The American Sentinel 14 (1899)

January 5, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 1 , p. 1.

"IT is time for thee, Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law." Ps. 119:126.

RELIGIOUS questions pertain solely to the sphere of the individual conscience; all civil questions pertain solely to the sphere of individual rights.

ALL religious legislation is an effort to stagnate the tide of religious progress.

THE world is not wide enough to permit of two individuals living upon its surface in prace, if one of them is a religious bigot.

[Inset.] REFORM CLERGYMAN TO MODERN LEGISLATOR: "There's a flood of immorality sweeping over the land; you must stop it by legislation!"

THAT tide of immorality in the land is rising, is very true; but why is it true? Is it not because the barrier against immorality has been broken down, so that it does not restrain the flood? That great barrier is the law of God, the Decalogue, which condemns evil in its very citadel–the heart. And who have attacked this barrier, to break it down before the world? Is it not the very clergymen themselves, who have been preaching that the fourth commandment, which sanctifies the seventh day as the Sabbath, does not mean what it says? Is it not the clergymen who have been preaching the "higher criticism," which denies the truthfulness of Scripture and destroys its reproving and convicting force upon the carnal mind? And now, when they have done all this, by which they have made God's Word of none effect to the masses of the people, and opened the flood-gates of immorality, they declare that we must have legislation to stay the rising tide. But what will human legislation avail where the law of the Infinite has been set aside? The inadequacy of such a remedy is only faintly depicted in the illustration.

"America's Right to the Philippines" American Sentinel 14, 1 , p. 2.

THE United States Government has acquired possession of the Philippine Islands by conquest and purchase from Spain, and now considers that it has a right to do with them as it sees fit.

It obtained this right–if such it is–from Spain. But what right had Spain in the islands? Spain's rights in the Philippines were only those of the robber and freebooter. Spain took what she possessed in the islands by force, just as any highwayman takes money and other valuables from the defenseless traveler. In the courts, this style of procedure is not considered as conferring any right of possession upon the highwayman. But where the robbery is a national act, it is different.

Does the United States Government mean to indorse the acts of Spain by which that nation got possession of the Philippines? Whether it means it or not, that is just what is actually done by the United States in assuming possession of the Philippines as it has now done.

There are human beings in the Philippines–eight millions of them. These people are the natural and rightful owners of the islands. These are the people who must be dealt with in securing any just title to a single foot of land in the Philippine group.

The United States Government drove Spain out of Cuba, because, as it says, Spain was a robber and oppressor of the Cuban people, who by here cruelty and injustice had forfeited all right to the island. If Spain had a right to the possession of Cuba, the United States had no right to deprive her of it. Spain had no right in Cuba–that is true; but she had exactly as much right in Cuba as she had in the Philippines; and now the United States claims possession of the Philippines by virtue of the very thing which, in the case of Cuba, it points to as nullifying all claim to possession. This is not quite consistent to say the least.

The United States might as well be a robber itself as to take away the spoils of a robber and hold them as its own. The right of possession still remains in the one from whom the robber took them, which in this case is the Philippine people. The United States cannot afford to expand by justifying and perpetuating a robbery.

"Justifying 'Expansion' by the Constitution" American Sentinel 14, 1 , pp. 2, 3.

ADVOCATES of "expansion" justify this policy upon the ground that the national Constitution gives Congress the power "to dispose of and made all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." The Philippines, they declare, are merely territorial property, and as such, can be ruled and regulated under this constitutional provision as Congress sees fit.

But the Constitution does not authorize Congress to dispose of property acquired unjustly, nor does any such power rightfully inhere in any nation or individual. This Philippine question, however, is more than a mere question of the disposal of a certain amount of land. The chief consideration in the transaction, from the standpoint of justice, is not the disposal of the land, but the disposal of the people upon the land.

Are those people to be considered as the property of the United States, of which Congress can dispose as it sees fit? That is just what is assumed in the course which has been pursued towards them by the nations without.

Every form of government which does not recognize the rights and liberties of the people, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, assumes that the people who are governed are the property of the governing power. The government of the czar, for example, assumes the right to dispose of the people under it, and does dispose of them, as it sees fit. That is the assumption upon which every despotism is built. A government must either assume just this, or it must recognize the rights of the people, which is a recognition of their right to govern themselves. There is no middle ground. Not to recognize their rights is itself an assumption of the right to treat them as property. And when the United States Government denies to the Philippine people the right to govern themselves, taking control over them as it does over their land, ignoring their will in the matter entirely, it thereby proclaims that it regards the people themselves as its property, in common with the land on which they live. Such treatment of the Filipinos cannot be harmonized with any other conception than that they are property, to be controlled in live animals. But this is the basis upon which the institution of negro slavery rested in the United States.

It cost this nation several billions of dollars and the lives of hundreds of thousands of its best citizens, to learn that the image of God–for all men are in his image–cannot be held and treated as the property of the United States or of any part of it. That lesson should have been well learned. And if at that fearful sacrifice it was not learned so as to be remembered, and the principles of truth and justice it emphasized are not to be re-

3

pudiated, what hope can remain for the nation which has been established expressly to exemplify the virtue of those principles of government before the world?

"What Now Remains?" American Sentinel 14, 1 , p. 3.

THE following from Harper's Weekly, of December 8, we republish as an important piece of news, as well as for the worth of the discussion itself:–

"Attorney-General Griggs is quite sure that the Constitution will have no application to the territories of the United States acquired by the war, beyond the grant to Congress to make only needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States. In making these rules and regulations, according to Attorney-General Griggs, Congress is not bound by any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution upon the exercise of its power over the States.

"It is true that Congress has, in general, although not always acquired from the original States, by conquest, or by purchase; and it has never attempted to deprive the citizens of our territories of any of the fundamental personal rights which seem to be guaranteed by the Constitution. But the time is evidently at hand when a strong party in the nation will make a point of insisting that territories may be ruled by Congress outside of the Constitution, and even against the instrument which Mr. Gladstone declared to be the most perfect of human political institutions made at a single moment.

"It is not so long ago that this great instrument, for it is very great, was established and ordained. In the life of the nation the time that has elapsed between the days of our fathers and our own days is but an instant. Times have not so changed, men have not so developed, conditions have not so revolutionized, that the essential truths of the eighteenth century have lost their character in the nineteenth. What was true as a political institution in 1789 is true to-day; and this is recognized even by those who are contending that the Constitution will not apply to the Philippines, or to Puerto Rico, or to Hawaii, although it is impossible to believe that they still recognize the truths of the Declaration of Independence.

"The theory that all governments ought to exist by the consent of the governed has been dropped, but the belief holds that the Constitution did not establish a government capable of ruling over distant territories and alien peoples. Therefore it is that Attorney-General Griggs and other expansionists take the ground that the new colonies lie outside of the Constitution, and may be ruled without regard to its provisions, whether these limit the powers of Congress, define the jurisdiction of courts, or guard the rights of the individual.

"If the Constitution does not apply or does not rule, what power is the last resort? Congress undoubtedly. If Congress possess the necessary two-thirds vote to override the President, it may establish governments for those distant islands in which the executive and judicial powers of the federal authority will have no place. Even without such a vote, its will, perhaps, must be a law; for to it alone is given the power to rule and regulate territory, and Attorney-General Griggs, and those who think as he does, may successfully contend that the President has not the power to veto an act establishing a fundamental government, or legislation of any sort, for a territory. If they are right, then it follows that taxes and imposts collected in the Philippines and in other colonies need not be uniform with those collected at home. A despotic form of government may be established within the law. Even a king may be set up if Congress thinks well of kings for distant savages. The blessings of the writ of habeas corpus may not be extended to our subjects. The right to trial by jury may not be granted to them. Their houses may be searched at the will of any United States official, important or petty. They may be legally arrested without warrant, their liberty and property may be taken away from them without due process of law or without just compensation. They may be denied the right to bear arms. The forms of justice common to civilized lands may be refused them, and judicial functions may be lodged in the hands of the executive.

