¹ For a scathing criticism of French intellectuals in World War I, see Benda, Julien, La Trahison des.clercs (Paris: Les Cahiers Verts, 1927)Google Scholar; American academicians are chastised in Carol Gruber's Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of Higher Learning in America (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1975)Google Scholar, and the clergy in Ray Abrams's Preachers Present Arms (New York: Round Table, 1933)Google Scholar. The political passions of the German Protestant theologians are discussed in Bailey, Charles E., “Gott mit uns: Germany's Protestant Theologians in the First World War” (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1978).Google Scholar

² Previous work on this subject includes Marrin, Albert, The Last Crusade: The Church of England in the First World War (Durham: Duke University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Wilkinson, Alan, The Church of England and the First World War (London: SPCK, 1978)Google Scholar; Bedborough, George, Arms and the Clergy (London: Pioneer, 1934)Google Scholar; and Mews, Stuart Paul, “Religion and English Society in the First World War” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1974).Google Scholar

³ Weston, Frank, Ecclesia Anglicana: For What Does She Stand? An Open Letter to the Right Reverend Father in God, Edgar, Lord Bishop of St. Albans (London: Longmans, Green, 1913)Google Scholar; Gore, Charles, The Basis of Anglican Fellowship in Faith and Organization: An Open Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford (London: Mowbray, 1914)Google Scholar; Gwatkin, Henry Melvill, Episcopacy in Scripture (London: Longmans, Green, 1914)Google Scholar; idem, The Confirmation Rubric: Whom Does it Bind (London: Longmans, Green, 1914)Google Scholar; idem, The Bishop of Oxford's Letter: An Open Letter in Reply (London: Longmans, Green, 1914)Google Scholar; Warfield, Benjamin B., “Kikuyu, Clerical Veracity and Miracles,” Princeton Theological Review 12 (1914) 529–85.Google Scholar

⁴ Sanday, William, Bishop Gore's Challenge to Criticism: A Reply to the Bishop of Oxford's Open Letter on the Basis of Anglican Fellowship (London: Longmans, Green, 1914)Google Scholar; Bethune-Baker, James Franklin, The Miracle of Christianity: A Plea for “The Critical School” in Regard to the Use of the Creeds (London: Longmans, Green, 1914)Google Scholar. Sanday was a recent convert to modernism. At the turn of the century, he had leveled a mild attack on Adolf von Harnack, the leader of the German modernists, and a few years later had helped popularize the views of Albert Schweitzer, who had tried to demolish the liberal portrait of Jesus common in the nineteenth century. But in 1912, while delivering a paper on miracles at an Anglican church congress, he quietly acknowledged his conversion. The Archbishop of Canterbury urged him not to publish his theories lest he offend the faithful, but the Kikuyu controversy forced his hand. See Sanday, An Examination of Harnack's “What is Christianity?” (London: Longmans, Green, 1901)Google Scholar; idem, “The Apocalyptic Element in the Gospels,” HibJ 10 (1911) 83–109Google Scholar. See also the following in the Sanday correspondence (MS Eng. Misc. d. 128—d. 140, Bodleian Library, Oxford University [= Sanday Correspondence]): Sanday to Ernst von Dobschütz, 30 October and 11 December 1907; to Albert Schweitzer, 31 January 1912; to Frank Weston, 1 December 1913, 13 and 17 February 1914; to James Franklin Bethune-Baker, 21 February 1914; Bethune-Baker to Sanday, 22 February and 13 May 1914.

⁵ Swete, Henry Barclay, The Life of the World to Come (London: SPCK, 1917)Google Scholar; Holland, Henry Scott, cited in ExpTim 25 (1914) 531–34Google Scholar; idem, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (London: SPCK, 1916)Google Scholar. Two other defenders of miracles were Arthur Cayley Headlam, a High Churchman, Principal of King's College, London, and editor of The Church Quarterly Review; and Henry Melvill Gwatkin, a Low Churchman and Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge. Headlam, The Miracles of the New Testament (London: Murray, 1914)Google Scholar; Arthur Cayley Headlam to Sanday, 30 June 1915 (Sanday Correspondence); Gwatkin, Open Letter, 4–5; idem to E. C. Hort, 27 August 1913 in the Gwatkin papers, Emmanuel College Library, Cambridge University (= Gwatkin Papers).

⁶ Gore, Anglican Fellowship, 3–5. The best contemporary summary of the miracles and modernism controversy is Emmet, Cyril W., Conscience, Creeds and Critics: A Plea for Liberty of Criticism within the Church of England (London: Macmillan, 1918)Google Scholar; and a penetrating retrospective analysis is found in Mozley, J. K., Some Tendencies in British Theology (London: SPCK, 1951)Google Scholar. A running description can be found in the issues of the conservative The Church Quarterly Review (hereafter CQR) and the liberal The Modern Churchman.

⁷ Quoted from memory by Percival Gardner-Smith, a student of Frederick John Foakes—Jackson who later succeeded him as Dean of Jesus College, Cambridge, during an interview with the author, Cambridge, 23 February 1979.

