THEO. Then why call them “Christian”? Because, although your Saviour preached and practised them, the last thing the Christians of to-day think of is to carry them out in their lives. ENQ. And yet many are those who pass their lives in dispensing charity? THEO. Yes, out of the surplus of their great fortunes. But point out to me that Christian, among the most philanthropic, who would give to the shivering and starving thief, who would steal his coat, his cloak also; or offer his right cheek to him who smote him on the left, and never think of resenting it! ENQ. Ah, but you must remember that these precepts have not to be taken literally. Times and circumstances have changed since Christ’s day. Moreover, He spoke in Parables. THEO. Then why don’t your Churches teach that the doctrine of damnation and hell-fire is to be understood as a _parable_ too? Why do some of your most popular preachers, while virtually allowing these “parables” to be understood as you take them, insist on the literal meaning of the fires of Hell and the _physical_ tortures of an “Asbestos-like” soul? If one is a “parable,” then the other is. If Hell-fire is a literal truth, then Christ’s commandments in the Sermon on the Mount have to be obeyed to the very letter. And I tell you that many who do not believe in the Divinity of Christ—like Count Leo Tolstoi and more than one Theosophist—do carry out these noble, because universal, precepts literally; and many more good men and women would do so, were they not more than certain that such a walk in life would very probably land them in a lunatic asylum—so _Christian are your laws_! ENQ. But surely every one knows that millions and millions are spent annually on private and public charities? THEO. Oh, yes; half of which sticks to the hands it passes through before getting to the needy; while a good portion or remainder gets into the hands of professional beggars, those who are too lazy to work, thus doing no good whatever to those who are really in misery and suffering. Haven’t you heard that the first result of the great outflow of charity towards the East-end of London was to raise the rents in _Whitechapel_ by some 20 per cent.? ENQ. What would you do, then? THEO. Act individually and not collectively; follow the Northern Buddhist precepts: “Never put food into the mouth of the hungry by the hand of another”; “Never let the shadow of thy neighbour (_a third person_) come between thyself and the object of thy bounty”; “Never give to the Sun time to dry a tear before thou hast wiped it.” Again “Never give money to the needy, or food to the priest, who begs at thy door, _through thy servants_, lest thy money should diminish gratitude, and thy food turn to gall.” ENQ. But how can this be applied practically?