"We do not contend that the rights which the Anglo-Saxons wrung from the king at Runnymede, and which are preserved as sacred in every American constitution, Federal and State, are to be bestowed carelessly upon barbarians; but we are simply pointing out that when our Government was formed certain rights were regarded as fundamental and essential, and an equal as well as a just rule was to be the central idea of the new republic. It is now discovered that the Constitution is incompatible with the government of colonies of savages, and naturally the effort is being made to evade or destroy it, and to place absolute power in the hands of Congress. Practically, the question, as presented by Mr. Griggs, is, Shall we beat the Constitution by interpretation, or shall we amend it frankly, if we can, and remain a constitutional power a little longer?"

When the Government of the United States reaches the point where it seriously proposes, and sets about, to govern anybody without the Constitution it will be in principle no different from Russia. All that Russia does is to govern without a constitution.

That the chief law officers of the Untied States should take such a position is ominous enough. Yet since the Declaration of Independence has been renounced, it is not at all surprising that the Constitution should be abandoned. These two documents belong together. And the same spirit that will set aside the Declaration of Independence, is at once ready to abandon the Constitution. The United States is fast repudiating every principle of a republican government.

Harper's Weekly, of December 24, says that the above is a mistake as to Attorney-General Griggs, but is all true "of many expansionists, if not of Attorney-General Griggs." The Weekly was misled by an "interview published in a daily newspaper." As this is the opinion of many expansionists, the principle is worthy of serious consideration even though the attorney-general has not so expressed himself.
A. T. J.

January 12, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 2 , p. 17.

THERE are no safe deposit vaults for individual rights.

THE true foundation of a government is not its laws, but the character of its people.

THE hardest and most hopeless task ever undertaken by man is that of effecting a moral compromise with God.

GOOD law is the result, not the cause, of right public sentiment. It can never be the starting-point in true reform.

A LEGISLATURE can pass laws, but it cannot turn out character. Only God can do that, and even he must have the coˆperation of the individual.

THE only safe way to avoid the last step in religious intolerance is to refrain from taking the first.

THE world needs not to be more firmly bound by the fetters of law, but to be loosed from the fetters of sin. It is condemned enough by law already.

LAWS which are designed to coddle men are the worst of all laws, because while they seem to be good, they tend always to weaken character in the individual.

AT the fall of Adam, not the power of legislation, but the power of love, stood between mankind and moral ruin. And the situation is not different to-day.

[Inset.] PREPARING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAW OF GOD. THE law of God declares, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." But mortal, fallible men have dared to make an amendment to that law, by declaring that the first day is the Sabbath, and that the seventh day is no longer to be observed. And they have even gone further than this, and are petitioning the legislatures to force this amendment upon all persons, by law! Shall each work have the support of lovers of justice and truth?

"Papal Advice to the United States" American Sentinel 14, 2 , pp. 18, 19.

IN previous issues the SENTINEL has referred to the papal advice–which was in fact a thinly-veiled threat–to the Government, against interfering with the Catholic program in Cuba. The Government was advised that it would do well not to antagonize the priests in Cuba, since the restoration of order and tranquility in the island depended almost entirely upon their will, through the great influence they exercise over the Cuban people. It appears now that the same threat has been made with reference to the Philippine Islands, and that by Archbishop Ireland, the close friend and adviser of the President. A recent interview had with the archbishop in this city, quotes him as saying:–

"Who in America knows anything about the Philippines? The church in the Philippines will, I have no doubt, accustom itself to the conditions under the new regime, as id did under the old. The church will accept the conditions that are to be just as she accepts them in this country. All the civilization that people of the Philippines have, has been received from the priests. They are the representatives of social and civil order in the islands. The people were taught by the priests, and they were taught too much. The priests will uphold this Government as they upheld the government of Spain. That is, as the representatives of order, they will uphold the existing Government. This Government will have to depend upon the priests to a large extent for their moral influence in the interests of law and order.

"This Government will do well not to antagonize the priests. And I will say I know it is not the policy of the Government to antagonize them, nor is there any disposition to do so in any quarter."

In reply to the question whether his visit to Washington (from which city he had just come) was for the purpose of interviewing the President on this subject, the archbishop said further:–

"I saw the President, but I cannot say what the subject of conversation was. There is no truth in the published report that the Archbishop of Manila has issued a circular of an unfavorable character against the United States. Aguinaldo is jealous of the power of the priests and wants to rule absolutely himself.

"The conduct of the priests will depend entirely upon the policy of the United States in the Philippines and that I have no doubt will be the same as in this country."

"This Government will do well not to antagonize the priests," because it "will have to depend upon" them "for their moral influence in the interests of law and order." In other words, if the Government does not accede to the will of the priests, the priests will prevent the restoration of peace and order; and in this way they will make so much trouble for the Government that it will be forced, in the interests of peace, to let affairs be managed in the islands as Rome wants them managed. And if the Government interferes with Rome's program there, the cry of religious persecution will be raised, and the millions of Catholics in the United States will have it in their power to seriously embarrass the Government at home.

And what must the Government do to avoid antagonizing the priests? How much can it do in the direction of establishing civil and religious freedom in the islands without antagonizing the priests? How much of the papal program is in harmony with such liberty? How much of it has been taught the Philippines during the four hundred years that Rome has ruled in the islands as she pleased?

These questions answer themselves to every person who knows anything about papal history and the papal system. That system and the system of civil and religious freedom set up in America by the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and created the American Constitution, have about as much in common as have day and night. To establish the latter system in the islands would be to interfere directly with the system Rome has cherished for centuries; and who can suppose that this can be done without antagonizing the priests? And the papacy has warned the Government not to antagonize the priests.

Archbishop Ireland asserts that the Government has no intention of doing such a thing; and being in the confidence of the President, he is no doubt well informed upon that point. But how much will the United States be able to do toward relieving the Filipinos from the civil and religious despotism under which they have so long been held, without doing anything to arouse the antagonism of the priests?

The Filipinos know what papal rule is; their bitter and determined antagonism to the priests and the various religious orders in the islands speaks volumes upon this point. They are fighting for their freedom, and they know that this can never be enjoyed under the yoke of Rome.

Spain was the nominal ruler in Cuba and the Philippines, but the real dominion was that of Rome; the essence of the despotism which has oppressed them was the papacy's. Spain has been driven out, but Rome remains; and she is determined to abate no part of her sovereignty. She has warned the United States not to

19

interfere with that; and now boldly asserts that the United States will heed the warning.

WITH such tempting plums as Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines, hanging before the eyes of American politicians, there will be found many who will be anxious to "shake the plum tree" by any means at their command.

"'Solely for Humanity'" American Sentinel 14, 2 , p. 19.

THE Tribune reports Admiral Sampson, when asked the question, "Will the people of Cuba generally prove amenable to the sovereignty of this Government?" as answering, "emphatically":–

"It does not make any difference whether the people of Cuba prove amenable to our rule or not. We are there; we intend to rule; and I guess that is all there is about it."

And that is American liberty and the love of it! That is the "expansion" of the great American principle that "governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed"–of "government of the people, by the people, for the people!" That is how the great, liberty-loving, liberty-exemplifying, American people, deliver people from oppression and from despotic rule. That illustrates how "the people of Cuba are and of right ought to be free and independent," as declared by the American Congress, April, 1898.

Hurrah for free Cuba! Cuba libre forever.

THE same day Dr. Depew, speaking in Buffalo, said:–

"We make war against a foreign power, and for the first time in the history of the world solely for humanity. The world cannot understand, and the world stands by to sneer and scoff. To maintain order in Cuba until her people shall be able to maintain a stable government of liberty and law, is humanity. To incorporate Porto Rico in our domain, relieve its citizens from oppression, and give them good government, is humanity."