⁸ Steiner, Zara, Britain and the Origins of the First World War (New York: St. Martin's, 1977) 105–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geiss, Imanuel, German Foreign Policy, 1871–1914 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976) 88–89Google Scholar, 155–56; Brandenburg, Erich, From Bismarck to the World War: A History of German Foreign Policy 1870–1914 (trans. Adams, Annie E.; London: Oxford University Press, 1933) 465–68.Google Scholar

⁹ Harnack, Adolf von, “Germany and England,” trans, with a Preface by Rev. Dr. Tasker, HibJ 7 (1909) 1–9Google Scholar; Karlström, Nils, “Movements for International Friendship and Life and Work, 1910–1925,” in Rouse, Ruth and Neill, Stephen C., eds., A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 510–15Google Scholar; Zahn-Harnack, Agnes von, Adolf von Harnack (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1951) 300–301Google Scholar; Clements, K. W., “Baptists and the Outbreak of the First World War,” The Baptist Quarterly 26 (1975) 79–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Karlström, “Movements,” 512. In July 1911, a British quarterly, The Peacemaker, was started, followed two years later by its German counterpart, Die Eiche.

¹¹ Chairman of one of Edinburgh's preparatory commissions was the Presbyterian scholar, David S. Cairns, Professor of Apologetics and Dogmatics at the United Free Church College in Aberdeen; serving under him was Alfred E. Garvie, a Congregationalist and Principal of New College in Hampstead, London. A Continuation Committee was set up, and its British branch began issuing a new journal, The International Review of Missions. See Cairns, David S., David Cairns: An Autobiography, with a Memoir by Professor D. M. Baillie (London: SCM, 1950) 15–17.Google Scholar

¹² Rendel Harris to Adolf von Harnack, 5 February 1912, in Harnack, Nachlass, Staatsbibliothek, Berlin, DDR.

¹³ James Hope Moulton to Adolf von Harnack, 2 February 1912Google Scholar (Staatsbibliothek, Berlin, DDR); Deissmann, Adolf, Protestant Weekly Letter (private publication, Berlin, 5 June 1915)Google Scholar; obituary of Moulton in Wesleyan Methodist Church, Minutes of Several Conversations at the one hundred and seventy-fourth yearly conference of the People called Methodists in the Connexion established by the late Rev. John Wesley, begun in London on Wednesday, July 18, 1917 (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1917) 170–71.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Deissmann, Weekly Letter, 22 January 1915Google Scholar; Sanday, “Pacific and Warlike Ideals,” The Constructive Quarterly 1 (1913) 143–52Google Scholar. The journal was founded by Silas McBee, an American member of the Continuation Committee of the Edinburgh Missionary Conference. Bernhardi's original German version, Deutschland und der nächste Krieg (Stuttgart: Cotta'sche Buchhandlung, 1912)Google Scholar went through six editions but sold only 6000 copies. Written just after the Second Moroccan Crisis, it attracted widespread attention abroad but its influence on official Germany policy was grossly overestimated: see Bailey, ”Gott mit uns,” 238–42. “The Moral Equivalent of War” (New York: American Association for International Conciliation, 1910)Google Scholar was the last essay written by William James before his death in 1910; the pamphlet was an immediate success, with over 30,000 copies distributed; Perry, Ralph Barton, The Thought and Character of William James (Boston: Little, Brown, 1935) 278.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Taylor, A. J. P., The Trouble Makers (1957)Google Scholar, cited in Ceadel, Martin, Pacifism in Britain 1914–1945: The Defining of a Faith (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980) 1–8Google Scholar, and Brock, Peter, Pacifism in Europe to 1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972) 471Google Scholar; but the distinction had already been made during the war: Orchard, W. E., The Outlook for Religion (London: Cassell, 1917) 150–51.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Marrin, Last Crusade, 65; Wilkinson, Church of England, 21.

¹⁷ Brock, Pacifism in Europe, 376–91; Robbins, Keith, The Abolition of War: The “Peace Movement” in Britain, 1914–1919 (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976) 12–15, 100Google Scholar; Moulton, “Why We Cannot Accept Conscription,” The Magazine of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 137 (April and June, 1914) 253–57, 428–32Google Scholar; idem, “World Missions and Peace” and “Ninety-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Members of the Peace Society,” The Herald of Peace and International Arbitration (2 February and 1 June 1914) 64–65Google Scholar, 93–94; Moulton to his family, 22 November 1915, 14 March and 27 November 1916, Moulton's letters from India, in the possession of his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Harold K. Moulton, Bramfield, England ( = Letters from India); see also [Moulton, William Fiddian], James Hope Moulton (London: Epworth, 1919)Google Scholar and [Moulton, Harold K., ed.], James Hope Moulton: 11th October 1863– 7th April 1917 (London: Epworth, 1963)Google Scholar; Wilkinson, Church of England, 10.

¹⁸ The Dean of Worcester, “Conference on ‘The Churches and International Friendship,’” Goodwill 1 (1915) 3–6Google Scholar; Karlström, “Movements,” 513–15.

¹⁹ “An Appeal to Scholars,” Manchester Guardian (1 and 3 August 1914)Google Scholar. Other signatures on the 1 August appeal included J. Estlin Carpenter, Principal of Manchester College, Oxford, a Unitarian institution; Kirsopp Lake, an Anglican churchman who was teaching at Leyden in 1914 and then moved to the United States, where he taught at Harvard until his retirement in 1938; and J. J. Thompson, the Cambridge physicist. After Foakes-Jackson failed to gain the Regius professorship at Cambridge in 1916, he went to America to give the Lowell Lectures in Boston and that same year became Briggs Graduate Professor of Christian Institutions at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.

