International War

Sir,—In your recent issues the articles and correspondence on war show a marked tendency to discuss secondary problems rather than the central one; emphasis seems to be upon the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the means employed. But, if a man is unjustifiably attacked by an aggressor—both parties being conscious of where the unjust aggression lies—he is presumably morally entitled, though not morally compelled, to defend himself, and in so doing need not be restricted to hitting above the belt; he may ‘hit hard, hit quick, hit anywhere.’ If a nation is a political, social, mental and moral unity, such as the theory of nationalism implies, it is difficult to see why the nonsoldiering element should be morally entitled to preferential treatment and be regarded as immune from attack. I submit, however, that the theory in question is properly indefensible, and would ask Fr. Victor White before concluding his war articles to give some attention to it and to the logical conclusions that follow its denial.—Yours, etc.,

John Nibb.

C.T.S. IN CHINA

Sir,—I take the liberty of asking for some space in your valuable paper in order to convey an earnest appeal to all your readers who are interested in missionary work.

All those who have followed the development of the war in China may be surprised to hear that, although hundreds of churches have been destroyed and flourishing Christian units have been dispersed, still the war has given an opportunity to the Church to show its charity, and this has brought about a very considerable movement of mass conversions.