WHEN God said to Abraham, “Get thee out of thy country, and form thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, into a land which I will show thee,” Abraham went out, not knowing whither he went.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.1

God had not yet showed him the land or country into which he was to go, and which was to be his. So far, the Lord had only promised to show it to him.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.2

There were three things, however, which Abraham must do before he could fairly expect God to show him the country which He had promised, and which was to be his.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.3

First, he was to get out of his country; secondly, from his kindred; thirdly, from his father’s house.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.4

He left his country; but when he did so, his father and his kindred went with him to Haran, and dwelt there. There his father died; and now, separated from his father’s house, he went on to the land of Canaan.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.5

But there accompanied him yet one of his kindred—Lot, his brother’s son. While Lot was with him, and he was thus not separated from his kindred, though separated from his country and his father’s house, the time could come for God to show to him the land, nor the country which he would give him.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.6

But there came a day when Lot should be separated from him. Lot chose all the plain of the Jordan, and journeyed east, and “They separated thus, one from the other.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.7

And just then it was that God showed to Abraham the land which He had promised to show him, the country which should be his.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.8

“And the Lord said unto Abraham, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.9

And the country which the Lord then showed to Abraham, and which He there promised him should be his for an everlasting possession—that country embraced the world—for “The promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.10

Therefore, when at the word of the Lord Abraham lifted up his eyes to see what the Lord would show him, he saw “the world to come,” which is to be the everlasting possession of all them which be of faith. “For if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.11

And from that day forward Abraham “sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country;” looking for “a better country, that is, an heavenly;” and looking “for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” For, though God promised that He would give to Abraham that land, and to his seed after him, yet as long as he was in this world God really “gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.12

Now note: God had called Abraham out of his original country, and thus had separated him from that. Then He gave him not even so much as to set his foot on in any other country in this world.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.13

Abraham at that time represented the religion of God. The Lord in His dealing thus with Abraham and in recording it, has shown for all time and to all people that it is his will that there should be an absolute separation of his religion from any State.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.14

Abraham, representing at that time the Church of Christ, being thus totally separated by the Lord from every State and country on the earth, there is thus shown to all people, as an original truth of the gospel of Christ, that there should be total separation of Church and State, and that the church of Christ can never have any country in the world.AMS May 27, 1897, page 321.15

So also dwelt Isaac and Jacob, heirs with Abraham of the same promise, accepting with Abraham separation from every earthly State and country, confessing that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth, looking for the country which God had prepared for them, and the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.AMS May 27, 1897, page 322.1

And that they accepted this freely of their own choice, by faith in God, is shown by the fact, as recorded, that, “Truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly, wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He hath prepared for them a city.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 322.2

This dealing of God with Abraham, and the record of it, were for the instruction of all the people who would believe God, from that time to the world’s end. For Abraham was the called, the chosen, the friend of God; the father of all them that believe. And all they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. And not the least element of instruction in this account of God’s dealings with Abraham, is the great lesson it teaches that the religion of God means separation of religion and the State.AMS May 27, 1897, page 322.3

Further, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not unto seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” Therefore the promises recorded and referred to in the scripture, “To Abraham and his seed,” are always to Abraham and Christ, and to Abraham in Christ. And therefore, “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 322.4

And when Christ, that promised seed, came into the world a man amongst men, then in Him, as formerly in Abraham, there was represented the religion of God and the church of Christ. And as such he ever maintained the same principle of separation of religion and the State which he himself had set before the world in the life and record of Abraham.AMS May 27, 1897, page 322.5

He refused to recognize, even by a sign, the wish of the people to make Him king. He refused, when requested, to act the part of a judge or a divider over men as to the rights of property. He refused to recognize the national lines of distinction, the wall of partition, which Israel in their exclusiveness had built up between themselves and other nations. He refused to judge, or to allow any others to judge, any one for not believing on Him. He distinctly declared that, though he is a king, yet his kingdom is not of this world, and that it is not in any way connected with this world. He distinctly declared the separation of His religion from the State: “Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And when he sent forth his disciples with his heavenly commission to preach the gospel of his kingdom, he sent them not to one particular nation, but to “Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” He sent them to preach the gospel; not to one particular, favored, exclusive people, but “to every creature.”AMS May 27, 1897, page 322.6

Thus it is seen again that in every phase of the fundamental principle of the religion of God and the church of Christ, from the beginning to the end of the world, there is required the absolute separation of religion and the State: the total disconnection of his church from every State and country in the world, and from the world itself.AMS May 27, 1897, page 322.7

“What We Need to Bring Prosperity” American Sentinel 12, 21, pp. 323, 324.