²⁰ Adolf von Harnack, “Rede zur ‘deutsch-amerikanischen Sympathie-Kundgebung,’” and “Ein Schreiben von elf englischen Theologen, Aug. 27, 1914,” in Harnack, Aus der Friedens- und Kriegsarbeil (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1916), 283– 93Google Scholar; see also Mews, Stuart, “Neo-Orthodoxy, Liberalism and War: Karl Barth, P. T. Forsyth and John Oman, 1914–1918,” in Baker, Derek, ed., Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History (Oxford: Blackwell, 1977) 366.Google Scholar

²¹ Harnack, Adolf von, “Meine Antwort auf den vorstehenden Brief,” Internationale Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik 9 (1914) 23Google Scholar; Headlam, Arthur Cayley, “The Outbreak of War,” CQR 129 (1914) 164–65Google Scholar; Harnack, “Offener Brief an Herrn Clemenceau,” Tägliche Rundschau, 6 November 191

²² Axenfeld, Karl et al., “An die evangelischen Christen im Auslande,” n.d. [August 1914] in Die Eiche 3 (1915) 49–53Google Scholar. Other prominent university theologians who signed it were Wilhelm Herrmann of Marburg, Gottlob Haussleiter of Halle, Carl Mirbt of Göttingen, Julius Richter of Berlin, and Georg Wobbermin of Breslau.

²³ “German Theologians and the War,” The [London] Guardian (1 October 1914)Google Scholar, which incorrectly lists the Baptist T. R. Glover as an Anglican; there were no representatives of the Quaker or Unitarian churches. Marrin (Last Crusade, 109–10) confuses the appeal of the twenty-nine Germans “To the Protestant Christians Abroad” with the more infamous appeal of the ninety-three Germans “To the Civilized World” of early October 1914, and he likewise confuses the reply of the forty-two British churchmen with the reply of the twenty-five Oxford dons. See also the cynical interpretation of the excommunicated French modernist, Loisy, Alfred, Guerre et Religion (Paris: Nourry, 1915) 17–18.Google Scholar

²⁴ Holland, Henry Scott, To the Christian Scholars of Europe and America: A Reply from Oxford to the German Address to Evangelical Christians (London: Oxford University Press, 1914)Google Scholar; Axenfeld, Karl, “Noch einmal ein Wort an die evangelischen Christen im Auslande,” 20 November 1914, in Die Eiche 3 (1915) 67–75Google Scholar; Holland, “Notes of the Month,” Commonwealth 20 (1915) 39–40Google Scholar. In 1912, the same year Sanday quietly announced his conversion to modernism, Streeter edited a famous work of seven Oxford dons entitled Foundations, including his own essay which questioned the physical resurrection of Christ. The following year, Rashdall gave a series of lectures at Oberlin Seminary and exclaimed that whether the historical Jesus had ever performed miracles or had even ever existed was not as important as the ethical teachings he purportedly gave. See Streeter, B. H., “The Historic Christ,” in , Streeter, ed., Foundations: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought (London: Macmillan, 1912), 127–41Google Scholar; Rashdall, Hastings, Conscience and Christ (London: Duckworth, 1916), 25–31Google Scholar, 274–75. Roland Stromberg, following Marrin, also confuses the appeal of the twenty-nine with the appeal of the ninety-three in his stimulating Redemption by War: The Intellectuals and 1914 (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1982) 54.Google Scholar

²⁵ “An die Kulturwelt,” Berliner Tageblatt (4 October 1914)Google Scholar; two other Protestant theologians who signed were the Ritschlian Wilhelm Herrmann of Marburg and the conservative Adolf von Schlatter of Tübingen. The declaration was also sometimes known as “It is not true... “since six of its paragraphs began with Es ist nicht wahr... For a postwar analysis of its origins, see Wehberg, Hans, Wider den Aufruf der 93 (Charlottenburg: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft für Politik and Geschichte, 1920).Google Scholar

²⁶ “Reply to the German Professors by British Scholars,” The New York Times Current History of the European War (12 December 1914) 188–92Google Scholar. The signatures were collected by Gilbert Murray, Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford, who had been recruited by Wellington House; see Murray to A. H. Sayce, 12 October 1914, in the Sayce correspondence (vol. 7, MSS Engl. letters, d. 68, Bodleian Library).

²⁷ Ibid.; see also Sayce, A. H., “Hermann's a German: A Review of Teutonic Pretensions,” The Times (22 December 1914)Google Scholar; Adolf Deissmann, “Jahreswende des Weltkriegs,” Der Tag (1 August 1915)Google Scholar, reprinted in Deissmann, Inneres Aufgebot (Berlin: Scherl, 1915) 118–19Google Scholar; Adolf von Harnack, “Die geistige und kulturelle Leistung der Deutschen, Antwort auf Sayce,” MS in Harnack, Nachlass, but apparently unpublished, since not listed in Friedrich Smend, Adolf von Harnack: Verzeichnis seiner Schriften (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927)Google Scholar; Agnes von Zahn-Harnack, Harnack, 357.

