[From the OMoage Tribnue.] The London Times, comnienting upon the opening of hostilities, says : " Once more we beliold the strange phenomenon of a religious war, whioh is likely to be as fanatical antd releatless as any recorclod in history. It will also havo the characteristio that the Mohammedan stands more on a levcl with Wa advc rsary tlian has ever been kuown in later agvw." The statement of the Times is wortliy of some consideration, the more especially as nearly every one bascóme tolook at this war as a politica! onc. It is, on the other hand, the only war that may be callcd religions since the last Russian war in Turkoy. The war commenccd as a religions one, but its character was changed when Turkey's allies entered upon the scène. Russia commenced the war for religions reasons ; England and France fonght Russia for political reasons. In all the controversias that have chaïactèrizea the EnsKo-Turkish coniplication since the ontbreak of the Herzegovina revolt a year ago, the religions question has been uppermost. Of course there hai been mixed with it a motive of ambition, bnt the declaration of war disavong it. Nowhere in the manifestó does it appear ; on the other hand, Bussia clearly and succinctly declares the object of the war to be the amelioration of the conditiou of the Selavic Christians. The conference of the powers at Constantinople hinged upou it. It charactèrized the protocol, The ultimatum of the powers to the Porte made no demand oï the Turks that they should cede territory or give np political control. They only asked that the Christinn subjects of the Porte should be protoctoi! in their religious rights and moral privileges ; that they sliould not be robbcd, plunderod, overtaxedj tortured, murdered and treated with that infamy and criielty that charucterized the darl ages. It is to all jatéate and jmi'poses a struggle of the i'anaticism of tho Greek Church with the fanaticism of the Mussulman. A war of this kind must of uecessity bc a cruel and relentless om', eharocterized by extremes on each Bide. The religxqus motive is the most powcrful of liuman emotions thüt can actúate a nation, and it is especially. powerful in such a natiou as liussia, where educar tion is not general, and where there is no división of religious thought. In this country, for instance, tliere could notbe suoh a war, owingto the spread of genera} intelligence and the multitude of other subjects to occupy attention. In Russia, however, the absofbing idea is not demooracy, republicanism, specnlativc phüosophy, or education, but religious dogmas. The pricst furnishes the knowledge. The people, the press, and the Government are swayed by this powcrful force. The Russian Emperor did not want to go iuto the war. He was willing to accept the smallest terms of religious guáranteos ; but when the Porte refused to allow of any outside intexference in its internal affairs, Uien the religious sympatïiies of flhtfl Russian people with their oppressed brethren impelled the Government to declare war. The Turks themselves, also, are actuated by the religious idea, as they have been in every war they have waged since they entered and established their Asiafic camp in Europa Every motivo and ;:■- tion centers in the fanaticism of the Mohammedan theocracyl They brought with them into Europe a religious fanaticism charact&rizen by snvagery, brutal tyranny, and the loweet and most disgusting vices of lite, and they have preserved these qualities in their liorrible moustrosity to this day. Wh( speak, therefore, of a war between the cross and the crescent, it ineins a religious crusade, a oollision of religious ideas; in whioh vin politioal resulta will be fought for in the name of religion.