finally, "the world 
 has rarely seen a more debased standard of morality than that which 
 prevailed in Italy in the closing years of the Middle Ages." WTien Cardinal 
 Borgia, as Vice Chancellor, was reproved for openly selling pardons for 
 crime, he replied, "that God desires not the death of the sinners, but that 
 they should pay and live^^." 
 
 It matters little, however, as far as the object sought in these pages is 
 concerned, whether the religious or secular element is emphasized in the 
 genesis of the Reformation. The thing that stands out most clearly is 
 that the men who were most vehement in their religious professions were 
 at the same time the most cruelly bitter in their warfare. A writer in the 
 second volume of "The Cambridge Modern History" thinks that while 
 the "main defect in the earlier histories of the Reformation has been the 
 neglect of the secular sides of the movement, it is possible that more recent 
 historians have been apt to ignore the religious element which was a real 
 power''." This is perhaps the strongest statement found, in this monu- 
 mental work, that pleads for the recognition of the true power of religion. 
 Since it is such an exception, it may be looked upon rather as symptomatic 
 of the traditional feeling that yearns to find the ideals of religions 
 actualized intensively in the life of humanity, but pathetically fails in 
 the search. 
 
 For the succeeding record shows all-abundantly how secondary was 
 the role which religion played throughout the Reformation. Luther's 
 reversal of policy, noted before in connection with the Mohammedan 
 invasion, could be further illustrated in his varying attitude to the con- 
 stituted authorities versus the masses. It is said that he virtually saved 
 the Reformation by deserting the cause of the peasants and allying him- 
 self with the triumphant princes*". 
 
 During the decade following tlie Peasants' Revolt, numerous sectaries 
 
 52 
 
War and Religion 
 
 arose that repudiated Luther's views, denouncing more especially the 
 dependence of the Lutheran Church upon the State. They withdrew from 
 participation in worldly affairs; and some, anticipating the Quakers, 
 refused to bear arms. " Many were beheaded in Saxony with the express 
 approbation of Luther, who regarded their heroism in the face of death 
 as proof of diabolic possessions^" In lieu of giving the details concerning 
 these sectaries, the next chapter will contain a sketch of the Quakers. 
 Enough it is to say here that this drab narrative, showing both the 
 robust strength of Luther and his weakness, is all confirmatory of the 
 main contention. There is practically no room left to argue that religion 
 took the lead in these stirring events. It appeared rather as a very sorry 
 second to the State in asserting the duty of rendering unto Caesar the 
 things of Caesar. The sectaries that survived this bloody, intolerant age 
 did so in proportion as they became, slowly, "respectable creeds^^." 
 The upshot of it all may be reduced to the generalization that "in the 
 sixteenth century every movement tended to assume a theological garb, 
 and the rich naturally favored conservative forms of religion, while the 
 poor adopted novel doctrines^'." 
 
 If it be granted that the Reformation had such an animus, such a 
 spirit behind it, one need not follow closely, in this study, the dreary and 
 weary lengths of this great upheaval through Switzerland, France, the 
 Netherlands, England and elsewhere. ". . .Europe was doomed to be the 
 battlefield of contending principles. The sword alone could be the arbi- 
 ter^." It matters little how much this dread sentence prepares one for 
 the reading of the blood-curdling narrative; the awful events themselves 
 leave the investigator speechless with the horror of it all. History 
 affords no more sordid tale of intriguing religion and Machiavellian poli- 
 tics than that which describes the few remaining centuries from the time 
 of the Reformation until the present day. For some, there may be found 
 a crumb of comfort in the dictum that "The Renaissance was not neces- 
 sarily secular and classical — it might be and often was both religious and 
 Christian; nor was the Reformation essentially religious and moral — 
 it might be and often was political and secular"**." 
 
 "The Wars of Religion" is the significant title of the third volume of 
 the Cambridge Modern History. But a word of preface affords a com- 
 mentary on this title which makes it only too evident that the wars were 
 not of, by or for religion, but were the play of dynastic ambitions in 
 which religion was used as a faithful ally^*. 
 
 This is proved first and most dramatically by the St. Bartholomew 
 massacres'*^ *^. These massacres left France a bloody legacy. During the 
 succeeding years, the "picture of demoralization could hardly be matched 
 in the records of any period ; . .. . nor was there much to choose between 
 Catholics and Huguenots, though of the few serious-minded men who 
 have left any record, the majority are perhaps to be found among either 
 the Protestants or the Politiques*'." Montaigne, the contemporary wit- 
 ness of those debased times, remarked: "Pick out from the Catholic 
 army all the men who are actuated either by a pure zeal for religion or 
 by loyalty to their country or their Prince, and you will not find enough 
 to form one complete company*"." 
 
 For the sake of brevity one may dismiss the highly interesting and 
 
 S3 
 
War and Religion 
 
 valuable testimony on the course of the Reformation in Poland in order 
 to dwell a little longer on the larger, more spectacular phases of the 
 struggle^*. 
 
 One turns, therefore, to the greater issues and to the continent-encir- 
 cling view of Breasted, to watch again the Ottoman plot and fight his way 
 into the north with direct co-operation of the north. In 1536, France 
 made a treaty of alliance with Turkey. Scandalous as this was to the 
 times, "it would have been infinitely greater had it been known, or even 
 suspected, that Solyman's siege of Vienna was the result, as the Grand 
 Vezir Ibrahim revealed to Ferdinand's ambassador, of an appeal to the 
 Sultan from Francis, his mother Louise of Savoy, and Clement VII, for 
 help against the Emperor." The conclusion drawn was that there was 
 little to choose between Turk and Christian when the virtues and vices 
 of both were weighed in the balance^^. This judgment is made in the full 
 light of the admission that "The Ottoman Empire was a military State;" 
 having as its mission "the spread of Islam by fire and sword^ . . " To pass 
 from such an agreement between Christian and Turk to discuss Spain's 
 Invincible Armada would be in the nature of anti-climax. For here it is 
 Catholic against Protestant, but withal, both Christians; whereas in the 
 other it was Mohammedan linked with Christian against Christian" ". 
 
 The solution of these tangled series of events is found in the theories of 
 Machiavelli. While his name "became a byword in Europe for all that 
 was unscrupulous and dishonest in politics,. . . his maxims are those 
 which have governed the practice of statesmen in general for the last 
 three hundred years. Machiavelli it may be noted, knows nothing of 
 chivalry, and even less of the Sermon on the Mount. Do to others, not 
 as you would they should do to you, but as you suspect they would 
 like to do to you, is his principle of government." "The Church which 
 presently condemned Machiavelli 's writings showed itself an adept in his 
 methods. That the end justifies the means, and that the prudent ruler 
 will seek to be feared rather than loved, were maxims in favor no less 
 with the spiritual than with the temporal powers." As for the Church, it 
 may be noted that in the institution of the Congregations, of which there 
 were fifteen, one, the first was that of the Inquisition or the Holy Office; 
 and another was "The Congregation for the navy which saw to the con- 
 struction and armament of vessels ordered by the Pope and to the securi- 
 ity of the seashore ..." As for the State, the ambitious policies of Philip 
 "had opened the eyes of the most infatuated Catholics to the fact that 
 notwithstanding his real devotion, religion was with him only a means for 
 the establishment of his political supremacy in Europe '•*" 
 
 All of these facts in the history of war and religion cannot but form 
 uniform links with the preceding parts, and so make a section of that long 
 chain of evidence which stretches far back into the time when man un- 
 consciously made records of his deeds in the stone weapons and imple- 
 ments he found or fashioned. A fitting nexus in this chain was wrought 
 by the proud achievements of the pyramid builders on the Nile and of the 
 men who reared the hanging gardens on the Euphrates. The scenes would 
 appear to shift radically with the advent of such leaders of the type of 
 Moses, Zoroaster, the Jewish Prophets, Lao-Tse, Confucius, Buddha, 
 Jesus and Mohammed, all of whom gave teachings of ethical import; and 
 
 54 
 
War and Religion 
 
 in many instances, with frequent and direct emphasis against war, though 
 not constantly, consistently and intransigeantly so. But withal, the 
 teachings of these master minds were used continually by their followers 
 to fan the flames from which were forged greater chains to belt the mighty 
 nations and empires that went forth to battle to keep intact or extend 
 their frontiers because they were assailed by, or felt impelled by whatever 
 reason, to assail their neighbors. The bloody warfare of the Dark and 
 Middle Ages of Europe and of the Mohammedan world that has filled 
 this section, showed how religion gladly devoted its energies to the cam- 
 paigns carried on with never-ceasing fury. And the iron of battle 
 in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries fashioned 
 identical parts for this chain that either has kept bound all peoples in 
 its unbreakable shackles; or, to follow the interpretation of another 
 school of thought, the chain which humanity has felt bound ever to hold 
 aloft as the symbol of its freedom, despite its crushing weight of stone and 
 iron, inspired by that mysterious power variously called upon in the 
 remote and immediate past, and generally known in the present, as God, 
 
 Granting it is clear that the Reformation made for the breaking up of 
 the European continent into jealous nationalist groups led by ambitious 
 dynasties" with the consequent exaltation of power as the basis of the 
 modern State**, one may neglect here further mention of the unremitting 
 warfare of kings and emperors, of French Revolution and Napoleonic 
 conquest. With all due allowances made for the influence of high ideals, 
 ennobling thoughts, and what are regarded as the best ethical, religious 
 and spiritual values, it is most evident that if a nation decided to make 
 war, its ideas or ideals in so doing were found consonant w^th the various 
 religions of the peoples composing that nation. In no less fervent degree, 
 did the very same religionists in the country attacked, find fullest reali- 
 zation of their hopes and faiths in the cause of their own lands, which had 
 been invaded. Churches of the same denominations in all countries used 
 the same prayer-books and hymns and rituals to lend ardor to the men 
 who fought for their country. Whether Church and State were divided 
 or not, the result was invariably the same. Force was the ultimate 
 sanction; and all other agencies had to lend their sanctions to force. 
 Religion, as one of those agencies seems to have followed, therefore, what 
 appears to be a law as immutable as that of gravitation, in its unfailing 
 support of war. For up to the present point in this study, as long as 
 man has been identified as such on this earth, he has been found to be a 
 fighter; and what developed into no mean aid as part of his warring equip- 
 ment, has been this strange, mysterious, psychological power of religion, 
 that assured him of his working, of his fighting in harmony with the 
 power, the mystery that is at the heart of this universe. 
 
 A very vivid illustration of this relationship between war and religion 
 that should constitute a most striking close of this section devoted to 
 our Immediate Ancestors may be found in the history of the great Ameri- 
 can Civil War. The Methodist Book Concern published, in 1912, a work 
 called "The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Civil War." In his 
 preface, the author disclaims any object of glorifying the Church "because 
 of the important part she took in the Civil War, but it was to tell in a 
 scientific manner just what the Methodist Episcopal Church, taken as a 
 
War and Religion 
 
 typical example of the other Churches did in aiding the Federal Govern- 
 ment to bring to a successful close the War of the Rebellion. The thesis 
 of this study is to show the importance of the Churches as an aid to the 
 Government during the Civil War" «» "." 
 
 Unfortunately the book is not completely scientific for it does not 
 show as fully in the case of the South how the Churches there supported 
 the cause of the Confederacy as it shows how the Churches North upheld 
 the Union. Slight compensation for this lack may be found in the impar- 
 tial way in which is traced the evolution of the northern churches from 
 opposition to abolition of slavery to espousal of it^^ ®' ". 
 
 Hardly could a more perfect instance of the loyalty of religious groups 
 to the established authorities be cited than that afforded by the Civil 
 War. Just because the issues were so very decidedly and clearly drawn, 
 this fierce struggle was most illustrative of the typical attitude to war 
 and religion. Whether the accent be placed on the question of slavery 
 or on the more theoretical one of States' rights, the very same churches 
 in different sections of the country took diametrically opposite sides. 
 They found in their same prayer-books, and above all, in one and the 
 same Bible, divine sanction for the support they gave to their leaders and 
 armies drawn up for battle. Warfare was to be the arbiter. 
 
 The book contains a copy of the written reply which Lincoln made to 
 a delegation from the General Conference which presented an address 
 to him. Lincoln lauded the Methodist Episcopal Church above all 
 others. He closed his reply with the words: "God bless the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church! Bless all the Churches! And blessed be God, who in 
 this great trial giveth us the Churches, (Signed) A. Lincoln'^." 
 
 When the war ended, the religious bodies remained split into Churches 
 North and South^; and despite all efforts making for unity, the various 
 branches maintain their separatism to the present day. All Church 
 publications in the North supported the Union cause during the war®^; 
 and all papers in the South opposed the Union^^. Of curious interest it 
 is to learn that the American Bible Society "did not confine its work to 
 the Union troops, but grants were made all through the war to the 
 Southern armies^^." 
 
 This entire situation was not typical merely of the Christian churches. 
 An investigation of the Jewish periodical press during the war shows how 
 the Jews in the North supported the cause of the Union, while the Jews 
 in the South were devoted to the Confederacy'". 
 
 With this, the history of the influences of war and religion, as they 
 affected our Immediate Ancestors, more particularly the Christian and 
 Mohammedan groups, is brought to a close. While traditional thinking 
 makes the stretch from the earliest times of the Egyptians down to the 
 threshold of the present day seem a long one, yet these five or six thousand 
 years that have elapsed are very short when compared to the tens of 
 thousands of years which marked the progress of sociocracy among our 
 Remote Ancestors. While various factors such as climate, geography, or 
 the general environmental conditions, more or less related to these physi- 
 cal elements, have been shown to modify religious beliefs, accounting 
 thereby to an extent, for the diversity that exists, one constant among 
 all such variables is found in the attitude which religions in all times and 
 
 56 
 
War and Religion 
 
 all climes have assumed to war. In Africa, Asia, Australia as well as in 
 Europe and America, relipon has followed the lead of the "batons de 
 comraandement;" and has found in the policy of the government under 
 which it lived, no matter what that policy was, the way in which the 
 power it recognized in the universe could be invoked, to bless with suc- 
 cess the weapons used for the defense of the public cause. War then is 
 primary. Religion is essentially bound up with and is secondary to it. 
 And the connection is a thoroughgoing one. 
 
 It remains to consult contemporaries, more especially as all seem to 
 agree that at the present writing the world has been plunged into the 
 "World War," in which practically all the nations of all the continents 
 on the globe are engaged. In this stupendous role that war is playing, it 
 must be of supreme value to find out what the attitude of the religionist 
 is. It had been planned to do this very directly by asking as large a 
 number of ministers and representative laymen of all denominations to 
 .state in the name of science, if not also of religion, in what way they 
 thought war and religion could or should be related. It may be of value 
 for this work to state that the waiter was dissuaded from sending out the 
 questionnaire he had planned by reasons of expediency. It was felt that 
 not only would it be a waste of money and effort because so very few 
 replies would be received, but it was urged by most well-meaning friends 
 that such a procedure would be highly liable to misconstruction as being 
 unpatriotic. Whatever the sentiments, the writer was made to feel that it 
 was the part of prudence not to do this; and this, coupled with material 
 considerations, accomplished the defeat of the plan. 
 
 It might be argued now as it was then, that there is ample testimony of 
 the present attitude to war and religion in the daily press of all countries 
 as well as in the religious papers, not to mention the endless stream of 
 books published in all lands from leaders in the churches as well as in 
 politics, art, science, and philosophy. But as the writer sees it, a very 
 unique piece of testimony would have been afforded future generations 
 in thus securing the directly individual reaction of the religionist to war, 
 as well as the collective reaction which, after all, characterizes all the 
 other printed word. It was intended for instance to ask the faculties of 
 all theological seminaries, which represent the scholarship and essential 
 spirituality of each church, how they would phrase the stand of that 
 church in approval or disapproval of war, and how impart that theology 
 to their students. Similarly, conferences of ministers would consciously 
 explain how they interpret the tenets of their faith to fit into the events 
 of the day. The present holds most sacred the beliefs and teachings of 
 the past and uses them for help in the present. Would it not be a precious 
 heritage if the present generation had before it the mass of individual 
 views of groups of clergymen of each faith telling consciously and con- 
 scientiously how they worked out a theory of life and belief when the 
 question of war confronted them? It might be objected that the mass of 
 material would be overwhelming; but authorized digests could be made 
 from time to time. This, at least, is the procedure in the matter of the 
 legal relations of individuals to each other; certainly of equal importance 
 should be considered the feeling of faith and trust which a religious guide 
 of men holds to the mystery of mysteries. Even the most out-and-out 
 
 57 
 
War and Religion 
 
 agnostic should see the value of such spiritual decisions for the science of 
 religion; and the devout religionist would have the carefully, maturely 
 elaborated ideas of his teachers before him. Suppose for instance there 
 had been handed down from the time when Constantine elevated the 
 Church to authority definite, vouched-for statistics of the number of 
 churches in his day, the number of congregants, the decisions of the 
 individual churches and pastors and bishops on questions of polity; or 
 suppose that such particularistic information were available even from 
 the time of the Reformation; a most definite and exact science of religion 
 would not only be created equal in rank to any other science, but a con- 
 sciousness of behavior would be so sharpened, that the many exas- 
 perating generalizations about "crowd psychology" and "laws of imita- 
 tion" would not permit the laissez-faire shrug of the shoulders that meets 
 one in places high and low when questions of moment are raised. Reli- 
 gion itself would gain in dignity and worth. Perhaps a great deal of the 
 strength of the Catholic Church lies just in this that there is a recognized 
 code of religious law providing precedents whose binding force is not 
 blind authority but the seal of a history that can be followed in its 
 sequences for hundreds of years. The rejoinder is expected that this may 
 also be its greatest source of weakness. But it cannot be if survival be 
 the test. 
 
