THE FINAL CONFLICT

295

power to sit supreme in the temple of God, and by adopting which we should acknowledge the validity of his title, by conceding his right to act for the church in behalf of the Son of God.

Here will come the final conflict, into which all will be drawn, upon the one side or the other. There will be no middle ground. This will be "the hour of temptation," or trial, which is to come as a final test upon all the world. Rev. 3:10. "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation." Rev. 14:9, 10. But those who get the victory over the beast and over his image, and his mark, are next seen standing triumphant upon the sea of glass before the throne of God.

Rev. 15:2.

THE

country so long as either the church or the state remained in the sphere ordained for it by the Creator. The sphere of the one is that of things religious; the sphere of the other is that of things civil. The church is ordained. to give to the world the knowledge of God; it is the divinelyappointed channel through which the spiritual agencies of heaven operate to reach a world lost in sin and draw men to a divine Saviour. Within this sphere the motive power is faith; for "without faith it is impossible to please him [God]"; and "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Heb. 11:6; Rom. 14: 23. And faith means free will.

The state, on the other hand, is ordained, as says the Declaration of Independence, to preserve the inalienable rights which individuals have as an endowment from their Creator. The business of the state is to maintain conditions in civil society which will afford to each member of society the free enjoyment of his rights. In its sphere the motive power is not faith, but force. It does not seek to persuade, but commands; and forgiveness of offenses, which is vital to Christianity, would for the state be suicidal. The state aims at justice only. The union of the state with the church, or what is the same thing, the union of the civil power with re

AMERICAN PRINCIPLES REPUDIATED

297

ligion, brings force into the domain of faith; it makes force and not faith the motive power in religion, and thus outrages Christianity and insults God; for "whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

If the church should apostatize from its mission and desire to join hands with the state, there could still be no union of the two if the state remained true to its mission. The state must also apostatize before it can be in a position to join hands with the church.

Has there then, we inquire, been national apostasy in the American republic? Has this nation now departed from the position it assumed before the world in justification of its separation from Great Britain? Has it repudiated the principles of the political equality of the people under it and of government by the consent of the governed?

This question must be answered in the affirmative. These principles have been repudiated both in teaching and in practise. When the Asiatic possessions of the United States were acquired by the war with Spain, government was set up over their inhabitants without their consent. The propriety of such action on the part of this government was thoroughly discussed in Congress, and the repudiation of the doctrine of government by consent of the governed was open and deliberate. Many speeches were made in Congress of a nature to cast contempt upon the Declaration of Independence. It was declared that this nation had outgrown its swaddling clothes, and could no longer be bound by such instruments as the Declaration and the Constitution. The great majority in Congress went over to this view of the matter, but a few, prominent among whom was Senator Hoar of Massachusetts, contended earnestly for the old doctrines whose fundamental importance in American republican government had hitherto been unquestioned.

In place of the doctrine set forth in the Declaration of Inde

pendence, that govern-
ments derive their just
powers from the consent
of the governed, there
has now been substi-
tuted the doctrine that
governments derive
their just powers from
the consent of some of
the governed. We have
but to quote from the
speeches that were made
when the subject of the
government
nation's Asiatic posses-

of the

sions was under discus

sion on the floor of Congress, to show that the doctrine of government by consent of the governed has been repudiated in explicit terms. Note the following which we take from the Congressional Record of Dec. 19, 1898, p. 330:

"Mr. Hoar,-May I ask the senator from Connecticut a question?"

"Mr. Platt, of Connecticut,-"Certainly.'

"Mr. Hoar,-"It is whether, in his opinion, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?' "Mr. Platt, of Connecticut,-'From the consent of some of the governed?'

"Mr. Hoar, From the consent of some of the governed?" "Mr. Platt, of Connecticut,-'Yes.'"

The doctrine thus enunciated by Senator Platt of Connecticut received the support of the great majority of the Senate, and appears to have encountered still less opposition in the

BENEVOLENT DESPOTISMS

299

House. The applica

tion of this doctrine in the government of the nation's dependencies, which was made not long afterwards, showed that it was meant to sanction government so remote in character from that based on the Constitution of the United States, that not even the consent of "some" of the governed would be deemed essential in its administration.

It is true of course that one class of people

may not be as well able to govern themselves as another class are, and that some people may be in many ways better off for being governed without their consent. Doubtless the natives of the Philippines enjoy many more advantages to-day while being treated as dependencies than they would have under It is also true that a government independent government which is despotic in form may be mild and benevolent in practise because of the character of those who administer it. For example, Julius Cæsar, who changed the Roman republic to a monarchy, was a mild ruler, being in fact the idol of the common people. But a government which is despotic in form permits of despotism in practise if selfish and unprincipled men happen to be in the positions of power; and the only sure safeguard against such despotism is to establish and