third, the essential equipment of a true investigator and in harmony with a temper of mind "eminently English." To anyone here who, having begun reading his works, has abandoned the attempt, my counsel is-Gird up your loins and resolutely begin again, remembering always that his arguments in "Analogy" are especially addressed not to Atheists but to Deists generally, and particularly to such persons as can judge without thinking, and such as can censure without judging; to those who do not pretend that Christianity is proved false, but say the evidence is unsatisfactory and surrounded with many difficulties. To these objections he replies that in matters of our everyday common world life we continually act upon evidence no stronger, being guided by Probability; and that the difficulties connected with the Christian religion are of the same kind as those found in Natural religion, so that a man sane enough to believe in the God of nature must, if logically consistent, believe in the God of The Bible the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This reasoning receives reinforcement from the testimony of Conscience, concerning which he tells us : You cannot form a notion of this faculty, conscience, without taking in judgment, direction, superintendency. This is a constituent part of the idea, that is, of the faculty itself; and to preside and to govern, from the very economy and constitution of man, belongs to it. Had it strength as it has right, had it power as it has manifest authority, it would absolutely govern the world." (Sermon ii, on "Human Nature.") In this manner Butler may be said to have prepared the way intellectually for the preaching of the Gospel of Salvation proclaimed by John Wesley. THE 606TH ORDINARY MEETING, HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, PROFESSOR W. P. KER, M.A., LL.D., IN THE CHAIR. The Secretary read the Minutes of the previous Meeting which were confirmed and signed, and announced the Election of Mr. E. R. P. Moon, M.A., as a Member. THE PERSONAL INFLUENCE OF GREAT COMMANDERS IN THE PAST. By Major-General Sir GEORGE K. SCOTTMONCRIEFF, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., C.I.E. MARSHAL FOCH, in one of his lectures at the French Staff College, in the days when he was still a professor at that institution, unknown save in his own circle, and ignorant of the great fame which awaited him, states as follows:-" History does no less than justice, when it gives the praise of victory, the blame of defeat, to the generals who have commanded armies in the field. For it is in the influence of the command, the enthusiasm communicated by it, that we must seek for and find an explanation for the unconscious movements of masses of men when an army in the field, without knowing why, feels itself carried forward, as though it were gliding on an inclined plane." And again, The great events of history, the disasters which it records in some of its pages, such as the destruction of the French power in 1870, are never accidents, but rather the results of superior and general causes, such as the forgetfulness of the commonest moral and intellectual truths, or the abandonment of the activity of mind and body which constitute the life and health of armies." No more striking example of the truth of this can be given than the wonderful series of victories carried out in the months of July to November, 1918, under the great soldier who expressed in clear language the fundamental principles of leadership. From the time when, with splendid audacity, he struck at the German flank between the Aisne and the Marne, the armies under his control moved "as though it were gliding on an inclined plane" from one brilliant victory to another until the enemy was fain to sue for mercy. It is perhaps the most remarkable example in history of a leader laying down deliberately, beforehand, the principles of success, and then himself giving effect to those principles with unerring decision. We are too near the events of 1918, however, to judge of them in their true perspective, and we cannot tell what farreaching effect the personal example of the leaders may have for the world in the immediate future. For, as we shall endeavour to prove, the influence, not only materially but morally, of a great commander has a far-reaching effect on future generations. Meantime it may be said that among the many blessings which have befallen us as a nation during the past years of stupendous war, not the least are the characters of the great leaders whose victories have secured to us so high a position -Haig, Allenby and Maude especially-whose qualities of patience, endurance, chivalrous conduct and modesty have been as conspicuous as their military skill, and their inflexible. resolution and swift decisive action. And is not "the Nelson touch" still a motive force in our Navy? for that great leader is not merely, as Admiral Mahan has finely expressed it, "the embodiment of sea power," but his personality is the model on which our seamen of to-day base their practice. The similarity between his message to the Fleet after the Nile, and Admiral Beatty's signal to the Grand Fleet after the surrender of the Germans, is no mere coincidence. It may, however, be asked why the moral influence of leaders in war is quoted as worthy of consideration. Surely, it may be argued, the moral effect of the character of a leader in any human enterprise, whether political, industrial, commercial, scientific, geographical, or any other