 At all events, when critical situations arise, the first impulse, and a 
 sort of genuine one, is to find out what some one else did in the present 
 or past to meet such a situation. The record, for example, as it stands 
 now shows that all of the initiative belongs to war; and in a bit of anar- 
 chistic fashion, religion has always rushed in pellmell after war was 
 declared, adopted the slogan that the public authorities set; and after 
 floundering through the war, started to limp into recognition during 
 years of peace: but with little success, for it had discredited itself in not 
 speaking boldly in the name of the all-supreme power or mystery to 
 which it declared its only allegiance. The majority of men, if not all men, 
 are religious; they must assume some attitude to mystery; there is no 
 dictum more scientific than that man must live by faith. Some choose 
 to call it "a theory of life;" but that does not make it any the less blind, 
 even as faith is blind. Pitt -Rivers, as noted before, boldly declared his 
 faith in a Providence that has made this world so, that one of the neces- 
 sities of life is warfare. Practically all nations prove the truth of this, for 
 they all strain and strive to be armed to the teeth; but all the while 
 religion weakly talks about peace and the Church's mission of peace. 
 Religion is then not merely unscientific but it is untrue; and as one of 
 the principal tests in life is survival, religion shows the lack of staying 
 qualities, not because it is not intrinsically valuable, but because of this 
 seeming lack of fiber in those who would and should uphold it. Religion 
 survives despite the flabbiness of its rightful defenders. Instead of a 
 scientist as Pitt-Rivers voicing the unabashed faith in a Power that has 
 made the world to be what we actually find it to be, the churchmen who 
 follow always in the wake of war should make such frank declarations. 
 Instead of that are found the halting, isolated, complicated statements 
 that will be cited soon in the next chapter dealing with contemporaries. 
 Such a study as Leuba made in his "The Belief in God and Immortality" in 
 
 58 
 
War and Religion 
 
 which are such definite, absohite statements as " . . disbelief in a personal 
 God and in personal immortality is directly proportional to abilities 
 making for success in the sciences in question" is a tremendously valua- 
 ble formula for the sciences of Religion, Sociology, Psychology, and, no 
 doubt, others; and as it is based on straightforward evidence of the 
 highest character, it must stand until nullified or disproved by evidence 
 that will be put in the same kind of balances and be found not wanting. 
 Leuba's procedure could be followed in this matter of a questionnaire to 
 ministers and prominent laymen who are devoutly faithful to religion; 
 the evidence could be summarized ; and the world for all time could have 
 the benefit of such statements of faith worked out with the most pious 
 care. It is imperative that these "confessions of faith" be made in the 
 stress of war as well as in peace, so that the reactions of men be studied 
 under both conditions, for thereby human knowledge would be greatly 
 enriched and human faith would find its true place in the world — unless 
 that place must inevitably be that which it always has been, that which 
 the next chapter also will show it still to be, utterly secondary to war, 
 though speciously in these days the champion of peace. 
 
 If this volume should circulate into broad daylight and at the same 
 time the world struggle still be going on, it would be ever so helpful if 
 all who may read these words would at once express their thoughts on 
 war and religion, and some recognized scientific or religious agency collect 
 and sift them and give the world in a concise and clear form, the results. 
 To say that one cannot be categorical in such matters is but begging the 
 question in the light of the role that religion has played in the past. The 
 mystery of mysteries is as unsolved today as it was in that dawn age of 
 man when some of our Remote Ancestors took particular pains to inhume 
 the dead bodies of particular persons and deposit with them utensils and 
 weapons of war. Man is not master of his fate but he can show some 
 awareness of it and express it for the benefit of future generations, even 
 as the past did much that makes the present rich. Religion should not 
 let its birthright be taken from it by the loyal, devoted sons of clay and 
 clod, of microscope and telescope. It should learn all that these truly 
 pious men of science have wrested from mystery; and should then march 
 boldly into the terra incognita and come back to man with the message 
 that a thousand years in the sight of the Supreme are but as yesterday; 
 that all that has been discovered is vanity compared to all that is undis- 
 covered; and that the undiscoverable, the mystery at the heart of things 
 has a message — be it war, be it peace; and "still small voice" though it 
 be, it should be rightly more availing than all the complicated machinery 
 of human invention which stops so far short of the impenetrable veil. 
 But "to the testimony" of Contemporaries, incomplete and chaotic as it 
 is, and as sequential of the attitude of our Immediate Ancestors, as was 
 that of our Remote Ancestors, to war and religion. 
 
 59 
 
IV. War and Religion Among Contemporaries 
 Introduction 
 
 It is extremely difficult to handle the mighty mass of written material 
 dealing with war and religion that has appeared recently, more especially 
 since the so-called world-war broke out in 1914, To condense a small but 
 representative part of it to such proportions that it will fit into the com- 
 pass of these pages, brings one to set up somewhat arbitrary rubrics; and 
 in machine-magnet fashion draw out of certain works opinions and beliefs 
 that would naturally cluster about these rubrics, and place them here in 
 orderly manner. While this is unsatisfactory, yet the sustained endeavor 
 not to wrest passages from their context to belie it, but rather to give the 
 gist of the whole thought and illustrate it with an apt quotation, will 
 continue to be the guiding principle. Under such headings then as 
 Christ, Religious Claims in General, Germany Christian or Unchris- 
 tian, Tolstoy, Old Testament and New Testament, the Pope, Chaplains, 
 Mohammedanism or Turkey, Quakers, typical points of view will be 
 gathered from the vast host of present-day writers. More than ever, 
 the guiding spirit in this eclectic work will be that which it is hoped has 
 directed noticeably the efforts in the preceding chapters — to call to the 
 witness stand men of eminence, who, at the same time, are characterized 
 by a friendly if not personal interest in the religion or theory treated. 
 
 In this connection it may be said that it was felt to be part of this 
 endeavor to be fair as well as frank, to include only the names of such 
 contemporaries who had embodied their views in a publication that 
 promised to be of permanent value; whereas those men living whose 
 views are of present value because of their popularity as orators or 
 preachers, would be cited but without disclosing their names. In every 
 case the reference will be given so that the scientific value of this record 
 be not impaired; to have been more specific would have made this study 
 bear some taint of controversialism, whereas its whole, sole aim and 
 object is to eliminate the subjective, and in utterly detached and dis- 
 passionate manner give the record of humanity in war and religion as 
 the student in the laboratory conscientiously observes and writes of the 
 reactions of chemicals or organisms when subjected to experimental 
 analysis. Quotations from the daily secular press and from the religious 
 papers and periodicals will also be made without identifying the authors 
 other than to mention the particular denomination professed by the 
 writer, and the title, if any, of the office held. 
 
 Part A — Christ 
 
 If it is possible to strike off an estimate of Christ that will represent 
 the average opinion of today, it might be expressed as a longing for the 
 Messianic conception of peace, characterized by a righteousness won by 
 peaceful methods if possible, but by warlike measures and by the gage of 
 battle, under the compulsion of circumstances. Of course there are 
 extreme views. Thus Russell unequivocally speaks of "the teaching of 
 
 60 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Christ, which admirable as it is, remains quite inadequate for many of the 
 social and spiritual issues of modern life. Art and intellect and all social 
 problems of government are ignored in the Gospels'." It is interesting 
 to juxtapose to this the following words of Jevons: "But of all the great 
 religions of the world it is the Christian Church alone which is so far heir 
 of all the ages as to fulfill the dumb, dim expectation of mankind; in it 
 alone the sacramental meal commemorates by ordinance of its founder 
 the divine sacrifice which is a propitiation for tlie sins of all man- 
 kind-." 
 
 Turning to that larger company of men whose views show reasonable- 
 ness and intelligence, there may be cited first the earnest champion of 
 a "peace Christ" in W. E. Wilson's "Christ and War" a revised edition of 
 which was published in November 1914. In his introduction he posits as 
 the object of the work, first "To state clearly the Christian objections to 
 war," and second, "To show how the Christian position is supported by 
 Ihe economic argument of Norman Angell," and third, "That the whole 
 teaching of Jesus is practical." For him, war is essentially un-Christian*. 
 He interprets all the war sentiments uttered by Jesus or connected with 
 Jesus, in a homiletic way, as not meaning literal belligerency. He con- 
 tends that all these passages "can only be understood in the light of the 
 total impression of all that Jesus Christ said and was*." At the same time 
 he finds "something of nobleness and unselfishness in taking up arms to 
 protect some one else, . . . for the action is nearer to a truly Christian 
 spirit than is that of the individual who protects himself^." 
 
 The Oxford University Press issued a series of pamphlets on the war 
 called "Papers for War Time." Number fifteen, published in 1915, on 
 "Christianity and Force," contains this sentence: "If we understood 
 Christ's teachings aright, I believe that we should hate war and a good 
 many other things with a more perfect hatred and yet at the same time 
 feel it a Christian duty to support our country whole-heartedly in the 
 present struggle^." Number twenty of this same series in 1915 is on 
 "War, This War, and the Sermon on the Mount." The author cannot 
 reconcile war with a Christian civilization, but adds : " Christ came not as 
 
 a Lawgiver or Sage but as Captain of a forlorn hope Every 
 
 follower of Christ must serve on some Crusade. Thus the Sermon on the 
 Mount is not to be read as a set of rules and regulations but as a battle- 
 song. . . " People have the misconception of the soldier, in regarding him 
 as an executioner. "The soldier is before all things a man who is ready to 
 die for his country ; and readiness to die for others is essentially a Chris- 
 tian thing^." 
 
 F. J. Foakes-Jackson edited a compilation on "The Faith and the 
 War," published in London in 1915. One of the contributors argues for 
 the rightfulness of certain wars. "... Christ and His followers can hardly 
 have regarded war as always and unconditionally sinful*." Still another 
 publication, in 1916 on "War and the Fear of God," is sure that the 
 war will bring "a true good if it puts an end to this misinterpretation of 
 Christ, and reminds us that the rudest savage who is knocked in the 
 head fighting the battle of his clan is nearer the kingdom of God than the 
 most refined and cultivated person who lives on sacrifice and makes 
 none'." In 1916 appeared "Christianity After the War" with the asser- 
 
 61 
 
War and Religion 
 
 lion that "Christ's whole life, character, teaching and self-sacrifice stood 
 for the resistance of evil to the uttermost'"." 
 
 F. R. Barry, who is a Fellow and lecturer in Theology in Oriel College 
 Oxford had published in London, in 1915, his book on "Religion and the 
 War." His position is: "It is argued in what follows that 'non-resis- 
 tance' and the "will to Power" do truly meet in Christianity, and that a 
 Pacifist, which is also Christian warfare is indicated by the Cross"." 
 
 There is ever so much more material in hand; but the above consti- 
 tutes a fair sample for illustrating the belief in Christ as essentially peace- 
 loving, yet sanctioning war when absolutely necessary to further His 
 Divine Kingdom. While there must be some overlapping in these sec- 
 tions, as for instance the treatment of New Testament exegesis in con- 
 nection with this first part on Christ, each subdivision will be fairly 
 homogeneous. Thus in the next part on the "Old Testament versus the 
 New Testament," the one idea prevails concerning the sanction which 
 the former lends to brutal warfare and hence its inferiority to the New 
 Testament. 
 
 Part B — Old Testament versus New Testament 
 
 Wilson, cited before, consults the New Testament only, for the Old 
 is "admittedly imperfect'-." In the light of this, it is interesting to note 
 this author's history of the early Church, as far as its espousal of peace 
 is concerned. He finds little if any adherence at any time to the "peace- 
 Christ's." 
 
 A very remarkable collection of opinions is found in A. Baudrillart's 
 "German War and Catholicism" published in Paris in 1915 under the 
 patronage of the Catholic Commission of French Propaganda. One con- 
 tributor, writing on "Christian Laws of Warfare," insists that Catholic 
 morality is impregnated with good sense, and is "the inveterate enemy of 
 
 Utopias It teaches then that humanity will in its depths always 
 
 keep the indestructible germ of every war." After quoting New Testa- 
 ment passages, he concludes :" Hence the right of war'^." Another partic- 
 ipant in this collection writes on German Culture and Catholicism, say- 
 ing: "Sometimes Pan-Germanism goes back to the Old Testament. . . . 
 But Scriptures, and especially the Old Testament, is a product of the 
 
 Judaic civilization Although Luther is the type of the German 
 
 Man, of the Kerndeutsche Man, Luther's Christ remains a Jew'^;. ..." 
 
 A British publication on "The National Crisis and Why the Churches 
 Fail" (London 1915) finds that "The last cause of failure which it may 
 be well to notice is that the average Churchman is at heart and in spirit, 
 as to his religion, a Jew. He represents an arrested development'®." 
 Another British publication avers that the nauseating and repulsive 
 religion of Germany sprang "from the misuse of the Bible by the Kaiser 
 
 and his underlings Thus it identifies Christianity with Judaism, 
 
 and seeks to bind upon the Christian conscience the ideals and commands 
 of the Old Testament'^" The Archdeacon of Ely, in his "Christianity 
 and Politics" also points out the defective polity and morality of the 
 Old Testament as contrasted with the New'^. This same volume contains 
 an official statement on the history of the relations between the Church 
 and War" which finds that at first war was tolerated as inevitable in an 
 
 62 
 
War and Religion 
 
 evil world. Then from the fifth to the seventeenth century war was con- 
 secrated as a part of the Christian polity. Latterly, war is recognized, as 
 an evil; but it is essential "for the preservation of national life-".'* The 
 digression is included, as in the case of Wilson at the beginning of this 
 section, as a curious side-light on the position taken on the Ohl Testa- 
 ment versus the New. The Old is objected to, presumably, because it 
 puts the God of Battle to the fore; nevertheless the sentiments expressed 
 in the preceding section on Christ, as well as many in this, only qualify 
 but do not deny the compatibility of war and religion. This is made most 
 clear in turning to religion in Germany. 
 
 Part C — Germany Christian and Un-Christian 
 
 The passing notices in some of the preceding citations to the religious 
 beliefs of Germany could be multiplied myriadfold in this section if space 
 permitted. Perhaps few things have become more notorious in the lands 
 warring against Germany than the belief of the Germans that God is 
 altogether on their side; and the utterances of the Kaiser as reported so 
 very frequently in the daily press are held up to ridicule and generally 
 regarded as basest blasphemy. Thus the latest one to hand at this writ- 
 ing is parodied in a representative metropolitan newspaper in heavy 
 headlines as : " Kaiser Admits God to Full Alliance." The words Emperor 
 William is said to have uttered are: "We do not know what is still in 
 store for us, but you have seen how in this last of the four years of war 
 God's hand has visibly prevailed, punished treachery and rewarded 
 heroic persistence. From this we can gain firm confidence that the Lord 
 will be with us in the future also. If the enemy does not want peace then 
 we must bring peace to the world by battering in with the iron fist and 
 shining sword the doors of those who will not have peace^'." 
 
 So infamous has Germany come to be regarded on account of this 
 attitude to war and religion, that one takes it for granted that it is so. 
 Because of this it may seem vain to devote any space to such a generally 
 admitted condition. But the very fact that volumes and libraries could 
 be filled with this particular subject alone makes it necessary to give 
 adequate notice to this phenomenon here because it is such a perfect, 
 even if extreme illustration, of the truth herein to be established. 
 
 Again for the sake of proportion, only a very few can be noted here of 
 the hundreds and thousands of writers who dwell on this matter of Chris- 
 tian or un-Christian Germany; and men of the highest caliber will be 
 selected for these few representatives. By way of emphasis as well as for 
 purposes of harmonious presentation, Bernhardi who has been selected 
 to give the German viewpoint will be reserved for a section by himself, 
 immediately succeeding that devoted to Tolstoy, so that each may serve 
 as a foil to the other. 
 
 An article in "The Churchman" (London 1914) on "German Chris- 
 tianity and the Great War" would prove that Eucken is not Christian 
 despite his learned assertions. The Germans offer to the world the tiger 
 in man instead of the strength of Christ^^. 
 
 The utterances of Gilbert Murray must command attention not only 
 because of his well-merited fame, but for the remarkable contrast his 
 
 63 
 
War and Religion 
 
 words present to the gentle, poetic manner and style of this man whose 
 spare form is aglow with spirituality when he recites with fervor and 
 enthusiasm selections from the immortal dramatists of classic Greece. 
 He has written much on the war, in a tone naturally exalted and generally 
 noble, but none the less firm and intensely patriotic. He contributes a 
 paper on " Ethical Problems of the War" in a volume edited by J. E. Car- 
 penter, containing "fourteen addresses by leading British men," all on 
 the theme "Ethical and Religious Problems of the War" published in 
 London in 1916. 
 
 Murray says that the war appealed to him first as an ethical problem. 
 He has not the least doubt "in any corner of" his mind but that the war 
 was right. He thinks that the break-up of the Empire would be a great 
 disaster for the world. But greater than all other evils it would be to 
 submit to Germany because that land represents the rule of naked force**. 
 In a book from Murray's pen published a few months ago, on "Faith, 
 War and Policy," he regards Germany as a "nation of lost souls"." In 
 1914, when the war-storm burst, he found himself completely changed 
 from an ardent peace-lover to a man "resolute to face death and to kill." 
 He was sorry each day when reports in the press announced fewer Ger- 
 mans slain than the day before. Yet he does not hate the Germans but 
 
 their "Prussian blood-and-iron ambition, their strange culture that 
 
 idol of blood and clay and true gold-^ "." 
 
 Another leading Briton included in Carpenter's collection regards the 
 conflict as a "battle between God and the Devil." He is persuaded that 
 the world will "exorcise the demon" that Germany is". 
 
