THE Church to-day wants power. That is evident enough from her own testimony. She realizes that she is not making that stand against the world’s tide of sin and corruption that she should, and in various ways she makes confession of this truth.AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.1

But no less than this is it that there is unlimited power in readiness for her use. To deny this is to deny the very foundation of Christianity.AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.2

This power is the power of God. To his disciples Jesus said, as he commissioned them for their divine work among mankind: “All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.... And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:18-20. “All power” is certainly as much power as the Church can want.AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.3

There is no necessity, then, that the Church should scheme to get possession of more power. She has but to take the power that God provides. And as God has provided “all power” for his Church, it is certain that the Church needs nothing less than this. And it is equally certain that when the Church schemes and bargains for power from earthly sources, she gets only that which is infinitely less than the power she must have to be successful.AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.4

But God does not grant his power as an unconditional gift. He cannot allow his own omnipotence to be exercised independently of omniscient wisdom. To allow the Church to use omnipotent power as she might herself think best to employ it, would produce the worst state of affairs that could be imagined. Finite wisdom directing infinite power would be a thing fearful to contemplate.AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.5

The possession of this power, therefore, depends upon the connection of the Church with God. And this is indicated by the words of Christ, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” He is the Head of the Church, and by the head all the body is directed. The power which operates through the body is also his. But it is possible for the Church to disconnect herself from her divine Head, and substitute another head in His place, even as has been done by the Papacy. It is possible for the Church to become united to the world and thus separated from Christ. But as decapitation means death, the Church in such a case becomes a dead Church, so far as concerns the purposes of Christianity, and being dead she is without the power of Christ.AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.6

It is Christ, the Head of the Church, who works in the Church when it is united to him. But Christ is God; and Christ in the individual, or in his Church, means godliness. The divine power of the Church is the “power of godliness.” But there is a “form of godliness” which the Church may have, separate from the power of godliness. This is as the Apostle Paul said it would be “in the last days.” See 2 Timothy 3:1-5. All the sins enumerated in this text may go with a “form of godliness;” in other words, may exist in the professedly Christian Church; but with them the Church cannot but deny the power of godliness. Like Peter denying his Lord, she says of this power, I know it not. And she says this by her failure to manifest this power to the world. Claiming to be the Church of Christ, yet having not the power of Christ, she virtually says to the world, that no such power exists.AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.7

If, then, the Church finds herself lacking in power, what is the reason? There can be no other reason than that, having become worldly, she has separated herself from Christ. For it is certain that so long as he is with the Church, she has “all power” “in heaven and in earth.”AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.8

The Church is now seeking political power; but political power is not the power of God. In a sense, all power is of God; but the power of God in His Church must be manifested in godliness. To be seeking for political power is a denial of the power of godliness.AMS March 25, 1897, page 177.9

But why will the Church seek for political power? Why will the Christian seek for such power? The Church and the individual Christian are commission to preach the gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth.” Romans 1:16. Nothing but the power of godliness can suffice for the Church in any undertaking pursuant to her divine calling; and nothing but the “power of God unto salvation” can suffice to save any individual from sin. There is no lack of this divine power: and God is no less willing to bestow it now than he was to pour it out on his Church at Pentecost. The only question is, Will the Church give Him the opportunity?AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.1

“Strangely Inconsistent” American Sentinel 12, 12, p. 178.

ATJ

WHY is it that the nation is not more interested in cultivating the fighting spirit among its citizens? Why, instead of this, are the national and the State governments, with a single exception, doing everything to repress this spirit? The United States maintains a standing army, presumably for the purpose of fighting when such a thing is required. The States maintain their companies of the militia, and it is fair to presume that it is intended these shall fight when there is a call for their services. The same may be said with reference to the navy.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.1

But what would be the use of an army or company of militia who could not or would not fight? Unless these men are both able and willing to fight, the sooner the military forces of the country are disbanded, the better. But if they are to fight, how should the fighting be done? It should be done well, of course; no one can dispute this. No nation ever wanted an army of poor fighters. Fighting, like everything else, is to be done in the most effective manner possible, if at all. This would be the only sane way of seeking to attain the end sought.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.2

Now it will not be denied that the most effective fighting will be done by the army that is composed of the best fighters; are those who have most of the fighting spirit and instinct. Every commander who has had experience in actual warfare knows the value of the fighting spirit in his men for securing the victory. It is often said in praise of men of this kind, in the narrative of a military encounter, that they “fought like demons.” These are the kind of men every commander likes to have.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.3

This expression, in fact, gives us the standard of excellence in the line of that which armies and navies are maintained to do. The nearer the men in them will come to acting “like demons” when fulfilling the purpose for which the Government employs them, the better will they do that which the Government wants done at the time, and the more valuable will they be to the Government in their military capacity.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.4

We say again, therefore, it is strange that the Government should maintain an army and navy (which in time of war would depend for their efficiency upon the citizens of the States), and at the same time be against the development of the fighting spirit.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.5

“The Hope of the Church” American Sentinel 12, 12, pp. 178, 179.

