with reference to war as they appear in a letter she wrote from Strassburg in 1870:

Woman should certainly have some voice in the matter of war, either affirmative or negative, and the fact that she has not this should not be made the ground on which to deprive her of other privileges. She shan't say there will be no war, and she shan't take any part in it when there is one, and because she does n't take any part in war she must n't vote, and because she can't vote she has no voice in her government, and because she has no voice in her government she is n't a citizen, and because she is n't a citizen she has no rights, and because she has no rights she must submit to wrongs, and because she submits to wrongs she is n't anybody.

It is a mistake to think that nobody was "modern" fifty years ago. A half century hence some of our contemporary definitions of the term will be hopelessly old-fashioned.

Clara Barton's formal biographers

both clergymen, her cousin, the Rev. W. E. Barton, and the Rev. Percy H. Epler would have it understood that there were men who wished to marry her. Yet it appears that only one led her, when she was well advanced in life, to reciprocate this wish with any seriousness. A white satin dress was made, and the man at whose marriage with her it is conjectured that the dress was to be worn, unexpectedly died, to Miss Barton's obvious sorrow. In the face of

this mere shadow of matrimony, it is well to remember that there are celibate priests who should never have been anything else. With a family of her own it is hardly conceivable that Clara Barton should have done what she did - a unique work on the foundations of which it was possible to build an organization with 30,000,000 members in America at the end of the World War, a vastly magnified and multiplied embodiment of the Good Samaritan himself.

has en

Between the personal and comparatively small beginnings made by Clara Barton and the gigantic operations of the American Red Cross in 1917-18 many necessary steps of systematizing, coöperation, and expansion were taken. New occasions not only teach new duties, but must present and define them. Every emergency appealing to the national instinct for effectual giving the list is long abled the successive managements of the Red Cross, now under the direction of a Central Committee, with a chairman appointed by the President of the United States, to strengthen the organization. If it depends entirely upon the popular response to a national need, that response has been never-failing. No doubt we should all sleep more comfortably in our beds if nature would forgo volcanoes and nations wars. But while such catastrophes remain

possible, the American Red Cross has a function of incalculable, of constantly unpredictable, value to fulfill. For her vision of the national organization of a characteristically national impulse, for paving the way to an unspeakably useful service in the past decade, and to who knows what beyond, the name and work of Clara Barton must be reverently and gratefully remembered.

II

TOLERANCE IN RELIGION

EMBODIED IN PHILLIPS BROOKS

FOUR hundred and one years after Columbus discovered America the World's Fair was held in Chicago. This was in 1893, the year in which Phillips Brooks died at the age of fifty-seven. One of the inscriptions which President Eliot devised for the water-gate on the Court of Honor at the Fair was in these words: "Toleration in Religion the Best Fruit of the Last Four Centuries." Compare the last of the four centuries since Columbus with the first, and the change that came about may be measured roughly by the difference between scattered heresy-trials and wholesale massacres. In the thirty years and more since 1893, the spirit of toleration ways in some danger of confusion with the spirit of indifference might be said to have made still more rapid advances, were it possible to ignore the recent open conflicts between the modernists and fundamentalists, and the hushed differences in all the households of faith.

al

There is, indeed, a diminishing resort to heresy trials, for the reason that they have so often been found to settle nothing. Such a preacher as Dr. Fosdick makes no scruple to-day of exclaiming in a farewell sermon, "They call me a heretic. Well, I am a heretic if conventional orthodoxy is the standard. I should be ashamed to live in this generation and not be a heretic"; and he goes not merely unmolested but generally applauded. Tomorrow it may be different. Yet the gradual and intermittent movement in matters of tolerance in religion often dependent as it is upon the workings of individual influences in successive generations, and therefore peculiarly subject to what the Prayer Book calls the "changes and chances of this mortal life" - has been on the whole a forward movement. Differences in religious belief and practice no longer provoke so many of the "fighting words" as once proceeded from them. It has taken a long time for the world to catch up with the tolerant sentiment expressed by Benjamin Franklin when he said, "The sects are like clocks. No two agree; but they all approximate to the true time."

What, then, is the "toleration in religion" applauded in President Eliot's inscription, and what is the "tolerance in religion" with which this