 There are many more men of light and leading who could and should 
 be cited here on the un-Christian religion of Germany. A glance through 
 the Oxford Pamphlets, more especially those dealing with war and religion 
 would reveal much useful material. Some of the pamphlets are written 
 by such men as the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Dean of Christ Church, 
 Oxford. An exceptional offering is from the Principal of Mansfield Col- 
 lege, Oxford, who in his "The War and Theology" finds some Christianity 
 in Germany, and who insists more on the thought of utilizing Germany as 
 a solemn warning to England rather than inveighing against the enemy^. 
 
 This leniency in judgment, however, is submerged in the torrents of 
 hate that course through "The War and Religion," by Alfred Loisy, 
 translated from the French and vehemently prefaced by A. Galton, pub- 
 lished at Oxford, England in 1915. One is led to believe that M. Loisy, 
 of the College de France, is offering a scientific, dispassionate study of 
 war and religion'^'. Instead of this, one finds himself wading through the 
 turbulent, boiling stream of perfervid patriotism, led on by the oriflamme: 
 " the salvation of France. Here is our common religion ; one which has 
 no unbelievers'"." The preface denounces the "innate bestiality of the 
 
 Germanic nature The Prussians are uncivilized, and uncivilizable; 
 
 and the Allies should deal with them accordingly'^" Loisy is also bitter 
 against the German "beast of prey'^." But he divides his surging passion 
 between inveterate hate against the Papal institution and exaltation of 
 devotion to one's country. He maintains that "the religion which is 
 most alive, which for a great number of people is the only living one, 
 is not the Christian faith, but devotion to one's country"." 
 
 64 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Such impassioned sentiments may well serve to turn this current of 
 thought on " Germany Christian or un-Christian" to a most brief considera- 
 tion of two meaty volumes published in 1917 that aim to, and in general, 
 do give an impartial and fair review of German war thought, especially 
 along religious lines. One bears the strange title "Hurrah and Hallelu- 
 jah." The author, J. P. Bang, a Dane, offers this explanation of it: "The 
 new German spirit has found one of its most classical expressions in a 
 collection of poems published by a German pastor, Konsistorialrat 
 Dietrich Vorwerk, under the significant title, Hurrah and Hallelujah. I 
 find in this combination something so absolutely characteristic of the 
 German spirit, that I have adopted it as the title of this book. In the 
 first edition of Pastor Vorwerk's book there occurred a paraphrase of the 
 Lord's Prayer, of which I will cite the last three petitions and the close: 
 
 "Though the warrior's bread be scanty, do Thou work daily death and 
 tenfold woe unto the enemy. Forgive in merciful long-suffering each 
 bullet and each blow which misses its mark, etc., etc.** ^^" But the Ger- 
 mans thought this was blasphemous and it did not appear in later edi- 
 tions of the book^^. Nevertheless the sermons of the German preachers 
 that fill the collection by Bang show merely a change in letter and not in 
 spirit. There are whole series of preachments on "The German God." 
 And the assertion is weary ingly made that "the nature of Germanism is 
 one with the nature of Christianity*' •*." Bang disclaims any intention of 
 drawing up a case against German religiosity. He has gathered the 
 average religious beliefs of the German pastors. He cannot but conclude 
 that "arrogance, self-righteousness, the blindest Pharisaism, and the 
 bitterest hatred, characterize a great number of German sermons at the 
 present time^^." To prove that he aims to be fair, he includes the more 
 elevated thoughts of a few representative Germans. But their voices 
 are lost in the large chorus of hate***. 
 
 The second collection entitled: "Gems(.'') of German Thought" made 
 by a representative Englishman, W. Archer, includes quotations from the 
 leading German thinkers and scientists as well as from the religionists. 
 The author doubts "whether the literature of the world can show a paral- 
 lel to the amazing outburst of tribal arrogance, unrestrained and un- 
 ashamed, of which these pages contain but a few scattered specimens." 
 He says that "many of the wildest shrieks of self-glorification and ferocity 
 proceed from clerics and theologians^^" Archer lays much stress on "the 
 living influence of Nietzsche" whose " Zarathustra" along with "Faust 
 and the New Testament were found, upon German investigation, to be 
 the books most in demand among the soldiers*^." Then follow long series 
 of quotations from Haeckel, Harnack, Bernhardi, Nietzsche, finding 
 their climax in Nietzsche's famous words: "Ye say it is the good cause 
 which halloweth even war? I say unto you, it is the good war which 
 halloweth every cause." "Ye shall love peace as a means to new wars — 
 and the short peace more than the lon^ 44 45 46 «" 
 
 Finally, a word should be quoted from the address by the renowned 
 F. Delitzsch, delivered in Berlin in 1914, on the subject: " Psalmenworte 
 fiir die Gegenwart," because it is so reminiscent of Vorwerk's paraphrase 
 on the Ix)rd's Prayer. His text is Psalm 121. In closing, he quotes the 
 Psalm and paraphrases the last verse thus: "Der Herr behiite unsern 
 
 65 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Ausgang und Eingang in das neue Kriegsjahr und sei mit Deutschland 
 von nun bis in Ewigkeit!" Amen"**! 
 
 From this bottomless welter of opinion there is one thing that clearly 
 emerges. To the average non-German there is no people so un-Christian, 
 so befogged with the traditions of the old tribal religion as is the German 
 folk ; and conversely, to the Germans, no nation has the exalted religious 
 consciousness of Christianity that inheres in themselves. From both of 
 these contentions one thing is most sure. Religion is playing no small 
 part in helping the rulers to carry out their plans, thus showing that in 
 this latest day, religion is still essentially connected with war, and in a 
 secondary capacity. And as this tale has now been brought to the very 
 present moment, this connection between war and religion must be 
 thoroughgoing. 
 
 Pari D — Religious Claims in General 
 
 If only partial justice were to be done to this rubric, one would have 
 to edit a series of volumes not dissimilar to the book by Sweet on the 
 "Methodist Episcopal Church in the Civil War" that was used in con- 
 nection with the preceding chapter; and the effort to make it completely 
 scientific would involve the expenditure of too much labor in order to 
 bring out the very same class of material and conclusions that Sweet 
 gathered in his volume. For all the leading churches of all denominations; 
 all the leading church publications ; all the popular clergymen of every 
 faith with but two exceptions; all the influential laymen interested in 
 Church work; all the rulers of all the countries possibly excepting France; 
 all the congregations without exception, have asked the blessing of God 
 on their efforts to crush the enemy or to gain the victory. A great deal 
 of evidence is at hand; but in the light of all the preceding attention given 
 to Contemporaries and because of the projected study of Bernhardi, the 
 Quakers, Tolstoy, and a hasty consideration of theories of progress, it 
 ought not to be regarded as essential here to burden this lengthy account 
 of war and religion with this superabundant material. 
 
 It should be sufficient to say that the gamut of religious expression 
 today runs from such a public utterance made before a responsible 
 American audience by a minister, to the effect, that if he had his way, 
 every bullet that was fired at the Germans should have upon it the sign 
 of the Cross (the address was quoted in a conservative, careful newspaper 
 of a very large circulation and was delivered a year before the United 
 States entered the war); and in gradation from this run hundreds of 
 examples of the words of popular preachers occupying the most promi- 
 nent pulpits among all the Christian denominations, as well as among 
 the Jewish, who had been outspoken pacifists, believing that the message 
 of religion was that of peace. But when the President of the United 
 States sent his war message to the Congress, all of them supported his 
 program with the exception of two men who are leaders in the Unitarian 
 Church which embraces, comparatively, but a handful of followers, and 
 which as a church group in convention formally endorsed the war-policy 
 of the nation as did the conferences and meetings of all other church 
 bodies. Of the groups that spoke very eloquently for the idea of the 
 peace interpretation of the Godhead, none seemed to surpass, in pre-war 
 
 66 
 
War and Religion 
 
 days the Rabbis of Reform Judaism, under whom the writer of this study 
 was educated. Their preachments were built fundamentally, if not 
 wholly, on the words of the great Prophets of Israel; and the Reform 
 Jewish ministry regarded it as its special prerogative to enunciate and 
 revivify the prophetic doctrines which they summed up in the words: 
 "Ethical Monotheism," a religion of righteousness and peace. Many 
 of them were most fond of quoting as their motto: "Israel's mission is 
 peace." There seemed much of the Quaker spirit in their words, that laid 
 such emphasis on this idea of deity and a mission of peace. But though 
 a few declaimed against the preparedness campaign that swept the 
 country during the months preceding its entry into the war, most of 
 them supported it whole-heartedly. And finally, when war was requested 
 of the Congress, not one remained to champion this peace religion that 
 was read from the Prophets; but on the contrary, one or two of the most 
 prominent pulpiteers who were most fervent interpreters of the Prophetic 
 Faith have now become equally earnest in their support of the war. The 
 expression used most widely by all religionists in pulpit and pew, and in 
 all denominations, is that this is a righteous or holy war; and that God 
 desires those W'ho believe in Him to lay down their lives, if necessary, for 
 such a blessed cause as the nation is struggling to uphold. 
 
 The President of the United States used as his closing words to the 
 message he sent to the Congress, asking that war be declared against 
 Germany, the sentence: "God helping her, she can do no other^^." Two 
 weeks after the declaration of war, the President issued a special message 
 to the country at large asking for the entire co-operation of all the people 
 for the successful prosecution of the war. His opening words were: 
 "My Fellow-Countrymen : The entrance of our own beloved country 
 into the grim and terrible war for democracy and human rights which has 
 shaken the world, creates so many problems of national life and action 
 which call for immediate consideration and settlement, that I hope you 
 will permit me to address to you a few words of earnest counsel and 
 appeal with regard to them." Then follow particular expressions of 
 appeal to employers and employed of all kinds. The last words are 
 addressed specifically to clergymen in this wise : "And I hope that clergy- 
 men will not think the theme of it an unworthy or inappropriate subject 
 of comment and homily from their pulpits. The supreme test of the 
 nation has come. We must all speak, act, and serve together." (Signed) 
 "Woodrow Wilson^"." 
 
 The following telegrams were exchanged on December 25, 1917, by 
 government officials: 
 
 "Please extend to the President and the Secretary of War holiday 
 greetings and best wishes for the success of our arms during the coming 
 year, and convey them from all ranks of the American Expeditionary 
 Forces in France renewed pledge of devotion to our sacred cause. Like- 
 wise extend our greetings to our comrades at home, coupled with full 
 confidence in patience, courage and devotion to the flag." (Signed) 
 "Pershing." 
 
 The War Department made public the following reply to this Christ- 
 mas greeting from General Pershing, by General Bliss, Chief of Staff: 
 
 "The President and Secretary of War send to you and to the American 
 
 67 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Army in France the most cordial greeting and good wishes for this 
 Christmas season from the people of the United States. Your comrades 
 in arms in every camp and cantonment send you greetings. From every 
 home today goes a prayer for the welfare and success of our troops in 
 France, and personally for that of every man of them. The nation reposes 
 in you and them its full confidence that in God's good time and with 
 God's blessing, its troops in France, side by side with their gallant allies, 
 will bring victory and abiding peace to all the world." "Bliss*^" 
 
 In view of such an utterly unmanageable mass of material all of which 
 resolves itself into the attitude to war and religion that has been found 
 unexceptionally the same from the Remote Past up to the present, it 
 was thought that this part devoted to "Religious Claims in General" 
 would be most worth while if but three or four of the leading thinkers of 
 today, who felt the cause of religion sincerely and deeply, were consulted 
 now. 
 
 The stage which the thinking of Gilbert Murray reached this year has 
 been spoken of before. As in the case of everything that has gone before, 
 the man's words will be given without any opinion expressed on them. 
 This book, be it again said, is concerned almost entirely with the presen- 
 tation of facts that bear on humanity's reactions to war and religion, and 
 in this volume the historical evidence alone is to be submitted. The 
 study must be continued into the realms of psychology and biology 
 before a judgment or opinion that is thorough, can be formed. In this 
 spirit, therefore, Murray's attitude is given as a fact of contemporaneous 
 reaction to war and religion. 
 
 He says : "We are driven back to a sort of mysticism. Mankind knows 
 that suffering itself is evil, but the wish to cause suffering is incalculably 
 and disproportionately worse. All the cruel deeds, all the killing and 
 maiming that are done day by day, night by night, over most of Europe, 
 are not the real will, not the real free actions of any man. It is all a 
 thing that has happened. Who among men ever wished for this war? We 
 know that our own statesmen strained every nerve to prevent it. The 
 soldiers fighting never wished it. No one wished it. Not the great 
 criminals and semi-maniacs in Germany and Austria who brought it 
 about; not even they wished for this. What they wished was wicked 
 enough. Heaven help them; when they dreamed of their triumphal march 
 on Paris and the rest of the frischer fr^hlicher Krieg, the "fresh and 
 joyous war." But they never wished for this that has come. They 
 thought it would be quite different. They are staring aghast, like Frank- 
 enstein, at the monster they have created. 
 
 "But it makes some difference in one's ultimate judgment, it saves one 
 from a wild reaction against all organized human society as an accursed 
 thing, if we realize that the war is not really the work of man's will. It 
 is more a calamity to pity than a crime to curse"-." 
 
 An equally striking confession is contained in Hastings Rashdall's 
 discussion of the "Problem of Evil." The conclusion of it is: "On our 
 view there are no forces of evil in the world except the forces which God 
 has caused and continues to cause; and God would not have caused them 
 at all unless He had been conscious of the power to overcome them 
 sufficiently to produce a balance of good on the whole. This much we 
 
 G8 
 
War and Religion 
 
 may assert confidently Why all this evil should be necessary as 
 
 the means to au ultimate pood on the whole these are questions 
 
 which we can never answer^'." 
 
 This discussion is found in the compilation of Foakes-Jackson referred 
 to before. The compiler states in the preface that all the contributors are 
 at one in the belief that the Christian Church has not yet risen to the 
 occasion, but that this fiery trial will purify it. All agree also on the 
 justice of England's cause. Further, the volume is characterized by "a 
 conspicuous absence of impractical suggestions as to what should be 
 done under circumstances which may never arise*^." 
 
 A reference, if only a passing one, must be made to the bulky publica- 
 tions of the "Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America." 
 Much of this material breathed a lofty spirit, in pre-war days, of recon- 
 ciliation and peace among the nations^^ But when the country entered 
 the war, the Council called a special meeting in which resolutions were 
 passed, consecrating the churches with "their resources of courage, of 
 sacrifice, of service, of prayer, to the uses of the nation as it steadies itself 
 for the travail and triumph of war^'." The entire proceedings of this 
 special meeting were published under the title: "The Churches of Christ 
 in Time of War" in "the hope that they may serve pastors, teachers, and 
 churches in adjusting their service to the call of the hour''"." 
 
 More or less similar testimony is afforded by another publication 
 of this Federal Council. It is "The Fight for Peace," by S. L. Gulick. 
 (New York 1915) who is laboring so earnestly for a better understanding 
 between Japan and America. The book begins with a prayer by Rauschen- 
 busch in which occur the words: "Bless our soldiers and sailors for their 
 
 swift obedience May our young men still rejoice to die for their 
 
 country*" ..." 
 
 As it is feared that this section is already too extended, it was thought 
 best to limit the remainder of it to the Quakers, Bernhardi and Tolstoy, 
 and to a word on Progress, instead of adding the other captions of Turkey 
 and Christianity which after all would mean repetition of the material 
 on Immediate Ancestors : — a fitful flaming up of the century -old struggle 
 between the men of the southern and northern grasslands; the topic 
 "Chaplains" need not be expatiated upon in view of what was said re- 
 garding Sweet's book and the all-too-short notice of the activities of the 
 Federal Churches of Christ; the Pope and the Papacy ought to be treated 
 at length for its constituency runs into the millions as does that of the 
 Federal Churches, and because of the Pope's efforts to bring about peace. 
 But the latter has created such a confusion of opinion that it is best to 
 say no more concerning it at the present time. The general viewpoint of 
 the Church of Rome may best be summarized in the Christmas message 
 which the Pope sent the American people on December 24, 1917, through 
 the Associated Press, a most reliable news gathering organization; and 
 in addition the Christmas message at the same time of Cardinal Gibbons. 
 The Pope's words are: 
 
 "The Holy Father sends to the people of America his cordial greetings 
 and prays that they may take to heart, in this time of strife and suffering, 
 the true lesson of Christmastide — the lesson of God's unceasing love for 
 mankind; the lessons of unfaltering courage and sacrifice of self. 
 
 i 69 
 
War and Religion 
 
 "More especially he calls upon the little children to whom this day 
 belongs, to pray with all their hearts to the Babe of Bethlehem that He 
 may protect their loved ones and give back to the world that peace which 
 He came to bring upon earth^"." 
 
 The message of Cardinal Gibbons is as follows: 
 
 "To all the soldiers and sailors in the service of the United States: 
 The message of Christmas is that of obedience. The Christ Child whom 
 all Christendom loves and admires came into the world of His own mak- 
 ing to fulfill the will of His Heavenly Father. If that Christ Child should 
 come into the world today He would say: 
 
 " 'In the head of the Book it is written that I should do Thy will. 
 Behold I come.' 
 
 "Before the infant Saviour opened His mouth, He taught in His 
 human form the wonderful lesson of obedience. In sending to all of you 
 my very best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, I 
 entreat you to learn this lesson of the Divine Infant, obedience to the will 
 of your superiors^'." 
 
 Part E—The Quakers 
 
 It is possible that at times the reader of these pages felt within him a 
 rankling resentment against what appeared as a one-sided view of the 
 role of religion as essentially bound up with war, as its slavish abettor 
 and aid; and this objector desired to raise the question more than once: 
 "What of the Quakers?" 
 