²⁸ Conybeare to Sanday, 15 October 1909 (Sanday Correspondence). In 1909, the Rationalist Press Association published his Myth, Magic, and Morals: A Study of Christian Origins. After thanking the modernists, Alfred Loisy and Adolf von Harnack, he argued that if one stripped away the supernatural and the legends (the magic and the myth) from the New Testament, all that was left was the moral teaching, which was not as universal as it seemed. Sanday had immediately attacked the book, and it was only in 1914 when the R.P.A. published Conybeare's defense of the historicity of Jesus that British theologians had begun to feel less uneasy about him. See Mariès, Louis, “Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare,” Revue des études armeniennes 6 (1926) 185–303Google Scholar, including a review of Sanday's rejoinder, A New Marcion (London: Longmans, Green, 1909)Google Scholar; Clark, Albert and Harris, J. Rendel, “F. C. Conybeare,” Proceedings of the British Academy 11, 1924–25 (London: Oxford University Press [1926]) 469–78Google Scholar; James Franklin Bethune-Baker, review of Conybeare's The Historical Christ (London: Watts, 1914)Google Scholar in JTS 16 (1915) 570–71.Google Scholar

²⁹ Conybeare to [Professor Kuno Meyer], 5 March 1915, published as The Awakening of Public Opinion in England (Vital Issue Booklets 3; New York: Vital Issue, 1915); idem, “Brief eines englischen Theologen,” Deutsch-evangelisch 6 (1915) 321–28; idem to Sir Walter Raleigh, 30 June 1915, in “Dr. Conybeare's Views: A Recantation,” Times (2 July 1915); the effects of the affair on Conybeare's health are noted in the obituary notices in the Proceedings of the British Academy and the Revue des études arméniennes, cited in n. 28.

³⁰ Sanday to Bevan, 11 and 21 April 1918Google Scholar, and Bevan to Sanday, 13 and 16 April 1918Google Scholar (Sanday Correspondence). Sanday's three major pamphlets were The Deeper Causes of the War (Oxford Pamphlet 1; London: Oxford University Press, 1914)Google Scholar; The Meaning of the War for Germany and Great Britain (Oxford: Clarendon, 1915)Google Scholar; and In View of the End (2d rev. ed. of Meaning of the War; Oxford: Clarendon, 1916)Google Scholar. The Deeper Causes, a brief essay, seems to be a revision of the two separate drafts Sanday submitted for the reply of the Archbishops and the forty-two clergymen and the reply of the twenty-five Oxford dons; his drafts were rejected in favor of others: Turner, C. H. to Sanday, 26 September 1914Google Scholar, and Robinson, J. Armitage to Sanday, 18 September 1914Google Scholar (Sanday Correspondence); see also Sanday, “The War and Recent Revelations,” Times (20 September 1917)Google Scholar, wherein he discusses his wartime pamphlets.

³¹ Jasper, Ronald, Arthur Cayley Headlam (London: Faith, 1960) 102Google Scholar. During the war, James Headlam published the massive The History of Twelve Days July 24th to August 4th, 1914 (London: Fisher Unwin, 1915)Google Scholar, and the brief The Issue (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1917)Google Scholar. In 1918 he assumed by royal license the additional surname Morley, and after the war, he edited the eleventh and final volume of the British Documents on the Origin of the War (1926)Google Scholar, supervised by Gooch and Temperley.

³² Sanday, Meaning of the War, 87–90; Headlam, “Outbreak of the War,” CQR 79 (1914) 166–68.Google Scholar

³³ Lichnowsky, Prince Karl, “Lichnowsky's Memorandum,” The New York Times Current History of the European War (May 1918)Google Scholar i - xxxi, 314 – 22; published in pamphlet form as Prince Lichnowsky, My Mission to London 1912–1914 (New York: George H. Doran, [1918])Google Scholar; see also Lichnowsky, Prince, Heading for the Abyss (trans. Delmer, Sefton; New York: Payson and Clarke, 1928) 1–40Google Scholar; and Röhl, John, ed., 1914: Delusion or Design (New York: St. Martin's, 1971) 46–53.Google ScholarSanday, William, “Truth for the Enemy, ”Times (10 May 1918Google Scholar; [Sherrington, Charles S.], “Theology and Truth, “Times (11 May 1918)Google Scholar, referring to Troeltsch's article, “Verschiebungen der inneren Front, “in two editions of the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten of 6 April 1918Google Scholar. Troeltsch's reevaluation of the Belgian question is in his “Das Wesen des Weltkriegs,” in Schwarte, Max, ed., Der Weltkrieg in seiner Einwirkung auf das deutsche Volk (Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer, 1918) 24.Google Scholar

³⁴ Henry Scott Holland, “Notes of the Month,” Commonwealth (September 1916) 262Google Scholar; Headlam, Arthur Cayley, “The War,” CQR 83 (1916) 157–58Google Scholar; Gwatkin, Henry Melvill, Britain's Case Against Germany: A Letter to a Neutral (London: Fisher Unwin, 1917) 5Google Scholar, 12, reprinted from The Nation (14 October 1916)Google Scholar. In an unfinished biographical manuscript on Gwatkin, Professor Harold D. Hazeltine claimed that the British Foreign Office immediately recognized the significance of Gwatkin's letter to The Nation and had it reprinted and distributed by the thousands throughout the world and that “no single document written by a private person on the issues of the war had a wider circulation and a greater influence on opinion” (Gwatkin Papers). See also Anonymous, The Murder of Captain Fryatt (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1916)Google Scholar, and Ryder, Rowland, Edith Cavell (New York: Stein and Day, 1975).Google ScholarPubMed

³⁵ Gwatkin to Miss Naish, 6 August, 27 September, 4 October, and 4 November 1914; 4 and 9 July and 2 October 1915 (Gwatkin Papers). The standing joke was that Gwatkin had won four firsts (Classics, Moral Sciences, Mathematics, and Theology) but had lost a sense with each. Indeed, his eyesight was poor, an attack of scarlet fever as a child had left him nearly deaf, and he had a peculiar intonation as he spoke. On his seventysecond birthday, 30 July 1916, he was struck down by a motor car that he had not heard; the accident was followed by a stroke, and he died after a short illness on 14 November 1916. See Glover, T. R., “Memoir,” in Gwatkin, , The Sacrifice of Thankfulness (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1917) ix-xxiv.Google Scholar

