far in redeeming mankind from the error of sin and false beliefs. And when men have learned to practice justice, mercy and humility, they will appreciate the great prophetic ideal, "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us all? Why then shall we deal treacherously, every man against his brother?" Here is the basis for a common Brotherhood of man growing out of a common Fatherhood of God. If we believe in one God, then all men are his children; then humanity is one family; then why all this intrigue and treachery? Why brother against brother? Why? Only because Religion, through its false application thus far, has been a great fiasco. Churches have preached brotherhood, but they have divided man into hostile sects, denominations, factions. They have split hairs about theological speculations and religious casuistry instead of proving that the divine rights of man are superior to the so-called divine rights of kings and false priests. Judaism would call a confused, misguided and mistreated world back to first principles and demand a universal brotherhood or a united world, that shall acknowledge the God of truth, justice, love and peace as the only King.

war.

A united world is the great optimistic vision of Judaism, and to attain that end the prophets of Israel, thousands of years ago, preached absolute disarmament in that sterling utterance, "They shall beat their swords into plough-shares, their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn the arts of war no more." Judaism has throughout the ages endeavored to maintain that ideal of total disarmament on the part of all nations as a requisite for the abolition of Since the days of the Prophets it has never undertaken or sanctioned war for conquest and has never resorted to or encouraged religious persecution. Had the other religions upheld the prophetic ideal of disarmament, much good might have resulted. The late war has proved that ecclesiastical edicts have been ineffective for the creation of world peace. And they have been ineffective because the militancy of the churches contradicted and neutralized the peace professions. Nations would not heed the peace offers of religions that themselves were aggressive and militant. Judaism has taught, "These are the laws which you shall keep, in order to live through them." That holds

good for nations as well as individuals. The salvation of the world, according to Judaism, depends on laws, rightly conceived and justly executed. In other words, the world can be redeemed by means of the Ten Commandments, the practice of justice, mercy and humility, the love of God and man, liberty, equality and fraternity for all people, a government of laws and not of men, save as they represent the laws through democratic choice, the abolition of war, and the substitution therefor of a universal Supreme Court.

Those principles and ideals can however not be carried out by Judaism or by any other faith alone. What is needed is concerted action on the part of religions-a League of Religions, that will overlook points of disagreement and unite for the promotion of those principles and ideals on which agreement can be had. As a rule the points of disagreement relate to theology, ritual, Biblical interpretations, sacraments, which concern only devotees of a particular faith and might well be held in abeyance in a consideration of problems for the establishment of world peace. A League of Religions founded on a broad platform of the Ethical Reformation of Mankind could formulate plans for the general welfare without infringing upon the autonomy of constituent religions. Such a League could unequivocably endorse the Ten Commandments, agree upon abandonment of aggressive and competitive missionary efforts, emphasize the total separation of Church and State, denounce and oppose all forms of religious prejudice and discrimination, and advocate the complete disarmament of nations. Such a League could militate against religious competition and unite churches in combating the common enemies of religion and humanity, namely falsehood, injustice, crime and war. It could create a sound public opinion throughout the world on behalf of international amity and peace that would be irresistible. The word of the ancient prophet of Israel, "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us all? Why shall we deal treacherously one against the other?" would then be heeded by all men. The League of Religions would thus become the precursor of the Brotherhood of Man. JOSEPH SILVERMAN.

THE ILLUSIONS OF GENOA

BY DAVID JAYNE HILL

AFTER the Conference at Washington for the Limitation of Armament, international conciliation seemed to be a very simple process. There the Great Powers had met and made important agreements, involving so great a question as supremacy at sea and other vital matters. Why, it was thought, could not Europe by the same procedure be pacified, united, and started on the highway to general economic prosperity?

The Prime Minister of Great Britain believed this could be accomplished. It was a noble aspiration, prompted by a sense of dire necessity. The Italian Government, happy to be associated with its powerful ally in so notable an enterprise, accepted the ingenious formulas of conciliation elaborated at London, and invited the European and some non-European nations to a general conference at Genoa, to be convened in April, and the world centered its attention upon this new convocation as a source of hope if not of promise.

