world will have won a great substitute for the use of force in settling disputes, which substitute has always succeeded within national lines wherever it has been tried, and which we have every reason to be

lieve will succeed between nations, when it shall be established, and be given an opportunity to justify itself, not as of men as is the national tribunal, but as of nations.

BY

HE words of the prophet Isaiah, "Ye shall judge among many nations and for many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and learn the art of war no more," constitute the first proclamation that was ever made for universal peace by arbitration. They were spoken twenty-six hundred years ago, and there has been no real progress in judicial acts for arbitration since that proclamation. The world has never risen to its height. The world is still groping in its steps to reach the great climax that that vision of the prophet held forth to mankind. Contrast, if you please, that ancient vision with the modern declarations of war, and ask yourselves which betokens the nobler culture and the higher civilization, the word of the prophet for Universal Peace, spoken twenty-six hundred years ago, or the proclamations for war that we hear to-day. We are in the flush of intellectual victory, of discovery, of scientific achievement. We are accustomed to boast of our modern civilization and of its material products that have added to the world's physical comfort and convenience. And yet every result of modern progress in science and in art is only made serviceable for the arts of war. Civilization, whose real purpose should be to enhance the arts of peace, is made subservient as a handmaid for destructive purposes. In what respect are we superior to the savage, with all our boasted civilization? We have greater cities, we have loftier mansions that lift their cupolas to the skies. We have

schools and colleges and libraries and museums and churches of all descriptions, and still with all this civilization, we have not been able to stop the havoc and the outrages, the brutalities of modern warfare. What does it all amount to, if when our modern civilization, including religion, is put to the only test that counts, namely the stopping of human slaughter and human bloodshed, that civilization and all religion fails? Wherein are we better in this regard than the savage? We are to-day worse off, when it comes to warfare, than men were in the days of savagery. The savage goes forth with his bow and arrow and his tomahawk, and one savage can at best with one shot kill one human being. But the modern civilized man goes forth, with Krupp guns and cannons and bombs and shells and submarines and automobile and airship and one human being to-day, with these arts and sciences of civilization, one human being pressing one button with one shot can kill ten thousand human beings and destroy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property. One savage can kill one man; one civilized man can destroy a whole city. We are worse off with our civilization, in times of war, because the butchery, the slaughter has been made greater because of the arts and the artifices and inventions of modern times. Civilization has not decreased nor has it humanized war, but on the contrary, as long as war is at all possible, civilization will constantly increase the possibilities of war and intensify its brutality and its slaughter. Let me relate a little

anecdote which may be taken for what it is worth, but which illustrates what civilization to-day means in the eyes of some.

Since the outbreak of the war, the monkeys of South Africa have come together in a Convention, and the chief monkey of that Convention presented the thought that Darwin, fifty years ago, declared that the humans were descended from the monkey world. "But," said the chief of this beastly convention, "though we were at first complimented by the evolution theory of Darwin, and congratulated ourselves that we monkeys were the ancestors of the civilized world, now it transpires that Darwin was wrong, and I offer the resolution to you, comrades of this animal world, that we repudiate the theory of Darwin that human beings are descended from monkeys. He must have been false in all his summary of facts, because the monkey world does not wage war against its own kind, does not destroy its fellows, its innocent women and its innocent children. The monkey world repudiates the doctrine that human beings are descended from it."

We are face to face with the stubborn fact that the present war, with all its brutalities and with its violations of international agreements, has upset the world's ideals and expectations, and has retarded the millennium.

It is not for one nation to decide, it is for all the great nations to determine that there shall be no war, that men shall not learn the arts of war any more. It is for all the nations of the world to adopt the slogan of the ancient prophet, and to put into practice his principle that men shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. The nations of the world must sooner or later choose between perpetual peace or perpetual war. It will be either the one or the other. You cannot have a mean between the two. You either have perpetual peace or its alternative, perpetual war. The world has recognized how to make perpetual peace amongst individuals by abolishing private revenge, personal redress for personal wrongs, by abolishing its most extreme form, the duel; and the world must only apply that same principle to its extreme, apply to nations what it has

applied to individuals. The nations of the world insist that their citizens shall respect the law as regards disputes amongst themselves, but the same nations that insist on respect for the law on the part of citizens do not apply that principle when their own rights are really or only seemingly infringed. The nations do not respect international law, and for a very good reason it seems to them because they make some kind of a distinction between individual honor and national honor. Individual honor is something that can be settled by a court, but national honor is to be defined and settled by each nation itself. And there is the crux of the whole problem. stitute national honor?