³⁶ Holland, Henry Scott, “News and Notes,” The Cambridge Review 37 (1916) 305Google Scholar; idem, “Notes of the Month,” Commonwealth (December 1915) 357Google Scholar; see also Great Britain, Foreign Office [Toynbee, Arnold J.], The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915–1916: Documents presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon by Viscount Bryce (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1916).Google Scholar

³⁷ Arthur Cayley Headlam in CQR. “The Issues of the War,” 81 (1915) 191, 197Google Scholar; “The Conduct of the War,” 81 (1916) 412Google Scholar; “The War,” 83 (1916) 161Google Scholar; “The War,” 86 (1918) 133Google Scholar; “The War: A Turn in the Tide,” 87 (1918), 132–34Google Scholar; “The War, Peace and After,” 87 (1919) 340–41Google Scholar; James W. Headlam-Morley to Arthur Headlam, 27 December 1918Google Scholar, and “The Peace Settlement in the Near East: Memorial to Lloyd George,” n.d. [1920]Google Scholar, both in Headlam Papers, Lambeth Palace Library, London; Jasper, Headlam, 58–61, 156–60. The Cambridge religion professors who signed the petition were James Franklin Bethune-Baker (Lady Margaret), William Emery Barnes (Hulsean), Vincent Henry Stanton (Regius), and James Pounder Whitney (Dixie).

³⁸ Moulton to his family (Letters from India) 5 March 1916 (brewery); 19 November 1916 (“devil”); 29 November 1916 (“Huns”); 30 November, 2, 4, and 6 December 1916 and 22 January 1917 (Harris). Moulton was lecturing in India to the Parsees on their faith, Zoroastrianism, on which he was an expert.

³⁹ Obituary notices in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester 4 (1917) 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deissmann to Moulton, W. F., 26 April 1917Google Scholar, in The British Weekly (31 May 1917)Google Scholar; idem (re Lusitania), Protestant Weekly Letter (31 July and 2 October 1915)Google Scholar and, for references to Moulton, 5 June 1915; 8 November and 15 December 1916; 14 May and 22 November 1917; 21 January and 31 October 1918.

⁴⁰ Hybris was cited by Streeter, B. H., War, This War and the Sermon on the Mount (Papers for War Times, 2d series, 2; London: Oxford University Press, 1915) 6Google Scholar, 9; Oman, John, The War and Its Issues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915) 77Google Scholar; T. R. Glover's letter to the Times (4 December 1918)Google Scholar cited in Wood, H. G., Terrot Reaveley Glover (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953) 118Google Scholar. The term “unholy trinity” was used by Troeltsch in “Der Geist der deutschen Kultur,” in Hintze, Otto et al., eds., Deutschland und der Weltkrieg (Leipzig: Teubner, 1915) 58Google Scholar. Nietzsche was the least blamed of the three but typical of the criticisms of the trio was Sanday, Meaning of the War, 55–61.

⁴¹ Cairns, David S., An Answer to Bernhardi (Papers for War Time 12; London: Oxford University Press, 1914) 6, 13.Google Scholar

⁴² Troeltsch, Ernst, “Calvin and Calvinism,” HibJ 8 (1909) 102–21Google Scholar; Forsyth, P. T., “History and Judgment,” Contemporary Review 108 (1915) 457Google Scholar, and “The Conversion of the Good,” Contemporary Review 109 (1916) 771Google Scholar. See also Mews, “Neo-orthodoxy, Liberalism and War,” 367

⁴³ Kelley, Herbert, “German Idealism,” CQR 82 (1916) 1–20Google Scholar; Chadwick, Edward, “German Christianity (?) and the Great War,” The Churchman 28 (1914) 811–22.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Oman, War and Its Issues, 8–9, 57–59, 67–69; Foakes-Jackson, Frederick John, “German Theology and the War,” Modern Churchman 4 (1914) 337–40.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ “The New Canon of Hereford,” Modem Churchman 4 (1915) 497–98Google Scholar, citing the Church Times, an organ of the conservative Anglo-Catholic party.

⁴⁶ Henson to William Sanday, 16 January 1917 and 30 October 1918 (Sanday Correspondence); Sanday, William, “The Liberal Position in regard to the Creeds and the Hereford Appointment,” HibJ 17 (1918) 75–89Google Scholar; Mews, “Religion and English Society,” 285–95.

⁴⁷ Glover's letter to the Times (4 December 1918), cited in Wood, Glover, 118; Oman, War and Its Issues, 41, 69, 94; Brooke, Alan England, “Sermon on the Peace Settlement,” 5 January 1919Google Scholar, and sermon “On the Armistice of 1918,” in Brooke papers, King's College Library, Cambridge.

⁴⁸ Headlam in CQR: 84 (1917) 333–37; 85 (1918) 335–38; 87 (1918) 144; 87 (1919) 337–41.

⁴⁹ Gwatkin to Miss Naish, 27 September and 11 October 1914; to Charles Cooper, 2 October 1915; to Bryant Walker, 28 June 1916; and J. P. Whitney, 4 August 1916 (Gwatkin Papers).