 It must be admitted that the answer to this question cannot be as 
 decided and clear as all that which has gone before. First, the Quakers 
 are lost, numerically speaking, in the general population. Then their 
 earliest traditions and history do not center about an anti-war attitude 
 at all. Further, while their faith in peace naturally brought them later 
 to clash with the public authorities whenever war supervened, they them- 
 selves were divided on the question of the righteousness of a war of 
 defence or of offence. There are two points to be considered which savor 
 of hairsplitting but only because the Quakers are numerically, as stated 
 before, a negligible minimum. The first point is reflected in such criticism 
 as is most generally directed against all anti-war advocates and may be 
 found in Galton's preface to Loisy's book spoken of before. He says: 
 "The survival of the Quakers was only possible because they have always 
 been an insignificant minority, that has owed its protection solely to the 
 maintenance by others of the very principles which itself repudiates and 
 declines to share. A leading Quaker is reported to have said recently: 
 "Trust in God, and damn the consequences." Most assuredly, the conse- 
 quences of not resisting Germany would be damnable. 
 
 "Though the Quakers declined military service and deprecated force, 
 they have always enjoyed the full protection of soldiers and police. It 
 is incredible that Jesus anticipated or would countenance such a dis- 
 honest solution of his problem®^." Cunningham is a trifle more generous 
 in his judgment of them. In his "Christianity and Politics" he thinks 
 there is much in the New Testament to justify their attitude to war, but 
 he thinks they are too particularistic in their theology and "they con- 
 demned the attitude which had been taken by Christian men towards 
 
 70 
 
War and Religion 
 
 war in all previous ages." Later in his hook, he again affirms "There can 
 be no doubt that much phxusible argument can be adduced in favor of 
 their position from the New Testament" but "they were not consistently 
 following the example of the Early Christians, as they had no scruple in 
 securing their rights by litigation, and had no rules to enable them to 
 refrain from hard bargains in business^," 
 
 A strictly fair interpretation of the facts of the case must show that 
 these recriminations against the Society of Friends as such are unfair 
 and untrue. Individuals may err, but in the large the faithful followers 
 of Fox or better, as they might wish to put it, of the "Inner Light," have 
 an enviable record in living up to the ideals that are generally considered 
 praiseworthy. 
 
 The much more difficult question, the one of direct concern to this 
 study, is the "war" activities of such official groups among the Quakers 
 in England and America as may be conveniently designated as "Recon- 
 struction Units." "Ambulance Corps," and much of what is known today 
 as "Red Cross Activities." It may be a matter of quibbling to decide 
 whether such endeavors during war times may be construed as a sanc- 
 tion, by this religious sect, of the prosecution of the war by the Govern- 
 ment. The principal argument pro is that such works of mercy must be 
 done by the sincere believer in Jesus whether it be in time of war or 
 peace; the principal thing is to abstain from joining in battle. On the 
 other hand, Quakers themselves contend that abstention from even such 
 works of love and mercy mean the absolute non-recognition of warfare, 
 the bringing of the battling sooner to an end. For if the Friends did not 
 do such works of kindness and reconstruction, the combatants would 
 have to devote some of their energies to these, instead of releasing all of 
 the population for the feverish pursuit of manufacturing the implements 
 of war, and the actual filling of the ranks by such men, who would other- 
 wise be compelled to perform these "peace" duties. Some student of 
 ethics in the far distant future may be able, dispassionately, to decide 
 the merits of this query. But on the face of it, there can be no gain- 
 saying that such helpful activities give "aid and comfort" to the Govern- 
 ments enjoying such valuable assistance freely and abundantly rendered. 
 The witness they bear against war is a passive and indirect one; not an 
 active and aggressive one such as Fox and his disciples bore against "hat 
 wearing," and the theological spinnings of the preachers of the day, 
 against the "steeple-houses," fashionable dress, and shams in general. 
 
 In truth there is nothing in earliest Quaker traditions that would mean 
 the development of such an utterly intolerant position against war. 
 Braithwaite's study on "The Beginnings of Quakerism" expressly states 
 that it was against carousing in drink, through the custom of treating, 
 that started Fox on his religious career; and there is next to nothing in 
 his whole life and thought to suggest that he was most exercised against 
 warfare. He wanted men to dwell on the life of Jesus and not theorize 
 on the death and resurrection. It was the life of simplicity, sincerity, 
 humility, meekness and returning good for evil, and not doctrinal dis- 
 putes and wranglings over dogmas, that made the Inner Light by which 
 Jesus guided men to the Father. They were so zealous against ceremo- 
 nial and priestcraft and a paid ministry that they grew virulent and 
 
 71 
 
War and Religion 
 
 shockingly intolerant in their pamphleteering, though no less so than was 
 considered usual in those days. As far as the beginnings of Quakerism 
 are concerned there is no overwhelming evidence of anti-war propaganda; 
 on the contrary, there is some indirect, important testimony favoring 
 war** ". This is all the more surprising because Quakerism owed so much 
 to sectaries of the Anabaptist character. And these, as noted before, 
 had adopted the anti-war dogma as one of their principal tenets. Yet 
 Fox seems to have been influenced more by the deep earnestness and 
 simple spirituality of these men than by any specific anti-war doctrine. 
 
 Quakerism never gained a large following. It may be fair to say that 
 each period of warfare it passed through left it always weaker numeri- 
 cally. In his "The Quakers in the American Colonies," R. M. Jones 
 notes the division created among them by the American Revolution**. 
 In the American Civil War it is stated that they enlisted in greater pro- 
 portion to their numbers than any other denomination. In the present 
 world-war, the Friends have not only oflScially approved of the works 
 of mercy in connection with the struggle, but communications have 
 appeared not infrequently in the daily press giving their views for and 
 against the duties of Friends in the matter of actual service as soldiers. 
 Their very central doctrine of being guided by the "Inner Light" mr^kes 
 the arguments of both sides legitimate and right*' ** *^ '". 
 
 In dealing with such a noble group of sincere religionists as the Quakers 
 have shown themselves to be, one is made most anxious not to be unfair 
 in passing judgment. At best then it may be agreed that their record 
 in history is an uncertain one. War at all events has had a most profound 
 influence on them. They have had no influence on war. To a degree, 
 therefore, they help to establish the thesis of this study. And further, 
 they help to make intelligible the life and thinking of the only prominent 
 Occidental who fearlessly turned from a military life to what is termed 
 the most extreme commentary on the life and teachings of Jesus. This 
 unique distinction accrues to the Russian, Leo N. Tolstoy. 
 
 Part F— Tolstoy 
 
 Tolstoy's writings reveal an anguished spirit in search for God, finding 
 itself baffled by a ritualistic, dogmatic church. This church found, as its 
 chief reason for existence, a whole-hearted support of a militaristic gov- 
 ernment. Tolstoy bluntly asserts that "the church is the worst enemy of 
 Christianity^'." He says that he was repelled from the church by the 
 strangeness of its dogmas, its approval of persecutions, capital punish- 
 ment and wars. For Christianity is nothing if it means not love for men. 
 "To say that we must offer our cheek and love our enemy is to express 
 the essence of Christianity'^." 
 
 Tolstoy denounces fiercely those who deliberately twist the words and 
 commands of Jesus to mean the very opposite of what they say. He 
 himself, however, is hard put to it to give a peace interpretation to the 
 New Testament's seeming approval of war. For instance, to explain why 
 there is no clear-cut statement against war, he states that "Christ could 
 not have imagined it, and so he could not have forbidden a Christian to 
 wage war Nor could one of the apostles, nor one of the disciples of 
 
 72 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Christ of the first centuries of Christianity, h.ive imafjined that it was 
 necessary to forbid murder, called war." This strikes one as strange as 
 Tolstoy's theory of pain " Because we not only need it, but also could not 
 live if we did not experience pain^'." This mysticism into which he dips 
 more than once^^ is not an asset of particular value to his thought. 
 
 Tolstoy's reading of the Christ life is disputed by nearly all men^* '*. 
 And even such a non-religious pacifist as is Russell passes this comment : 
 "Those who, like Tolstoy, endeavor seriously to take the Gospels as a 
 guide to life are compelled to regard the ignorant peasant as the best 
 type of man, and to brush aside politcal questions by an extreme and 
 impractical anarchism'^." Tolstoy's son, Count Ilya Tolstoy, in contribut- 
 ing articles to the American press on the revolution in Russia gives an 
 intimate glimpse or two of his father. He draws a sharp contrast between 
 the Bolsheviki platform and a true Tolstoyan one. He then insists that 
 while his father was unalterably opposed to war, he was stirred, never- 
 theless, to the bottom of his soul on reading of the Russian reverses in the 
 Japanese war. When he bade his son Andrei farewell, as he left for the 
 front, he said to him : " You know my views. But I do not condemn you 
 for going to war. If I had been in your place, and had your views of 
 life, I also would have done as you are doing^*." 
 
 Here then is a man, whose name is written large in contemporary 
 annals, standing practically alone as a literal interpreter of the doctrines 
 of complete non-resistance enunciated by Jesus. Nineteen hundred years 
 of Christianity testify against his understanding of these New Testament 
 doctrines. In the entire history of the peoples of the earth, there are 
 but two other men of his caliber with whom he stands : possibly Buddha 
 and Lao-Tse. As for the influence which these spiritual giants and their 
 teachings have exerted on the course of history, is it at all an exaggera- 
 tion to say that the story of humanity would have been the same, from 
 the standpoint of war and religion, had they never lived and taught their 
 theories of peace and quietism? Religion has always been altogether too 
 much at home with war, as these pages have shown, to admit of any 
 hesitation in answering this question. One of the latest exponents of the 
 usefulness of religion to war that will be considered here is Bernhardi, who 
 is the very antipodes of Tolstoy. 
 
 Part G — Bernhardi 
 
 General Friederich von Bernhardi, in his "Germany and the Next 
 War," (London 1912) may be regarded as a precipitate of the prevailing 
 German thought of the present day. As most generalizations are apt to 
 be unfair, this is not putting matters in the most liberal light. But if 
 it were possible to strike an average of the highest, the medium and the 
 lowest thinking of that empire, it would appear that Bernhardi's works 
 would almost equal the result. It may be taken for granted that the 
 preceding part on "Germany Christian or un-Christian" can weight this 
 judgment to satisfy individual opinion. 
 
 Bernhardi brings classical and German philosophical support for the 
 idea that the dream of perpetual peace is characteristic of a weary, 
 spiritless and exhausted age^^ He then interprets the teachings of Christ 
 
 73 
 
War and Religion 
 
 and of Christianity as fully in accord with the universal law of struggle. 
 "There never was a religion more combative than Christianity." And 
 according to Christianity, "we cannot disapprove of war in itself, but 
 must admit that it is justified morally and historically^"." 
 
 Of course the war of which he speaks does not pursue "unmoral or 
 frivolous aims," but has the highest moral value, for it involves the honor 
 of the nation. He quotes ex-President Roosevelt at length for the sup- 
 port of his contention*^. That Germany may be fully prepared for this 
 war he urges his nation to eliminate one of its greatest weaknesses: its 
 quarrels over religious differences. He pleads for spiritual unity com- 
 bined with "absolute liberty of thought*^." He sees a gigantic struggle 
 ahead of Germany and is greatly solicitous that the house be put in social, 
 moral and religious order. The population must be kept healthy; alco- 
 holism must be fought with every weapon; and real religious instruction 
 must be imparted, for this is of inestimable value, above all, for soldiers. 
 Moral influences of religion should be more prominent than formal 
 contents^'. 
 
 Bernhardi thus furnishes a most perfect example to illustrate this 
 study. With him, war is the all-important thing. Religion is essential 
 for the ends of war and hence secondary to it. 
 
 It is worth while to pause a moment to include the somewhat analogous 
 position to Bernhardi which H. G. Wells has held in England. There is 
 one important difference, however, that in itself lends greatest emphasis 
 and point to this study. Before the war. Wells conceived it to be his 
 special mission to awaken England to the impending storm. If the 
 British Empire is to survive, it must learn that "War is no longer the 
 crude brawls of the savage but the refined art of the scientist." As for 
 religion, it was apparently of no concern whatsoever to Wells. But after 
 the war had started. Wells more than overtook Bernhardi. Within these 
 three years of the war, he has had published several books in which the 
 thought that is uppermost is a regardfulness of the mystery of myster- 
 ies that controls the destinies of men and nations. Surely such a radical 
 change is of most telling import for this thesis'*. 
 
 Part H — Summary 
 
 To recapitulate these three chapters dealing with "War and Religion 
 in Fact" among our Remote and Immediate Ancestors as well as among 
 our Contemporaries would be a dreary performance. But the main con- 
 clusions should be briefly presented. 
 
 War and Religion are ordinarily held as opposites. This study must 
 make it evident that they are most essentially connected. This connection 
 reveals war as the primary factor, religion being secondary to war. Such 
 relations between war and religion have been and are thoroughgoing, 
 having existed in this way throughout all history. 
 
 This relationship extends from that far distant day when man had 
 struggled to an estate that readily distinguished him from all other 
 creatures, through countless ages, till culture flourished on the Nile and 
 the Euphrates, when it was made abundantly clear that man used reli- 
 gion for the ends of war. In the millennia following this Egyptian stage, 
 
 74 
 
War and Religion 
 
 it was fairly proved that where social integration was most intense, and 
 hence fighting most frequent, the mysterious powers surrounding man 
 were regarded in different ways, but always with the hope that victory 
 would be a regular gift for any and all attention bestowed upon these 
 elusive elemental powers. Let what terms be applied to man and the 
 power in the universe that one will — call man civilized, and the power 
 God; speak of man as cultured and his interpretation of mystery as 
 Christian or Mohammedan, the outstanding facts discernible in the past 
 are the same that are undeniably present today. No matter how one feels 
 or thinks about it, the fact is incontestably true that war is and has been 
 the all-engrossing activity of mankind for all time, and religion is and 
 has been but a minor, secondary interest to it, furthering it, blessing it 
 and making for its perpetuation. This is as undeniable as the fact that 
 volcanoes destroy human as readily as any other form of life; and as 
 puzzlingly true as the common observation that all catastrophic events 
 engulf the just and the righteous as well as the unjust and the wicked. 
 
 Whether this association of religion with war is a necessary and per- 
 petual one, cannot be predicated on the basis of an historical survey, 
 such as this, alone, But it was thought vain to enter upon the prosecu- 
 tion of the more abstruse psychological and biological implications with- 
 out having cleared away this readily accessible field of operation. Not 
 indeed that even these latter sciences can enter into this sociological 
 problem with a signed and sealed verdict of eternal validity. In fact, 
 even their findings nmst be circumscribed by human records; and more 
 than one fork of the road will be encountered, the only help for a decision 
 as to which is the highway, being the greater number of marks of human 
 footsteps on the one than on the other. Such fallible tests have more 
 than once led to a blind alley. At the same time, man does not seem 
 ready to leap into the dark with Gilbert Murray, and with the salve of 
 mysticism cool the smarting bruises and cruel pains caused by dashing 
 against the immovable rock of the supreme will. Man thinks he is 
 responsible for things on this earth. Each group holds the other account- 
 able for the civilization it maintains. And man is ever ready to impeach 
 his fellows for hindering human progress. But if for countless ages one 
 and the same stamp has left indelibly its mark on man, no matter in what 
 time or clime he lived; if in two such deeply searching things as war and 
 religion humanity reveals not the slightest difference from the remotest 
 past up to the burning present, then wherein is there room to speak of 
 progress; and what can the word responsibility mean? 
 
 Of course no completely satisfying answer can be given to these hoary 
 questions; and even the small amount of attention to be given them here 
 will be restricted as far as possible rather to the realm of fact than of 
 theory; and in this way linked with the whole study on war and religion. 
 WTiatever umbrage may have been taken for permitting such writers as 
 Bernhardi and Wells to speak for Contemporaries, may be dispelled if 
 the previous statement made in connection with them is agreed to, i. e., 
 that they reflect the thinking processes of the average individual of this 
 Occidental world. At the same time, if such opinions and thoughts are 
 to be the criteria of progress, then the only refuge is the confession of 
 helplessness made by Murray. It was for that reason that the matter 
 
 75 
 
War and Religion 
 
 was not permitted to rest here but it was deemed proper to append a word 
 on progress that would at the same time give some indication as to the 
 course of evolution some of the best thinkers of today predict in their 
 prognoses on human society. What part will war play, and what religion; 
 and will their relations be the same as they are in the present and have 
 been throughout all the past? If the men cited before were not repre- 
 sentative enough, every effort would be made in this closing chapter to 
 gather what is generally conceded to be the best thought of this day. 
 Even in this procedure, of course, one is liable to include a group that 
 would not be convincing enough for some. It is well to repeat, therefore, 
 that the selection was made here with the same principles in mind that 
 dominated all the preceding search for authorities: first and foremost 
 the impartial ends of science devoted to the discovery of truth regardless 
 of consequences, yet at the same time the tempering influence of genuine 
 sympathy for the cause investigated. 
 
 Another criticism against this section dealing with Contemporaries 
 may be anticipated in a moment's attention to the possible inquiry as to 
 why such scientifically and scholarly vouched-for living movements as 
 Positivism, Ethical Culture and Spiritualism were not definitely studied 
 as were Tolstoyanism and the Quakers. First of all it may be said that 
 the testimony they would yield would be, in effect, exactly the same as 
 that which marked all religions in their relations to war; then there is 
 more or less of the spirit of the controversial in treating of such move- 
 ments under the head of religion, though the definition employed in this 
 work readily must define them as such ; and finally, at the risk of being 
 misunderstood, it was felt that in a work such as this, devoted to great 
 world movements that have held the populations of the earth in their 
 sway for thousands of years — such limited groups were of too ephemeral 
 a nature to warrant any detailed study here. Needless to say, it is more 
 than granted that their sponsors are men of just renown; and the ideas 
 propagated worthy of most serious attention. 
 