It is not true that this is the first time in the history of the world when a nation made war against a foreign power "solely for humanity." Rome made war against Philip V. of Macedon in behalf of the States of Greece, "solely for humanity"–precisely such humanity as is here extolled. Rome was a republic. Rome was a government of the people. Rome was free. Rome was the great exemplar of liberty in the world. Rome being such a lover of liberty, could not endure to see peoples oppressed. Therefore "solely for humanity" Rome sent her fleets and armies into foreign countries to make war against a foreign power. And when at much sacrifice "solely for humanity" Rome had conquered the oppressor, and had assured the freedom of the oppressed peoples she made the following proclamation "solely for humanity":–

"The Senate and the people of Rome, and Titus Quintius the general, having conquered Philip and the Macedonians, do set at liberty from all garrisons, imposts, and taxes, the Corinthians, the Locrians, the Phocians, the Phthiot-Achecans, the Messenians, the Thessalians, and the Perrhebians, declare them free; and ordain that they shall be governed by their respective laws and usages."

This is more than the Republic of the United States, with all her boasting, has yet done "solely for humanity," or for any other cause, in Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines. Back there, in Rome's work "solely for humanity," the world thought she understood it; and so did not stand by to sneer and scoff. The world thought she understood such wonderful, and such disinterested, efforts "solely for humanity," and was charmed with it. The world congratulated herself upon the dawn of this new and blessed era of national sacrifice "solely for humanity," and kings and nations hastened to form alliances with this wonderful, new, liberty-loving, nation; and so assure to themselves the unspeakable boon of liberty which was being so widely extended "solely for humanity."

But very soon, and to her everlasting sorrow, the world discovered that she had not understood. Soon the world bitterly lamented, and for cause, that she had not stood by to sneer and scoff at Rome's pretentious efforts "solely for humanity." The world soon found that Rome's little finger was thicker than the loins of all that had gone before her: that where others used whips, Rome used only scorpions. But it was too late. The world had not understood. "He destroyed wonderfully and practiced and prospered; and through this his policy he caused craft to prosper in his hand; and even by peace destroyed many."

And Dr. Depew seems really to think that the world has forgotten all this, and that she can be persuaded now to think that she does not understand. Perhaps she can. Nevertheless there will be at least some who will still stand by to sneer and scoff at these pretentious claims of national sacrifice "solely for humanity." For though "you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, you can not fool all the people all the time." A. T. J.

"We Did Just Right" American Sentinel 14, 2 , pp. 20, 21.

IT is being denied from Washington that there has been any arrangement or understanding between President McKinley, Cardinal Gibbons, and Archbishop Ireland as to the governmental support of the Catholic Church in Cuba. And some of the readers of the SENTINEL are ready to suggest that in the discussion of that matter we raised a false alarm.

We raised no false alarm. We had thoroughly good authority for all we said and printed in the SENTINEL, and in our first notice of the matter we distinctly gave the Baltimore American of Oct. 15, 1898, as our authority; and all that we presented was quoted bodily from that paper.

Now everybody knows that the Baltimore American is a reliable paper; and this that we quoted and followed from that paper was not simple a flying report, nor what some irresponsible correspondent might have said. It was an official communication from the Washington Bureau of the Baltimore American, and was printed under that head; and we have yet to learn that the Washington Bureau of the Baltimore American is given to sending out fake dispatches.

More than this, the communication bears on the face of it distinct evidences that it was written by a Catholic who understands things; and that this was not written as a piece of gossip, but as information.

All this fully justified us in taking it up, and calling the attention of the American people to it, that if possible they might awake to prevent it.

Yet there is much more than this to justify the SENTINEL in believing this communication, and discussing it, and making it public as possible.

1. It is well known that Archbishop Ireland dictated terms to the St. Louis convention; and this upon a direct issue of governmental favor to the church. A resolution had been framed, and was to be presented, opposing appropriations of public money for religious or sectarian uses, or anything tending toward a union of church and State. On receipt of a dispatch from Archbishop Ireland that resolution was killed in committee.

2. Last April the Congress and the people of the United States were for days hung up by the gills, awaiting the delayed message of the President. And a United States senator, from his place in the senate chamber, plainly stated that the cause of this delay was "the fact that Archbishop Ireland had cabled to the Vatican," and "the President was waiting upon the pope to secure that which American diplomacy had failed to obtain. This statement of a United States senator was never denied by anybody we have yet heard of. In all that time Archbishop Ireland was the official representative of the pope to the United States Government; and it was publicly stated in his behalf that on account of "the close and cordial friendship McKinley, and his whole cabinet, . . . made him a fit instrument through which negotiations could be conducted": and by this "close and cordial friendship" Archbishop Ireland enjoyed such unusual facilities for understanding the situation of things in the innermost circles of the administration, that he could send to the pope "hourly bulletins, if necessary, of the attitude of the administration."

3. The fact that Archbishop Ireland is "a close personal friend of President McKinley" has been publicly stated more than once, and has been made much of several times in different connections.

4. Only three or four weeks ago Archbishop Chapelle also, through a published interview, announced himself as "a close personal friend of President McKinley." A little later the pope himself said to William T. Stead, of London, that the United States "is marching with rapid strides into the bosom of the Catholic Church."

Taking all these things together we were entirely justified in accepting as the truth the report sent out from the Washington Bureau of the Baltimore American, and in as widely as possible announcing and exposing the essential mischief of it. That report in the Baltimore American is in perfect accord with the attitude and work of Archbishop Ireland ever since the St. Louis convention, and especially since April, 1898. The SENTINEL has nothing to take back–nothing to apologize for. We did exactly the right thing. We will do it over again whenever such an occasion offers.

That the report is denied from Washington is not conclusive that it was never true. The original report did not say that the money had actually been paid, nor even actually appropriated. The report stated that as the result of "numerous conferences with Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland on the subject," it was the "determination of President McKinley that the Catholic churches shall be kept open, and that public worship shall be amply provided for," and that "to this end sufficient money will be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church."

It was with the hope of so awakening the people on the question, that this determination should be frustrated, that no money should ever be appropriated for such a purpose–it was for this cause chiefly that the AMERICAN SENTINEL sounded the alarm, as is proper for

21

every sentinel to do. If what the SENTINEL has said has been in any way instrumental in awakening such an interest, we have our reward.

Further, the denial so far made is no more authentic, nor of any more authority, than is the original report published in the Baltimore American. All the people have more reason to-day for believing the truth of the report originally made in the American, and fully discussed in SENTINEL, than they have for believing the denial that has been made. The original report in the Baltimore American tells what had occurred between Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Ireland and President McKinley. It tells this in such a circumstantial way as to bear in itself the evidence of truth. The denial so far published gives the word of other parties entirely, not one of whom was mentioned in the original report. Archbishop Ireland has not denied it; Cardinal Gibbons has not denied it; and the President has not denied it. When these three or any one of them shall publish a specific denial, it will be ample time for explanations. And even when the times comes for explanations, it will not be the AMERICAN SENTINEL that will have to explain; it will be the Washington Bureau of the Baltimore American. And we say plainly that we do not expect that there will ever be made room for any such explanation.

With Congress to day there is lodged a long petition composed and signed by Cardinal Gibbons asking for governmental appropriations of money to the Catholic Church in the United States–asking indeed for a reopening of the whole question of governmental support of churches in Indian education. And when Cardinal Gibbons will do this in the face of the whole people of the United States, in behalf of the Catholic Church in the United States; there is nothing at all extravagant in the report that a like arrangement had been considered and agreed upon in behalf of the Catholic Church in Cuba, where it can be done by the local machinery without any action of Congress. We shall not print in the SENTINEL the Cardinal's petition, as we did the report of the Baltimore American; but for the benefit of the skeptics we will state that the Cardinal's petition is printed in full in the Catholic Mirror (also printed in Baltimore), of December 17, 1898.

The AMERICAN SENTINEL is not an alarmist in these things. We know that there is an immense combination of the religious elements in the United States to get control of governmental power and patronage. We know that there is an intense rivalry between the Protestant and Catholic elements of this combination, for the lead. It is our duty as lovers of the principles upon which this nation was founded, and as well wishers for the best interests both civil and religious of our fellowmen, to call attention to everything that occurs which is suggestive of governmental favor to churches, whether Protestant or Catholic, or both in combination, under the delusive phrase of "broad general Christianity."

