ere
utterly exhausted, so nothing more was done for the moment.

Our casualties were 85 killed and 1,158 wounded, an extraordinary
proportion. We haven't had any reliable information of the enemy's
losses yet: but we took about 1,300 prisoners.

I must stop now. I am very fit and a Capt., 3rd Senior Officer out
here for the moment (excluding Adjutant O.M.O.) and am commanding "A"
double Coy.

* * * * *

AMARAH.

_October_8, 1915

TO N.B.

Two lots of letters arrived this mail, including yours of August 30th
and September 6th, for which many thanks.

If I said that this war means the denying of Christianity I ought to
have explained myself more. That phrase is so often used loosely that
people don't stop to think exactly what they mean. If the Germans
deliberately brought about the war to aggrandise themselves, as I
believe they did, that was a denial of Christianity, _i.e._ a
deliberate rejection of Christian principles and disobedience to
Christ's teaching: and it makes no difference in that case that it was
a national and not an individual act. But once the initiating evil was
done, it involved the consequence, as evil always does, of leaving
other nations only a choice of evils. In this case the choice for
England was between seeing Belgium and France crushed, and war. In
choosing war I can't admit there was any denial of Christianity, and I
don't think you can point to any text, however literally you press the
interpretation, which will bear a contrary construction. Take "Resist
not him that doeth evil" as literally as you like, in its context. It
obviously refers to an individual resisting a wrong committed against
himself, and the moral basis of the doctrine seems to me twofold: (1)
As regards yourself, self-denial, loving your enemies, etc., is the
divine law for the soul; (2) as regards the wronger nothing is so
likely to better him as your unselfish behaviour. The doctrine plainly
does not refer to wrongs committed in your presence against others.
Our Lord Himself overthrew the tables of the money-changers. And the
moral basis of His resistance to evil here is equally clear if you
tolerate evils committed against others: (1) your own morale and
courage is lowered: it is shirking; (2) the wronger is merely
encouraged. If I take A.'s coat and A. gives me his cloak also, I may
be touched. But B.'s acquiescence in the proceeding cannot possibly
touch me and only encourag