they say it is base and But Nature herself, I

"Those who make the laws are the weak and the many: they therefore make laws with a view to themselves and their own interests, and with the same purpose they bestow praise and impute blame; and to terrify such men as are stronger than themselves and are able to acquire more unjust to obtain a superiority think, convinces us on the contrary that it is right that the better man should have more than the worse, and the more powerful than the weaker This it is that is seemly and just according that a man who lives rightly should permit his desires to be as great as possible, and should not restrain for to those whom it has befallen from the first either to be the sons of kings, or who are able, by nature, to procure for themselves a government, a tyranny or dynasty, what can be more disgraceful and base than temperance? Who when it is in their power to enjoy the good things of this life, and no one hinders them, impose a master on themselves-the law, discourse and censure of the multitude Luxury, intemperance and

to nature

them

liberty these are virtue and happiness, but all those other fine things, those compacts contrary to nature, are extravagances of men, and are of no value.”*

Briefly summarized, the position of Callicles in this discussion with Socrates was: "There is no law for the man who is strong enough to break the law. Self-restraint, self-control, not from external compulsion, but from ethical principle, is folly; indeed a sin against the law of strength. This principle inculcated by Nietzsche as holding for the individual, Germany has applied to herself as a nation amongst nations, and is putting it to the supreme test to-day. Yet after all it is but the test of the "ghastly priest." If Germany should succeed, it will only succeed as a murderer, and sooner or later must suffer murder in its turn.

IMMATERIAL FORCES IN WORLD-EMPIRE.

Empire, enduring Empire, must be based on something less tangible and therefore less transitory than violence. Military courage and skill did indeed contribute to the building of the greatest and most enduring Empire of history, but Rome would never have reached empirehood if it had possessed no higher qualities than these. În its origin, and for long centuries of its history, Rome was only a small self-contained city state, with no advantages of geographical position. Its growth was

* Callicles in the Gorgias of Plato, 85-103.

partly due to the law-abiding instinct of its citizens, even during the heat of their fiercest mutual dissensions, and partly to the broadmindedness in their external relations which led them to associate their enemies with themselves in partnership. So Rome expanded into Latium, and Latium into Italy, and the new factors became organically united with Rome. It was the wise toleration that Rome showed for other races, other nations, other customs and ideals, which rendered the Roman Empire possible, and secured it so long a continuance. This toleration which the Germans of to-day would consider treason to the doctrine of " Germany over all the World," and a slur upon its military supremacy, Rome, though no other state ever had better right to glory in military pre-eminence, yet found to be the more effective means for the diffusion of the Roman authority, and the cementing of the Roman Empire.

The example of Rome teaches us that, even where military force attains its highest development, the strongest sanction of Empire is to be found, not in material forces, but in immaterial.

We have seen how in early times two types of civilization sprang up the great agricultural states of the river valleys, the little commercial states of the seaboard cities-and that the one type favoured the development of the principle of sovereignty, and the other of the principle of liberty. We have seen that neither principle succeeded in accomplishing worldempire, yet that there is a tendency in the direction of worldempire is indubitable. The little city-state has gone; the nation-state has arrived, but has already passed in many cases into the empire-state. None of these great empire-states is as yet assured of permanence; certainly none appears qualified for universal rule.

The city-state was opposed to the principle of the nationstate, but the higher principle prevailed, and the city-state had to give way. The nation-state in turn is opposed to the principle of the empire-state, but the higher principle again is prevailing, and the lower appears to be yielding to it. Is there à principle so potent that it shall override that of the empirestate and establish the world-empire ?

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

Let history answer. Thirteen hundred years ago a great movement arose which made one of the most formidable bids for world-empire that has yet been seen.

We are often told that the Mohammedan religion was propagated by the sword. True undoubtedly but the explanation leaves unexplained all that requires explanation. The Arabs had been wielders of the sword, and for that matter successful wielders, since we first hear of their existence; both Egypt and Babylonia had known them and experienced their prowess.

But it was their religion which gave these desert tribes coherence, which welded them into a nation, and enabled them to incorporate races of widely different origin. So one doctrine, one sense of unity, spread from the Gauges to the Atlas, and from the Altaï to Khartoum.

The doctrine which gave so striking a power of cohesion to such incoherent material was that of the Sovereignty of God. And this doctrine was held as a faith, for a man's faith is not the doctrine that he may chance to profess, but that which he practises. It is a common and a cheap thing to profess belief in God,―as common as conceit, and as cheap as cant,-when the god in which we believe is simply the deification of our own supposed merits, and his chief function is to gratify our vanity and accomplish our desires. Many conquerors, many nations, have professed to believe in God: even Sennacherib could worship in the house of Nisroch," and Nebuchadnezzar return thanks to Marduk for victories, and so on throughout history. But it is a different thing indeed to recognize the Presence of One infinitely exalted above us, One Who cannot be the creature of our petty whims and self-worship, but before Whom our wills, ambitions and purposes, must learn to abase themselves.

