THE Philadelphia American Banner, in its last issue (June 22, 1898) has an article entitled “Our Flag and Where It Should Not Be,” from which we take the following excerpts, which will bear careful reading:—
The other place where the flag seems sadly out of place is on a church. . . .
The flag is the symbol of civil government, and civil government is the power of FORCE. It never pleads with any man to obey its laws, but commands and demands full obedience, under penalty for violation. Its instruments are the whole machinery of the law, re-enforced, when necessary, by the army and navy. It must be supreme in its appointed sphere; for if it is not, then there is no true government. It, therefore, tolerates no rivals within its borders. The loyal citizen must ever sustain this supremacy. Civil government is of the world, worldly.
The church is symbolic of a kingdom which is not of this world—the kingdom of God,—and “God is LOVE.” Her only rule of faith and action is the Word of God. The Lord has said that He is a “jealous God.” Therefore, He, too, permits no competitors in His kingdom. Only voluntary and complete surrender of the individual is acceptable service to God. The church, also, must be supreme in her appointed sphere, which is purely spiritual, and should always be spiritually pure. The church is in the world, but not of the world, and the true child of God may be faithful and yet be a good citizen of the country. But the mere fact of his being a Christian does not make him a better citizen than a man equally law-abiding who is not a Christian.
Here, then, we see two contrary principles. Both can not be supreme in the same place at the same time, except in the individual who is enjoined to “render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Where both of these powers strive for supremacy on the same common ground, there is sure to be a clash, and one must subdue the other. But the church can not step on common ground with civil government without first quitting her own territory, and by that very act falls to the same level with it.
For these reasons, while it is perfectly right and proper that our flag should at all times float from such public buildings as are a part of the civil system, or from the dwelling of the humblest citizen, if he so chooses, it is, nevertheless, both improper and inconsistent for the churches to preach LOVE from their pulpits and then go out and exalt the symbol of FORCE above that of LOVE. It is the first step in a wrong direction, and when the first step is taken, the last one is likely to follow, in the natural course of things. In this case it would be a union which is an abomination both to God, to loyal citizens, and to true Christians.
There is enough Babylonish confusion now in religious matters (see Rev. 17 and 18, especially 18:2) without the churches attempting to teach that patriotism is a RELIGIOUS DUTY. Patriotic loyalty is a civil, a political duty—it is one of those things Christ commanded to render unto Cæsar, because it is his due, but not as a matter of religion. Patriotism is “love of country,” and that duty would still devolve upon every citizen even tho there were no religion or no churches in the land. . . .
A protest to be effective should not be left until the final act is consummated, for then it will be eternally too late, and religious liberty will then be a thing of the past. It matters little that this may not possibly occur in our own time, or even until the third or fourth generation thereafter—the principle is wrong, and it is the duty of those who see the issue involved to oppose it now in its incipiency.
Religious liberty is, after all, the only real liberty we possess. Taken away, the other liberties we may now enjoy will soon vanish. The seed of religious liberty which was sown by the lowly Nazarene lay dormant until it suddenly blossomed forth in the Reformation, and that seed in turn was wafted by wind and tide until it found lodgment upon the shores of the New World. Political liberty followed when the tyranny of the king became too oppressive. Upon these two pillars was firmly established our present republic, and it is easily seen that religious liberty was the first and greatest, and that it hedges about every other liberty.
Then how jealously should we guard this principle!
A LAYMAN'S OPINION.
AN amusing story is told of a parishioner of Dr. Macknight, who wrote the “Harmony of the Four Gospels.” This parishioner was a blacksmith, who thought that writing a book was rather a waste of time that should be devoted to preparing sermons and visiting the sick. One day he was asked if his minister was at home. It so happened that he was away in Edinburg bringing out his book. “Na,” was the ready reply, “he’s gone to Edinburg on a vera useless job.” On being asked what this useless work might be to which the pastor’s time and attention were devoted, he answered, “He’s gone to mak’ four men agree wha never disagreed.”—Anon.