ATJ

THE United States Government began with the setting up of the principle that “all men are created equal.” Its founders asserted to the world the doctrine that all are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just rights from the consent of the governed.” Upon this doctrine they essayed to establish a government which should afford to all persons under it the perpetual blessings of civil and religious liberty.AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.1

It is perfectly evident to-day that this idea of our forefathers has not been realized. We do not have to search for this evidence; one cannot look in any direction without seeing it. Instead of the peaceful country filled with inhabitants in the undisturbed enjoyment of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which loomed into the perspective of our forefathers, there is seen a nation whose people are arrayed against each other in a bitter struggle for the mastery. And to the vast majority of those engaged in this contest, the struggle is one for the realization of those very conditions of life and liberty which are supposed to be guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land.AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.2

We see around us the Trust, and all the various combinations of capital and labor, operating against the enjoyment of individual freedom. We see the strike, with its attendant misery to the families of the poor, only greater than the perpetual misery from which they seek by that hard means to escape. We see the power of wealth to create unjust conditions for its own advantage in political and social life. And from the enslaved and dissatisfied masses we hear the mutterings of threatened revolution.AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.3

And if anything were lacking to show the insufficiency of a theory of government in itself to secure the blessings of good government to a people, it is supplied by the fact that both plutocrats and populists invoke the name of Liberty and appeal to the same principles of free government in support of their diametrically antagonistic positions.AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.4

“Liberty, equality and fraternity” are good words; but in the mouth of the plutocrat they do not mean what they do in the mouth of the socialist. Whose meaning of the words, whose theories for the realization of these blessings, are to prevail?AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.5

There are many explanations put forward defining and locating the trouble with the workings of our governmental system. One explanation asserts that the trouble is with the Constitution: that this was long ago outgrown, and has since been only an incumbrance to good government and a protection to rascality. Another says that wrong political principles have been put in force; another says that the Government ought to be religious instead of secular; another affirms that republican government is a failure, and that a return must be had to some form of monarchy. The tendency in the last-named direction is already very marked.AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.6

But the real trouble is not with the Constitution, or with republican principles of government. As Abraham Lincoln said, there are men who would overthrow the Constitution, and pervert right principles of government. A “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” depends upon the people, and not upon principles and constitutions. Right principles in the Constitution are indeed essential, but these count for little when there are wrong principles in the hearts of the people. When the commercial spirit has cast out the spirit of independence, when the love of gain is greater than the love of liberty, the people will certainly lose their liberty, in spite of the best constitution and the soundest governmental theories.AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.7

In other words, when the people lose the ability to properly govern themselves individually, they can no longer hope successfully to govern themselves collectively. In such a case it will avail nothing to shift back and forth between two or more political theories.AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.8

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?

The position of the Christian, and that of the SENTINEL, is that “liberty, equality, and fraternity” are qualities which have their origin in God, and have descended to man from him. Or rather, they are in the hearts of men in proportion as God is in their hearts, being inseparable from Him. And they can be properly understood and appreciated only in the light of the knowledge of God. Of what use is it to the country that men of all classes from plutocrats to populists prate and dispute about these things, without ever arriving at an agreement? Of what use is it that politicians declaim about the virtues of political theories and promise prosperity that does not come?AMS May 27, 1897, page 323.9

How long will it take to usher in prosperity upon the nation by way of money “trusts” and labor “trusts?” How long will prosperity be in emerging from the clash of contending “combines,” all embodying the spirit of selfishness and hatred? A long time, we venture to say.AMS May 27, 1897, page 324.1

