In the Christian Work, a large and influential independent Presbyterian newspaper, of February 3, is an editorial article entitled, “Have Our Missionaries Property Rights?” That article opens thus:— We ask the question advisedly; it is a proper question, a burning question, and it should have an answer. Some three weeks ago we noted the fact that a commission composed of members of the American Board, the Bible Society, the Evangelical Alliance, and other representative Christian organizations, had called upon the president and had requested that action be taken to secure reparation from the Turkish Government for the destruction of American property by Turkish troops during the progress of the Armenian massacres. With a new minister at Stamboul whom the whole Christian world could trust—but who could do nothing without the support of his government, and everything if he could have that support—we expressed both the conviction that the time for action had arrived, and the hope that the administration, in view of the reparation that France had secured and the efforts made by the other powers in the same direction, would, by a firm policy, proclaim to all the world that American missionaries were in foreign countries to stay, and that while there they and their property should be thoroughly protected; any other course would mean the minimizing of American influence, the placing of a humiliation upon the missionaries which would put them wholly on the defensive. This expectation we are told is not realized; that that “committee has not made any report;” that the committee were informed by the government that there were “difficulties in the way.” The Christian Work continues:— Three methods, it was said, presented themselves: (1) The United States could sever diplomatic relations with Turkey. (2) We could blockade a Turkish seaport until the indemnity was paid. (3) We might seize the seaport and take possession of the government revenues. To this we have a fourth factor interposed, which was given out to the commission, or to some members of it,—the troubles in Cuba, which demand the presence of a powerful fleet near the Gulf of Mexico. Passing by the reason offered for not pursuing either of the first two courses mentioned; we note the third proposition,—the seizing of a Turkish seaport. To this plan the objection is offered by the State department officials that it would involve us in a war with Turkey and possibly with other European powers, would necessitate concentrating our navy in the Mediterranean, and would leave our own shores unprotected, and give Spain an advantage in the event of war over Cuba. Of the methods presented the editor advises the third, in the following language:— It is to the statement of the danger of seizing a Turkish seaport that we invite attention as being inadequate, and in the light of all precedent, false to the fact, and carrying with it a pitiful and unworthy confession of weakness. When, let us ask, did Turkey ever refuse to make amends to a great power when a Turkish seaport was threatened? She never did; and the statement that decisive action on our part would involve us in war with Turkey and possibly with other European powers, is the purest assumption. . . . And is it so that the administration does not know—it should know if it does not—that no sooner would an American battle-ship or cruiser appear off Smyrna than the indemnity would be paid? For is Turkey, whose antiquated boats she did not dare bring against Greek ships in the late war, prepared to send her tubs against our American battle-ships or steel cruisers? After intimating that the commission had learned that “there is a strong tendency on the part of the administration to drop the question as old, and complicated with other matters in Turkey—too much so, in fact, to warrant our government taking it up just now at least”—the article in question remarks:— What is this inaction on the part of our government but an invitation to Turkey to drive out our missionaries, as she longs to do—as she drove out Mr. Knapp?—what is it but an unworthy humiliation placed upon American missionaries? It is not too late yet for the administration to come to a better state of mind, nor is it too late for public opinion to assert itself upon this matter, as we trust it will. Upon all which, admitting that missionaries have the same rights as other men, because they are men, we desire to ask, in the light of the following scriptures, some questions: Is armed interference, the sending of a man of war to protect or defend or to collect for the property in question, the better way? Is asking for this the proper thing to do on the part of Christians? Is it the Christian way? Is it the Bible way? What are the probable results of such a course? Is it not the same old subterfuge of the church and people of God looking to Egypt for help? “Wo to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, that take counsel, but not of Me; and that cover with a covering, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; that walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at My mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.” Isa. 30: 1–3. “Wo to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the Lord! . . . Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the Lord shall stretch out His hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.” Isa. 31: 1–3. To send a war ship to Turkey and to seize a Turkish port is to commit the government to war; it is to take the initiatory step in a series which may involve the loss of millions of property and thousands and perhaps millions of lives. Whether Turkey would submit or fight does not affect the principle. Our Lord told His ardent disciple, and through him all other disciples, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Are Christian missionaries desirous of turning to the sword, or civil power, for succor? When has such appeal ever been of benefit to the church of God? Macaulay has truly said, and it is a lesson for the ages: “The ark of God was never taken till it was surrounded by the arms of earthly defenders. In captivity, its sanctity was sufficient to vindicate it from insult, and to lay the hostile fiend prostrate on the threshold of his own temple. The real security of Christianity is to be found in its benevolent morality, in its exquisite adaptation to the human heart, in the facility with which it accommodates itself to the capacity of every intellect, in the consolation which it bears to the house of mourning, in the light with which it brightens the great mystery of the grave. To such a system it can bring no addition of dignity or of strength, that it is part or parcel of the common law,” or, we may add, is supported or defended by steel cruisers or Gatling guns. Are these missionaries ambassadors for God or for the United States? If for God, why not look to Him for help? All the power of Turkey can not drive them from her boundaries if God has sent them there and they are doing His work, trusting in Him. When that time comes that He permits His trusting servants to be expelled from a country, is it not an evidence that their work is done there, and that He would have them go elsewhere? He told His missionaries of old, “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another.” (See Matt. 10:23; 12:14, 15; Acts 8:1, 4; 14:5, 6, and others.) This is one of God’s means of spreading the truth. What is the object of the missionaries in Turkey? Is it to convert or to coerce those who are blind to the Gospel? Will force convert them? Will it give the Turk a better idea of Christ to back up the Christian missionary by a blazing broadside? “But property is destroyed.” Well, what if it is? If destroyed for Christ’s sake, it is not lost. The Word commends those who “were made a gazing stock both by reproaches and afflictions,” and who “took joyfully the spoiling of your [their] goods,” knowing in themselves that they “have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.” And this confidence they were besought not to cast away. Read the lesson in Heb. 10:32–35. The last sentence quoted from the Christian Work is indeed a sad one. If these missionaries are “ambassadors for Christ,” if they are sent forth under the great commission (Matt. 28:19, 20), trusting in the “all authority” of Christ and the mighty Spirit of God, how can anything that this government or any government does do or does not do, be an unworthy humiliation to them? It certainly can not be unless their hopes are fixed upon the broken reeds of civil power. If they are persecuted, so were holy men of old. If they lose property, so have the witnesses of God before them. The Son of God lost His life. He is the example of the missionary of God. “Even hereunto were ye called.” When missionaries abroad and their friends at home will cease to look to men and look to God alone, then will it be that God will trust them with the plenitude of His power, and we shall have no “Christian” demand for war or armed interference to promote, to protect, or to defend the work of the Gospel. Jesus Christ will be all-sufficient.