All this is why we did what we did in the matter; and in doing what we did, we did just right. And we are waiting for the next thing to occur to give us another chance.
A. T. J.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 2 , p. 32.

THE proper petition for Christians begins, "Our Father, which art in heaven;" not, Our legislature, which art on earth.

THE States are quite rapidly falling into line in the matter of passing upon the validity of Sunday legislation.

THE true religion is intolerant of evil; false religions are intolerant of men.

January 19, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 3 , p. 33.

WHEN a nation if really Christian, it will not need to be governed under a written constitution.

WHEN the nation gets so far gone morally that nothing will save it but a national Sabbath law, it is a sign that it is past redemption.

POLITICAL religion is worth nothing in the sphere of morals.

WHEN Cesar stumbles, it will not be well for religion if she is leaning on his arm. Jesus Christ offers the only support which is unfailing.

[Inset.] TWO ENEMIES OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS. THE American people see the enemy which is advancing from Utah, but they do not see the much more formidable enemy which is advancing from an unsuspected quarter. They are up in arms against polygamy, and denounce the Mormon system in Utah as a union of church and state; and that is true. But it is no less true that the system which would join religion with the national Government is also a union of church and state, and a much worse one than could possibly be formed by the people of a single state. If religion joined with the civil power is bad in Utah, as it is, the like system is bad in any other state; and in the nation as a whole it is as much worse as the United States is greater than a single state. And at this very time there is a widespread movement in progress for just this union,–there is a widespread clamor for legislation, both state and national, in support of religion. The great religious societies,–the Christian Endeavor Society, League for Social Service, Good Citizenship League, Epworth League, the W.C.T.U., American Sabbath Union, and other bodies, are clamoring and agitating for this. Congress is almost continually besieged by them with petitions for a national Sabbath law, or an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution. This national movement is going on, and is daily growing in power, while the American people seem to be unconscious of the danger which it threatens to their liberties. If Mormonism ought to be combated and kept out of the seat of national Government, ten times more ought this national union or religion with the state to be kept out of the same place.

"Note" American Sentinel 14, 3 , p. 34.

OF the Americans under Washington, when they were fighting for independence against the soldiers of King George III., the latter said:–

"I merely desire to restore to them the blessings of law and liberty which they have exchanged for the calamities of war, and the arbitrary tyranny of their chiefs."

And now the American Government merely desires to restore to the Filipinos "the blessings of law and liberty," in the same way that their own ancestors were invited to receive them by the English king.

The centuries have witnessed many attempts to dispense the "blessings of law and liberty" in this fashion, but history has failed to record on instance in which a people have acquired the blessings of liberty by being forced to take them against their will.

A people can win their liberty by successful resistance to the power trying to dominate them: that has often been done: that has done by our forefathers under Washington. But the blessings of liberty cannot be crammed down the throats of an unwilling people at the point of the bayonet.

WHAT has brought the blessings of civilization–the real blessings, and not the curses, of civilization–to peoples sunken in the lowest depths of ignorance and barbarism? Is it the mailed hand of imperialism,–the army and navy of a conquering power? Is it not rather, beyond all question, the gospel of brotherly love, taken to the darkest and most forbidding regions of earth by the missionaries of Christ?

He who is inclined to be skeptical upon this point can, very profitably to himself, take time to read the history of Christian missionary effort made during the present century among savage peoples the farthest removed from civilization,–as those inhabiting the islands of the southern seas.

Give the Filipinos to-day the blessings of the gospel, and the blessings of liberty and law will come to them without the instrumentality of the American army and navy. The Government cannot, of course, give the gospel to the Filipinos, but it has only to leave the way open for the gospel, and it will go there without its help.

But the Government proposes to maintain Rome in her hold upon the islands, and to depend upon the priests for the restoration and maintenance of law and order. Under this plan the force of a formidable army and navy in the islands will no doubt be continually in demand. The peace and order which are imposed upon a people by the pressure of superior power, never remains long unbroken.

THE American Constitution, article XIV., section 1, declares: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This provision of the Constitution clearly forbids the policy of making the Hawaiiians, the Filipinos, and others subject to the jurisdiction of the United States without granting them the privileges of American citizenship.

The Hawaiians, Filipinos, and others on the territory lately taken from Spain, are not, it is true, within the United States; but they are subject to its jurisdiction, and this being so, the place of residence becomes a secondary consideration. It is only necessary that the should be born or naturalized in the United States to comply with the letter as well as the spirit of this part of the fundamental law.

The Government might deny to such individuals the right of naturalization: but it cannot deny them the right of being born in the United States, unless it should exclude all of them from the privilege of setting foot on these shores. The inhabitant of Porto Rico, or of Hawaii, or even the Filipino, may freely come to the United States, and his children born here will be citizens entitled to all the rights of the Anglo-Saxon, whether they remain here or return to the land of their fathers. To distinguish between individuals subject to the jurisdiction of this Government, and equal in point of intelligence and capability, merely because one happened to be born in this country while the other was not, would be an absurdity and utterly incapable of justification by the Constitution of the United States.

The intent of Articles XIV. and XV. of the Constitution is clearly to provide that no person subject to the jurisdiction of this Government shall be treated as unworthy of the privilege of citizenship, save, of course, such as have forfeited this privilege on account of crime. These articles conferred citizenship upon the hitherto enslaved negroes, and clearly, the framers of this part of the Constitution did not contemplate that any other save criminals would afterwards be denied this privilege. To take such a step would be to retrograde from the position taken in these Amendments, to that maintained in support of negro slavery.

The Government to-day can carry out the program of the imperialists only by going contrary to the plain

35

intent and spirit of the Constitution, if not to the letter of it. And to go contrary to the spirit of the Constitution is in effect an actual repudiation of it. The practical result is not altered by mere technicalities which provide a loophole of escape from the charge of violating the exact letter of the law.

And under the lead of the imperialists and the religio-political associations, the nation to-day is fast repudiating every principle of republican government.

"Governing the Filipinos" American Sentinel 14, 3 , p. 37.

THERE is much force in the inquiry of Archbishop Ireland, addressed to a representative of the press, "Who in America knows anything about the Philippines?" There is practically no knowledge in this country of the Filipinos or the conditions under which they exist, yet it is proposed to take the whole responsibilities of government in the islands into American hands.

Some pointed remarks on this subject were made recently in Congress by Senator Mason, of Illinois. He inquired whether the chief of Tammany Hall should be sent to the islands "to teach the untutored Filipinos cleanliness and municipal reform. Shall we," he continued, "teach them to worship money and the man who has it, regardless of how he got it? Shall we send special instructors to teach them how to kill postmasters and their wives and children, whose complexion does not suit them? We have murdered more men by mobs in Illinois than have been murdered in the Philippines. Shall we take that branch of our civilization and inject it in the Filipinos with 13-inch guns? Shall we change Mr. Lincoln's famous words so as to make this a Government of some of the people, by a part of the people, for a few of the people? What senator is anxious to legislate for the Filipinos? We do not know their language or their religion. I never even saw one of them."

Here, the American people govern themselves, under the advantages of being familiar with their own conditions and needs, and of bringing a popular judgment to bear upon every measure of government that is provided. And even under these circumstances the Government is none too good. What then would it be, and what must it be, where the governing power is in the hands of one man, or at most a few individuals, who are not familiar with the circumstances and needs of those who are to be governed?

Whatever abilities the Filipinos may possess in the matter of self-government, they can certainly evolve a better government for themselves than can be set up over them and carried into effect by a people who know nothing about them and are too far away to ever know or care what is going on among them.

But the archbishop's query implied something more than this. There is a governing power in the Philippines which is familiar with the people and conditions there, since it has been there for hundreds of years; and that power is the Catholic Church. What could be more natural, therefore, than that the Catholic Church should become the adviser of the Government in solving the problem of government for the Philippine people?

This is just what the Catholic Church proposes to do, and is in a fair way to secure, through the position occupied by Archbishop Ireland as the confidential friend of the administration.

And how much will the Filipinos gain by their liberation from Spanish rule, if they are to be governed according to the suggestions of the Catholic Church?