⁵⁰ For a brief survey of the “just war” tradition, see Bainton, Roland H., Christian Altitudes Toward War and Peace (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960)Google Scholar; see also Hinsley, F. H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace: Theory and Practice in the History of Relations Between States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963)Google Scholar, and Howard, Michael, War and the Liberal Conscience (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Moulton, James Hope, Religions and Religion: The 43rd Fernley Lecture (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1913) 112Google Scholar; M[ozley], J. K., review of Religions and Religion in The Cambridge Review 37 (1915) 135Google Scholar; Moulton, James Hope, “Christianity and Defensive War,” London Quarterly Review 123 (1915) 37Google Scholar; idem to his family, 5 February, 14 March, and 16 May 1916 (Letters from India). For similar objections to turning specific precepts into general principles, see Rashdall, Hastings, “The Ethics of Conscientious Objection,” Modern Churchman 6 (1916) 53Google Scholar; Headlam, Arthur Cayley, “The War and Religion,” CQR 83 (1916) 95, 98Google Scholar; Garvie, A. E., “The Christian Ideal in Relation to Conditions of Peace,” Contemporary Review 108 (1915) 197Google Scholar, and idem, “The Christian Ideal and Its Realisation,” HibJ 14 (1916) 742.Google Scholar

⁵² Bethune-Baker, James Franklin, The Influence of Christianity on War (Cambridge: Macmillan and Bowes, 1888) 8–18; Oman, War and Its Issues, 18, 23, 44–45.Google Scholar

⁵³ Forsyth, P. T., The Christian Ethic of War (London: Longmans, Green, 1916) 40–41Google Scholar, 87, 195, and idem “The Conversion of the Good,” Contemporary Review 109 (1916) 767.Google Scholar On the inevitability of wars until man's moral evolution progresses further, see also Glover, T. R., “Christianity and War,” lecture at Cambridge University 26 November 1914Google Scholar, discussed in Anonymous, “Mr. Glover's Lecture on the War,” The Cambridge Review 36 (1914) 127–28Google Scholar; Angus, C. F., “The War About War: Mr. Glover's Perplexity,” The Cambridge Magazine 4 (1915) 175–76Google Scholar; Wood, Glover, 96; Glover's diary, 26 November 1914, Glover papers, St. John's College Library, Cambridge ( = Glover Papers). Glover's lecture was part of a series of five, which included an exposition of Jesus' “interim-ethic” by F. C. Burkitt; see n. 54.

⁵⁴ P. C. S., , “Christianity and War: Mr. Bevan's and Professor Burkitt's Lectures,” Cambridge Review 36 (1915) 143Google Scholar; Glover was shocked at Burkitt's “discarding Christ for Interim-Ethik, shedding history, philosophy and morality (for expediency)” (Glover diary, 10 December 1914, Glover Papers). Burkitt wrote the preface to the English translation of Albert Schweitzer's Von Reimarus zu Wrede (1906), The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910), and he helped popularize Schweitzer's views in his lecture on The Failure of Liberal Christianity (Cambridge: Bowes and Bowes, 1910).Google Scholar Schweitzer himself, however, maintained that Jesus’ ethical teaching still had value: cf. Quest, 354, 402, and Out of My Life and Thought (trans. Campion, C. T.; New York: Holt, 1933) 54–58.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Wood, Glover, 97. The Quaker Henry T. Hodgkin said the same in his lecture for the Cambridge series on “Christianity and War”; see “Dr. Hodgkin on ‘Christianity and War,’” Cambridge Review 36 (1914) 105.Google Scholar Even though the “Inner Light” had traditionally led most Quakers to reject participation in war, pacifism was not an absolute tenet of the Friends; it was a matter for the individual conscience. And the Society's own statistics show that in World War 1 only 45 percent of those males of military age were conscientious objectors, while 37 percent enlisted in the armed forces; see Extracts from the Minutes and Proceedings of the London Yearly Meeting of Friends (London, 1923) 231–32Google Scholar, cited in Rae, John, Conscience and Politics: The British Government and the Conscientious Objector to Military Service 1916–1919 (London: Oxford University Press, 1970) 72–73.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See the following entries in Cadoux' diary: 1 October, 11 and 26–30 November, 28–31 December 1914; 21 January, 6 and 26 April, 1 May, 29 June, 5–9 July 1915; 3–10 July 1916. See also circular letter of 17 November 1914 by Cadoux; W. B. Selbie to Cadoux, 25 March 1916; Herbert Dunnico to Cadoux, 5 December 1916; Raymond W. Postgate to Cadoux, 30 November 1917; Gladys Jebb to Cadoux, 3 December 1918; all in Cadoux papers, in possession of his son Dr. Theodore Cadoux of Edinburgh ( = Cadoux Papers). Cadoux, Cecil John, Christian Pacifism Re-examined (Oxford: Blackwell, 1940) 8.Google Scholar Cadoux also served on the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) that coordinated the activities of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Union of Democratic Control, and a third like-minded group, the No-Conscription Fellowship, founded by Clifford Allen and Fenner Brockway in November 1914, and later led by Bertrand Russell; notice of meeting of Oxford JAC, 11 February 1916 (Cadoux Papers). See also the detailed study by Kennedy, Thomas C., The Hound of Conscience: A History of the No-Conscription Fellowship, 1914–1919 (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1981)Google Scholar and the admirable biographical study by Vellacott, Jo, Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War (New York: St. Martin's, 1980).Google Scholar Elaine Kaye of Oxford has written a biography of Cadoux that should be published shortly; Kaye to the author, 28 July 1983.