 Because the closing chapter will yield much space to that glorious 
 monument of living scholarship, "The Cambridge Modern History;" 
 which with its companion work "The Cambridge Medieval History," 
 has veritably been the backbone of an important part of this study, the 
 promised word regarding its extensive use may as well be spoken here as 
 anywhere else. 
 
 For argument sake, at least, it may be agreed, that man shows himself 
 pre-eminently emotional when it comes to discussing issues of war and 
 religion. Because of this, the worth of most historical documents has 
 been vitiated. This was passingly referred to at the beginning of chapter 
 two. The great problem, therefore, in gathering witnesses and testimony 
 for this case of war and religion throughout human history, was to find 
 men of a type, who wrote in such a detached way, that both they and 
 their words would pass universal muster. To corral a large number of 
 individuals and rehearse their own particular interpretations of all 
 nations and peoples of all times would mean confusion in a mass of learn- 
 ing. In a study such as this, that isolated two activities of humanity the 
 danger was ever too imminent of reading things into texts that were 
 already colored by egoistic life-philosophy, and individualistic interpre- 
 
 76 
 
War and Rclij^ion 
 
 tation of man's story past and present. The Cambridge Histories were 
 designed to eliminate the ego and to present as unbiasedly as possible 
 the fact. The contributors were chosen because they would see events, not 
 through nationalistic glasses, but through the clear air of the untamed 
 mountain tops whence long-distance views could be secured; whence 
 consciousness of state lines and boundaries had been eliminated, and the 
 rivulets and streams and rivers of humanity could be leisurely surveyed 
 and calmly mapped, aside from questions of civilization and of progress. 
 But in addition to this most valuable method of having speciahsts 
 treat of the particular period or individual or movement of which they 
 had humbly made a life-study, and the consequent fairness of view which 
 the overlapping of opinions and their occasional clashing afforded, the 
 supremely helpful contribution of these weighty volumes consisted in 
 the fact that the scientific, scholarly Churchmen of England co-operated 
 in spirit and in letter to make the work possible; and this aid meant 
 everything in using the labors of these scholars in such a study as this on 
 war and religion. The average scientist of today does not take religion 
 seriously, as is abundantly proved in the statistical study of Leuba. His 
 interest in it is merely scientific; and it may be his zeal for science that 
 tempts him at times to overshoot the mark and treat the religionist past 
 or present with contempt. But is not the very essence of pure science 
 the elimination of all bias and prejudice, and at the same time the identi- 
 cally regardful attitude to one and all of the facts of life; whether a fact 
 be the belief of an individual, or of a group, in a piece of stone as the 
 source of all the power and well-being of it; or whether a fact be the micro- 
 scopic germ that is handled with all delicate care and solicitude by the 
 laboratorist? It matters not what the religious belief may be, it is a 
 most precious fact for understanding man's history; and the more de- 
 tached and scientific the student is, the more will he marvel how the 
 least developed intellect as well as the greatest, turns at times, if not 
 regularly, to the mystery at the heart of things; and from his attitude to 
 it is able to continue as part of the stream of life, supported by his faith 
 in the unknown and unknowable. Here indeed has been presented the 
 millennia-old record of man, battling against his fellow men, as part of 
 his struggle for existence and survival; and the help he continuously or 
 ultimately found to sustain him, to spur him on, to hope for victory, has 
 come from his profession of faith in the blessings that were given his arms 
 by the powers he recognized as controlling affairs. There is no room to 
 speak here of delusions; for if warfare is a reality, equally so is the parallel 
 record of religious faith, of the attitude to mystery, varying in form, but 
 in essence one. Many scientists become impatient with man religious 
 because they have ceased to or never did feel the call of mystery as their 
 fellow men have. A few on the other hand see more in religion than there 
 actually is. It is the unusual combination of the sincere scientist, and 
 either the true religionist or fair appraiser of religious phenomena, that is 
 found in these Cambridge studies in history. WTien, therefore, the com- 
 mon verdict rendered in its volumes is that war is the primary factor and 
 religion links itself closely to war for the support of the political policies 
 of the ruling group, one feels sure that the judgment is one of truth; and 
 is a generalization that can safely be employed for further research. 
 
 77 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Much, then, of the material for a discussion of progress and a glimpse 
 into the future will be based on the twelfth volume of the Cambridge 
 Modern History; and it may be then safe to assert that the proper bear- 
 ings have been secured to travel from this historical outline of humanity's 
 attitude to war and religion, through the more devious roads of the psy- 
 chological and biological sciences. 
 
 78 
 
V. Conclusions 
 
 The opening chapter of the last, the twelfth, volume of the Cambridge 
 Modern Historj', which appeared in 1910 (New York) gives that large 
 free view of world-history so characteristic of the entire work. The sub- 
 jugation by the European powers of the rest of the world which began in 
 the sixteenth century, reaches its apogee at the opening of this twentieth 
 century when only those parts of the earth have escaped European rule 
 through "the establishment of strong and stable governments and by 
 the adoption at any rate of European military arts" and all other agen- 
 cies "necessary to military efficiency. The whole world is now the sphere 
 of European activity. . . " "It is idle to censure the inevitable or to pass 
 judgment upon destiny ; the European nations have resembled other con- 
 quering races in their brutality, violence, and rapacity; this exotic rule 
 has been seen perhaps at its worst in the valley of the Congo, at its best 
 
 in the recent government of India, and in Egypt; religious missions 
 
 have been active, but on the whole the beneJBts conferred have been 
 
 rathermaterial than moral," "but it is perhaps too soon to cast the 
 
 balance and to set the advantages against the evils of European rule. It is 
 enough to note the fact that in the world-wide struggle for life, wealth 
 and power, the Europeans have for the moment proved their indisputable 
 dominance; three quarters of the globe have come under their sway; and 
 the independence of the remainder is held by a precarious tenure*." 
 
 The peace which Europe has enjoyed since 1871 is called an armed 
 peace. The opinion is ventured that the tremendous military equipment 
 and the "non-moral, sordid" world of finance are the powers that are 
 making for peace. And is it not strange that this peace period is marked 
 by a loss in the efficacy of the appeal of religion^ ^^? There is indeed much 
 warfare but it is extra-European to the greatest extent. 
 
 As the account of those military campaigns is of only minor value now, 
 it is best to take a glimpse at the close of this encyclopedic modern his- 
 tory mainly because much attention is given to this very problem of war 
 and religion. 
 
 It is frankly stated that " There is no historical ground for the assump- 
 tion sometimes made by recent publicists that Christian doctrine, or to 
 speak more exactly, the teaching of any Church that has ever enjoyed 
 considerable authority, condemns war in itself more than any other of 
 the evils incident to a sinful world." In fact, under certain conditions, 
 warfare was regarded as meritorious. But this is now a twice-told tale. 
 Not religion, but the "Law of Nations" is placed in the foreground as the 
 hope of the world for permanent peace. And the best that can be said for 
 the "Law of Nations" is that it is "founded upon justice, equity, con- 
 venience, and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long usage." It 
 is said that the last half century has witnessed the beginning of "serious 
 and concerted endeavor to make the avoidance of war easier and to 
 mitigate its evils when it occurs. The rate of progress is not such as to 
 content the enthusiasts for peace, but it appears to be an increasing 
 rate'." 
 
 79 
 
War and Religion 
 
 Of course it is only right to emphasize the fact that these estimates and 
 forecasts were printed in a book that appeared a year or two before the 
 war began. The unsatisfying feeling they leave is intensified by reading 
 the books which the leaders of world-thought, the men of vision of today 
 have written during the course of the war itself. 
 
 Hobhouse, the distinguished English thinker had afforded some 
 hesitating optimism in his "Morals in Evolution." But this has largely 
 been supplanted by his recent "Questions of War and Peace." (London 
 1916.) After much fanciful speculation on ethical theories, he considers 
 hard facts. He finds that the future of England and all states once 
 opposed to the German ideal are now set upon German lines. " . . . . war 
 must remain the keynote of its life. This is, I suppose, a conceivable 
 forecast of the political future." But this means re-barbarization. This 
 must be avoided, but no aid may be expected from humanitarian ethics 
 or the peaceful tendencies of commerce. He puts his trust, strange to 
 say, in the importance of the national entity, and draws this peculiar, 
 fine distinction: "The ideal of the future must be not cosmopolitanism 
 but internationalism." But this internationalism is still in the distance. 
 For there is no trust to be placed in Germany. For the present and the 
 future, the existing alliance should be turned into a permanent federa- 
 tion, and only then "through a federation of Allies towards the ultimate 
 ideal of a united Europe^." 
 
 Much more hopeless than this picture of Hobhouse of the days to be, 
 is given by Georg Brandes in his "The World at War." He regards the 
 rivalry between England and Germany as the cause of the war. He is 
 very bitter against religion. And the press of all countries has stimu- 
 lated national hatred to such a degree "that one can scarcely see how co- 
 operation among the nations will be possible within the next dozen years." 
 "The clergy in all countries have appeared as the most passionate 
 nationalists'." He ridicules the notion that this is the last wa^ ^. 
 
 His conviction that from the seeds of this war must develop other wars 
 brings him to his most despairing thought. He fears that Europe will 
 fall into such an exhausted condition that it will become a most easy prey 
 for Japan*". While he is sure that the future holds this gloomy prospect, 
 it is not his belief that humanity will never rid itself of war. But Cher- 
 bulliez's calculation that from 1500 B. C. until 1860 A. D., about eight 
 thousand peace treaties had been signed, with the supposition that each 
 one meant permanent peace but lasted on an average, only two years, 
 makes Brandes positive that the peace methods used hitherto will not 
 bring the nations nearer their goal". 
 
 He gives in a nutshell the history of war and religion, similar to that 
 given by Spencer, as noted in chapter one. At the same time he blames 
 religion for the wars of the past. But facts will not bear him out in this. 
 Religion has been but the able second to the plans and plots of the ruling 
 groups. At all events, he finds that national madness has now superseded 
 religion as the cause of war. His closing thoughts are that "Europe is 
 committing hari-kari for the benefit of Japan;" that the longer this war 
 lasts the shorter the peace will be*^ *^ "; and he anticipates a wild, raving 
 revolution after the war, made by women and cripples, as "there will 
 scarcely be enough men left." This revolution "will level to the ground 
 
 80 
 
War and Relif?ion 
 
 the few remnants of a higher intellectual civilization which the war may 
 have spared'* '^." 
 
 Romain Holland also inveighs against religion. He says that "The 
 great trick is to extract from any given idea its precise contrary — war 
 from the Sermon on the Mount." But somewhat paradoxically he writes 
 elsewhere: "There is not one amongst the leaders of thought in each 
 country who does not proclaim with conviction that the cause of his 
 people is the cause of God, the cause of liberty and of human progress. 
 And I, too, proclaim it"." 
 
 The name of Sir Oliver Lodge commands world-wide attention. One 
 eagerly anticipates reading his hook: "The War and After," published 
 shortly after the war broke out. But it proves as disappointing as the 
 war book of the well-known French scholar, Le Bon, on the "Psychology 
 of the Great War." 
 
 Lodge's book is uniquely orthodox Christian, and, of course, does not 
 neglect spiritualism. The Germans are savages'^ while England and its 
 allies are the champions of Christendom. If the Germans conquer, 
 death is to be preferred to their domination'^. He thinks that "Much of 
 the world is not yet completely beyond the tooth and claw period of ani- 
 mal existence^"." But he cannot insist enough upon stating that "The 
 cause of the Nation is now the cause of Christ^'." His forcasts are so 
 hazy and his theory of progress so platitudinous that one may hurry on 
 to Le Bon22 ^. 
 
 Le Bon also gives himself over to bitter diatribes against the enemy. 
 But most surprising is the space he yields to the exaltation of patriotism. 
 He defines it as "the heritage from the dead, one of thosesupreme forces 
 which are created by long ancestral accumulations, and whose strength 
 is revealed at critical moments-*." 
 
 He appears to incline to the view that there will always be war, for 
 war is the founder of civilizations but peace destroys them. At the same 
 time he fears that war will end only in the ruin of the belligerents. He 
 revolts at the thought of a future of savage strife "broken only by stern 
 intervals of gloomy barrack life." He pins his faith on science and on will 
 power. "Conquer or die, but never yield!" "Neither Nature, nor man, 
 nor fate itself, can withstand a strong and steadfast wilP." 
 
 In a word, Le Bon's work represents a strange combination of thehazi- 
 ness of Lodge and the gloominess of Brandes. A group of leading Ameri- 
 can thinkers contemplates a future of war but in the buoyant spirit of a 
 people that wants to measure its untried strength. 
 
 Hart, Seligman and Giddings contributed to a volume entitled: 
 "Problems of Readjustment After the W^ar," published in 1915. Hart 
 recognizes that "war has been the enemy of republics in all ages." If 
 the United States desires to maintain democracy, it must be capable of 
 keeping out hostile armies. " It is a crime which ought to be punishable 
 by confinement in a state's prison, for the American people to rely upon 
 untrained volunteers for future wars^®." Seligman, of course, puts an 
 economic interpretation upon the whole matter. Capitalism decrees at 
 once more wars and an ultimate peace-^. Giddings confesses uncertainty 
 as to whether war or peace in the long run plays the larger part in social 
 selection^. The last word in the book is given to G. G. Wilson, who finds 
 
 81 
 
War and Religion 
 
 no satisfactory criterion "for measuring what is called civilization unless 
 it be, as some claim, the military power^^." 
 
 Of course, this list could be prolonged almost indefinitely ; for not only 
 are these eminent men themselves continually re-editing and revising 
 their opinions as the phases of the struggle vary from time to time, but 
 other individuals are looming large on the horizon whose speculations are 
 very worth while, more especially for a treatise on the future of war and 
 religion and on a theory of progress. 13ut when all is said and done, the 
 whole resolves itself into a feeble beating of wings after a wearisome flight; 
 for the riddle of the future remains a riddle; and the criteria of progress 
 are utterly conditioned by the environmental factors surrounding the 
 proponents. To glance again at Durkheim would be beside the mark. To 
 rehearse Kellogg's interesting forecasts in his "Beyond War," might be 
 construed as unfair in the light of his activities in the present war"**. 
 Neither need one delay for Jevons' oft-iterated phrase that evolution 
 does not mean progress; nor for Spencer's faith in "the industrial type 
 which is higher because in that state of permanent peace to which civili- 
 zation is tending, it subserves individual welfare better than the militant 
 type''." And with Thomas, one need not lament now that the struggle 
 for existence has been mitigated*^. In the light of these chilling words of 
 cold science, even Tolstoy's rosy religious faith that "for the man who 
 lives according to his law there is no death and suffering" turns grey and 
 dark as the fleeting glory of a rich sunset yields to the cold, pale starlight. 
 In fact, a multiplication of opinions is but a process of being pulled hither 
 and yon, with science calmly anticipating war and the progress it brings, 
 and religion feverishly talking of peace, when the final war, Armageddon, 
 will have been fought in the cause of right and peace, and have been won. 
 So with a moment or two devoted to Thomson and Russell, a halt will 
 be called on this peering into the future and theorizing on progress. 
 
 Thomson reviews the Darwinian theory of "struggle for existence" and 
 "natural selection" with an eye on the concept: "mutual aid." He is not 
 sure but that in modern times the " issue of the conflict often depends very 
 largely on length of purse and up-to-dateness of equipment, and only to 
 a slight extent on the organic qualities of the race or people." 
 
 And the outcome of his speculations leaves one quite at sea as regards 
 war; as for religion, it surely has already been noted that Leuba's con- 
 clusions can find abundant verification among the several authorities here 
 cited, excepting Lodge alone. Such vague terms as ethical outlook, moral 
 values, right and justice may be included in the mental processes of these 
 thoroughly- trained minds wrestling with the problems of life, but reli- 
 gion or God as usually and formally regarded finds no room in their 
 present interests; and as for the future, if the concept progress connotes 
 anything at all, its most perfect synonj'm for the future as it is for the 
 present, in their opinion, is the word science. If the world of thought is 
 orbital in its movement, then a good illustration of it is seen in the rela- 
 tions between war and religion. For there was war before there was 
 religion; and when religion arose, it was and has been greatly monopo- 
 lized by war; and now that science has shaken itself almost completely 
 free of religion, its giant strength is harnessed to war and a future is 
 probable, as far as science is concerned, of warfare once again without 
 
 82 
 
War and Religion 
 
 religion. But the definition of religion used in these pages precludes the 
 apparent possibility of the disappearance of religion; for even the ultra- 
 materialistic interpretation of the universe, called the mechanistic, is 
 necessarily an attitude to mystery; and it is as much religious as the first 
 stumbling thoughts of remotest man, whether aroused teratistically, or 
 by the life and death of his leader; or any other way. But this is antici- 
 pating the general conclusions. So to Thomson's summary. 
 