ATJ

IT is the hope of the Church to-day, according to the testimony of the words and actions of her most prominent representatives, that the kingdom of Christ shall “enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics.” And this hope is, in her view, to be realized through her own efforts to obtain control of the world’s political power.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.1

Has the Church no better hope than this?AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.2

It is certain that no such hope as this is set before the Church in the Word of God. Does that Word then, provide no hope to be kept in view by the Church in her earthly warfare?AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.3

Every one who has read even a small portion of God’s Word knows that this is not so. The Scripture is full of hope for our fallen race. It was given the race that they might have hope, in place of the despair which is the fruit of sin. No Christianity need be told of the “Christian’s hope.” No brighter hope was ever cherished than this hope. No hope ever rested on a more secure foundation, or was more sure of realization by the faithful seeker. And the Christian’s hope is the hope of the Christian Church.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.4

What, then, is this hope? Many portions of the inspired Word furnish the answer. By the Apostle Paul it is referred to in his epistle to Titus, in his exhortation that we “should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:12, 13. The same apostle, when under arrest before the Roman governor Felix, affirmed his “hope toward God,” “that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust”; and again, when before King Agrippa, said, “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, ... for which hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” Acts 24:15; 26:6-8.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.5

It would be needless to cite all the passages of Scripture which elucidate this subject. Their testimony leaves no room for doubt or misapprehension. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is set forth as the cardinal truth upon which the hopes of Christians depend. “If Christ be not raised,” wrote Paul to the Corinthians, “your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” And he adds, “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.” 1 Corinthians 15:17, 19. The resurrection of Christ from the dead is the sure pledge of the resurrection of all those who “sleep in Jesus.” And this resurrection is to take place at the second appearing of Jesus Christ in the clouds of heaven, in the glory of his Father, and attended by all the holy angels. At that time the righteous will enter upon their eternal reward, which has been secured to them through the gospel. Matthew 16:27; 24:30, 31; 25:31-34, etc.AMS March 25, 1897, page 178.6

We are, then, upon this divine authority, to live “soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world, looking for that blessed hope”—not of the entrance of Christ’s kingdom into “the realm of law through the gateway of politics;” not of the “regeneration of society” through the Church’s political supremacy,—but of “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” even as we are exhorted by the Apostle Peter to consider what manner of persons we ought to be, “in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God.” 2 Peter 3:11, 12. Our hope, the Christian’s hope, and the hope of the Christian Church, is that of his coming again to earth in the power and glory of his Father, to raise the righteous dead, terminate the reign of sin and sorrow, and take to himself and to their eternal reward all those who shall then stand justified by faith in him.AMS March 25, 1897, page 179.1

Is not this hope sufficient for the Church? Could there be a brighter, better hope to illuminate her pathway and cheer her in her warfare against earth’s sin and error? Could she look forward to any better, more satisfactory termination of the long contest of sin and righteousness for the supremacy? Is the hope of “regenerating society” and “purifying politics” through the acquisition of political supremacy, a hope that can bear comparison with this?AMS March 25, 1897, page 179.2

Why, then, has the Church turned from this “blessed hope,” established by God’s own Word, to occupy her time and energies with the miserable and chimerical project of trying to usher in the kingdom of Christ through “the gateway of politics?” How long will she live so far beneath her privilege?AMS March 25, 1897, page 179.3

“Enforcing the Laws” American Sentinel 12, 12, p. 180.

