In view of the threatening conditions at present confronting Christian civilization, it is patently necessary that some answer be given to the query which appears at the head of this article. Many Christians, Christian Scientists in particular, have been confronted with the most sincere doubt as to what should be their attitude in the present conflict, even though the very foundations of what is termed Christian civilization are challenged, even threatened with overthrow and annihilation. Consequently, it is highly pertinent to review and reproduce in part an editorial written by Judge Septimus J. Hanna, Editor, which appeared in The Christian Science Journal for June, 1898.

This editorial was written during the Spanish War, when the United States was engaged in conflict with Spain on behalf of the people of Cuba, who for centuries had suffered severely under the Spanish yoke. It is not too much to say that, as much as Mrs. Eddy abhorred war, this statement represented her position when human liberty was at stake.

Judge Hanna writes: "Christian Scientists look to the Bible for their authority in all affairs, divine and human. If the Bible teaches that war is a divine institution, Christian Scientists should feel themselves obliged to regard it as such. Literally interpreted the Scriptures bear abundant evidence that war is of divine intent. In its historically literal import a great part of the Old Testament is devoted to recitals of wars of the most bloody and savage character."

If the Bible is interpreted from this standpoint, God is made directly responsible for all the horrors, disasters, and suffering which have beset humanity. Spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures alone reveals the true concept of Deity, and while historically many of the accounts of slaughter and rapine found in the Old Testament literally represent events as they occurred, yet Judge Hanna believes that many others are symbolic of the destruction of evil, of error, in its manifold phases.

But even in ancient days this concept of a God of war and hate, of rewards and punishment, was superseded in the thought of certain of the great prophets. Isaiah, statesmanprophet, foresaw a time when war would cease, for he had a clear understanding that God had no part in human conflicts. When the people had truly learned of God and obeyed Him, they would "beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks." The arts of peace would supplant the arbitrament of war. Isaiah's contemporary, Micah, shared this vision of non-divinity war.

Turning to the New Testament, the teachings of Christ Jesus are cited in extenso as utterly opposing resort to arms in the settlement of differences between peoples and nations. In these firm declarations Christians see the fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah and Micah: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."

If this be regarded as too idealistic, too Utopian, then Christianity itself is subject to the same characterization. Did Jesus mean what he said? Was his teaching sincere, practical? Has Christianity accepted and made practical application of his instructions, or evaded them? "Has not the Christian world been following this dilatory and evasive policy long enough?" And there are added in proof of Jesus' thesis two more planks: "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you;" and the Golden Rule.

In discussion of Jesus' teachings, Judge Hanna asks: "Could there be a greater mockery of these words than the prevailing actions of individuals and nations in their relations with each other? Is the desire and the attempt to blow each other into indistinguishable fragments doing unto each as the other would be done by? Was Jesus really the Son of God and the Son of man whose words were 'of the Father,' or was he merely an irresponsible fanatic whose sayings were beneath the notice of educated and well-ordered people?"

Turning to the teachings of Christian Science, there is presented a solution of the problems involving God's relation to the affairs of men: "But Christian Scientists are not iconoclasts. They have something to offer for that which they would have done away with. Their exegesis of Scripture is based upon God as Divine Principle and man as the universal idea of that Divine Principle. Nor does this conception of God take away his personality in any true sense of personality. Divine Principle is absolute Good. There is within this Divine consciousness no admixture of evil. This Good is eternally, infinitely, and universally existent. In so far as man as the idea of divine Principle reflects that divine Principle, he is in his divine order of being and in harmonious relationship therewith. In so far as he deflects from this order he is apart from his divine Principle, and is the servant of the false claim of evil. This Principle is universal, infinite Love, supreme Intelligence.

"God is Spirit. So declare the Scriptures, and Christian Scientists accept this Scriptural definition without qualification or equivocation. They understand the true meaning of the term Holy Ghost to mean Wholly Spirit, or Pure Spirit. Their conception then, is, that there is not and cannot be contained within the Pure Spirit which is God, a single element unlike itself. If war, therefore, be of divine sanction, its spirit must have pre-existed in the divine purpose; in which case all the horrors of war are the outcome of a consciousness that is Pure Spirit. Can this be?"

Of the activity of divine Principle, Judge Hanna states: "Good, as divine Principle, in its necessary operation destroys all unlike itself. Divine Love manifests itself by removing all conditions which bring discord, that harmony may prevail. Divine Love can do this, for its purpose is only right and it is free from the slightest element of hate. Revenge, injury, conquest, desire of gain, have no place there."

There remains, however, the necessity of dealing with the problem of pacifism, so called, and of participation in and support of war. What should be the attitude of Christian Scientists? Judge Hanna leaves no doubt as to the mental position which may become necessary in order to protect so much of liberty of conscience and freedom of worship as has been gained through the centuries at a tremendous cost of blood and treasure. He states that "while Christian Scientists adhere strictly to the idea of God's non-responsibility for war, they at the same time recognize the conditions of human relativity. They well know, in other words, that there are degrees of human belief, and that some beliefs are vastly better than others. The higher and better the human belief the nearer approach is made to reflecting Good, or God, as divine Principle. If a wrong cannot, with the present understanding of divine law, be righted in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, it must either continue to exist or be removed by the most effective means within the present comprehension of mankind."

And he follows by drawing an illustration from the war with Spain, pointing out that if the rulers of that country were so steeped in selfishness, so cruel that they were in no degree receptive to the presence of divine Love which would promote compassion and kindness toward the people of Cuba, then the United States was faced with the problem of permitting these unholy conditions to continue, or removing the incubus through the most effective means within its present understanding. But under the conditions the only remedy possible seemed to be recourse to war. "Had it [the U.S.A.], in its governmental capacity, been sufficiently endowed with the Christ-spirit to have wrought out the problem in accordance therewith, the war might have been avoided. Not possessing this spirit, it must either have continued a quiescent witness of Cuba's sufferings and Spain's inhumanities, or have resorted to force of arms, as it has elected to do."

And while recognizing that it was still a question with many whether the United States was under an imperative duty to interfere, he makes it very plain that having given the gauge of battle, it became then "a question of relative good, and every consideration of right and humanity, to say nothing of inherent love of country, demands that all good citizens lend their support to that side which is standing for the highest good. In this sense Christian Scientists can afford to be, and are, patriotic. They are, indeed, patriotic in a larger sense than the outside world can now comprehend. They can perform, and are performing, duties in behalf of their country that will count for more than they could now make unbelievers see. Nor will they shrink from any needed duty in the premises."

Judge Hanna closes with the assurance that Christian Scientists hope for a speedy end of the conflict (the Spanish War), and that they are firm in their prayers that the Christspirit may so transform human consciousness as to remove the necessity in the future of resorting to the use of material means to destroy the evils which one people might force upon another. He also asserts that Christian Scientists will do all they can to promote the treaty of arbitration then pending between England and the United States.

That the Christ-spirit which this militant Christian prayed might end wars has not come into realization as the only true arbiter of international differences is again all too manifest. Once more a state of consciousness unwilling to accept the Christ-way has become the instrument to attack the very foundations of Christian civilization. Therefore it seems that this mental state, unreceptive to the impact of divine Love, must needs be met in such terms as it may understand. While praying incessantly for peace, Christian Scientists will support the cause of justice and righteousness in all necessary ways.