 "We admit that wars have been necessary and righteous — especially 
 necessary — and that they may be so still, but this opinion does not affect 
 the fact that prolonged war in which a nation takes part is bound to 
 impoverish the breed, since the character of the breed always depends on 
 the men who are left. How else can we understand what has happened 
 so often, that an older civilization is overthrown by another less evolved? 
 The only thing a nation dies of is lack of men; and is there not disquieting 
 evidence of the increase of incapaliles? It is said that we cannot relax 
 one spine of our national belligerence, since we must, at all costs, uphold 
 our national supremacy, having all these teeming millions to feed. But 
 is this not, in part at least, a vicious circle?" But he feels that social 
 improvement would solve many difliculties. As for courage, daring and 
 chivalry, the constructive work of explorers and scientists ought to keep 
 alive these qualities, until now so dependent upon war. Yet, while pro- 
 claiming his disbelief in the biological value of war, he will not yield to any- 
 one in his appreciation of the soldier's qualities. The general impression 
 then of this pre-war study of Darwinism is not dissimilar to the residuum 
 of the "mutual aid" idea. Kropotkin did not refuse to recognize the 
 struggle element in life; he simply did not want it to be considered the 
 whole of life. Yet the very idea of "mutual aid " has implicit in it the idea 
 of struggle; for aid is unnecessary unless there is struggle. Further, if 
 the commonalty were capable of the zeal and zest of the explorer in travel 
 and science, there might be point to the plan of turning the "excitement" 
 impluse into constructive rather than destructive channels. And at that, 
 it remains to be shown that these men of science and exploration find 
 such complete satisfaction in their constructive pursuits, that when wars 
 break out, they refuse to turn from their vocations for the sake of the 
 "minor" interests of destruction. This study limits itself to the relations 
 between war and religion. But in the course of its preparation, more than 
 one bit of evidence was uncovered showing that war was the master 
 not only of religion but of many other forms of human thought and 
 action. 
 
 But at length to Russell. While this clear, vigorous and frank thinker 
 concerns himself directly with the problem of this present war, as is 
 abundantly evident in the titles he chose for the notable books he has 
 written in the last two years: "Justice in War-Time" and "Why Men 
 Fight," one does not rise from the reading of his works with any greater 
 certainty of human progress and an idealistic future than all the fore- 
 going writers afford. It is stimulating to gather his thoughts; it is 
 encouraging to breathe in from every page his spirit of candor, of love for 
 the truth and bravery in expressing it as it appears to him. But when 
 boiled down to real essentials, there is not so much to choose between him 
 and Brandes who summed up his whole message in his forbidding title: 
 
 83 
 
War and Religion 
 
 "The World at War" surpassed in its melancholy spirit by Zangwill's: 
 "The War for the World." 
 
 Russell's "Justice in War-Time" may represent his first reactions to 
 the conflict for it appeared in 1916. It is tinged with Tolstoyan ideals of 
 non-resistance but based on practical rather than on religious grounds. 
 While the book is alive with spirituality, religion is generally ignored. It 
 is the downfall of science that wounds him to the quick. "The degrada- 
 tion of science from its high function in ameliorating the lot of man is one 
 of the most painful aspects of this war. Knowledge with elevation of 
 mind is the chief instrument of human progress; knowledgew ithout 
 elevation of mind easily becomes devilish, and increases the wounds 
 which man inflicts on man." 
 
 But he cannot believe that war is under all circumstances a crime. He 
 divides wars into four classes, of which one, "Wars of Prestige," is never 
 justified. At the same time he pleads for experimenting with the idea of 
 non-resistance. Not unlike Thomson, he would replace the pride of 
 military glory with a nobler pride. Nevertheless he thinks the majority 
 of mankind is right in rejecting Quaker or Tolstoyan doctrines. In a 
 somewhat despairing spirit, he agrees that the blood lust is instinctive. 
 His thinking, therefore, becomes quite tenuous when he would solve the 
 problem thus: "But war will only end after a great labor has been per- 
 formed in altering men's moral ideals, directing them to the good of all 
 mankind, and not only of the separate nations into which men happen to 
 have been born." With the historian Meyer, and with English professors, 
 he sees the end of the era of attempts at international friendship; the 
 next century will be marked with "unconquerable opposition and embit- 
 tered hate between England and Germany." It means nothing less than 
 the decline of modern civilization. Therefore Russell cries out: "Yet still 
 our newspapers, parsons, and professors prate of the ennobling influence 
 of war'*." 
 
 The note which he strikes in his later book: "Why Men Fight," only 
 intensifies the bitterness, the hopelessness and mirage-like hopefulness 
 and faith that were found in the preceding work. He sees that "war is 
 one of the most permanent institutions of all free communities." Of 
 William James' "Moral Equivalent of War," he sadly says: "But his 
 solution is not adequate; perhaps no adequate solution is possible." It is 
 to be feared that his own treatment of the problem must have this same 
 judgment passed upon it. 
 
 In a very vague way, he turns more to the consolations of religion in 
 this volume. Life to be fully human must serve an end impersonal and 
 above mankind, "such as God, truth or beauty." Even if this eternal 
 world is only of our imagining, it is the sole source of strength and peace. 
 He speaks of it in terms of Spinoza as "the intellectual love of God. To 
 those who have once known it, it is the key of wisdom. 
 
 "Those who are to begin the regeneration of the world must face 
 loneliness, opposition, poverty, obloquy. They must be able to live by 
 truth and love, with a rational unconquerable hope; they must be honest 
 and wise, fearless, and guided by a consistent purpose." 
 
 With all this uncertainty and indefiniteness characterizing the leading 
 intellectual lights of this generation ; with all of them admitting that war 
 
 84 
 
War and Religion 
 
 under certain circumstances is justifiable; with practically no attention 
 given to religion other than pitiless scoffing at it for being such a fervent 
 handmaiden of war and such a consistent professor, all the while, of 
 peace; with the incipient conviction that Europe is making a shambles 
 of its heritage to be trod underfoot by some alien folk; with full recog- 
 nition of the fighting impulse or instinct, yet most hazy suggestions of 
 substitutes, other than war, to absorb this blood-lust energy; one is not 
 surprised if the generations turn from the men of knowledge, with their 
 technical language, to the men of life with their oflSce-vocabulary inter- 
 pretation of war as the struggle for existence, and with their churchly 
 benediction of God's blessing on the cause which the rulers of the land 
 declare to be righteous. If such be the people's guides and saints, then 
 there is no distinction accruing to the thousand and one popular prophets 
 loudly talking of the next war. It is as inevitable as everyone said this 
 one was, after it happened; and the same seers of the populace said before 
 it happened. If, therefore, war is a criterion of progress then there will 
 be progress. And if war needs religion in the future, there will be reli- 
 gion in the future to support war as it has done so unfailingly in the past. 
 At all events, the entire range of history proves that there has been and 
 is nothing so universal among men as warring; and among the leaders of 
 men, there are many more who believe that this battling is right and 
 necessary than believe that an evolution wrought in peace would have 
 brought man as far if not further than the war-process has accomplished. 
 
 Life then as lived up to the present gives full warrant for the assertion 
 that war is a good thing. Humanity has evolved with a constant accom- 
 paniment of war; and if it is believed that the present is markedly pro- 
 gressive over the past, and the past over the remote past, then to war 
 belongs the credit, for it has been and is the most distinctive, the most 
 continuous, the most thought-inciting and invention-making factor 
 known to man. It is a heritage from pre-humans, the so-called animals 
 and less complex creatures in general. Among all of these the war 
 struggle is an admitted agent making for the swiftest course to ever 
 greater complexity of organism and functioning, with all apologies to the 
 "mutual aid" school of thought. As for man, Russell again most tersely 
 puts it in saying: " But the citizens whom every nation honors most are 
 those who have killed the greatest number of foreigners'^." Such being 
 the criterion of progress, there is and always has been abundant proof 
 that the world is progressing; and if the opinion of all men, from the 
 meanest-functioning mind, up through all gradations of intellect, to the 
 scholars who sit on the watch towers of universal evolution, are all a unit 
 in looking for future wars, if this uniform opinion means anything, it 
 makes sure that the future will be marked by warfare and hence by 
 progress. 
 
 And what of religion? At first blush the case looks very poor. But the 
 present concern is not what religion teaches but what it does. This whole 
 survey of the past gave but little space to the three or four individual 
 religious teachers who taught quietism and peace. Men lived and worked 
 and fought in the spirit of their religion and that is the religion that has 
 counted. Either horn of the dilemma, that religion appears to be in, may 
 be readily cut away, leaving religion free for a war or peace evolution. If 
 
 86 
 
War and Religion 
 
 war is primary and religion secondary as this account has abundantly 
 shown it to be, then there is more of the specious in the widespread argu- 
 ment of those who contend that religion has never been tried. It has 
 never been first nor ever been put first. It has been secondary and 
 nothing else; and as such did what it was compelled to do. Now it was 
 shown from history that warfare is the right, the good and the progress- 
 ive thing for this earth. Therefore, when religion blessed warfare it was 
 doing nothing but the right thing; for its aim is to further the right and 
 the good ; and the leaders in war declared that their cause was a righteous 
 cause and that they were deserving of God's blessing. Men, therefore, 
 are unjust in ridiculing religion for coming to the support of war. As far 
 as the inconsistency of yearning for peace and believing in the ultimate 
 triumph of peace is concerned, there again the religious leaders only show 
 a seconding of the war leaders; for the latter almost invariably declare 
 that the war they are waging is to be the last war, and is fought only to 
 usher in the reign of eternal right and peace. It is the government that 
 is paradoxical, or science that does not protest enough, in declaring that 
 war is the sine qua non of progress; that peace is not the desideratum, for 
 it leads to flabbiness of fiber and decay; but, as phrased by many thinkers 
 of all nations — war is the great tonic; and in keeping with the program 
 outlined by Wells in his "Social Forces in England and America" the 
 whole scheme of a nation's educational system should be mapped with an 
 eye single to the highest development of inventiveness and of training for 
 war. If the leaders of the state are hesitant in voicing loudly this dogma, 
 why should religion, whose office is to support the state, vociferously 
 sermonize to that end, until the climax comes; and then all, unabashed, 
 will assert the righteousness of a righteous war. Religion has but played 
 its historic role when it has ably seconded the efforts of war, throughout 
 all times, to make men progress. 
 
 History affords ample testimony that war is right. It remains for the 
 sciences of psychology and biology to state definitely, if it can be so 
 stated, that warfare is a necessary part of life, that man can no more 
 keep from this propensity than he can from learning to speak, to live in 
 groups, to form states and empires, to prosecute the scientific disciplines, 
 or to take an attitude to mystery. If these sciences, or any other that 
 may be concerned, affirm categorically that man cannot help himself, he 
 must fight and kill his fellows, so that from the conflict there may arise 
 an attitude to mystery that shall be supreme for the time being, then 
 religion is again exculpated; for if a thing is absolutely necessary, if the 
 human composition has in its make-up what may be called a "unit 
 character," that must be found in all normal human beings, that demands 
 the satisfaction of the blood-lust in warfare, then whatever else may be 
 said of the scorn heaped upon the head of the pacifists, the accusation 
 that they are not normal is thoroughly justified; and religion has fulfilled 
 its divinest function in heeding the call of the God of Battles who im- 
 planted in human beings this prepotent entity that necessitates warfare. 
 
 It is then that Sociology must unhesitatingly take up its burden and 
 cast the die for a theory of social evolution that looks above and beyond 
 nations to a system that is all-conquering; a theory that, by warfare or 
 its analogue in the remote future, will create a society that will keep the 
 
 86 
 
War and Religion 
 
 rage of battle at a fever heat; that will permit no sickly sentimentalizing 
 over blood spilt and treasure lost, nor look askance at men of today or 
 of the past who worshipped the God of Battles. 
 
 The record of human and pre-human history amply justifies such a 
 doctrine of progress and such a desirable future for war and religion. It 
 is the verdict of the biologist and the psychologist, added to that of the 
 historian, which will permit the sociologist to hint more directly at the 
 future of war and religion, as well as to understand more thoroughly the 
 past as it has been thus far uncovered. 
 
 The most painstaking efforts in the realm of history make sure the 
 fact that there has been and is an essential connection between war and 
 religion, in which war is the primary factor; and up to the vibrating 
 present moment this connection has been thoroughgoing and bids fair 
 to continue so to be. 
 
 87 
 
Bibliography on *^War and Religion" 
 
 (Note — This list of books represents merely the authorities consulted chiefly for this study. 
 It need hardly be repeated that there is a vast library treating of war and religion in a popular 
 or partisan spirit. As for scientiflc works, more especially sociological literature, not a few of 
 the books mentioned here contain full bibliographies. "The Source Book for Social Origins," by 
 W. I. Thomas, is, of course, the indispensable hand-book for the student of Social Sciences.) 
 
 On "Remote Ancestohs" 
 Czaplicka, M. A. — Aboriginal Siberia (Preface by R. R. Marett). Oxford 1914. 
 Brinton, D. G. — Religions of Primitive Peoples. New York 1899. 
 Codrington, R. H.— The Melanesians. Oxford 1891. 
 Durkheim, E. — The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London 
 Haddon, A. C. — Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Strait* 
 
 (Vol. V). Cambridge 1904 
 Jevons, F. B. — An Introduction to the History of Religion. London 1896. (9th Ed. 1914) 
 Joyce, T. A. — South American Archicology. New York 1912. 
 Keane, A. H.— Ethnology. Cambridge 1901. (1st Ed. 1895). 
 Leonard, Major A. G. — The Lower Niger and Its Tribes (Preface by A. C. Haddon). 
 
 London 1906. 
 Marett, R. R.— The Threshold of Religion. London 1909. 
 
 Morgan, L. H. — League of the Iriquois (New Ed. by H. M. Lloyd). New York 1904. 
 Mooney, J. — The Ghost Dance Religion. Washington 1896. 
 Osborn. H. F.— Men of the Old Stone Age. New York 1916. 
 Peet. T. E.— The Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy and Sicily. Oxford 1909. 
 Pitt-Rivers, A. Lane. Fox.— The Evolution of Culture. Oxford 1906. (Preface by H. 
 
 Balfour.) 
 Quiggin, A. H. — Primeval Man. London 1912. 
 Rivers. W. H. R.— The Todaa. London 1906. 
 Roscoe. J. — The Northern Bantu. Cambridge 1915. 
 
 Roth, H. L.— Aborigines of Tasmania. Halifax 1899 (Preface by E. B. Tylor.) 
 Spencer, B. — Native Tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia. London 1914. 
 Spencer, B., and Gillen, F. J. — The Native Tribes of Central Australia. London 1899. 
 Spencer, B., and Gillen, F. J. — The Northern Tribes of Central Australia. London 1904. 
 Thomas, W. I. — Source Book for Social Origins. Chicago 1909. 
 
 Books on " Immediate Ancestors" 
 A — Historical 
 Acton. Lord. — (planned) The Cambridge Modern History Vol. 1 New York 1902. 
 
 Vol. 2 New York 1904 
 
 Vol. 3 New York 1905. 
 
 Vol. 12 New York 1910. 
 Breasted, J. H. — Ancient Times. Boston 1916. 
 Bury, J. B. — (planned) The Cambridge Medieval History Vol. 1 New York 1911. 
 
 Vol. 2 New York 1913. 
 Davis, H. W. C— Medieval Europe. New York 1911. 
 Duruy, V. — A Condensed History of the Middle Ages. New York 1900. 
 
 B — Religions 
 
 Aston, W. G.— Shinto. New York 1905. 
 
 Braithwaite, W. G. — The Beginnings of Quakerism. London 1912. 
 
 Breasted, J. H. — Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. New York 1912. 
 
 Coomaraswamy, A. — Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism. New York 1916. 
 
 Cumont, F. — Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans. New York 1912. 
 
 DeGroot, J. J. M.— Religion in China. New York 1912. 
 
 DeGroot, J. J. M. — Sectarianism and Religious Persecution in China. Amsterdam 1903. 
 
 Dhalla, M. N. — Zoroastrian Theology. London 1914. 
 
 von Domaszewski, A. — Die Religion des Rdmisches Heeres. Trier 1895. 
 
 Farnell, L. R.— The Higher Aspect of the Greek Religion. New York 1912. 
 
 Fowler, W. W. — The Religious Experience of the Roman People. London 1911. 
 
 Fowler. W. W. — Roman Ideas of Deity. London 1914. 
 
 88 
 
War and Religion 
 
 HarriBon. J. E.— Themis. Cambridge 1912. 
 
 Jaatrow, M., Jr. — The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. Boston 1898. 
 
 Jones, R. M. — The Quakers in the American Colonies. London 1911. 
 
 Moore, G. F. — History of Religions. New York 1914. 
 
 Plato's Republic — Translated by J. L. Davies and D. J. Vaughan. London (1st Ed. 1852, 
 
 reprint 1910). 
 Renel, C. — Les Enseignes. Lyon 1903. 
 Smith, W. R.— The Religion of the Semites. London 1901. 
 Spencer, H. — Principles of Sociology. New York 1901. 
 Sweet, W. W.— The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Civil War. Cincinnati 1912. 
 
 Contemporaries on War and Religion 
 (A Condensed List) 
 Archer, W.— Gems (?) of German Thought. New York 1917. 
 Ballard, Frank — Christianity After the War. London 1916. 
 Bang, J. P.— Hurrah and Hallelujah. New York 1917. 
 Barry, F. R. — Religion and the War. London 1915. 
 Baudrillart, A. — German War and Catholici.sm. Paris 1915. 
 Bell, G. K. A.— The War and the Kingdom of God. London 1915. 
 Benedict XV — His Holiness Pope Benedict XV on the Great War. London 1916. 
 von Bemhardi, F. — Germany and the Next War. London 1912. 
 Brandes. Georg.— The Worid at War. New York 1917. 
 Brown. Charies— The War and the Faith. London 1915. 
 Carpenter, J. E. — Ethical and Religious Problems of the War. London 1916. 
 Catholics of the British Empire. London 1916. 
 
 Chadwick, W. E. — German Christianity and the Great War. London 1914. 
 Cunningham, W. — Christianity and Politics. Boston 1915. 
 Denney, J. — War and the Fear of God. London 1916. 
 Foakes-Jackson, F. J. — The Faith and the War. London 1915. 
 Goodwin, W. A. R.— The Church Enchained. New York 1916. 
 Gulick. S. L.— The Fight for Peace. New York 1915. 
 