ATJ

AT a recent meeting of the Christian Citizenship League, of Chicago, in Willard Hall, for the purpose of examining into the qualifications of aspirants for the office of mayor, the discussion turned upon the subject of the enforceability of the laws. One of the candidates for the mayorship, Mr. Hesing, declared that no mayor of Chicago could enforce the laws. The Union Signal quotes Mr. Hesing as saying:—AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.1

“I am no hypocrite, gentlemen, and I tell you that many of our laws cannot be enforced. I want to be mayor of Chicago, and, if you vote for me I will enforce such laws as will be for the best interests of Chicago; not for the citizens who meet in Willard Hall; not for the saloon-keepers; not for the Prohibitionists, but for a great city of two million inhabitants!”AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.2

In a further description of the proceedings, the Union Signal says:—AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.3

“A gentleman immediately arose and asked two pertinent questions. First, ‘Who is to decide which laws shall be enforced and which shall not?’ To which Mr. Hesing replied, ‘Common sense.’ Then, second, ‘Whose common sense?’ To which the response came, ‘The common sense of the executive officer, after consultation with his advisory board.’”AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.4

Upon this the Union Signal comments:—AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.5

“Surely this is the light we have long sought, the missing link in the dark labyrinth of municipal, State and national affairs. The laws of our cities and our nation are enacted by the people. The executive officers are elected by the people, and one of the requirements made of them is that they shall enforce the laws. Surely, what could be more simple than the chain of logic which seems to deduce that laws made by the people, for the enforcement of which representatives are chosen by the people, must, of necessity, be enforced as the people desire. But, nay, a hitherto unacknowledged quantity comes to the front as a determinative factor, viz., the ‘common sense’ of the executive officer. The people have made the laws, he is to say whether or not they shall be enforced, and the absolutely infallible test which is to be applied in determining this point is his personal standard of common sense.”AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.6

The Union Signal seems to be striving, in common with many would-be reformers of the day, to establish the principle in the policy of the State and of the nation, that anything in the form of law must be enforced, good or bad, simply because it is “the law.” This is not a safe principle to follow.AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.7

It is a fact, and one too plain to be denied, that measures often get upon the statute books which are not susceptible of enforcement. It is much easier to enact laws than to enforce them; it is, indeed, easy to enact as a law that which cannot be enforced at all. And whenever this is done,—whenever a measure is passed which either cannot be enforced, or which becomes obsolete after a short period of attempted enforcement, the result is highly detrimental to the interests of law and order.AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.8

The truth which, more than any other, is emphasized by this, is that greater care and wisdom should be employed in legislation. Only such measures should be passed as have the support of justice and good sense, and are therefore susceptible of enforcement. There is an obvious tendency at this day toward legislation of the “freak” variety. This is largely due to the idea, which has become so prevalent, that legislation constitutes a means of moral reform; and so long as this idea prevails, so long will statutes be enacted which can work only harm within the range of their influence.AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.9

What is needed is not more legislation, but greater care in legislating; less heed paid to the clamors of would-be moral reformers, and more paid to the demands of justice; respect for right, rather than for that which claims respect only by having usurped the throne of right.AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.10

Only upon this basis can there be in truth a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”AMS March 25, 1897, page 180.11

“Why the Powers Favor Turkey” American Sentinel 12, 12, p. 183.

ATJ

THERE is something seemingly quite anomalous about the situation which has been reached in the Cretan difficulty. The “Christian” powers of Europe have taken the side of Mohammedan Turkey against “Christian” Greece; and this, not because the latter nation have been horrifying the civilized world by slaughtering defenseless and innocent men, women, and children in Crete or in any country; no charge can be brought against Greece of having violated the etiquette of “civilized” warfare. The Cretans, furthermore, are said to be mostly Greek Christians, who long to exchange Turkish misrule for the dominion of their own race, and who therefore welcome the attitude which Greece has taken.AMS March 25, 1897, page 183.1

When the Turks were slaughtering the Armenians, sparing neither sex nor age, and perpetrating upon their victims every cruelty in which a fiendish nature could take delight, while a cry of horror and indignation went up from other lands the world over, these “Christian” powers could not be prevailed upon to do more than threaten the Sultan and demand his acceptance of certain schemes of reform, which afforded at best only a promise of relief for the situation. But now, when Greece persists in her course, not of massacre and rapine, but of establishing the independence of Crete against the Turk, these same “Christian” powers quickly arrive at a plan of concerted actions and force Greece at the muzzle of their guns to desist.AMS March 25, 1897, page 183.2

Why is this? Why do the great powers of Christendom act as though the Turk were a being sacred from interference even in the name of justice or humanity, while at the same time they promptly block the way against a “Christian” power engaged in a seemingly laudable undertaking?AMS March 25, 1897, page 183.3

The only possible explanation is that for some reason it is believed that interference with the Turk means war, in which the powers themselves would become involved; and the powers are not yet ready for the outbreak. We say, not yet ready; for it is certain that the powers are not averse to war in itself. If they were, there would not be any war. When two nations are both anxious to keep the peace, there is no more danger of war between them than there would be between two peace-loving individuals. Even if one or even two of the “Christian” powers were anxious to fight, if the rest were averse to war, they could by their combined power easily coerce the two belligerents into maintaining the peace. Hence, so far as war in itself is concerned, there is no reason for the persistent and extraordinary friendship of the powers for the Turk.AMS March 25, 1897, page 183.4

