Here is where the Church shows the elasticity of its system. Teaching is one of its recognized functions. That function can be emphasized and exercised without slighting other functions of public worship and devotional life, but with actual reflex influence upon the latter because of the increased intelligence with which all things connected with the Christian life are approached. The Church has an inexhaustible series of matters to teach. There is no need to go outside religious subjects and get up courses on literature, and current events, and the latest fads. The newspapers which announce on Saturday the subjects for discourses on the following day in city pulpits fairly nauseate one with the sickening list of topics that are served up under the guise of Christian preaching. We have noted with satisfaction that the Church seldom plays to the gallery in this way. The writer has been tremendously impressed, as his wanderings have carried him hither and thither, with the exposure of the fallacy that the Church must compromise and surrender its position in order to gain respect. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. It has been his experience again and again to have to tell devout members of other religious bodies that they could not be admitted to make their communion because they had not been confirmed. He has never hesitated to do so and has found frank appreciation of the Church's discipline in this respect as being quite within its rights, and at the same time an opening is obtained for teaching that the sacraments of the Church, while meant for all who comply with prescribed conditions, are not to be approached and received in an easy-going, merely sentimental frame of mind. The same observation applies to all definite and strong teaching on the difference between the Church and the separated bodies. It is silly, in the experience of the writer, to give the impression that there are no essential differences, because every intelligent person knows that there are. His experience shows him that the Church is most respected where its officers stand up to their principles, not where those principles are surrendered or watered down. Sooner or later individuals find that those very principles are what they need and that they are absent from other religions than the Church. Then they know where to go. I have had a Methodist minister invite me to occupy his pulpit and preach to his congregation. He added that of course he was well aware that I could not reciprocate. I have had the Congregationalist and Methodist ministers in a small town stand solidly with me in refusal to take any part in the installation of a new Universalist pastor because I insisted that the Church cannot countenance Universalist teaching. In the years not so long ago the Episcopal Church was supposed not to stand for anything very important. Then it commanded small respect. Now it is known that it does stand for strong, positive truths. Very likely it is disliked, attacked, ridiculed, but it does command respect. Pamphylax. Teach me to know myself But mire and clay, And Thee to be The living Way And Truth, whose holiness My soul shall prove That I am nothing, Lord, That Thou art perfect Love. (Quoted by Father Stanton in Sermon, The Centurion: Last Sermons at Holborn) PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY TEMPLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION 11 WEST 45 STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. President: GEORGE A. ARMOUR, Princeton, N. J. Vice President: GUY VAN AMRINGE, 31 Nassau Street, New York Business Manager: EDWIN S. GORHAM, 11 West 45 Street, New York EDITORIAL COUNCIL: Charles S. Baldwin, Ph.D., Professor of Rhetoric, Columbia University; the Rev. J. G. H. Barry, D D., Rector of the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, New York; the Rev. Charles C. Edmunds, D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature, General Theological Seminary: the Rev. Hughell E. W. Fosbroke. D.D., Dean of the General Theological Seminary; the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., Professor of Dogmatic Theology, General Theological Seminary; the Rev. Arthur W. Jenks, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, General Theological Seminary; the Rev. William T. Manning, D.D., Rector of Trinity Church, New York; the Rev. John Mockridge, D.D., Rector of St. James Church, Philadelphia; the Rev. Ralph B Pomeroy, B. D, Rector of Trinity Church, Princeton, N. J.; Chandler R. Post, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Greek and of Fine Arts, Harvard University; Robert K. Root, Ph.D., Professor of English, Princeton University; the Rev. Hamilton Schuyler, Rector Trinity Church, Trenton, N. J.; Chauncey B. Tinker, Ph.D., Professor of English Literature, Yale University; the Rev. Lucius Waterman, D.D., Rector of St. Thomas Church, Hanover, N. H. TH Editorial Comment 'HE majority of readers of the AMERICAN CHURCH MONTHLY undoubtedly are aware that one of the most important contributions to theological literature in the present times is the work on Dogmatic Theology, in course of preparation and publication by the Reverend Francis