It is a deep and true distinction that Abraham Lincoln made, when an eager supporter asked him, “You do think, Mr. Lincoln, do you not, that God is on our side? ?" That, madam, is not a point about which I am anxious; what I am anxious about is that we should be on God's side." He apprehended, that is to say, something of the reality of God's rule over all the earth, and of His infinite supremacy; and longed, not so much for the success of his own schemes, and of his own party, as for the fulfilment of the Will of God. So, too, the religion of Islam impressed upon its faithful adherents something of the same insight, and the Mohammedan not only entreated God for success, and thanked Him for victory, but in loss, in suffering and defeat, he worshipped Him still, and said, "It is the will of Allah." To him the sovereignty of God was a reality ever present, and it had this immense political effect that when an

enemy accepted Islam, he forthwith became an equal and a brother.

Only God is Great," and before Him the differences between man and man became as naught. If one man or one nation claims authority over others on the ground of self-asserted superiority it is but natural, nay it may be a bounden duty, to contest that claim and put it to the proof. But when we realize that all power and authority come from God; that He alone is Sovereign; then submission to sovereignty is compatible with dignity and self-respect, for man becomes God's servant. And dignity and self-respect mark the devout Mohammedan to-day.

God is Great," He alone is Sovereign; what is it to Him whether a nation counts its armies by the man or by the million? But that the material accidents and equipments of a nation are not essential to nationhood, history teaches us; the spiritual ideal can be sufficient in itself.

There is a nation, without king or priest, without city or country, without nobles or parliament, without army or navy, without revenue or exchequer. Its ambassadors are not found at the courts of the nations; treaties are not made with it; yet it lives a nation still. And, seeing that it is thus disembodied and yet lives, no Kaiser can send an ultimatum to it, or overrun its land, or burn its cities; he cannot lead its armies into captivity or force the surrender of its fleet.

Yet it is a nation, and of all the nations of the earth is there another so invulnerable ? Once Sennacherib sent to it the challenge:

“Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena and Ivah?"

But to-day we ask, "Where are Nineveh and the Assyrian kings?" and many another nation has gone down to the sides of the pit since then. "There is Elam and all her multitude," "there is Edom, her kings and all her princes," but Judah remains, bereft of everything, but living still.

And this it is which has made her immortal: the truth which she learnt two thousand years before Mohammed spoke, "The Lord is King over all the earth," and though disinherited and dispersed these many centuries, Judah still acknowledges the Holy One of Israel as her King.

DIVINE FREEDOM.

The Sovereignty of God; Sovereignty is the first principle of Empire, but Liberty is not less a principle; and Liberty has Divine sanction, for man is made in the image of God, and ought to show the image of Divine Freedom. The Sovereignty of God and the freedom of man received their supreme expression in Christ, and therefore should be shown forth in Christianity.

The Divine Freedom is manifested to men in the freedom with which God bestows His gifts. He is not only the rightful Recipient of all worship, thanks and praise, but the Giver of all gifts, whether for body, mind or spirit. Therefore man, in turn, must show his freedom by that which he gives to God aud to his fellow-men. True Liberty manifests itself in sacrifice

and service.

Our subject is Empire, not Religion; therefore the sacrifice and service with which we are here concerned is self-sacrifice on behalf of our fellow-men, and service rendered to them. These are true principles of Empire; principles that bind men together, and build them in organic unity, and yet leave freest play to individual qualities and powers.

Is it a new thought that liberty and self-sacrifice are co-extensive? But history shows that it is so. Athens sacrificed herself because she was free, and she was free because she had the spirit of self-sacrifice. And the same holds good to-day: Belgium, like Athens, sacrificed herself because she too was free; and having thus sacrificed herself, she has secured her liberty; all the power of Germany cannot enslave her. So with the self-governing Dominions of our Empire; they are free, and because they are free they have freely put all they possess for the help of the Mother-land. Similarly with our own young men who have offered themselves by the hundred thousand for the war: theirs was the selfsacrifice because theirs was the freedom-to offer or to refrain from offering.

And Liberty is service. The true symbol of Liberty in Empire is not the blood-red Phrygian cap, but the towel girt round the loins for the washing of the feet. No nation has surpassed the British in valour and military skill, but however we obtained dominion over India, it is not by the power of the sword that we retain it to-day; it is by the power of service :