THE LOGIC OF THE DOCTRINE.
TO the professed Christian who places tradition or the “church” above or equal to the written Word, the ultimate goal is the Roman Catholic Church. To the one who holds to the unscriptural doctrine of the immortality of the soul and the conscious state of the dead, which originated in Eden, tho not from an Edenic character (Gen. 3:4), the ultimate logic is Spiritualism or Roman Catholicism, or both; for Roman Catholicism includes both. Her doctrines on prayers for the dead and the intercession of the saints are essentially the doctrines of Spiritualism.
An illustration of this is found in Dr. Charles A. Briggs, but recently occupying a chair of theology in a prominent Presbyterian seminary. Dr. Briggs now expresses his belief in prayers for the dead, in recent articles in the Church Union, and quoted in the Literary Digest of June 25. Here are two sufficient quotations to state the professor’s belief:—
Such prayer for the departed friends is a wholesome religious exercise, which enables us in a simple and natural way to commune with them. As we pray for their advancement, we feel reasonably certain that they are joining with us in prayer for our mutual advancement. Since my attention has been called to the matter, I have observed a “considerable amount of such prayer for the dead unconsciously yet logically and no less truly offered, in funeral addresses and prayers, even among the most radical Protestants. . . .
Thus prayer for the dead is a privilege and a duty for all who practise prayer for the living; and sacrifice for the dead is a duty for all who practise sacrifice for the living. The dead saints and the living saints are so united in one holy communion that in all religious activities all saints share alike.
We do not wonder at the statement in the latter part of the first paragraph. It is the logic of the doctrine. Concerning sacrificing for the dead, a Bible utterance may be of interest, concerning the Gentile nations, who offered sacrifices for the dead and did them honor. When Israel went astray, “they joined themselves unto Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead.” “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils [demons], and not to God.” See Ps. 106:28, 37; 1 Cor. 10:20. The only antidote for this error is the truth of the Word of God that “the dead know not anything;” that “his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish;” and that all future life depends on the Lord Jesus Christ, and our relation to Him.
“OF COUNSEL AND MIGHT.”
By Wescott
So it is that the spirit of might carries with it the promise of victory. He who feels it will never forget that he belongs to that host of which Christ said that the gates of hades should not prevail against it. And surely this is not an image of successful resistance but of triumphant progress. It is not the assurance that we shall be enabled to maintain a beleaguered citadel, sore pressed till relief comes, but that we shall, under our great Captain, bear down every opposing force of evil. Onward through the ages, slowly as the spirit of counsel shall guide, irresistibly as the spirit of might shall serve, the army of Christ shall move, till the last stronghold of death falls before it and yields up its captives. This is our hope, and nothing less. This is our final aim; this is our final work. In and for this we bring the service of our little lives, strong with the strength of Him in whom we are, commending our faith to willing hearers by the spirit of counsel, approving its power to adversaries by the spirit of might.—Wescott.
“HE WILL GUIDE YOU.”
By T.
“Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come.” John 16:13. God’s Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. And when Jesus ascended to the home of the Father, He sent us this Spirit. And note the promise that the Lord sends with Him; “He will guide you into all truth,” says the text.
Yes, “when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you.” Our Master has sent His Spirit into the world, but this is not sufficient if you wish to enjoy His benefits. The Lord says, “He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” Is He, then, dwelling with you, and is He in you? Or is He simply in the world about you, and still seeking to be with you and in you, but barred out by your refusal to welcome into your soul the heaven-sent guest? Court the Spirit of God. Ask that He may dwell with you and be in you. He is one of heaven’s very choicest gifts.