THE United States has nothing to gain by descending from the high plane of a teacher of the principles of free government, to the level of a power which makes its conquests by the sword.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 3 , p. 48.

NOT the extent of territory which it covers, but the soundness of its principles of government is the essential condition of national success.

THE United States has nothing to gain by descending from the high plane of a teacher of the principles of free government, to the level of a power which makes its conquests by the sword.

IF no person were allowed the privilege of self-government so long as in the opinion of some others he was unfit for it, there would be practically no self-government in the world to-day.

THE Creator has supplied every individual with the power of self-government, and it is not for one man or one nation to decide for others whether they are capable of exercising that power or not.

THE vital question as regards the national policy is not what the Government has the power to do, but what it has the right to do, in accordance with the principles of free government upon which it professes to rest.

THE Creator never made a man good enough to lay down rules of moral conduct for other people, or a man bad enough to have no right to conduct himself according to his own inclinations, so long as he does not invade the rights of others.

CHURCH people who disclaim against polygamy may well remember that the very worst form of "plural marriage" is seen when a church which professes to be joined to Christ seeks the support of the State.

ALL questions of morality are settled by the law of God; for it alone can with truth and authority define what is moral transgression. No man or body of men has the wisdom or authority to add to the transgressions of that law by new prohibitions, or to define in what a transgression of that law consists.

January 26, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 4 , p. 49.

HE who will not stand by the Declaration of Independence, will fall by dependence upon man.

AMS JESUS CHRIST never attempted to dictate to Cesar, so must his professed representatives of this day never attempt to be dictators in politics.

ANY tyrant is willing that people should be free and happy in the way he himself prescribes.

THE despot lives by governing other people; the patriot lives by governing himself.

ONE nation cannot declare independence for another. Each nation must declare and maintain independence for itself.

[Inset.] SOME OF THE GLORIES(?) OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM. TO THE Filipino, it means the privilege of doing what a foreign military governor, with the advice of the papacy, tells him to do, and not only doing what he is told to do, but doing it as he is told to do it. It means to him the enjoyment(?) of what has been aptly termed "canned liberty,"–the liberty of a dominating power for a subject people–such liberty precisely as King George III. offered the American colonies. To the American workingman, on the other hand, it means heavy burdens to be borne, in the shape of bills for a great army and navy, for a larger pension list, for extensive fortifications in the new possessions, and for the cost of meddling in the political quarrels of the Eastern Hemisphere. These are some of the glories(?) of this policy, and others are set forth in this issue of the AMERICAN SENTINEL.

"Second-Class Americans" American Sentinel 14, 4 , p. 50.

THE use of this ominous expression has come to be warranted, prospectively at least, by conditions which exist to-day in the United States. Upon this point the eminent scholar and deep-thinker, Carl Schurz, than whom no man better understands American institutions, in an address before the convocation of the University of Chicago, said:–

"If we do adopt such a system [the system of subjected provinces], then we shall, for the first time since the abolition of slavery, again have two kinds of Americans–Americans of the first class, who enjoy the privilege of taking part in the Government in accordance with out old constitutional principles, and Americans of the second class, who are to be ruled in a substantially arbitrary fashion by the Americans of the first class, through congressional legislation and the action of the national executive–not to speak of individual 'masters' arrogating to themselves powers beyond the law.

"This will be a difference no better–nay, rather somewhat worse–than that which a century and a half ago still existed between Englishmen of the first and Englishmen of the second class, the first represented by King George and the British parliament, and the second by the American colonists. This difference called forth that great pean of human liberty, the American Declaration of Independence–a document which, I regret to say, seems, owing to the intoxication of conquest, to have lost much of its charm among some of our fellow-citizens."

When there are Americans of the second class in Porto Rico and the Philippines, it will not be long till there will be Americans and the second class in the United States, and that too among people of Anglo-Saxon blood.

When the distinction of first class and second class is allowed among Americans upon a basis of difference in race the like distinction will soon find a basis in differences of condition, as for instance, the difference between the man who has wealth, and the day laborer. There is too much distinction, socially and politically, made upon this basis already.

Are you willing to become an American of the second class? And if not, are you willing for all Americans to be of the first class, so far as concerns their individual freedom?

"The Reason Why" American Sentinel 14, 4 , pp. 50, 51.

WHY is the AMERICAN SENTINEL, and why are certain people in Congress and elsewhere, making so much . . . in defense of the old ideals of American government?

For answer we quote from the language used by two leading journals of this city, in support of the policy of "expansion." Let the readers note, and remember that this represents the general sentiment of the American press.

The New York Sun says this:–

"The Declaration of Independence was made to . . . a particular existing condition of things. . . . The proposition [that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed] was general, but the application was to a particular situation. Obviously Thomas Jefferson, the framer of the Declaration, did not intend to apply it to all people, for the social and political conditions would have made such an application absurd. The consent of the Indians as to their government had not been asked then, nor has it been asked at any time since then. The consent of the negro slaves was not asked. The consent of the people shut out from the franchise by a property qualification long existing subsequently was not asked.

"The Declaration meant simply that the colonies had become tired of the British domination, deeming it oppressive, and intended to set up a government of their own by the right of revolution. They were not laying down a principle for anybody except themselves, and they had no conception of the 'consent of the governed' as it is proclaimed by Mr. Bryan and the generally hypocritical gang who are sympathizing with him in the hope of cheating us out of our rightful conquests."

This is a flat assertion of class or race superiority between man and man in respect of their rights. Let this become established American doctrine, and "rights" will mean for Americans simply such privileges as one has the power to get and maintain. And with this the nation with one gigantic stride will go back to the institutions of despotism.

The same day that the above was said by the Sun, the New York Journal said:–

"What our anti-expansionists mean when they speak of liberty is something quite different [from liberty under the American flag]. They mean power. They mean that unless the Filipinos have unchecked authority to run their government as they please, even if they run it to smash they are not free."

Liberty without power! What kind of liberty is that? Who wants that kind of liberty? And is this the ideal of liberty which is to prevail in the United States?

The veriest despotism that ever was would have been willing to allow the people under it all the liberty that

51

could be had apart from power. Let it retain the power, and the people might have what else they would. And when the struggle for liberty came, it was a struggle for the possession of power. Now did any people ever count themselves free, until they possessed the power to exercise that freedom according to their own ideas of liberty.

Power is the very essence of liberty. When God gives a man liberty he gives him power; the very essence of his liberty is in the fact that he is "endued with power from on high." And people who have a form of godliness but "deny the power thereof," are set forth in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:5) as having no real godliness at all.

Liberty without power,–that is an ideal of liberty which will suit every despot well, not only in the islands of seas and for the Filipinos, but in the United States and for American citizens.

Every free people possess the power to run their government "to smash;" they must possess it to run their government at all. The American people possess it; and the plain evidence that they do is visible in the fact that they are running it–or letting it be run–to smash with almost lightning speed.

"Who Will Stand By the Declaration of Independence?" American Sentinel 14, 4 , pp. 51-53.

THE Tribune of this city, January 9, sets forth the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, as follows:–

"It is a favorite notion now to quote the words, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,' as if these embodied a law of application to all inhabitants alike. But of the men who signed the Declaration there were many who held slaves, and these slaves were governed without their consent. . . . It was never the intention to assert that the negroes or the savage race must give consent before just government should be established over them. . . .

"The Declaration of Independence was a formal notice that inhabitants of the colonies consented no longer to British rule. It declared their right to withdraw consent when government became subversive of their rights and openly appealed to the god of battles. The consent of the governed was then withdrawn in the colonies, and from that time it was held that Great Britain had no longer just right to govern here. That is precisely the meaning of the language."

That identical argument, in substance and almost in words, was made just forty years ago. And it was as popular then as it is now. This argument was then sanctioned even by the great authority of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Forty years ago also this argument was thoroughly answered. The answer was made by Abraham Lincoln, and is good for all time. It is well that the people can have Abraham Lincoln's answer to these denials of the Declaration that are made to-day. Read Tribune for Douglas, and here is Abraham Lincoln's answer to the Tribune's argument:–

"I think the authors of that noble instrument [the Declaration of Independence] intended to include all men; but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal–equal with 'certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant to declare simply the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to; constantly labored for; and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated; and thereby constantly spreading the deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.