 Hart, A. B., and others — Problems of Readjustment After the War. New York 1915. 
 Hobhouse, L. T.— Morals in Evolution. (Rev. Ed.) New York 1916. 
 Hobhouse, L. T. — Questions of War and Peace. London 1916. 
 Kellogg, V. L.— Beyond War. New York 1912. 
 Le Bon, G.— The Psychology of the Great War. New York 1916. 
 Leuba, J. H. — The Belief in God and Immortality. Boston 1916. 
 Loeb, J. — Mechanistic Conception of Life. Chicago 1912. 
 Lodge, O.— The War and After. London 1915. 
 
 Loisy, A.— The War and Religion. Oxford 1915 (Introd. by A. Galton). 
 Murray, G.— Faith, War and Policy. New York 1917. 
 Osborne, C. E.— Religion in Europe and the Worid Crisis. New York 1916. 
 Oxford Pamphlets 1914-1915 on Religion and War. 
 RoUand, R. — Above the Battle. London 1916. 
 Russell. B.— Why Men Fight. New York 1917. 
 Russell, B. — Justice in War-Time. Chicago 1916. 
 Russell, B. — Principles of Social Reconstruction. London 1917. 
 Shotwell, J. T.— Religious Revolution of Today. Boston 1913. 
 Thomson, J. A. — Darwinism and Human Life. New York 1911. 
 Tolstoy, Leo N. — My Confession, etc. Boston 1904. 
 von Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, U.— Deutsche Reden in Schwerer Zeit. Vol. 2. Berlin 1915. 
 
References in the Text of '"War and Religion'' 
 Introduction 
 
 'B Russell. "Why Men Fight." p. 79 
 
 »R. R. Marett. "Threshold of Religion," p. 3 
 
 ^J. T. Shotwell, "Religious Revolution of Today." p. 9 
 
 ^Shotwell ibid, p. Ill 
 
 <• " " p. 156 
 
 • " " p. 162 
 
 'J. H. Leuba. "Psych. Origin of Religion," p. 41 
 
 »C. H. Toy, "Introd. Hist, of Religion," p. 160 
 
 •Marett ibid., p. .15 
 
 
 
 References, Chapter I 
 
 iMarett ibid. 
 
 , p. 155 
 
 
 
 2 «' " 
 
 p.X 
 
 
 
 'Russell ibid. 
 
 , p. 116 
 
 
 
 *Durkheim, ' 
 
 Elem. Forms Rel. Life, 
 
 ' p. 10 
 
 i " 
 
 « >< 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 16 
 
 • " 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 47 
 
 7 " 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 187 
 
 t " 
 
 *' *' 
 
 " " 
 
 pp. 188-189 
 
 t " 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 190 
 
 It " 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 204 
 
 11 " 
 
 •* '* 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 206 
 
 11 « 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 206 
 
 U " 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 214 
 
 M " 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 pp. 218-219 
 
 l» •' 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 221 
 
 1« " 
 
 " '* 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 232 
 
 17 «• 
 
 " '* 
 
 " " 
 
 pp. 233-234 
 
 IS 
 
 '* '* 
 
 *' " 
 
 p. 234 
 
 1» '« 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 272 
 
 JO " 
 
 " " 
 
 «< <> 
 
 p. 419 
 
 "Leuba, " Belief in God and Immortality," p. 40 
 
 22 4. 4, 
 
 " " 
 
 ' *' 
 
 p. 281 
 
 !J " " 
 
 " " 
 
 . " 
 
 pp. 321-322 
 
 U " " 
 
 " " ' 
 
 ' " 
 
 pp. 325-326 
 
 ti <4 " 
 
 " " ' 
 
 ' " 
 
 pp. 324-325 
 
 **Jevons," Introd. to Hist. 
 
 of Religion, 
 
 ■ p. 19 
 
 t7 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 19 
 
 tt « i< 
 
 " " 
 
 *' " 
 
 p. 87 
 
 1* " " 
 
 " " 
 
 " .4 
 
 pp. 99-101 
 
 lU " " 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 101 
 
 SI " » 
 
 .. X 
 
 " 
 
 p. 382 
 
 K i. *. 
 
 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 410 
 
 *^Keane, "Ethnology," pp 
 
 216-217 
 
 
 *^H. Spencer. ' 
 
 'Princ. of Sociology," p. 
 
 422 
 
 J4 11 ii 
 
 " " 
 
 P- 
 
 556 
 
 U " «' 
 
 " " 
 
 P- 
 
 559 
 
 J7 i. »i 
 
 " " 
 
 P- 
 
 560 
 
 38 " " 
 
 " " 
 
 P- 
 
 12 
 
 t» " 
 
 " " 
 
 P 
 
 26 
 
 *^Spencer ibid. 
 
 , p. 520 
 
 
 
 41 •• " 
 
 p. 525 
 
 
 
 « .. i. 
 
 p. 557 
 
 
 
 «Pitt-Rivei-s, ' 
 
 ' Evolution of Culture," 
 
 p. 55 
 
 « ♦' 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 p. 56 
 
 4t " 
 
 " 
 
 " " 
 
 p. 58 
 
 90 
 
War iiiul Relip;ion 
 
 "Jpvons ibid., pp. 96-97 
 
 <" •' " p. 242 
 
 **W. I. Thomaa, "Source Book for Social Origiiw," pp. 155-156 
 
 «V. L. Kellogg. "Beyond War." pp. 120-123 
 
 io .. .. " .' p 125 
 
 »' " " " " pp. 140-141 
 
 "Russell ibid., pp. 6-7 
 " " " pp. 12-13 
 
 " " •• p. 113 
 
 ^ " •• p. 79 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chapter 
 
 //, Section A 
 
 'Thomas ibid.. 
 
 P 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 J " 
 
 " 
 
 P- 
 
 167 
 
 
 
 J " 
 
 " 
 
 P 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 *H. F. 
 
 Osborn 
 
 
 Men 
 
 of Old Stone Age, 
 
 ' p. 83 
 p. 60 
 
 pp. 107-149 
 p. 162 
 
 p. 168 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p. 24 
 p. 2-26 
 p. 232 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p. 235 
 p. 236 
 p. 215 
 p. 248 
 
 " 
 
 1 " 
 a " 
 
 a " 
 
 M " 
 
 i •« 
 
 
 
 
 
 pp. 249-258 
 
 pp. 260-261 
 
 p. 272 
 
 p. 292 
 
 p. 316 
 
 p. 351 
 
 p. 358 
 
 pp. 388-390 
 
 p. 450 
 
 pp. 456 and 502 
 
 »Pitt-Rivers ibid., pp. 89-90 
 
 *^Keane ibid., pp. 120-122 
 
 ^Kellogg ibid., pp. 27. 33. 47. 129 et passim 
 
 "J. A. Thomson, "Darwinism and Human Life." pp. 213-214 
 
 ^''Spencer ibid., p. 547 
 
 Section B, Part 1 
 
 ="Oslx>rn ibid., p. 214 
 
 *^D. G. Brinton. "Religioas of Primitive Peoples." p. 209 
 
 ''Kellogg ibid., p. 49 
 
 **Leuba ibid., p. 5 
 
 ^•'Osborn ibid., p. 24 
 
 ^'^A. H. Quiggin, "Primeval Man." 
 
 »Leuba ibid., pp. 18-19 
 " " " p. 33 
 
 '"Jevons ibid., p. 86 
 *'Keane ibid., p. 137 
 ^-Brinton ibid., pp. 34-36 
 « " " pp. 70-71 
 
 " " " pp. 206-207 
 
 ^'Kellogg ibid., p. 69 
 « " " p. 90 
 
 *'Osborn ibid., pp. 221-226 
 
 p. 120 
 p. 94 
 
 01 
 
War and Religion 
 
 **Osl)orn ibid., p. 270 
 
 ** " ■' p. :i()5 
 
 <*•> " " pp. 501-502 
 
 "T. E. Peet, "The Stone and Bronze Ages, Etc.," p. 55 
 42 M .. « » .. .. » .. p JJ3 
 
 "Peet ibid., pp. 118-122 
 « " " p. 174 
 65 " " p 211 
 M " " p 225 
 " " " pp. 228-2;}7 
 « " " pp. 280-283 
 *9 " " pp. 289-394 
 «» " •* pp. 432-445 
 " " " p. 492ff 
 *^.slx>in ibid., p. 358 
 ^ " " p. 392 
 
 Chapte 
 
 ter II, Section B, Part 2 
 
 «^E. B. Tylor, "Limits of Savage Religion," p. 283ff 
 *^E. B. Tylor, "Tasmanians," p. 149ff 
 ''*H. L. Roth, "Aborigines of Tasmania," 
 
 p. V and VI 
 
 «^ " " " " " pp. 53-56 
 
 68 - " .^ >. .. p gj 
 
 „ ,. .. .. .. .. pp 72-73 
 
 70 " " - » .. p 115 
 
 " " " " " " pp. 116-118 
 
 '- " " " " " pp. 137-138 
 
 73 " .' .. - " p 145 
 
 u « .. .. .. .. p igy 
 
 ^* " " " " " pp. 227-228 
 
 '^Spencer & Gilleu, "Northern Tribes of Central Australia, Etc.," pp. 15-18 
 
 "vSpencer & (lillen, " Native of Central Australia," p. 32 
 
 ^^Spencer & Gilien, "Northern of Central Australia," pp. 31-32 
 
 "B. Spencer, "Native of Northern Australia," p. 11 
 
 ^'Spencer & Gilien, "Northern of Central Australia," p. 33ff 
 
 81 » » <. <. » .. .. p 145 
 
 82 " " " .. « .. .. p i7g 
 
 83 " •' " " » .« - p 227 
 
 84 - .. .. .. .. .4 .. p 238 
 
 85 " " .. " - *. " p 248 
 
 «« " " " " p. 277-278 
 
 87 " - .> " - » .< p 328 
 
 88 " " .< .. " .< .. p 330 
 
 89 " .' .' - - - .. p 387 
 
 90 " " " " .. - .. pp 392 & 490 
 w .. .. .. <. ,. ,. .. p 501 
 
 92 " " .. » .. .. .. p 511 
 
 ^ " " " " " " " pp. 544-545 
 
 M .> " .. .> w .. .. p. 556ff 
 
 95 " .< " " « » » p 5g8 
 
 * " " " " " " " pp. 596-597 
 
 97 - " » " .. .. .. p g08 
 
 ** " " " " " " " pp. 634-635 
 
 '^Spencer & Gilien, "Native Tribes of Central Australia," pp. 133-135 
 100 " " " .< .. " >. .. p 4gi 
 
 '"1 " " " " ' " pp. 476-477 
 
 "» " " " " ' " pp. 478-481 
 
 103 " .. " " .. - - .. p 497 
 
 104 " .. - - .> .> .. .. p 530 
 ,06 .. " - " .. .. .. .. p 537 
 
 106 " " " " .' " " " pp (i02-604 
 
 '"'L. H. Morgan, "League of Iroquois," pp. 13-14 
 
 92 
 
\Yar and Rolision 
 
 "*L. H. Morgan, "League of Iroquois," pp. 178-179 
 
 '»» " " *• '• " pp. 257-2<K) 
 
 "oj. O. Dorsey, "A Study of Siouan Cult.s," pp. :50()-493 
 
 '"J. \V. Kewkt's, "The I'rehistoric Culture of Tusayan," pp. I(>l-lt>5 
 
 "-J. Moouev, "(iho.st Dance Religion," pp. 711-71;i 
 
 "•' " " " " " pp. 7(>4. 777 and 796 
 
 ,14 .. .. .. .. jj 7j^3 
 
 11.-. - .. - .. p ^24 
 
 "'■.\. (". Haddon. "Torre.s Strait.s, etc," p. 1 
 "• " " " " pp. 3-4 
 
 118 " " " " pp, 273 
 
 „9 « .. .. .. p 277 
 
 120 .. '. « " p 3Q2 
 
 '-'Hose and MeDongall, "Men and Animals in Sarawak," pp. 174-lSl 
 iM .. .. .. <. .< .. .. .. p 212 
 
 mjt 
 
 H. 
 
 (^oc 
 
 Irington. 
 
 " Melanesians,' 
 
 pp. 118-120 
 
 121 
 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 
 p. 120 
 
 125 
 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. 124-127 
 
 IV, 
 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. 129, 132 
 
 127 
 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 
 p. 135 
 
 12*/^ 
 
 G. Leonard. "Lower Niger Tribes," p. X 
 
 129 
 
 " 
 
 
 " '• 
 
 
 
 ' p. Xlf 
 
 130 
 
 i:ii 
 
 » 
 
 
 .. 
 
 
 
 ' pp. xii-xrii 
 
 ' p. 23 
 
 132 
 
 " 
 
 
 " " 
 
 
 
 pp. 70-71 
 
 133 
 
 " 
 
 
 " " 
 
 
 
 p. 119 
 
 134 
 
 " 
 
 
 *' " 
 
 
 
 ' pp. 1()6-167 
 
 133 
 
 " 
 
 
 « X 
 
 
 
 p. 177 
 
 136 
 
 '* 
 
 
 " " 
 
 
 
 pp. 178-185 
 
 137 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 pp. 397-398 
 
 13»,J. 
 
 Ros«>e 
 
 " Bantu 
 
 ," pp. 14 
 
 -lo 
 
 
 139 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 pp. 81 
 
 -82 
 
 
 140 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 p. 96 
 
 
 
 141 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 p. 132 
 
 
 
 142 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 p. 161 
 
 
 
 143 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 pp. 184-18.-) 
 
 144 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 pp. 243-244 
 
 145 
 
 
 
 p. 24.-) 
 
 
 
 146\Y 
 
 . H. U. 
 
 Rivers, ' 
 
 'Todas," 
 
 pp. 
 
 182-186 
 
 147 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 
 
 187-207 
 
 148 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 p. 295 
 
 14» 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 
 
 337, 361 and 586 
 
 150 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 
 
 518-.521 
 
 ISl 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 
 
 554-555 
 
 152 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 p. . 
 
 )S« 
 
 153 
 
 " 
 
 
 '* 
 
 p. ' 
 
 ■16 
 
 »«M 
 
 . A. Czaplicka, ' 
 
 'Aboriginal Siberia," p. VIII 
 
 155 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. 24-27 
 
 136 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. 37-38 
 
 157 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. r)8-69 
 
 158 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. 129-145 
 
 159 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. 168, 203 
 
 160 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 p. 243 
 
 161 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. 256-2.59 
 
 162 
 
 " 
 
 
 '* 
 
 
 pp. 273-275 
 
 163 
 
 " 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 pp. 289-290 
 
 164'J' 
 
 A. Joyce, "South American 
 
 Archaeology," pp. 17-18 
 
 165 
 
 
 
 
 
 pp. 23-29 
 
 166 
 
 
 
 
 
 " pp. 6«>-67 
 
 167 
 
 
 
 
 
 p. 8() 
 
 1«S 
 
 
 
 
 
 pp. 91-95 
 
 169 
 
 
 
 
 
 pp. 100-113 
 
 170 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 pp. 144-147 
 
 93 
 
War and Religion 
 
 References for Chapicr III, Section A 
 
 J. H. Breasted, "Ancient Times," pp. 32-'i4 
 ' '* " " pp. 44-45 
 
 p. 85 
 
 pp. 120-121 
 
 pp. 157-1C3 
 
 pp. 172-174 
 
 p. 178 
 
 pp. 207-214 
 
 p. 244 
 
 p. 320 
 
 p. 714 
 
 References for Chapter III, Section B, Part 1 
 'J. H. Breasted. "Development of Religion and Tho\ight in Anoienl Kgvpt." pp. 5-6 
 
 » " " ' " " " '" pp. 8-9 
 
 » " " " " " " " " " pp. 14-24 
 
 *G. F. Moore, "Historv of ReIigion.s," pp. 149-1G9 
 
 » " ' pp. 176-177 
 
 •Breasted, ibid., pp. 49-51 
 "> " " pp. 84-91 
 
 • " " p. 281 
 
 » " " p. 309 
 
 '• " " pp. 313-315 
 
 " " " pp. 349-369 
 
 ^ Moore, ibid., pp. 188-189 
 
 13 " " p. VI 
 
 References for Chapter III, Section B, Part 2 
 'M. Jastrow. Jr., "Religion of Bab. and Assvr.,"' p. 49 
 
 pp. 53-57 
 
 pp. 66-72 
 
 pp. 83-85 
 
 pp. 91-117 
 
 pp. 118-120 
 'Moore, ibid., pp. 209-211 
 •Jastrow, ibid., p. 192 
 » " " pp. 193-205 
 
 »• " " pp. 212-222 
 
 » " " p. 296 
 
 " " " pp. 312-314 
 
 •» " " p. 317 
 
 " " " pp. 329-348 
 
 » " " p. 374 
 
 " " " pp. 376-382 
 " " " pp. 533-534 
 
 " " " p. 567 
 '• " " pp. 694-695 
 
 2»Moore. ibid., pp. 221-222 
 
 References for Chapter III, Sectimi B, Pari 3 
 iMoore, ibid., p. 329 
 » " " pp. 325-327 
 
 » " " p. 249 
 
 • " " p. 327 
 
 » " " pp. 343-344 
 
 • " " pp. 359-360 
 
 ^M. N. Dhalla, "Zoroastrian Theology," pp. 11-12 
 
 • " " " " pp. 13-16 
 
 • " " " " pp. 47-52 
 
 94 
 
War and Religion 
 
 "Moore, ibid,, pp. 364-36.1 
 " '* " p. 371 
 " " *• p. 378 
 "Dhalla, ibid., pp. 82-83 
 '« " " pp. 06-135 
 '» '• " p. 143-146 
 »• •' " p. 187 
 '• " •' pp. 277-278 
 '•Moore, ibid., pp. 403-405 
 
 References jor Chapter III, Section B, Part 4 
 
 'Moore, ibid., p. 301 
 
 ^A. Coomaraswamv, " Buddha and Gospel of Buddhism," p. 182 note 
 
 p. VI 
 
 p- 
 
 91 
 
 p- 
 
 110 
 
 p- 
 
 115 
 
 pp. 115-123 
 
 P- 
 
 214 
 
 P- 
 
 126 
 
 P- 
 
 138 
 
 raswamy 
 
 , ibid. 
 
 p. 139 
 pp. 1.58-159 
 pp. 182-184 
 p. 222 
 p. 281 
 
 ibid., p. 
 