And “when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” Our Father does not leave us in this dark world, dependent on weak, fallible, human guides. He does not leave us to make shipwreck because of our weaknesses, our lack of wisdom, or our inability to see the right path. No, He sends His Spirit from heaven, and with Him gives the promise, “He will guide you.” And observe that the realm into which He leads us is “all truth.” If we desire, we may say that all the truth is in the field through which we are guided, and that it will be unfolded to our minds as fast as we will receive it. Or if we can get more comfort and consolation out of the thought that everything into which He guides us is truth, we may look at it in that way. It makes no difference from what standpoint we view the work of the Holy Spirit, it is “all truth.”
“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.” Eph. 6:17. Then the Spirit does not act independently. We have the “sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.” God’s Spirit comes to us, then, through His Word. It is the Word of God that enables us to know the Spirit of God. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1. Then, since we are to “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God,” it is evident to all that there is a standard by which they are to be tried.
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7. Then the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one. There is no discord between them. They are one. Therefore they must be perfectly agreed. Hence, when the Spirit of God is our guide, He will lead us in perfect harmony with God’s Word. The Word does not act alone. Neither does the Spirit act alone. They are one. Therefore they must act together.
Then as we take up the Word of God, we hold in our hand the hidden treasures of7divine wisdom and truth. Faith in that Word affirms that the Spirit of truth from the heavenly throne is “with” us and “in” us to guide us into all truth. We do not read the Bible as an ordinary book. But it is a Father’s message to His dear sons and daughters. (And He seeks to adopt all into His heavenly family.) We read that message with the Spirit of Father and of Father’s home with us and in us. And the son can always see in Father’s letters what none others can see.
O, what a blessing is the Spirit of God! Praise the Lord! “For He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” Is the heavenly Father your Father? Are you enjoying the presence and influence of His Holy Spirit? If not, you do not know what worlds of blessing you are losing every day.
The heavenly messenger is knocking at the door of your heart. But He is not rude, so He will not force an entrance. He wants you to invite Him to come in. And if you admit Him, He will bring you the “hope of salvation” and “fulness of joy.” “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me; because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.” Isa. 61:1-3. T.
CHRIST OUR LIFE.
Jesus Christ is the Fountain of Life for this world. “As the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” And Jesus says, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” John says of Him, “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.”
What does this mean but that Jesus Christ was the eternal life of God personified in mortal flesh? His character was what eternal life will do for humanity and in humanity. Being utterly “emptied” of self, He was completely “filled” with the Spirit, or life, of God. Being absolutely submissive to the will, or law, of God, that law was in him “the law of the Spirit of life.” The Spirit of life acted in Him according to the eternal law of life. And He was this through faith.
Coming in contact with Him at any point was to the heart of faith coming in touch with eternal life. Eyes looked upon Him, and saw their Saviour. Ears listened to His words, and heard the voice of life, which cleansed sinful souls, which healed broken hearts, which made whole bodily infirmities. Sightless orbs felt the touch of His finger and saw. He touched the leprous man, and life cleansed the leprosy away. The woman with an issue of blood came within the sphere of His life in touching by faith the hem of His garment, and was made whole. One poor penitent washed His holy feet with her tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and His life cleansed away her sins and dried her tears.
He is exalted in glory now, but He is yet human—humanity glorified in divinity. He has still the human hands and feet, the human head and heart, the human ears and eyes. And from out our divine tho human Saviour flows the mighty strong current of life to this world, maintaining its existence, and pleading with its children to submit to the holy law of God.
To those who by faith submit to that law—“the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”—and by faith claim its fulness, His eternal life flows in purifying, healing streams. This is not imagination, nor fancy, nor theory; it is fact. The only thing which gives power is life. The only reason why Christianity can make is because of its life. The only reason that made the character of Jesus what it was and is—triumphant over all sin and death—is “the power of an endless life.”
The trouble is not with the Fountain, but with us, the children, the receivers. Men trust in the theory, in the superior morality of Christianity, in education, in Christian ethics. These are all good, but if we have no more than these, we shall eternally fail. We may clothe the carnal man in the saint’s robe, may give him the saint’s name, may educate him to repeat the saint’s prayers and rehearse the saint’s devotions, but the carnal heart is carnal still. It must be touched and transformed by the life of God, or it will never be Christian.