"The assertion that 'all men are created equal,' was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, as thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to all those who, in after times, might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

"I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that 'all men are created equal.'

"Now let us hear Judge Douglas's view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is:–

"'No man can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they do declared all men to have been created equal–that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain–that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country.'

"My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it–see what a mere wreck–mangled ruin, it makes of our once glorious Declaration.

"'They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing

52

in Great Britain!' Why, according to this, not only negroes, but white people outside of Great Britain and America were not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure; but the French, Germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to plot along with the Judge's inferior races.

"I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition! According to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own in these United States.

"I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely 'was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.' Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now–mere rubbish–old wadding left to rot on the battlefield after the victory is won.

"I understand you are preparing to celebrate the 'Fourth" to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas's version. It will then run thus: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain.'

"And now I appeal to all–to Democrats as well as others–are you really willing that the Declaration shall thus be frittered away,–thus left no more at most than an interesting memorial of the dead past–thus shorn of its vitality and practical value, and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?

"These Fourth of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

"We are now a mighty nation; we are thirty, or about thirty [now (1899) about eighty] millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two [a hundred and twenty-three] years, and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men; we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other connected with this rise of prosperity.

"We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men; they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in the process of time, of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we are from these meetings in better humor with ourselves; we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age and race and country in which we live, for these celebrations.

"But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have–besides these men descended by blood from our ancestors–among us, perhaps half our people, who are not descendants at all of these men; they are men who have come form Europe,–German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian,–men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are a part of us; but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;' and then they feel that that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them and that they have the right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause]: and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty loving men together; that ill link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

"Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea . . . that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England! According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now, I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government in a government of some other form?

"Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow,–What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for the enslaving of the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of Kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the judge is the same old serpent that says, You work, and I eat; you toil, and I will enjoy the fruit of it.

"Turn it in whatever way you will, whether it comes

53

from the mouth of a king as an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent; and I hold, if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if, taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it, and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out! [Cries of 'No, no.'] Let us stick to it, then; let us stand firmly by it, then.

"It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us; and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man, he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this Government. We had slaves among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more; but having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle, that is, the charter of our liberties. Let that charter stand as our standard.

"My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote scripture. I will try it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions of our Lord, 'As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.' The Saviour, I suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the Father in heaven; but he said, 'As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.' He set that up as a standard; and he who did most toward reaching that standard, attained the highest degree of moral perfection. So I say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature. Let us then turn this Government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.

"I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes. Let us have it decided whether the Declaration of Independence, in this blessed year of 1858 [and 1899] shall be thus amended.

"In his construction of the Declaration last year, he said it only meant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in England. Then, when I pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other people who have come among us since the Revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his last speech he tells it meant Europeans. I press him a little further, and ask him if it meant to include Russians in Asia; or does he mean to exclude that vast population from the principles of our Declaration of Independence? . . . Who shall say, I am the superior, and you are the inferior?" A. T. J.

"The Great Advocate of 'Expansion'" American Sentinel 14, 4 , pp. 53, 54.

WHY is this Government in favor–as it undoubtedly is–of "expansion"?

What serious argument can be offered in its support? What argument is offered, beyond the "spread-eagle" one which boasts of the nation prowess and asserts the "rights of conquest"?

Every principle of justice and sound policy, on the other hand, is against it. It repudiates the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Its most ardent friends admit this by putting forth in its defense the amazing assertion that the Declaration of Independence does not assert the right of the government by the consent of the governed for all people, but only for a certain class of people–the class in power.

As regards mere business policy, it is wholly uncalled for. There is no territory to be settled and added to the Union; the Philippines and Porto Rico are already settled, and the climate shuts out the white man from any permanent occupancy. Nor is there any advantage to be reaped in trade; the Philippines are thousands of miles nearer to British shores than they are to the United States. And if there were anything to be gained in trade, it could be gained as well without military conquest, as with it.

Americans will bear all the expense of maintaining the government, and other countries will get all the trade.

A large army of men from American homes will need to be stationed in the Philippines to preserve order and hold the islands against other powers–and to sicken and die under the unhealthy climate; and a large navy will also be required for their defense; besides which, an immense sum will need to be expended in the erection of fortifications. And the money to meet the expense of all this must come out of American pockets.

How then can it be, in the face of all this, that this Government can for a moment seriously think of taking and holding the Philippines?

Let us seek for light on the point by asking who they are that favor the annexation policy.

Are they those who have the interests of republican government at heart?

Aside from the class whose judgment is dazzled by the new vision of world-wide empire, there are some who favor the policy as a means of associating America with Great Britain in military enterprise in eastern Asia. This, as Lord Salisbury remarked, would conduce materially to the advantage of Great Britain, but not to the maintenance of peace. The alliance would be one of great cost for America. To the profit of England.

But there is another power in this country in favor of American expansion, and which is working for that policy most diligently–Rome!

First, last, and always since the Philippines, Cuba,

54

and Porto Rico were wrested from the control of "most Catholic Spain," the papacy has been in favor of American expansion over all this territory. And in the person of Archbishop Ireland, the papacy has had opportunity to work in very close touch with the Administration.

Archbishop Ireland, Martinelli, the papal ablegate, teacher in the Catholic University at Washington, and influential members of the church, in touch with senators and representatives, are all ardent advocates of the scheme, even to the extent of working openly for the annexation of Cuba, in the face of the express promise of the Government made before all the world, to secure Cuban independence. And Cardinal Gibbons has moved to Washington for the winter, that he may the better employ all his resources in bending the Administration to this policy.

And why does Rome want annexation of this territory to the United States? Oh, she has great interests in these islands, in the shape of property taken from the natives and rightful owners by every species of robbery practiced under Spanish dominion; and she wants all this property secured to her under the new order of things. A very substantial reason in her view for favoring "expansion," truly!

Rome has robbed the people, and by this and other acts of oppression has aroused their enmity and even their hatred. In the Philippines, especially, the religious orders are held in the deepest detestation. Aguinaldo, it is reported, has released all the Spanish prisoners held there, except the friars. If the government of the islands is left to the people that inhabit them, Rome will be obliged to surrender the enormous holdings of land and other property made over to her under Spanish Authority, and which rightfully belong to the people. And she wants the American Government to interpose its power and authority to prevent it.

Rome knows that this expansion scheme is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution, to every principle of free government, and to everything that the nation has done in behalf of downtrodden races. She knows there is no advantage in it for the American people, but only great expense and unending trouble. She knows, in short, that it is a ruinous policy for this country. Yet she asks the nation to adopt this suicidal course, in order to uphold for her, her most unjust claims in the islands lost by Spain!

This is Rome; and this is the scheme she is working to-day against the United States.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 4 , p. 64.

THE plea that a people cannot govern themselves is the tyrant's justification of his usurpation of power. Christianity affirms the right and the duty of every man to govern himself; and to say that a people cannot govern themselves is therefore to deny the truth of Christianity. A people who have had little contact with civilization may not be able to govern themselves in the complex fashion of "highly civilized" nations, but their government will be no less self-government because it must needs be simple. Very much that pertains to "advanced" civilization might be dispensed with vastly to the profit of the losers. Even the beasts and birds of the forest have the capacity to govern themselves according to their natures, and are a good deal happier and better of in doing so than when under the control of man.

SCARCELY a day passes without the announcement of the consolidation of business enterprises in a certain line of industry, into a "trust;" the object in every case being, of course, to control the output of the goods, and through that to dictate the price to the people. All restrict the sphere of individual enterprise, and by this interfere with individual independence. All are essentially bad; but the worst one of all is the religious trust, which aims to freeze out and stamp out by legislation every religion except its own.

WE have failed as a nation to live up to the high ideal of government set forth in the Declaration of Independence, as shown by various practices, institutions, laws, and court decisions contrary to this ideal, which mark the nation's history from 1776 to 1899. Therefore let us throw that ideal aside altogether and set up a different one with which these failings can be harmonized(!) This is the sum and substance of one of the main argumnents put forth in favor of imperialism.