 325 
 
 
 " P- 
 
 297 
 
 
 " P- 
 
 299 
 
 
 "Moore, 
 
 References for Chapter III, Section B, Part 5 
 
 'Moore, ibid., p. 94 
 
 » " " pp. 3-4 
 
 ' " " pp. 4-6 
 
 * " " pp. 7-17 
 
 * '* " pp. 20-22 
 « ■' " pp. 25-36 
 7 •' " pp. 37-42 
 
 * " " pp. 48-56 
 
 'J, J. M. DeGroot, "Religion in China," pp. 2-4 
 
 » " *•• p. 16ff. 
 
 » " " " " " pp. 206, 208, 211, 221 
 
 pp. 43, 44, 286, 318 
 DeGroot, "Sectarianism and Rel. Persec. in China, 
 
 12 •• 
 
 »J. J. M 
 
 pp. 2-3 
 p. 90 
 pp. 149 
 p. 162 
 pp. 273-274 
 p. 559ff. 
 p. 565 
 
 References for Chapter III, Section B, Part 
 
 •Moore, ibid., 
 
 P- 
 
 94 
 
 
 I " •' 
 
 P 
 
 93 
 
 
 3 «• •' 
 
 P 
 
 95 
 
 
 *W. G. Aston 
 
 
 Shinto," 
 
 •p. 6 
 p. 44 
 
 p. 56 
 pp. 6.5-66 
 pp. 70-71 
 p. 135 
 
 95 
 
War and Religion 
 
 "W. G. Aston. "Shinto." pp. 178-179 
 
 " " " " pp. 218-2l<» 
 
 " " " " pp. 232-2;J4 
 
 " " " " p. 360 
 
 "Moore, ibid., p. Ill 
 
 '5 " " pp. 118-122 
 
 '« " " pp. 123-124 
 
 " •' " pp. 137-138 
 
 i» Aston, ibid., p. .3(iO 
 
 •» " " p. 3(;2 
 
 '^0 " '* pp. .372-373 
 
 *' " " pp. 374-376 
 
 References for Chapter III, Section B, Part 7 
 
 'L. R. Furnell, " Higher Aspects of Greek Religion," p. 82 
 -J. E. Harrison, "Themis," p. 1 
 
 * " " pp. 15-16 
 *Moore, ibid., pp. 432-434 
 ^Harrison, ibid., p. 28 
 
 * " " p. 46 
 
 ' " " pp. 87-90 
 
 ^Farnell, ibid., p. 1 
 
 * " " pp. 64-65 
 '" " " p. 69 
 
 " " " pp. 81-82 
 
 '■- " " pp. 96-97 
 
 " " " pp. 128-131 
 
 "Moore, ibid., pp. 413-417 
 
 ** " " pp. 419-420 
 
 '« " " p. 431 
 
 " " " pp. 420-424 
 
 '* " " p. 428 
 
 " " " p. 438 
 
 *" " " pp. 477-478 
 
 " " " pp. 463-469 
 
 ^ " " p. 4S9 
 
 23 " " pp. 494-495 
 
 2^Plato's RepubHc (Edition in Bibl.), pp. 60-74 
 
 ■^ " " " " " pp. 176-179 
 
 26 " " " " " p. 184 
 
 27 " « " « " p. 187 
 
 28 « « .. ., .. p 270 
 
 References for Chapter III, Section B, Part S 
 'C. Renel, "Les Enseignes," p. 6 
 *A. von Domaszewski, "Die ReHgion des Romisches Heeres," p. 2 
 
 ; " :: r :: :: r p-* 
 
 4 .< .... .. .. p jg 
 
 '\V. W. Fowler, "Rei. Exper. of Roman People," p. 25 
 ^Moore, il)id., p. 543 
 
 " pp. 545-546 
 
 " p. 548 
 
 " pp. 552-557 
 
 " p. 558 
 
 " pp. 572-573 
 
 " p. 575 
 
 " pp. 592-595 
 
 " p. 596 
 
 '*F. Cumont, "Astrology & Relig. Among the Greeks & Romans," pp. 182. 38. 99. 180, 181 
 '"Fowler, ibid., p. 71 
 '' " " p. 87, note ten 
 
 '* " " p. 93 
 
 96 
 
War and Religion 
 
 "Fowler, ibid., p. 96 
 
 '« " " pp. 129-134 
 
 " " *' pp. 204-206 
 
 « " '• p. 20S 
 
 « " " pp. 249-2.51 
 
 " " " p. H()9 
 
 « '* " p. 329 
 
 »« " " p. 336 
 
 « '* " pp. 462-465 
 
 "W. W. Fowler, "Roman Ideas of Deity," p. 84 
 
 References for Chapter III, Section B, Pari 9 
 ^W. R. Smith. "Relig. of Semites," pp. 29-32 
 ' " " *' " " pp. 35, 36 and 37 
 
 ' *' *' " " " pp. 5.3-54 
 
 * pp. 64-74 
 
 » " " pp. 258, 263. 264. 266 and 359 
 
 •Jewish Encyc, vol. 12, pp. 463-466 
 7 " " vol. 9, pp. 160-162 
 
 » " " vol. 6, pp. 1-15 
 
 » " " vol. 9, pp. 565-567 
 
 '"A. Cronbach, "Socialism," Chapt. 10, D. D. Thesis, Hebrew Union Col., Cincinnati, 1913 
 
 References for Chapter III, Sectu 
 
 ^ "Cambridge Medieval History," vol. 1, p. 1 
 * " " " pp. 4-5 
 
 pp. 8-10 
 
 pp. 12-23 
 
 pp. 150-151 
 
 pp. 170-173 
 
 p. 174 
 
 pp. 288-291 
 
 pp. 303-308 
 
 p. 312 
 
 p. 315 
 
 pp. 323-359 
 
 p. 590 
 
 vol. 2, ibid., pp. 1-43 
 
 pp. 111-116 
 
 pp. 304-308 
 
 pp. 313-317 
 
 pp. 318-321 
 
 pp. 323-328 
 
 pp. 329-354 
 
 p. 390 
 
 pp. 463-550 
 
 pp. 578-fi58 
 « " " " p. 689 
 
 ^ "Cambridge Modern History," vol. I, 
 «« " " " p. 12 
 
 " " pp. 56-66 
 
 p. 68 
 p. 97 
 p. 98 
 p. 143 
 pp. 144-189 
 pp. 200-218 
 pp. 225-360 
 
 ion C 
 
 pp. 2-3 
 
 pp. i2Z0-00U 
 
 pp. 460-483, .569-571, 579 
 
 p. 653 
 
 pp. 655-667 
 
 97 
 
War and Religion 
 
 38 "C 
 
 am 
 
 b. M 
 
 adern History," pp. 668-672 
 
 
 39Vol 
 
 2. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 p. 104 
 
 
 «0 < 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 165-209 
 
 
 41 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 223-224 
 
 
 42 « 
 
 
 " 
 
 p. 227 
 
 
 43 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 p. 228 
 
 
 44 « 
 
 
 " 
 
 p. 689 
 
 
 4& < 
 
 
 •' 
 
 p. 691 
 
 
 «Vol 
 
 3. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 ,p.V 
 
 
 47 • 
 
 
 " 
 
 p. 7 
 
 
 48 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 19-20 
 
 
 49 < 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 36-37 
 
 
 60 « 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 65-68 
 
 
 51 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 74, 76, 77. 80, 84 
 
 
 6J ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 104-105 
 
 
 63 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 p. 126 
 
 
 U ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 264, 271, 285, 292, 345-347, 351-353, 506-509 
 
 56 « 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 362-363 
 
 
 59 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 464-466, 520 
 
 
 67 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 740-743 
 
 
 58 « 
 
 
 " 
 
 pp. 745-748. 768-769 
 
 
 "W. 
 
 W. 
 
 Sweet, "Methodist Episcopal Church and the Civil War," p. 8 
 
 80 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' p. 9 
 
 61 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' p. 14 
 
 6J ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' pp. 20-21 
 
 53 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' pp. 25 and 34 
 
 64 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' pp. 42, 58-60 
 
 65 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' pp. 77-79, 87-90 
 
 66 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' p. 103 
 
 67 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' p. 112 
 
 68 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' pp. 128-129 
 
 69 ' 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' p. 167 
 
 ^ojewish Encyclopedia, vol. 12, pp. 363-364. 
 
 Also Jewish Periodical Press as "American 
 
 
 Israelite," "Occident," etc. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 References far Chapter IV 
 iRussell, "Why Men Fight," p. 221 
 ^Jevons, ibid., p. 415 
 
 ^W. E. Wilson, "Christ and War," pp. IX-XII 
 « " " " " " pp. 15-18 
 
 5 » « " " " p. 29 
 
 'A. G. Hogg. "Christianity and Force," p. 3 
 ^ " " " " " pp. 3. 4, 16 
 
 «F. J. Foakes-Jackson, "The Faith and the War." pp. 192, 195 . 
 'J. Denney, " War and the Fear of God," p. 81 
 '"F. Ballard, "Christianity After the War." p. 8 
 >'F. R. Barry, "Religion and the War," p. 7 
 '^W. E. Wilson, ibid., pp. X-XI 
 " " " " pp. 69-76 
 
 "A. Baudrillart, "German War and Catholicism," pp. 13-46 
 
 ,5 .< » » » » p gj 
 
 '«F. B. Proctor, "The National Crisis, etc.. Churches Fail," pp. 13. 22 
 
 •'C. Brown, "The War and the Faith," p. 77 
 
 '*W. Cunningham, "Christianity and Politics," pp. 34, 70, 183, 263 
 
 '» " " ' " " p. VI 
 
 »» " " " " pp. 249, 252, 25^255, 263 
 
 ^'Philadelphia Morning "Public Ledger," 12-25-17 
 
 '^W. E. Chadwick, "German Christianity and the Great War, ' p. 14 
 
 ''J. E. Carpenter, "Ethical and Religious Problems of the War," pp. 5, 7, 13, VI 
 
 '^Gilbert Murray, "Faith, War and Policy," pp. X, XI 
 
 j5 " " " " " " pp. 7-8 
 
 „ » « » .. .. » p9 
 
 98 
 
War and Reli^wTi*'- 
 
 '^Carpenter, ibid., p. 182 
 
 '^Oxford Pamphlets. 1914-191;'), W. B. Selbie, "The War and Theology." pp. 10-12. 15 
 
 ''A. Loisv, "The War and Religion," p. XVII 
 ,0 .. ■ .. .. .. .. p ^2 
 
 „ .. .< .< .. » p XXVII 
 
 Si <' " .. " " p 21 
 
 " " " " " " pp. 64-65 
 
 "J. P. Bang, "Hurrah and Hallelujah," p. 16 
 
 pp. 35-40 
 
 pp. 42ff. 
 
 pp. 54, 59, 62. 72, 79, 88 
 
 p. 90 
 
 p. 133 
 
 pp. 192, 216, 217 
 *'W. Archer, "Gems (.') of German Thought," pp. 4, 5, 6, 7 
 ^ " " " " " " pp. 14-16. 21, 27 
 
 « " " " " " " p. 52 
 
 « " " " " " " p. 59 
 
 45 " .« « « " » p 94 
 
 46 .. .. .. » « » p j^ 
 
 *' " " " " " " pp. 153-154 
 
 ^U. v.Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, "Deutsche Reden, etc.," vol. 2, p. 87 
 
 «"New York Times," 4r-2-17 
 
 50 " - 4-16-17 
 
 " " " 12-26-17 
 
 s^Murray, ibid., pp. 253-254 
 
 "Foakes-Jackson, ibid., pp. 97-98 
 
 ^ " " title page 
 
 "« " " pp. X, XI 
 
 **"The Church and International Relations," published by Fed. Counc. of Churches of 
 
 Christ in Am., vol. 3, pp. 197, 203 
 ^"The Churches of Christ in Time of War," published by preceding, passim 
 
 8* - c< <. <. » .. . .. .. „ » » p yjj 
 
 "S. L. Gulick, "The Fight for Peace," p. 10 
 
 «»"New York Times," 12-25-17 
 
 "Philadelphia Morning "Public Ledger," 2-25-17; Philadelphia "Evening Bulletin." 
 
 3-31-17 
 •^Loisy. ibid., p. XVIII 
 ^Cunningham, ibid., pp. 102-103, 260 
 "W. C. Braithwaite, "Beginnings of Quakerism." pp. 12. 23. 28, 30, 53, 228, 280, 298, 
 
 313, 315 
 *»W. C. Braithwaite, "Beginnings of Quakerism," pp. 519-520 
 ^R. M. Jones, "The Quakers in the American Colonies," p. 556 
 "Philadelphia "Public Ledger,"9-.S-17;6-23-17,|Philadelphia "Evening Bulletin."8-16-17 
 
 68 .. « " 6-18-17 
 
 69 « « .< 5-30-17 
 
 70 " " " 10-21-17 
 
 "Tolstoy, "My Confession, etc.," Book I. p. 447; cf. also pp. 82-83, 85, 227, 235 et passim 
 
 '^Ibid, Book II, pp. 8. 9, 15 
 
 " " " p. 393 
 
 "^ " " pp. 414. 427 
 
 '^Foakes-Jackson, ibid., p. 204 
 
 '«Ballard, ibid., p. 7 
 
 "'Russell, ibid., p. 222 
 
 '^Philadelphia "Evening Bulletin," 12-22-17 
 
 '*F. von Bernhardi, "Germany and the Next War." p. 10 
 
 80 <> " .' « .. «. " pp 22,30 
 
 81 " •' " « « " " pp. 42, 47 
 8, » » « .. .< » <. pp 7j_72 
 
 " " " . " . " " " " PP- 247. 252-253. 258. 261. 293. 300 
 
 *^H. G. Wells, "Social Forces in England and America," p. 171 et passim, cf. also hij 
 
 "Mr. Britling, etc.," "God the Invisible King" and "The Soul of a Bishop." 
 
 99 
 
War and Religion 
 
 References for Chapter V 
 
 '"Cambridge Modern History," vol. 12, p. 5 
 
 , " " " p. 7 
 
 » " " " pp. 14, 15, 64 
 
 * " " " p. 700 • 
 
 " " " " pp. 705-706, 715, 716 
 
 «Hobhouse. "Questions of War and Peace," pp. 188-189. 191-192, 212-214, 223-224 
 
 'G. Brandes, "World at War," pp. 41, 43, 52, 75, 77, 78 
 
 «Brandes, ibid., p. 128 
 
 » " " pp. 139-140, 152, 160 
 
 I" " " p. 163 
 
 " " " pp. 173-177 
 
 ^ " " pp. 178-182 
 
 " " " pp. 219-227 
 
 ^* " " pp. 209, 237-238 
 
 « " " pp. 234-235 
 
 »« " " pp. 247-248 
 
 "R. Holland, "Above the Battle," pp. 110 and 43 
 
 "O. Lodge, "The War and After." pp. 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 
 
 »» " " " " " pp. 24, 26, 50 
 
 JO .. .. « << » p 115 
 
 »i " " " " " pp. 119-122, 125, 140 
 
 « " " " " " pp. 213-214. 225 
 
 23 " " " " " pp. 230-231 
 
 2^LeBon, "Psych, of the Great War." pp. 306-307 
 
 ^ " " " " " " pp. 309-311. 422-423. 460-461, 470-471 
 
 **A. B. Hart, etc.. "Problems of Readjustment, etc.," pp. 17, 29. 35 
 
 " " " " " " " " pp. 61. 65, 67, 69 
 
 « " " " " " " " pp. 73 74, 79 
 
 „ « .< .. » .< » « p 13Q 
 
 ""New York Times" Book Review, 11-25-17 
 
 "H. Spencer, ibid, p. 600 
 
 "^Thomas, ibid., pp. 172-173 
 
 '^Thomson, ibid., pp. 91, 93, 214, 226 and 226 note 
 
 ^B. RusseU, "Justice in War Time," pp. 17-18, 20, 28, 35-36, 40, 57. 59, 67, 68, 94, 
 
 111, 120. 136, 202 
 ssRussell, "Why Men Fight," pp. 79, 100, 227, 268. 269, 270 et passim 
 M " " " " p. 55 
 
 100 
 
THIS BOOK ^' 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 RENEWALS ONLY—TEL. NO. 642-3405 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 RECD 1 n ii 
 
 mntizmo55 
 
 •»*-w u LU Jit 
 
 w3 70 -8 PM 8 
 
 SEP 3l982iO( 
 
 3 ^^^^'SC0ec22*86 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 
 JAN i)m7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD21A-60m-3,'70 ,, . Genial IJbrary . 
 {X5382sl0)476-A-32 ^'^''^'^'^^^J^^f'^°"'"' 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 
 
 BDDDB'I'^Vab 
 
 381331 
 
 • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 •i'-' ;. -.. I <■■'''