Many are truly converted; they are cleansed by His life; but they pause here. They do not see that they must still continue to partake of His life; that they must continually receive from the Source fresh supplies; that they must daily, hourly, momently come in touch with the Prince of Life. But this must be truly so if we would be fruit-growing Christians. What would we hope for if after a scion had become well united to the stock of the tree by grafting, and the sap from the roots and trunk was flowing into it, and it was beginning to bear leaf and blossom, we should cut it off and break the life connection? Would it bring fruit to perfection? What if after grafting it in again, we should break its life connection again? And what if we repeated that year by year? What would the graft amount to? How much fruit would it bear? And yet that fairly illustrates the experience of many church-members. They do not abide in Christ; they do not continually receive of His life.
Many who believe in His life, who have a measure of His Spirit, take such limited views of the power and scope and purpose of that life and its mission. Let us consider one phase at this time—its comfort. We read in the words of an apostle: “Having then a Great High Priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest that can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus can be touched, actually touched, with the feeling of our infirmities. He actually binds every soul who will unreservedly yield to Him, with Himself in “the bundle of life.” He is married to that soul. The twain become one flesh. “We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.”
The great spiritual nerve fibers bring our great Head into direct relationship to every part of His body. Christ is connected, actually connected, if our faith be what it ought, with every part of our being. Does the head ache, He feels it. Is the heart weary? Are the legs lame? Are the hands feeble? Are the eyes dim? Jesus knows it by actual touch, by actual feeling. The life that is in us is in Him. What a friend He is, then! What a helper, sympathizer? We may go to Him and know that He knows, and find a balm for every bruise, rest from all weariness. And there is even more.
Will you not receive His Spirit?
Truth and Falsehood in Open Encounter
LET truth and falsehood grapple; whoever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter.—Milton.
AN ERA THAT IS PASSING AWAY.
What Was Once True.
THE Los Angeles Sunday Times of July 10 has an editorial entitled “Laus Deo” (Praise God), in which the writer refers to the foundation principles of this government, and what has given to the nation its greatness. Among other things it says:—
It is true that we do not, as a nation, claim any religion or creed, and that our tolerance is limitless; but no people upon earth have a more genuine reverence for the most high God, and for man made in His image, than have we. No nation recognizes more distinctly the obligations of duty and humanity, the sanctity of all the sacred relations of life, and of the responsibilities of citizenship, than does ours; and are not these high faiths in God and man a religion as far above creeds as the stars are above the sea that faintly and fitfully reflects them?
The condition noted above is passing away. It was once the strength of the nation that it had no religion or creed. Just as soon as a church or a nation attempts to define in set form the conscience or creed of the church or nation, that moment it takes a step backward. A church has no other conscience than the consciences of her individual members, and to draw an average conclusion is always a matter of compromise and always a matter of dissatisfaction to both parties to the compromise, one of which will strive to tighten the bonds and bind the conscience more strictly, while the other will labor for greater laxity. So with a nation. There can be no greater folly than to attempt to formulate a national religion or creed. At its best it is a compromise among the majority and a menace and means of persecution against the minority. Instead of securing uniformity, it foments discords. A man is condemned as being an enemy to the nation when he is simply opposed to some formulated creed.
Our forefathers distinctly saw this evil, and attempted to effectually and forever bar its entrance into national life and law, but it has crept in. Existing in State governments, fostered by judges of religious prejudice, the sentiment of a national creed, put forth by “national reformers,” has grown apace. Its first article was crystallized into words in 1892, when the Supreme Court pronounced this to be a “Christian nation,” and the same year the legislative branch decided its first religious question, that Sunday was the Sabbath, and voted that the World’s Fair at Chicago should be closed that day. Since that time other steps have been taken, but ever backwards. The term “rights” has given place to “tolerance.” How long will it be ere it will be said, “We can only tolerate those who subscribe to the national creed”? To the last question of the Times quoted above we would answer, Most certainly. But these high faiths are becoming low when defined and fixed by human words or decisions. It is old paganism. They simply wrote their creeds in the carved stone idol.