J. Hall, D.D., Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the General Theological Seminary. Dr. Hall has already issued six volumes in the series of ten and the value of the work is widely recognized. The seventh volume, on the subject of The Passion and Exaltation of Christ, is now ready for the press. The stress of war conditions, however, has affected in several ways the difficulties which publishers have to face and the publishers of Dr. Hall's work have signified the necessity of advancing the price of the remaining forthcoming volumes, both to old and new subscribers and to purchasers, and have also felt obliged to ask for a guarantee of the sale of a stated number of copies of the seventh volume before they can undertake to proceed with the issue of the new volume. A cir cular letter is to be widely distributed setting forth these facts. Attention is hereby called to the importance that all who wish to further the cause of sound theology should take an active interest in helping to secure the desired guarantee. Original subscribers to the series are asked to renew their subscription at the advanced rate and to use personal efforts towards making the work even better known than it is and inducing others to become subscribers and purchasers. UNDO NDOUBTEDLY of all the events that have come to the attention of the Christian world during the years of the present war none has so thrilled the hearts of multitudes with feelings of peculiar joy and satisfaction as the capture of Jerusalem by the British forces and the passing of the Holy City under the control of nations adhering to Christ. Messages of congratulation passed between rulers, military leaders and ambassadors. Sermons were delivered, anthems sung, thanksgivings offered, in commemoration of the event. Here, it seemed, was one matter for common rejoicing in the midst of the world-wide war. Even the Jews scattered among the nations could enter into the joy and satisfaction of this Christian conquest. And those who admit no more than the exemplary life and devout wisdom of Jesus shared in the expressions of thankfulness for the recovery of Jerusalem. Now the pious may visit the city and be free from the hateful domination of the Moslem power. The painful necessity of having permission from the followers of Mahomet, before the sacred sites of the beginnings of Christianity can be visited, no longer oppresses. Some, at least, of the difficulties besetting a pilgrimage to Calvary and Bethlehem are removed. What the Crusades of the Middle Ages failed to achieve, a twentieth century army has accomplished, and that, too, as a side issue. Soon, very likely, the whole of Palestine will be freed from the Turkish yoke. The watchword of the old Crusaders- God wills it! finds its actual fulfillment after eight centuries. Such are some of the familiar notes that have been sounded. And they voice the widespread and popular sentiment. Now OW there is most certainly a devotional standpoint from which the recovery of any locality that has been the scene of incidents in our Lord's earthly life should be viewed with satisfaction. It is abhorrent to think of the site of the Holy Sepulchre or of the Cave at Bethlehem being under the control of enemies of the Crucified and of the Babe of Bethlehem. But does such an attitude differ in kind or only in degree from the feelings experienced when Rheims Cathedral was shelled and when the tomb of St. Anthony at Padua was bombed? What an outburst of horror and grief would be expected if Venice, the Queen of the Adriatic, should be laid in ruins by hostile artillery! Or if Dante's tomb at Ravenna and the shrine of the holy Charles Borromeo at Milan should be desecrated! Yet in A. D. 70 Jerusalem was captured by Roman armies and its walls razed to the level of the ground and no great outcry of the early Church over that event has been handed down to us. Rather the destruction of the city favored the spread of Christianity and was regarded as the fulfillment of prophecy. Pilgrimages were made to the rebuilt city. St. Helena made a pious effort to recover the true Cross, and perhaps succeeded. St. Jerome spent many years of devout study and contemplation in his retreat at Bethlehem. In all probability, however, a far greater tide of pilgrims flowed to the tombs of the Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, in Rome, than to the former capital of the Hebrew nation. For purposes of archaeological and geographical research there are undoubtedly strong grounds whereon may be based the desire to have the control of the Holy Land held by Christian powers. Understanding of the historical and scenic environment is a powerful aid in the interpretation of the books of the Old and New Testaments. For exegetical and critical purposes the Bible lands should be entirely free of access to Christian students and investigators. To be sure the identification of sites beyond dispute is in few cases possible. Disappointment has awaited many who journeyed eagerly and devoutly to Palestine that they might actually visit Bethlehem and Calvary, when they found that though guides assured tourists of the identity of localities, scholars disagreed. Many must |