pursuit, must have a preponderating effect on his followers, and on the country which is identified with the cause, whatever that may be. This is true, no doubt, but it has special effect in connection with wars, because there the masses of men directly affected are great, and indeed to-day they are greater than in any previous period of history. Moreover the tremendous issues of life and death involved in a war affect the intellectual and moral natures of men to a far more profound degree than any other form of human activity, and the results of a victorious campaign are so far-reaching, not only in the triumphs or the depression caused, but in the regrouping of nations resulting, that they cannot, fail to effect a far greater result in the minds of the nations concerned than the success or otherwise of civil experience, however admirable and useful that may be. Thus it is that the moral character, for good or evil, of the conqueror or victorious leader, has a profound influence. This may be exerted for evil to a very marked extent. The victories of Frederick, for instance, have exalted him to the position of a great national hero. That he was a great soldier, one of the greatest in history, no one can deny. But the foundation of his success, in the seizure of Silesia, against every principle of international obligation, sanctity of treaty, and private gratitude, was the embodiment of the detestable principle that "might is right," and on that foundation not only his subsequent career was built, but also the malignant edifice which arose in the wars of the later nineteenth century under Bismarck, and finally found its disastrous culmination in the terrible conflict of our own day, misleading in its dire consequences an entire nation and luring them to their destruction, amid the execrations of the entire world. "Not all the perfumes of Arabia," nor the eulogies of Carlyle, can sweeten the character of the great leader who thus debased the morality of his nation, and though history has done full justice to his military leadership, it must necessarily record the baseness of his methods. Where the political as well as the military leadership rests in the same man, it is obvious that his influence, for good or evil, must exercise a more marked effect than in cases where the political power is in the hands of another. Thus to take the case of two great contemporaries, Cromwell and Turenne, both of whom were able and successful generals, the work done by the former had far greater effect on the English nation, not only at the time, but in subsequent years, than the work of Turenne had, and has had, in France. Yet of the two, Turenne was probably the greater soldier, possessed of somewhat similar noble qualities of character that were conspicuous in the great Englishman, though undoubtedly not to the same degree. In comparing, therefore, the moral influence exerted by great leaders, it is fair to take into account not only their characters and their circumstances, but also the freedom of action, political as well as military, which they enjoyed. For the purposes of this paper, therefore, I venture to take for consideration a comparison between the careers, character and influence of two of the greatest military leaders on the pages of history, men of very similar personal qualities, both of them possessed of supreme political as well as military authority in their own country, both of them extraordinarily successful in their campaigns, and therefore eliciting profound admiration and respect from their contemporaries, both of them far in advance. of those contemporaries in their appreciation of military and political science. These two leaders are Alexander of Macedon and Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. I do not forget that the greater space of time which separates us from the former, as compared with the latter, may lead us to a less favourable. appreciation of his life's work, but it is at least remarkable that the records of his personality and his exploits are as full and clear, if not more so, than those of the great Swedish leader. That the moral influence of the latter was greater than that of the former is, I think, unquestionable, and that I venture to think is due to the foundation of sincere Christianity which actuated him, whereas in Alexander's case that was inevitably absent, though he had the advantage of the highest and noblest of the Greek philosophers and moralists as his guide and to a great extent lived up to their teaching. There is much that is similar in the characters of these two great leaders. Both were, by accident of birth, rulers over small countries, and were called in youth to take up their rule. Both were sons of capable and strong fathers, both had energetic and vigorous mothers, both were men of active, hardy nature, delighting in exercise and in feats of skill. Both were in their element in the fierce excitement of battle, reckless of wounds. and of danger, but both could be cautious and patient in their preparation for a decisive blow. Both had the advantage of the best education that their time afforded, and both had benefited thereby to the fullest extent. The task that confronted each seemed to their contemporaries beyond the power of human skill to accomplish, and though in the case of Alexander the fulfilment of the task was complete before his death, in a sense which was not so apparent in the case of Gustavus, yet the work which the latter did when he fell at Lützen was really |