What shall conShall it consist of

It

the ability of a nation to hold the world at bay? Shall it consist in the ability of the nations to add Dreadnought to Dreadnought and army to army, until its own armament shall be able to withstand and overcome the combined armaments of the rest of the world? If that is the theory of the national honor of each nation, then peace in the world is impossible. There must be a different definition of national honor. must consist in the ability of the nation to seek not only justice for itself but also justice for the other nations. We need a different definition of patriotism. Patriotism to-day means love of country, but when you translate it into its real significance it means such a love of country that will induce every individual to go to the firing line and to cry, "My country, right or wrong!" That is the old patriotism, "my country, right or worng," and that has drawn thousands and millions of people into unjustifiable wars. That patriotism, "My country, right or wrong," has created the jingoes in every nation of the world that have set people aflame and that have led men on to fight without knowing what they were fighting for. And there are millions fighting to-day in Europe, millions on the firing line, who do not know what they are fighting for and who if they were told, would not be in sympathy with the purposes of the war, no matter to what nationality they belonged. We need a higher patriotism, before we can have universal peace-a patriotism that would be translated thus

if you please. It may be ideal, but that is the vision that I see of the future: "My country, may she always be right! My country, when she is right! My country, when she is wrong God help me to set her right!"

Some time ago, an immigrant to our shores was asked what he thought of America and what he thought of our government. He pondered for a moment and then he said, "Your government is always off duty." He had missed the armed soldier at the railroad station, at the wharves, and at the street corners, and he thought our government was off duty. And then his American friend said to him, "Did you receive your letters, this morning, from the mail carrier?" And he said, "Yes." "Then," said his American friend, "when you received your letters from the mail carrier, you saw our government on duty!" And the two answers, the one of the immigrant who thought the government was off duty, and the one of the American who interpreted correctly when the government is on duty, expresses the difference between militarism and civilization. When our government is exerting its influence to increase the arts of peace, to advance science, philanthropy and religion in all their branches, in all parts of the land, then our country is on duty and expressing the very genius of its Constitution. We need a different interpretation of national honor and patriotism, and in this definition we must go still higher and bring to the cognition of our citizens the meaning of true religion. We have been taught by Moses and by the Nazarene teacher and by all the leaders of all the religions in one form or another, "Thou shalt love thy fellow man as thyself." But we need a higher patriotism, based on this ethical religious principle, which shall teach, "Thou shalt love thy sister nation as thine own." To-day, we love only our own nation, no matter to which country we belong. Every nation is clannish. We love our country, and we become so patriotic when we say we love our country, and we mean by that that we are indifferent or we hate the other country.

Johnson expressed a sentiment that is lurking somewhere in the soul of every jingo,

when he said, "All foreigners are fools." He expressed it thus brusquely, but many people think it, many people act on it. The ancient Grecian said, "I am a Greek, and the rest of the world are barbarians." We are not far removed in thought and sentiment from that ancient Greek. We are Americans-we are the people!" The Englishman says the same thing, "We are the English, we are the people!" And

the French, the German, the Russian and R

all the citizens of every land take the same
attitude, "We are the people!" and they
mean by that that the rest of the world are
barbarians. The nationalist concerns him-
self only with his own country, with its
industries, with its commerce, with its out-
put of material and spiritual products, and
what the rest of the world does concerns him
little, unless it can contribute to the ag-
grandizement or the profit of his own coun-
try. We are all at heart simply nationalists.
The new patriotism will teach us to be not
only patriotic citizens but to be cosmopoli-
tan citizens. I am an American first, but
I do not forget that I am also a citizen of
the world. The ancient Roman had it
right when he said, "I am a man, and noth-
ing that concerns humanity is foreign to
me." And we should translate that into
this statement, "I am an American, and
nothing that concerns humanity is foreign
to an American." That kind of a patriot-
ism will create an international spirit that is
so wofully lacking to-day. Internationalism
is the thing that we need, the spirit that will
cause us to feel that there are other people
in the world, that there are other national-
ities, and that they should all be bound
together. The same spirit should be cher-
ished in our own souls towards other nations
that we cherish in our hearts to-day toward
the various states of our country. Judge
Taft in a most admirable address, last May,
presented the relations of the States of our
country to the general government and the
Supreme Court, and on that basis drew a
picture of the relationship of the nations of
the world to a world court. That expresses
the whole subject of world federation in a
nutshell. The citizens of each state love
the state in which they reside, cherish its
interests, work for its aggrandizement. But

the citizen of no state is hostile to the interests of any other states. Our states may differ but they can never fight one another. Why can it not be possible that the nations of the world may differ, but that they shall not fight one another in order to destroy one

another? And just as we harbor this interstate feeling in America, so from a larger sense and the cosmopolitan sense, we can harbor the international spirit that shall in the end bring about world federation, and the Supreme Court of humanity.

