to the Hebrews glories in the faith of those who by their faith "from weakness were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned to flight armies of aliens "; John sees his Master as a knight errant on a white horse going forth" conquering and to conquer "; and the historians tell us that one reason why Constantine adopted Christianity as the religion of Rome was because he found that the Christians made better soldiers than the pagans. Robert Louis Stevenson's interpretation of Christ's teaching is far more rational than Tolstoi's. "In our own person and fortune we should be ready to accept and pardon all; it is our cheek we are to turn, our coat that we are to give away to the man who has taken our cloak. But when another's face is buffeted, perhaps a little of the lion will become us best. That we are to suffer others to be injured and stand by, is not conceivable and surely not desirable."

This interpretation tallies with the spirit of Christ's teaching. Can anyone believe that if the Good Samaritan had appeared upon the scene when the robbers were engaged in beating the defenseless traveler and had passed by with the priest and Levite the world would by universal consent have given him the title of Good Samaritan? Can anyone believe that if the roughs and toughs of the

city had beaten Lazarus at the rich man's door and the rich man, with servants able to furnish protection, had not interfered, Christ would have sent the rich man to Abraham's bosom? Can anyone believe that He who pronounced accursed of God, doomed to be destroyed by the fire prepared for the devil and his angels, those who had simply neglected the poor, the sick and the imprisoned, would welcome to the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world those who had the power to give succor and had stood by idle and indifferent while a brutal gang was impoverishing, enslaving, and murdering hundreds of thousands of their peaceable and unoffending fellow-men?

The example of Christ interprets his teaching and it gives no warrant to the pacifism of Tolstoi. At the beginning of Christ's life, he drove from the Temple a corrupt ring of thieves, pouring out the changers' money and overthrowing their tables. At the end of his life he put himself between the Temple police and his half awakened and defenseless disciples, stood guard while the police fell backward to the ground-were floored as we should say and not till his disciples, taking his hint, "let them go their way," had escaped, did he deliver himself up to his enemies. He saved others, himself he would

not save.

He forbade Peter's futile resistance to the guard because it was futile and because he would not live under the protection of a government and at the same time resist the officers appointed to execute its laws. He was no I. W. W. Peter had neither the power nor the authority to protect his Master. But Pilate had both the power and the authority and because he was a pacifist and did not use his power, he has always and justly been accounted a partner in the crime of Caiaphas and Judas. For power always carries with it responsibility.

I cannot understand those who think that Christianity has failed. These strangely blind skeptics can see the pitiless German horde raping, robbing, murdering, but they cannot see the followers of Christ carrying, at the cost of their own lives, his message of succor to the poor, the captives, the blinded, and those that are bruised by oppression. They can see the priests confessing their travesty of faith in the sentence, "He trusted on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him "; but they cannot see the crucified Christ conquering the world by self-sacrifice.

I think Christianity has never been so triumphant as it is to-day. But my grounds for this faith I must leave to be stated in my next letter.

FIFTH LETTER

WE GLORY IN TRIBULATIONS

You ask me why God permits war. If he is in truth a heavenly father, why does he allow his children to fight and kill each other? Why does he not interfere to prevent this untold suffering?

The question why a God of love permits sin and suffering in the world, is one which many have asked of others and many more probably of themselves, in all ages of the world. It has caused many honest students of life to abandon their faith in the goodness of God as unreasonable, or at least to give up all attempt to frame any conception of God or to enter into any personal relations with him. It is this question which Job's friends put to him and he could not answer; all he could say was that his suffering was not a punishment for his sins for he had not committed sins which would deserve such a punishment. It is implied in the experiences of the Old Testament prophets and poets in such phrases as "Be not thou far off, O

Jehovah: O thou my succor, haste thee to help me. "How long, O Jehovah? wilt thou forget me forever?" "How long wilt thou hide thy face from me?" "Why standest thou afar off, O Jehovah? Why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?" "O Jehovah God of Hosts, how long wilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people? Thou hast fed them with the bread of tears, And given them tears to drink in large measure.' "How long shall the wicked triumph?"

I

To this question I can give no answer. have no faith in what the theologians call theodicy the attempt by scholars to justify the ways of God to man. This world is but a grain of sand in an infinite universe, and you and I but midgets on this grain of sand. To suppose that we can comprehend and interpret the plans and methods of the Eternal appears to me much more preposterous than to suppose that a child two years old can comprehend and interpret the plans and methods of a Lincoln, a Gladstone or a Cavour. I rest content with the answer of Jesus Christ to the perplexity of his disciples: "What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt understand hereafter."

But I can see that God is doing something for us that is much better than stopping the war; he is inspiring us with courage to win it.