February 2, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 5 , p. 65.

THE "Sabbath of the Lord" has nothing to gain by being Americanized.

THE result of "moral reform" by force is always reform backwards.

TRUTH depends upon its power to convict people; error always wants to employ force.

POLITICAL "pull" for the church is a pull that opens her doors to political hypocrites and knaves.

THERE are some in the pulpits who seem to image that a diploma from a theological seminary is a certificate of their ability to manage both the spiritual and the temporal affairs of their fellows.

THE man who has a price for his conscience has no conscience that is worth buying.

MORAL reform by law means letting go of the consciences of men to grasp for their ballots.

THE self-made man is a vast improvement on the government-made man. Legislation cannot give a man backbone.

A PROFESSION of righteousness is not moral reform, but it is all that can be secured for an individual or a nation by law.

THE man who cannot find the gospel in the Declaration of Independence has not yet found it as it is in the Word of God.

[Inset.] CIVIL GOVERNMENT AMS IT WOULD BE UNDER THE "REFORM BUREA," AT WAMSHINGTON. A "REFORM BUREAU" has been set up at the seat of the national Government, for the purpose of introducing moral issues into national legislation, and instructing members of Congress how they must vote on the same. The central idea of this institution is that the clergy are pre-eminently qualified for statesmanship,–the same idea with which the papacy started in the early centuries. While they seek now to persuade, they would dictate if they had the power. Through the large religious organizations with which these clerical "reformers" are in touch, they would control the popular vote, and so shut out from Congress every person who could not show a certification of moral character issued by them; in other words, every person who would not declare his readiness to vote for religious legislation,–which, of course, would not debar any knave who was not above being a hypocrite. It is time now if ever in the history of this nation, to bear in mind the warning words of Hon. Richard M. Johnson, in the U. S. Senate Report on Sunday Mails: "All religious despotism commences by combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequences."

"More Sunday Arrests in Tennessee" American Sentinel 14, 5 , p. 66.

RELIGIOUS freedom is again denied in that section of this "land of the free" constituting the State of Tennessee. At the town of Sanford, McMinn County, four persons–two men and their wives–are under arrest on the charge of "violating the Sabbath." A letter from one of them, Mr. G. M. Powell, gives the following particulars.

Mr. Powell and his wife, both observers of the seventh-day Sabbath, went to that section of Tennessee about five months ago to work as self supporting missionaries. They secured a piece of land, on which they started a private school,–an enterprise which was appreciated by the people, as was shown by the enrollment of between twenty and thirty pupils. But there were some in the neighborhood who were opposed to Mr. Powell's religion, and whose moral status was such as to cause them to manifest their opposition to religion by becoming enemies of the man who held it, and of all others of like religious views; thus presenting a contrast to Christianity, which manifests only love for all men, no matter what their religious views may be.

Mr. Powell writes that two warrants were sworn out against them for two different charges of the same nature. "Brother and Sister Bristol, who recently began the observance of the Sabbath, were also arrested, but we were permitted to go on each other's bond, which was $250 in each case." The trials will be held at the April term of court.

The prospect is, of course, that the school will be broken up; but this will not matter to the advocates of Sunday enforcement. The thing of importance with them is to vindicate the "American Sabbath." Better is it in their view that there should be no educational enterprise in their midst, than that any person should be permitted to conscientiously disregard the claims of this traditional institution.

The Sunday law is the ever-ready instrument of religious intolerance. The whole history of Sunday legislation only reveals it in this light.

The charge brought by the civil authorities against these defendants is that of "violating the Sabbath." How do the civil authorities in this part of Tennessee, or in any part of the country, know what the Sabbath is, and what is a violation of it? How does any man know these things? The Bible alone gives an answer to these questions. And the truths of the Bible are understood not alone by reading what the Bible says, but by the agency of the divine Teacher, the "Spirit of truth."

What then have the civil authorities in any place to do with the settling of religious questions? And when the civil power assumes to settle the purely religious questions involved in an assumed "violation of the Sabbath," what less can be represented in it than a union of church and state? Whether it be done by a state, or a country, or only a town, or by the whole United States, the principle is the same, and is precisely that which is embodied in and gives character to the papacy.

"Some Mormon Queries" American Sentinel 14, 5 , pp. 66, 67.

THE opposition which has become manifest to the seating of Congressmen-elect Roberts, of Utah, leads the Deseret News, of Salt Lake City, to propound a few questions touching the general principles of the issue involved and the facts to which they are applicable in this country. They are questions which cannot be too often sounded in American ears, and lose none of their force or logic by coming from the official organ of Mormondom.

The News says:–

"If a 'Mormon' elder uses the right of franchise and the right of free speech, in support of a public measure or a nominee for public office, the cry is raised at once that the 'Mormon Church is dominant in politics,' and that 'the church regulates the state in Utah.' But when ministers and dignitaries of any number of denominational churches unite for the purpose of overawing United States senator's and representatives and of dictating the course of Congress, no objection is offered by the anti Mormon agitators.

"Why? Have the various sectarian preachers a monopoly of the 'church-and-state' business? Is it life and salvation for a Presbyterian or Methodist bishop to instruct Congress as to its duties, and death and condemnation for a 'Mormon' elder to advocate the cause of a candidate for election to that body? Is it proper for 'Christian' conclaves to instruct legislators what to do, and improper for 'Mormon' ministers to exercise the privilege of citizenship? If so, why?"

The answer to this "why" can never be given by any representative of a denomination which meddles in politics. In principle, every such religious body stands on a par with the Mormons whom it denounces. Religion in politics is the same in principle everywhere.

The News attempts to justify Mormon connection with politics on the ground of the "rights of an American citizen." It says:–

"The statements that are being made by preachers in the East and published in some of the wild cat papers,

67

that the 'Mormon' Church is endeavoring to regulate political affairs in this State, are entirely without foundation in fact. Nor is it true that the leaders of the church have taken a prominent part in recent politics. If any prominent 'Mormon' has said or done anything in this direction he has simply exercised his rights as an American citizen, and voted for and supported men whom he thinks best suited for the positions to be filled. And that right has been used as much in favor of Gentiles as of Mormon candidates for public office. What is there wrong in that? And why does anybody with common sense raise any objection?"

It is in this same way that other churches justify their connection with politics, and the justification is just as good for the Mormon Church as for any other. But other churches can see that it does not hold good for the Mormons; the "rights of an American citizen" do not shut the Mormon Church out of politics, nor prevent the Mormon majority in Utah from getting the political control of the State. Yet these other churches cannot see that their own activity in politics must lead just as surely to a union of religion with the civil power, and that on a wider scale than is possible in a single State.

They do not, or at least profess not, to see this; but it is nevertheless true, and a truth than which there is none more important demanding the attention of the American people.

February 9, 1899

"Notes" American Sentinel 14, 6 , p. 81.

NO INDIVIDUAL ever attained to true greatness by launching out upon a wave of popularity.

THE man of principle seeks to create public sentiment; the man of policy only wants to find it.

WHEN religion is made a football, it must naturally follow that multitudes will often find it beyond their reach.

RELIGION never gained anything from the approval of human majorities.

A GOVERNMENT cannot longer be called republican when it begins to reap where it has not strewed.

THE person who forsakes right principles to gain popularity or wealth, lets go of eternity to grasp at the fleeing shadow of Time.

[Inset.] RELIGION IN POLITICS–"THE FOOTBALL OF CONTENDING MAJORITIES." A GREAT demand is being made to-day for religion in politics. But if religion is joined with politics, what will be the result? It must necessarily follow that religious questions will then be settled as political questions are–by the decision of the majority. And as majorities are constantly changing with the changes in public sentiment, and the power which they confer constantly alternating between one and the other of the contending political parties, religion will necessarily be subject to change with every political election, and will become as has been aptly stated, "the football of contending majorities." No true friend of Christianity would wish to see it subjected to such conditions, or to see erected constantly varying standards of religious duty. The true standard of Christian duty is above all standards of human origin, and is unchanging through all ages.