In the literature of Scripture, “liberty, equality and fraternity” mean something. They are there used in no selfish sense. To his followers Jesus said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” It is the theory of government in the United States that those in the chief positions are the servants of the people; but their practical attitude as well as the attitude of the people toward them, is more suggestive of the position of “honored ruler” than of that of servant. The actual exemplification of the theory is not found in any department of the Government. It never was seen in the Government. It never existed anywhere outside of the Christian church.AMS May 27, 1897, page 324.2

Again, Jesus said: “Be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.” And to the same end the Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth: “For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” Here is the doctrine of the equality of all men; and when this doctrine was enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the national Constitution, it was not a product of the human intellect, but a principle of divine government, as old as Christianity itself.AMS May 27, 1897, page 324.3

This divine principle of government cannot be worked out on a selfish basis, but only on the basis of Christianity. This is the trouble with its application to human governments. Men are willing enough to adopt the theory that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights; but for the most part they do this from a selfish motive. When this principle was appealed to and adopted by the people of this nation, they were seeking to defend themselves from the tyranny of an English king. They sought liberty, not for an oppressed people in Europe or Asia, but for themselves, and in proportion as the nation grew strong and ceased to feel the need of defense against an opposing power, the people relaxed their hold upon their liberties, and the change which Thomas Jefferson foresaw became a reality. Having liberty for themselves, securely, as they supposed, the people became absorbed in the occupations of gain, and their guardianship of liberty was relaxed. They held the precious boon in selfishness, and by selfishness they have well-night lost it. But how can it be held in any other way? The question can be answered only by the gospel of God.AMS May 27, 1897, page 324.4

“What things soever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, ... made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” Philippians 2:4-7. “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” 1 Corinthians 10:24. This is God’s method, and this is the example set by Him who was equal with God. And in proportion as God is in men, they will adhere to this rule; they will hold the principle that all men are created equal and are endowed with equal rights,—not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their fellows.AMS May 27, 1897, page 324.5

The trouble is that God is not to any great extent in the hearts of men to-day. They will not let Him into their hearts; they have driven Him almost out of their hearts. And when He is out there is only selfishness left, and selfishness means bad men, and bad men means bad government. A government cannot long rise above the level of the people by whom it is administered.AMS May 27, 1897, page 324.6

If there is to be a better government in the United States,—if we are to have prosperity in place of the hard times,—there must be an improvement in the people themselves. The Government cannot improve itself; the Government cannot improve the people. But the people can improve themselves by allowing the divine principle of unselfishness to come into their hearts and rule their lives. The great question is, Will they do it? And this means, for each individually, Will I do it?AMS May 27, 1897, page 324.7

“Who Should Run the Government” American Sentinel 12, 21, pp. 325, 326.

ATJ

THE country ought to be governed by the best men in it, and the best men are to be found in the Christian Church. Therefore, for the good of the Government and the people under it, the civil offices should be filled by Christians. So reason our friends, the Christian Endeavorers, and they have undertaken, no doubt in all honesty and sincerity, to put the theory into practice.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.1

Or, what is a slightly different theory, but amounts to the same thing in the end, they believe that they themselves are best fitted to run the Government, by controlling the elections to public office, because they are Christians.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.2

This reasoning is fallacious. The best men in the country are certainly Christians, but Christianity does not claim to qualify any person for public office. Christianity is designed to save people from their sins; and because a man is very pious and very good, it does not follow at all that he is better fitted than other people to hold office or to nominate men for office.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.3

Christianity acquaints men with the governments of God; but the government of God and all human governments are totally dissimilar. The one is a government of love; the others are governments of force. The one brings to view the power of God unto salvation from sin; the others bring to view the power of man for the regulation of outward acts. The one is based upon a spiritual, divine law; the others upon the laws of man. The purpose of one is to maintain a perfect individual character; that of the others is to establish a prosperous State.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.4

The very fact that a person is led to espouse the principles of the government of God, must have a tendency to unfit him for service in a government of a totally different character. The governments of earth know nothing of love; the theory is that the offender, if caught, must be punished. If he escapes it is not from any governmental recognition of the principle of pardon upon confession and repentance. No earthly government can recognize such a principle. It could not proceed a day if it should do so.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.5