One fundamental difference between the Conference at Genoa and the Conference at Washington deserves to be noted, for it is upon that distinguishing quality that, from the beginning, the fate of the adventure at Genoa depended. At Washington all the nations assembled confessed their allegiance to common principles of business and international morality. Differing widely, as they did, in power and in national interests, they were nevertheless one in their respect for the rights of individuals and of nations as fundamental to modern civilization. They recognized without dissent the same basic principles of human justice and the same postulates regarding the responsibility of governments to one another and to the people they represent.

At Genoa it was not so. There opposite conceptions of human and national relations were not only brought face to face but were of necessity pitted against each other in open conflict,—

a conflict which was recognized as existing in the very terms in which the Governments calling the conference invited the Russians, and even the Germans, to the consultation. There was not merely a divergence of interests to be harmonized by mutual concessions, there was a conflict of incompatible principles that had to be fought out, and in which one side or the other had to accept the rôle of the vanquished, unless the conference was to end as a drawn battle.

It is upon this inherent hostility between two groups of political and economic conceptions that the whole interest of the Genoa Conference turns. It was, from its essential nature, a combat between hostile conceptions that was there engaged; for the terms of the invitation made it clear that there was an opposition of policies in which compromise would be a confession that neither contestant was strong enough to dominate its opponent.

To proclaim publicly that Europe cannot exist without Russia, is to admit that Europe, in some sense, cannot survive without accepting Russia's terms. The advantage afforded to Bolshevism by this admission was clearly understood by the Soviet delegates. To reinforce this advantage, they declared, on the one hand, their desire for universal peace and their readiness to disarm,-a patent appeal to the confidence of the lovers of peace everywhere, but, on the other hand, this announcement was accompanied by Trotzky's instruction to the Communist army to be prepared for war, and followed by a stubborn insistence upon the acceptance of the Bolshevik conception of absolute control, not only over the property of Russians but over that of all foreigners in Russia, whether affecting the confiscations of the past or the concessions of the future. To make a compact with the Moscow autocracy it was necessary, as a first step, to make peace with the principles of Bolshevism. That was Lenin's price for restoring Europe.

And what is Bolshevism? It is a destructive, retrogressive movement, initiated and perpetuated by violence, which has placed in the hands of a few desperate men the destinies of a vast empire. Having destroyed the motives as well as the machinery for the multiplication of the means of well-being and

happiness in Russia, it operates only by the division of the little that remains. It has no plan of its own for restoring the capacity of the nation for production. It simply appropriates the proceeds of the past and aims to extend its area of expropriation. It takes all, but gives nothing. It is Nihilism translated into practice.

Having failed utterly in the area of its present control, Bolshevism seeks aid from the outside. Having ruined Russia, it appeals to Europe. Having already exhausted the treasure extorted from its possessors by bloodshed and terror and harvested from the sacramental vessels of the Church, this oligarchy of brigandage and assassination is now endeavoring at the same time to revolutionize the rest of the world through its propaganda and to wring from the civilization it would destroy not only an admission of its legal authority but the material means to carry on its procedure.

That Bolshevism entertains a desire to aid in the reconstruction of the Europe it has endeavored to destroy is incredible. Such a reconstruction is, on the contrary, an achievement it purposes to prevent by weakening Europe through division. For this purpose it is ready to enter into economic partnership with the rest of the world, or more precisely with portions of Western Europe, in order that by creating rivalries and jealousies it may the more effectively destroy it. The ultimate failure to derive profit from so inviting a prospect as that offered by the natural resources of Russia, and the frauds upon innocent investors that would be encouraged by the formation of bogus stock companies for exploiting concessions, could have no other effect than to discourage the adventures of capital everywhere.

It is impossible to believe that Bolshevism, definitely based on the destruction of capital and the annihilation of a capitalist class, in now proposing a close association with industrialism, which it has succeeded in abolishing in Russia, loyally intends to give capital a victory anywhere. Can any one suppose that a system distinctly founded on violence and hostility to the possession of private property will, when it considers its enemy in its power, refrain from a further resort to violence? And it is worth while to remember that violence, as exercised by the Bolshevists,