⁵⁷ Cadoux, , “The Christian Criticism of War,” in Martin, Hugh, ed., The Ministry of Reconciliation. Christian Pacifism: Its Grounds and Implications (London: Headley Bros., 1916)Google Scholar; idem, “St Paul's Conception of the State,” The Expositor 12 (1916) 145–46Google Scholar; “The Implications of Mutual Tolerance,” The Venturer 2 (1917) 117–20Google Scholar; “Christian Pacifism and the State,” The Venturer 2 (1917) 225–31Google Scholar; “The Christian Idea of God and Its Bearing on Human Conduct,” The Venturer 3 (1918) 269–73Google Scholar; “The Cross and the Bayonet,” Friends' Quarterly Examiner (1918) 376–99Google Scholar. Just after the war, Cadoux published a revision of his doctoral dissertation at the University of London (March 1918) entitled The Early Christian Attitude to War (London: Headley Bros., 1919)Google Scholar, which earned him permanent recognition as a church historian; see Ceadel, Pacifism in Britain, 19, 36; Robbins, Abolition of War, 98, 123.

⁵⁸ “The Church, the War, and After,” declaration of Congregational ministers in “Notes by the Way,” The Christian World (5 October 1916).Google Scholar Another signature was that of Charles Harold Dodd, who was teaching Greek at Mansfield and later became Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at Cambridge (1935–49); see Dodd to Cadoux, 28 September 1916 (Cadoux Papers). See also Marrin, Last Crusade, 146.

⁵⁹ Sir James Frazer to the Burkitts, 23 May 1916 (Burkitt papers, in possession of his grandson, Mr. Miles Burkitt, Trumpington, Cambridge [ = Burkitt Papers]). Shortly after this party, Burkitt left for a three-year stay in France, primarily working for the YMCA at the large base camp in Rouen; Burkitt to Edwyn Bevan, 2 May 1919 (Burkitt Papers); Souter, Alexander, “Francis Crawford Burkitt,” JTS 36 (1935) 225.Google ScholarGarvie, Alfred E., Memories and Meaning of My Life (London: Allen and Unwin, 1938) 166Google Scholar, and idem, ed., Christianity and War: C.O.P.E.C. Commission Report 7 (London: Longmans, Green, 1924) 78.Google Scholar Oman, War and 1ts Issues, 40. See Henry Scott Holland on the “holy war” in the [London] Guardian, 17 June and 1 July 1915, and rebuttals in “The Church and the War,” 24 June 1915. For the controversy over the Bishop of London's call, see Bainton, Roland H., “Bishop A. F. Winnington-Ingram,” Theology 74 (1971) 32–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Mews, Stuart, “Spiritual Mobilization in the First World War,” Theology 74 (1971) 258–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On music, see “Notes of the Month,” Commonwealth (1914) 358–59Google Scholar, reprinted in Holland, Henry Scott, So As By Fire: Notes on the War (London: Wells Gardner, 1915) 104–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ E.g., “Luther's Religion,” The Student Movement 17 (1915) 128–31.Google Scholar Praise for the article came from Professor David S. Cairns in Aberdeen (Cairns to Glover, 12 April 1915, Glover Papers) and Tissington Tatlow, General Secretary of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland, whose periodical had published it (Tatlow to Glover, 6 March 1915, Glover Papers). See also Glover, “The Faith of a Modern Protestant,” The North American Student 3 (1915) 326–32.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Sanday, View of the End, 85–87; Headlam to Sanday, 26 November 1916, Sanday to Loofs, 19 June and 22 July 1915, Loofs to Sanday, 9 October 1915 (Sanday Papers); Moulton to his family, mentioning letters to and from Deissmann, 8 February, 2 June, 29 November, and 2 December 1916 (Letters from India); Deissmann, Protestant Weekly Letter, 5 June 1915, 8Google Scholar November and 15 December 1916, noting letters from Moulton; Sanday's promise hinted at in his Meaning of the War, 124, made explicit in View of the End, 80, but withdrawn in “The War and Recent Revelations,” Times (20 September 1917)Google Scholar; Moulton's attitude hardened after the sinking of the Lusitania in May 1915; see the Postscript to his British and German Scholarship: Papers for War Time 31 (London: Oxford University Press, 1915) 16Google Scholar; note also letters to his family, 3 January, November 29, and 2 December 1916 (Letters from India).

⁶² “World Alliance of Churches for Promoting International Friendship,” Goodwill 2 (1916) 4–8Google Scholar; “Important Meeting of the British Council of the World Alliance,” Goodwill 2 (1916) 83–87.Google Scholar

⁶³ Moulton's letters 24 May and 12 December 1916 (Letters from India); Glover diary, 7, 11, and 12 December 1916, and Wood, Glover, 117; Zimri is mentioned in 1 Kgs 16:8–20 and 2 Kgs 9:31; Harris to Glover, 17 March 1918 (Glover Papers); the brothel scandal is noted in Mews, “Religion and English Society,” 332–33, and Wilkinson, Church of England, 106–7; Sanday to C. H. Turner, 19 April 1918 (Sanday Correspondence); Headlam in CQR: 83 (1917) 380–83Google Scholar, 85 (1917) 149–50; 86 (1918) 341, 87 (1919) 335–36.