That country will be most prosperous in which there is the least need of government; and there will be the least need of government where the people are best fitted to govern themselves, as individuals, in harmony with the principle of respect for the rights of their neighbors. Christianity enables a person to do this; and the more real Christians there are in a community, the less need will there be there for the services of the sheriff, the fewer jails and poor houses will be needed, the less taxation will be required, and the less occasion will there be for enacting laws for their benefit. In this way, and this only, is Christianity a help to good government.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.6

The qualifications for being a Christian are totally different from those required for statesmanship. Any person can be a Christian, because every person has the power and wisdom of God pledged to make him one, through faith in Christ. But not every person can be a statesman. Not every person can successfully fill a public office. Nor has God pledged his power or wisdom to qualify any person in this respect. The qualifications for eminence in public life are in the individual at his natural birth. The “new birth” has nothing to do with them.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.7

And when a religious organization, such as that of the Christian Endeavorers, sets out to control the Government for any other purpose, it is inevitable that their views will have a religious coloring, and their actions be influenced by a religious bias. Their very nature being religious, and the object of their existence being the furtherance of religion, it can but follow that their exercise of civil power in their organized capacity will be guided by religious reasons. Their endeavors will be as distinctively “Christian” in the matter of running the Government, as in anything else.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.8

As we have often said, the principle of the total separation of religion and the State is a Christian principle; but the endeavor to keep religion and the State separate is not Christian endeavor in the view of the Endeavorers. Their aim is in quite another direction.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.9

The result will be that when the control of elections falls into their hands, men will be nominated and chosen to office on account of their religion, and religion will be connected with their administration of office. Thus religion will work its way into the Government, and with it will go the church; for where religion is there is also some church or church combination. Thus religion in the Government means the Church in the Government, which means a union of Church and State, which means an image of the papacy.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.10

The religious people of this day who want to control the Government need not fancy that they alone of all religious people who in former times have grasped the civil power, are upright and honest. The plan has always brought evil upon mankind in the past, this must be admitted. But we must give the religious people of past times credit for being honest, the same as we do those of to-day. They meant well, just as the Christian Endeavorers means well to-day. But the history of the papacy in Europe, and of the Puritans in America, testifies of the harm that resulted. It was so because it could not be otherwise. Christianity will not coalesce with a government of force; and it matters not how good and honest are the people who attempt to unite them, or how innocent and plausible is the appearance of things at the start. The only result that can possibly follow is that which has followed in the past—the establishment of a religious despotism.AMS May 27, 1897, page 325.11

As before stated, Christianity does not qualify any person for the administration of civil office. On the contrary, it separates a person from the world, and from that which is of the world. It gives him citizenship in a different country. It enrolls him under another government, while it teaches him to live peaceably with all men here, and to be in subjection to the powers that be. The governments of the earth are not the product of the wisdom and power of God, but of man; and God rules in them by overruling. The fit symbols of the divine government are the dove and the lamb; of human governments, the eagle and the lion. In the screaming and tearing of the eagle, and the roaring and rending of the lion, God has not called His people to participate.AMS May 27, 1897, page 326.1

“Note” American Sentinel 12, 21, p. 331.

ATJ

IN a Sunday-school quarterly of recent date Dr. Earl Barnes strikes at a popular religious fallacy by mentioning that “many children have formed their ideas of Satan from the picture on the cans of deviled ham.” This is unfortunate enough, certainly; but it might have been still worse if their conceptions on this point had been derived from some pictorial representations of an approved orthodox type. The only authority on the subject is Scripture, and that speaks of Satan as appearing in the form of “an angel of light.” 2 Corinthians 11:14. The people generally have been so fooled by what theology and tradition have taught them on this point that they have been prepared to see the devil only in that which to most minds is shocking and repulsive, and not in that also which is beautiful, “respectable,” and even “pious;” and as a consequence they have been easily duped by the arch-deceiver. The devil knows enough not to appear with cloven hoofs, horns and tail when he wants to catch people whom anything outwardly repulsive would repel.AMS May 27, 1897, page 331.1

May 20, 1897

June 3, 1897