THE BEGINNING OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
A WRITER in an “Advent Christian” paper, Messiah’s Advocate, endeavoring to show that the Papacy had naught to do with the change of the Sabbath to Sunday as a worship day in the church, represents Sabbatarians as teaching that “the [Roman] Catholic Church was not in existence until the year 538,” and says:—
And yet before the year 321, or fully 225 years before the existence of the Papacy, which constitutes the head of the Roman Catholic Church, there existed a church whose bishops desired to see a law enacted to restrain Roman citizens from pursuing their ordinary avocations on Sunday. What church was this which, 225 years before the birth of the Papacy, was keeping Sunday as a day of religious worship? What church was it which, at the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325, decreed the proper observance of the Easter festival to be on a certain Sunday in each year; and which, at the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, commanded the weekly observance of Sunday, and disfellowshipped Saturday observers?
Well, let us tell him. It was the great apostasy, led by Rome. No one contends, so far as we know, that “the Catholic Church was not in existence until the year 538.” That church existed in embryo in the very days of the apostle himself, when he said the “mystery of iniquity doth already work.” See 2 Thess. 2:7. It began more vigorous work immediately after his death. Acts 20:29, 30. It continued to grow until under the influence of paganism it blossomed out a full-fledged world-church, in A.D. 325, especially through the overpowering and undue sway of Constantine and ambitious bishops. This influence of the emperor began with the decree of Milan, in A.D. 313, reaching its climax in the Council of Nicea, in A.D. 325. The supremacy of this apostasy was claimed by the bishop of Rome previous to the year 200. Of Victor, bishop of Rome, says Dowling: “In the dispute with the Eastern Christians about the time of observing Easter, Victor excluded them from fellowship with the Church of Rome.” While Victor’s assumption was not regarded, it revealed Rome’s ambition, which later on developed into the full-fledged Papacy. The false theocracy by which man was put in the place of God was in existence in organic form in A.D. 325.
What did occur in A.D. 538?—The setting up of the Papacy in the bishop of Rome as “Head over All the Churches” and “The True and Effective Corrector of Heretics.” This power was given to the bishop of Rome in A.D. 533 by Justinian; but on account of opposing Arian powers it could not be carried into effect till the last of these Arian kingdoms, the Ostrogoths, was plucked up, in 538. Here began the persecuting power of the Papacy. The temporal or civil power of the pope as a world ruler did not begin till 756.
A simple knowledge of these phases of the Papacy will help materially to an understanding of the subject.
Question Corner
“Enquire and make search and ask diligently.”
838. R. J. R.—God gave the earth to man for man’s home, in the beginning. Ps. 115:16; Gen. 1:28. Man held this dominion under God, subject to the divine law. He was told to subdue it; but man did not. It will not be wholly subdued and fitted for man’s abode till our Lord finishes His work, and the earth is renewed at the end of the 1,000 years of Revelation 20.
839. R. J. R.—A brother might be able to act as elder under the circumstances; we do not know enough about the case, whether he is divorced, and, if so, for what reason. If there was any question on the part of reliable, good Christians in the case of such an one, he should by all means not serve in any official capacity.
840. Religious Liberty and the Bible.
IF the Bible teaches religious liberty, how can you harmonize Neh. 13:15–21? E. Z.