E

DUCATION is at once an aim, a method, a condition, a content, a result. And in all these respects, education does have relation to international welfare, for education promotes the welfare of nations, because education promotes political freedom and democracy. I might speak of what is called liberal education. And what is liberal education? It ought to be called liberalizing education, for it sets free the mind, it removes obstructions, it beats down difficulties, it increases power. In his great speech on Conciliation with America, delivered in 1775 in the House of Commons, Edmund Burke spoke of the study of the law as a profession pursued in America which gave activity to every faculty in defence, in attack, bigger strength, power of every sort. And those words that the great statesman spoke, more than one hundred and thirty years ago are true of education to-day. Education gives power, removes difficulties, enlarges opportunity. The most recent historian of Yale, in writing of the special virtues or characteristics of Yale graduates, says that throughout her more than two hundred years of great history, the four qualities of faith, of conservatism, of constructive ability and of democracy are the great marks, and democracy he puts first. Out of seventy-nine men, the great men of Yale's history, he declares there have been only two men who disbelieved in democracy. What is true of Yale is true in kind of every college. The college man

is a free man, believes in freedom, is a democrat, believes in all men, in liberty, equality, fraternity. In these times I like to think of Carl Schurz and his coming to America, in that great year of '48, and of his telling us of the students in his university and in all the German Universities that were aflame with the spirit of liberty and of democracy, and because Carl Schurz was so great a democrat and believed in democracy, he was obliged to flee his Fatherland to save his freedom or his life. To-day, there are said to be eighty thousand German University students fighting in the German armies. I am sure that in their own hearts still there beats a great throb for democracy and for liberty, however constrained their outer act may be. I know in this country a German University student who in his love of liberty fled his native land, and home, to get and to enjoy freedom. Education stands for political freedom and for democracy, and standing for such, it must stand for the welfare of all the nations.

Education stands for the wiping out of national antagonisms, and racial antipathies. We call education the melting pot. The school room in Cleveland, in Boston, in New York, in Chicago represents that melting pot. But if the grammar school is the melting pot, the higher education is the welding hammer that makes men draw together in heat and love strong, strong as steel, in the great principles of their being. Education stands for seeing; for seeing

down into, for insight. Education stands for looking beyond the white or the black, or the brown or the yellow skin, into the heart, into the blood, and one of my colleagues, a great anatomist says that the testimony of his microscope is that the blood of the black man is one with the blood of the white man. And education stands for that mighty force of seeing down into and up unto the great principles that underlie all races and all nations. Let me also say that education stands for what I will call the intellectual reserves. What are the intellectual reserves? They are the intellectual resources, plus intellectual self restraint. The intellectual resources of men are the powers in the man, those resources represent scholarship, knowledge, thinking, reflection, and with those re-. sources is to be combined the mighty quality of restraint. Given resources great, full, ample, without restraint, and they are dissipated and wasted. Given restraint without resources, and there is no force, no power to project, to go forth, to do. Let there be in the man, in the nation, intellectual resources with intellectual restraint, and he, the individual or the people becomes a mighty force for the nation itself and for all men.

I also wish to say that education promotes the welfare of nations through training, deepening, heightening, enlarging public sentiment. Public sentiment is the great power that makes or unmakes. Education does not work abruptly, suddenly, swiftly. It is no earthquake, no cyclone. It represents the process of life, of growth. The figures of biology, not the figures of physics are the proper figures to use regarding it. Education works like the atmosphere, like the spring sun that touches leaf and bud and flower and after weeks, summer has come, but not in the night time, rather through the long spring weeks. Education works as the force of truth. The most common figure on the shield of the American college is the figure of the rising sun, with the word "Lux" spread across those beaming rays; or the open book with the word "Veritas" spread across its open pages. Truth is the power that works, not in the earthquake or the

man.

storm, but is a still, small voice that is the voice of Omnipotence itself. It also works through the person. Some would say, “I don't care for what you learn in college, I only care for the man who is your teacher." Thomas Jefferson once said that to Prof. Small, a name now unknown, of the historic William and Mary College of Williamsburg, he owed more than to any other There are upon this platform or in this audience scores of people who can say that "To a single college teacher I owe more than to anyone outside my home, in determining my character and my career.” There are those of you who found in William G. Sumner of Yale a mighty power. There are those of us who found in Henry Adams's distinguished name of still more distinguished ancestors, a power to make men what they are. That single teacher helped to make the outer man, the public man, and the public man made public sentiment. Education makes the opinion, the judgment of the nations, through the great teachers in the quiet four years of academic shades.

Education promotes the welfare of nations through giving vision. Education opens the eyes. It is the answer of the ancient prayer, "O Lord, open Thou our eyes." Education helps man to see. It lifts one out of provincialism and localisms and the valleys, upon the mountain ranges and the Pikes Peaks and the Himalayas heights. I don't care how it does it. I have known and have small regard for methods or for means. I care chiefly only for the result. There has been a Greek education, superb, rich, historic, with the Plato and Eurypides and Sophocles and Aristotle, but I care not for the Greek unless through the Greek one saw beyond the limits of Greece, beyond Athens, or Delphi, or Olympus, or the Acropolis. There has been and in part still is, an education Roman, of government, of law, great and good, but I care not for it except as one from the seven hill town sees a vision like the ancient saint, of the very city of God. Vision to see, to see the hilltops, and on the hilltops to stand-that represents education. And if the college and the school can give this vision, it creates the international mind, the