But with a general war, there will come an alteration of the map of Europe; and this is the overshadowing consideration with the powers. Some nations will gain by the change and some will not. It is generally agreed that the European domain of the “sick man” will be “thrown open to settlement” by the powers, and possibly some valuable territory in other quarters; and the supreme question is, which of the powers will be most successful in the “grab” for these new possessions. They are in no danger of losing territory that they now own; they do not fear any invasion of that, save as a possible result of quarreling over a division of the spoils. No one of the powers cares to go to war with any of the others, save as a last resort. But they do want new territory and new sources of revenue, and these are to be obtained out of districts which none of the powers now rule. Each one is determined to get its “share” of the spoils, and each is determined that the others shall have only what it considers their “share.” Each one wants to define its own share and also the shares of the others. Each one covets the same prize. Each one is determined that above all things, it must not be behind in the race for territorial arrandizement. This is a misfortune to be avoided at any cost.AMS March 25, 1897, page 183.5

As the situation now stands, the powers are afraid, individually, that they are not prepared to get what they want should the redistribution of territory now take place. They want no war just now, but a little longer time to prepare, by diplomacy and an increase of armament, to reap the fullest advantage when the fateful hour arrives.AMS March 25, 1897, page 183.6

In a word, it is covetousness that constitutes the secret spring of action in the strange friendship of the “Christian” powers for the “unspeakable Turk.” Covetousness is the dominating principle in “Christendom” to-day.AMS March 25, 1897, page 183.7

“Note” American Sentinel 12, 12, p. 183.

ATJ

WHEN the Church intermeddles in the affairs of the State, she forfeits the right of protest if the State intermeddles in the affairs of the Church.AMS March 25, 1897, page 183.1

“Raising Church Revenue” American Sentinel 12, 12, pp. 185, 186.

ATJ

IT is quite well known that secular entertainments play an important part in church economy as practiced by the popular churches to-day, but the recent action of a Baptist Church in Brooklyn speaks with a startling emphasis upon this point. The facts, as set fort [sic.] in a prominent New York daily, are as follows:—AMS March 25, 1897, page 185.1

“The trustees of the Lenox Road Baptist Church, commonly known as the First Baptist Church of Flatbush, will apply to the Supreme Court for permission to sell the church building and the real estate connected with it.AMS March 25, 1897, page 185.2

“This move was taken on account of dissatisfaction with their pastor of part of the society, and is the outcome of the Rev. H. J. Guller’s refusal to allow any church entertainments.AMS March 25, 1897, page 185.3

“The meeting of the trustees last night, when the decisive actions was taken, was stormy. The Rev. Mr. Guller had friends there, and they fought hard to have him retained, but before the meeting was ended they had been whipped around into line and at last gave their consent to the sale of the church property.AMS March 25, 1897, page 185.4

“They were confronted with the payment of a $9,000 mortgage and an arrearage of $500 in the pastor’s salary. Mr. Guller’s friends urged that the church’s expenses be reduced by one half in order that they might ‘worry along.’ The opposition, however, insisted on the sale of the church and its property and an immediate liquidation of its debts, the dismissal of the pastor and the holding of services in a hall. The society will not be severed.AMS March 25, 1897, page 186.1

“One trustee said: ‘Our pastor has been with us for two years. He refused to allow any church entertainment of any kind, and, as a result, our revenue fell off to such an extent that we have to sell out. Our little entertainments brought in a good deal of money, and the pastor’s action was decidedly unpopular.’”AMS March 25, 1897, page 186.2

Surely there has been a most wonderful evolution—and revolution—in the method of providing church revenue, since the days of the apostles. Imagine the early Christian Church, as described in the Book of Acts, being on the point of financial disruption because of the refusal of Paul or Peter to sanction church theatricals as a means of providing funds for church work! And the sad meaning of this is that there has been an evolution from the spirit of self-sacrifice possessed by the early church, to a spirit exactly its opposite. There is no reason why, with the possession of the Christian spirit of self sacrifice, an abundance of church funds cannot now be raised in just the way that means were raised by church in the days of Paul.AMS March 25, 1897, page 186.3

However, when the churches get control of the Government, as it now seems that they shortly will, they will perhaps have possession of sources of revenue, which will enable them to dispense with church “entertainments.”AMS March 25, 1897, page 186.4

March 18, 1897

April 1, 1897