The reference is to the use of compulsion by Nehemiah to prevent the desecration of the Sabbath by the men of Tyre. Note, (1) Jerusalem belonged to the people of God, a Sabbath-keeping people. (2) Because of their transgression of the Sabbath and the forgetting of God, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, and the people were carried into captivity. Jer. 17:21–27. (3) God restored them to their land and gave Jerusalem to them again, that they might serve Him. Nehemiah, over that people, was holding that city in trust for God. (4) He did not attempt to compel the Syrian merchants to keep the Sabbath; he simply said that they should not profane it on ground not their own, in the city holy to the Lord. Nehemiah evidently believed that he had the same right to forbid such outward Sabbath desecration in Jerusalem as the individual man had to forbid its desecration in his own house. (5) The fault of some reformers of to-day is that they assume that they act for God, and the earth is theirs. Nehemiah was acting for a theocracy.
The “glory” of condemnation passed away before the glory of righteousness by faith. This is an experience which every truly converted child of God undergoes. The law held without the heart is glorious, yet it only condemns; but if the law by faith is written within the heart by the Spirit of God, the glory of the condemnation fades away before the glory of the righteousness. For a fuller explanation see No. 149 Bible Students’ Library, “From Glory to Glory.” Price, 2 cents.
SUNDAY IN THE ORANGE FREE STATE.
By W. N. G.
The Bloomfontein Gazette of June 3 gives some interesting references to the Sunday-law discussion in the Volksraad (Orange Free State Parliament). One enthusiastic advocate of the measure promised the lawmakers that if they would pass the Sunday law, the locusts, rinderpest, and all other plagues would disappear from the country, the barns would be filled with plenty, and the garners would be filled to overflowing. So he proposed that all government work, including railway, post, and telegraph communications, should be prohibited on that day. This ardent champion said he was only doing his duty by proposing so stringent a measure. They “must either go the whole hog or do nothing.”
There was strong opposition to any law of the kind at all, but an act was finally passed providing (1) that all goods and excursion trains, excepting the trains containing perishable goods, be prohibited; (2) that the traffic of passenger and perishable goods trains be so arranged as to run as little as possible; (3) that all places of amusement shall be closed on Sunday; (4) that all public games, races, or other forms of sport shall be prohibited, and all persons taking part in such be punished as prescribed.
A contributor to the Gazette comments as follows on the logic of such legislation:—
“To get possession of the civil power was the effort of the Roman Church; and she finally succeeded, with the results recorded in the history of the Dark Ages. This first step—getting control—seems to be the desire of many professed Protestants now, the world over. When they get this control, if they do, will the same results follow?”
“The agitation of the Sunday question during the past week has revealed the fact (to those who did not know it before) that the memorials, which seem to weigh so heavily in the settlement of this question, did not originate with the people who signed them, but they were created in the Dutch Reformed Church Synod. By the authority of that ecclesiastical body they passed, through the hands of the people, into the hands of the civil body—the Honorable Volksraad—in order that the civil body might co-operate with the ecclesiastical body in religious matters. Isn’t that Rome over again? It is certainly proper to give due consideration to the wishes of one’s constituents, and, as far as right, to meet their requirements; but in this case it seems clear that it is not so much the people who desire the Sunday law as it is the church. The question then is, Is the subject one with which the Volksraad may, as a civil body, rightfully deal? and, in dealing with it, are they not simply playing into the hands of the church, making themselves the responsible party of the results of religious legislation? Are they not establishing a precedent, which will lead them into all manner of embarrassments in the future?—unless they are fully committed to the principle of religious legislation, which, recent voting has shown, is not true of a respectable minority, at least.
“This principle once admitted, viz., that government has a right to legislate on religious questions, and to enforce religious observances, then it must be admitted that Rome did right in enforcing her religious doctrines upon the people, and she can not be blamed for putting Christians to death. If religious laws may be made, is it not right to enforce them? If it is right for us to make them, was it not right for Rome to make them? And if it was right for her to make them, was it not right for her to enforce them? And are you ready for the conclusion,—was she not justified in all the persecutions of the Dark Ages?