⁶⁴ Arthur Conan Doyle's and Sanday's letters in The Times (18 and 19 October 1915); text of Convocation's resolution of 17 February 1916, in General War Papers of Archbishop Randall Davidson, Box 27, Lambeth Palace Library, London; Anonymous, “Reprisals,” Goodwill 2 (1917) 203–9Google Scholar, including Davidson's address. The Archbishop received caustic criticism, including postcards addressed to “Randall Cant-you-are” (a pun on his ecclesiastical title, Randall Cantuar) and saying “Get off to Germany, you sickly nuisance,” in General War Papers, Box 27; “Reprisals,” The Record (17 May 1917), with list of ninety-nine names; Headlam, CQR 87 (1918) 143–44Google Scholar; Rashdall, , “A Proposal,” Church Times (25 October 1918)Google Scholar, cited in Marrin, Last Crusade, 175; Holland, Commonwealth (May 1917) 134–35Google Scholar, (November 1917) 324, (February 1918) 36–37.

⁶⁵ , Bethune-Baker, “William Emery Barnes,” Dictionary of National Biography 1913–1940 (ed. Legg, L. G. Wickham; London: Oxford University Press, 1949) 43Google Scholar; Barnes, Church Times (11 September 1914)Google Scholar, cited in Marrin, Last Crusade, 189; Matheson, P. E., The Life of Hastings Rashdall (London: Oxford University Press, 1928) 152–56Google Scholar; Glover diary, 7 and 9 January 1915, and F. B. Meyer to Glover, 29 December 1914, 8 and 11 January 1915 (Glover papers); Mews, “Religion and English Society,” 31–34; John Oman, et al., “The Church and the War,” The Presbyterian Messenger (January 1915) 9.Google Scholar In a book published two months later that earned him much abuse, Oman explained that Christian judgments about the war could be catholic or individual, but not national: War and Its Issues, 51–56.

⁶⁶ Compulsion came in four steps: a national registration of August 1915; the “Derby Scheme” of October-December 1915, a compromise plan urging young men to attest to their willingness to serve if and when called, providing the prestige of being a volunteer without the prospect of immediate call-up; the first Military Service Bill, of January 1916, which conscripted single men; and the second bill of May 1916, which made married men also liable; see Rae, Conscience and Politics, 1–51.

⁶⁷ Holland, Henry Scott, Commonwealth (October 1914) 294–95Google Scholar; (July 1915) 193–96; (July 1916) 197; Headlam, CQR 79 (January 1915) 435–38Google Scholar; 80 (July 1915) 440–43; 81 (October 1915) 195–98; 81 (January 1916) 424–28; 83 (January 1917) 384; 85 (October 1917) 148–49.

⁶⁸ Wood, Glover, 116–18; Garvie, “The Christian Ideal in Relation to Conditions of Peace,” Contemporary Review 108 (1915) 200Google Scholar; Oman, War and Its Issues, 52–53, 80–81; Moulton, James Hope, “Why We Cannot Have Conscription,” The Magazine of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 137 (June 1914) 428–32Google Scholar, and idem, letters of 9 and 17 January, 14 March, 14 May, and 20 June 1916 (Letters from India).

⁶⁹ Brooke, Alan England, “On Repentance and Hope,” sermon of 30 July 1916Google Scholar (MS in King's College Library, Cambridge); Kennedy, Hound of Conscience, 100–101; figures given in Rae, Conscience and Politics, 71; Kennedy, Hound of Conscience, 88, 284; Graham, John W., Conscription and Conscience: A History 1916–1919 (1922; New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969) 344–52.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Rashdall, Hastings, “The Ethics of Conscientious Objection,” Modern Churchman 6 (May 1916) 52–58Google Scholar; Rashdall's essay reflects his lectures at Oberlin Seminary in 1913, published as Conscience and Christ (London: Duckworth, 1916)Google Scholar; Holland, Henry Scott, Commonwealth (May 1916) 132Google Scholar, (July 1916) 199, (October 1917) 291, (November 1917) 323. Hobhouse, Margaret, author of I Appeal to Caesar (London: Allen and Unwin, 1917)Google Scholar, was the mother of an imprisoned absolutist with friends in high places; Gilbert Murray, Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford, wrote the Preface for the book, which sold 14,000 copies within three months; Rae, Conscience and Politics, 206–15.

⁷¹ Moulton's letters of 14 March and 20 June 1916 (Letters from India). Glover to his mother, 22 June 1916, and Rendel Harris to Glover, 15 May 1916 (Glover Papers); Garvie, Memories and Meanings, 169; petition in Manchester Guardian, 4 October 1916. Forsyth held that though passive resistance was a matter for the church, not the individual, to decide, the government should not be too hard on the “perverse amateur conscience” (Christian Ethic of War, 64).

⁷² Peake, Arthur Samuel, Prisoners of Hope: The Problem of the Conscientious Objector (London: Allen and Unwin, 1918) 41–46Google Scholar, 58–63, 96–97; Wilkinson, John T., Arthur Samuel Peake (London: Epworth, 1971) 152–55Google Scholar; Cecil John Cadoux diary, 1 March 1916, and W. B. Selbie to Cadoux, 25 March 1916 (Cadoux Papers); Cadoux, “The Position of Conscientious Objectors,” Oxford Chronicle (7 July 1916)Google Scholar; and “The Ethics of Conscience [sic] Objectors,” Oxford Chronicle (28 July 1916)Google Scholar; and “Conscientious Objectors,” Oxford Chronicle (11 August 1916).Google Scholar

⁷³ Cadoux, Cecil John, “The Liberal Policy,” The Venturer 3 (February 1918) 127–28.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Published in the Daily News (14 December 1901), the manifesto, though mild, was nevertheless a rebuke to the Salisbury government; Bebbington, D. W., The Nonconformist Conscience: Chapel and Politics, 1870–1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1982) 124.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ryder, Edith Cavell, 214.