“Again, if religious laws are right, then it is wrong to oppose them; then Peter and Paul should have yielded to the Roman laws, and thus avoided persecution, imprisonment, and a martyr’s death.”
The conflict between Church and State rule and civil and religious liberty is a world-wide contest, and little by little the old papal doctrine is gaining the ascendency. More and more public sentiment is led to yield even against conviction. Soon we will see fulfilled what the apostle saw in prophetic vision,—“and all the world wondered after the beast.” Rev. 13:3. “And they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” Verse 4.
Many so-called Protestants think they are doing God service when they advocate Sunday laws, and kindred Church and State legislation; but if they would only study the Word of God in the light of history, they would learn that their efforts are but re-establishing that form of religion and politics whose combination wrought the long scourge known as the Dark Ages. But the majority will not do that; they seek the popular side, both in politics and religion. As of old, the aim is to “build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” Gen. 11:4. There is a general unwillingness to be “pilgrims and sojourners” in this world of sin; even the professed people of God want to be the rulers here. And it is for this reason that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” 2 Tim. 3:13. W. N. G.
INTERNATIONAL COMPLICATIONS.
By T.
UNTIL within the past few weeks the United States has held herself aloof from the complications and quarrels of the nations of the Old World. Her policy has been to build up a great nation here—a nation that would possess all its needed supplies within its own borders—and let the Orient alone. This has been the policy of her statesmen from Washington on down, and no contrary doctrine could have been popularly advocated here at any time previous to May 1 of the present year.
But no sooner had Admiral Dewey destroyed the Spanish squadron in Manila Bay than a different sentiment began to steal over the country. Leading men, who a few months ago were opposed to any kind of territorial expansion on the part of the United States, are now urgently advocating the idea that Spain must be stripped of all her colonies, and that this country must hold them. The change in sentiment is sudden and remarkable.
What this new condition of things results in is also worthy of comment. Under the former policy the United States was only a spectator of the clamorous quarrels between the kings and emperors of the Old World. But now she has thrown herself into the troubled waters of international strife, and when Germany and France and Russia and England and all the rest are quarreling, this country must of necessity be in the broil. Thus the last one of the great nations of earth dashes herself into the arena of militarism, and she may not hope to be entirely free from war entanglements till the end of time. Her war with Spain may soon end, and she may not have another war on her hands at once, but she is sure to have complications in her attempt to hold the islands taken from Spain that will necessitate a great increase of both her navy and army. Leading statesmen see this, and a few of them are raising their voices against the policy. But there seems to be a sweeping majority who are enthusiastically in favor of this reversal of the United States’ policy, or, at best, indifferent to it. The few who are out and out against it seem to make no impression upon the in-rolling tide in favor of grasping all that can be torn from Spain.
With the United States thus so fully in the stream of international strife, it becomes manifest that the peace of the world is gone, for while any one of the great nations held aloof from the contentions of the world there was hope for a prolongation of tranquillity; but when the very last one of the great powers of earth has buckled on her sword and dashed into the whirlpool of strife, there can be nothing but wars and ever-increasing rumors of wars until the Son of man comes to destroy this evil, and gather to Himself those who are ready to receive Him.
True, there are those who are ever disposed to find a bright side to a dark picture, and they express the hope that out of all this strife and carnage into which the world is inevitably sweeping, there will come a higher and broader development of civilization. But that which is good can not “come out” of that which is entirely evil. The evil must be destroyed and the good planted in its stead by divine power. This will surely be done. But it will not come about in the way that so many are looking for it. There is no promise of a better condition of things until the Lord shall come. And to the promises and evidences of His coming all may turn with an assuring hope.
The terribly unsettled condition of the world is one of the sure signs that His coming is very near. The Bible makes this point plain and strong. Are you ready to meet the Master when He comes? If so, hurry on to tell the good news to all the world. Let all be filled with the joy that the Friend of sinners and the Destroyer of sin is about to come. What a blessed hope it is! T.