"The Reflex of Imperialism" American Sentinel 14, 6 , p. 82.

JANUARY 6, 1899, Hon. Wm. J. Bryan, in a speech at Cincinnati, O., said:–

"If we enter upon a colonial policy, we must expect to hear the command 'Silence!' issuing with increasing emphasis from the imperialists. When the discussion of fundamental principles is attempted in the United States, if a member of Congress attempts to criticise any injustice perpetrated by a government official against a helpless people, he will be warned to keep silent, lest his criticism encourage resistance to American authority in the Orient."

January 25, 1899, Representative Johnson, of Indiana, made a speech in Congress against American imperialism in the Philippines. In replying to this speech Representative Dolliver, of Iowa, "amid another outburst of applause, declared that the crisis of the hour was due to 'the almost treasonable utterances in this chamber and in the Senate chamber.' There was some excuse for the rioters at Madrid, but none for those who at home joined in reviling their country and denouncing the Peace Commissioners for what they had done." He declared that "their arguments were drawn from General Blanco himself."

The above words of Mr. Bryan have come true, much quicker than even he supposed. But there is no doubt that they have come true, and that in only three weeks. And this being so, the following also from the same speech may be expected to come true in due time and order:–

"If an orator on the Fourth of July dares to speak of inalienable rights, or refers with commendation to the manner in which our forefathers resisted taxation without representation, he will be warned to keep silent, lest his utterances excite rebellion among distant subjects. If we adopt a colonial policy, and pursue the course which excited the Revolution of 1776, we must muffle the tones of the old Liberty Bell, and commune in whispers when we praise the patriotism of our forefathers."

And if they do these things in a green tree, what will they do in the dry? Yet for all this, Mr. Bryan well says:–

"we cannot afford to destroy the Declaration of Independence; we cannot afford to erase from our constitutions, State and national, the Bill of Rights, we have not time to examine the libraries of the nation, and purge them of the essays, the speeches, and the books that defend the doctrine that law is the crystallization of public opinion, rather than an emanation from physical power

"But even if we could destroy every vestige of the laws which are the outgrowth of the immortal law penned by Jefferson; if we could obliterate every written word that has been inspired by the idea that this is a 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people,' we could not tear from the heart of the human race the hope which the American Republic has planted there. The impassioned appeal, 'Give me liberty, or give me death,' still echoes around the world. In the future, as in the past, the desire to be free will be stronger than the desire to enjoy a mere physical existence." A. T. J.

February 16, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 7 , p. 97.

AN ounce of principle outweighs a pound of policy.

IN the shadow of despotism, the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are discerned but dimply.

IF we have left the Constitution behind us, it is because we have turned our backs upon it.

THE pinnacle of greatness is dangerous standing ground for either an individual or a nation.

[Inset.] THE NEW TEMPTATION ON THE MOUNT–"Behold, all this will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."

THE United States stands upon a lofty summit of national greatness, and from this vantage ground the tempter presents all the glories of imperialism, which he will give simply in return for homage to himself. What matters it if the nation does overstep a few theories and principles set up in the government a hundred years ago, when world-wide empire is to be gained or lost? This is the thought in the mind of Columbia, and she hesitates. What will be the decision? Will she say to the tempter, "Get thee behind me"? or will she put behind her the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and bow to the dictates of Despotism?

"Note" American Sentinel 14, 7 , p. 98.

THE first battle has been fought, and the first blood shed, by the United States Government, in pursuance of a policy of foreign conquest.

Sixty American soldiers, and several thousands of Filipinos, have met death in armed conflict at Manila. This is the first fruits of imperialism, but not by any means the last that it will bear.

Upon whom rests the responsibility for this terrible affair? Does it rest upon that party in the Government which favored the recognition of the right of the Filipinos to govern themselves? or upon that party which refused to give to them any assurance that the purpose of the American forces in the Philippines was friendly to such a government as the natives desired?

Does the blame for this bloodshed rest with the party which counseled a peaceful attitude toward the Filipinos? or with that party which refused to modify an attitude of unmistakable hostility? Does a peaceful attitude provoke strife? or is strife provoked by menace?

There is no principle with which the Government's action can be harmonized except such as has always been offered in justification of foreign conquest. It is genuine imperialism; and the pretense that it is anything else is so thin and illogical that we may expect such pretense to be shortly laid aside altogether.

"Human Rights" American Sentinel 14, 7 , pp. 98, 99.

MEN are human. Human rights are those which belong to men simply because they are men.

Rights, in this connection, signifies that which belongs personally to you and me; and which can never justly be taken away. We cannot resign them, they cannot be justly exercised by any other person or combination of persons anywhere. There is no exception to this; for when we speak of rights it must be unqualifiedly and without exception. To speak of rights with an exception, is to deny in fact the thing which we profess and which we claim in behalf of rights.

Human beings possess rights by direct endowment of the Creator. Whoever disregards the rights of men, shows disrespect to the Creator. Whoever encroaches

100

upon the rights of men ignores the prerogative of God. Therefore, of all people in the world, those who stand before the world as Christians should be the most respectful of the rights of men, and the most vigilant and tenacious in regarding those rights.

The Bible is given to instruct men how to be Christians. The Bible is addressed to all men for the sole purpose of causing them to become Christians: and meets its purpose only in those who do become Christians. Practically, therefore, the Bible is addressed only to Christians: and the shining in these of the light which they have so received makes them the light of the world.

Sacred regard for human rights is a Christian virtue. And for people who stand before the world as Christians, to disregard human rights is doubly wrong: in that it is wrong in itself, and turns the light into darkness, causing others to stumble on in darkness instead of showing, as they are set to show, the better way.

The fourteenth chapter of Romans briefly covers the whole ground of instruction to all men, and especially to Christians, as to true respect for human rights. This fourteenth chapter belongs really to the thirteenth; for it is a direct continuation of the subject introduced in the beginning of the thirteenth chapter. There is much truth lost many times by holding strictly to the chapter divisions. If it were borne in mind that often the chapter divisions are just where they ought not to be, much would be gained in Bible study.

The thirteenth and fourteenth chapter of Romans deal with exactly the same subject,–the relationship of individuals as Christians to all men both as individuals and as organized in governments–as individuals and as "the powers that be,"–powers that are beyond the individual.

The first verse of the thirteenth chapter says, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive unto themselves damnation."

Next we are told what we are to render to the powers that be,–"Tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Then the law of God is quoted, showing wherein "the powers that be" have no jurisdiction at all.

While the powers that be may have jurisdiction of things which concern man's relation to his fellowman, by which "the powers" would protect one from the encroachment of another, these powers have no jurisdiction whatever in those things which belong between men and God. The thirteenth chapter sets forth those things which belong to the powers that be, and all the commandments which are referred to are those which touch only the relation to men with men; and not at all the relation of men to God. Love is the fulfilling of the law. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

99

The fourteenth chapter goes right on with the same subject–"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations," etc. We are not to judge anybody when they do not do as we do; nor when they do not do as we think they ought to do; nor when they do not do even as God says they ought to do.

We are not to judge anybody at all; because every one of us shall give an account of himself to God. "Who art thou that judgeth another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up; for God is able to make him stand." Jesus said, "Call no man master, for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." (Matt. 23:8) James also speaks of this: "Be not many masters, knowing that ye shall receive the greater condemnation." (James 3:1). Many masters receive greater condemnation: then what would few masters receive?–Less condemnation. Then what would no master at all receive?–No condemnation. The more masters the more condemnation: then only condemnation goes with mastership at all.

Whoever assumes mastership of anybody's conduct, wishes, faith, rights, or his standing before God, comes under the condemnation of Him who is the master of all individuals alike. As the Lord Jesus has bought at an infinite price every soul in the world, he alone is master of each soul in the world. Each one is responsible to him; and to him alone that person stands or falls. Each one is forbidden to judge any other man, because we shall each one stand before the Judgment seat of Christ to give an account of himself, not of somebody else. I must give an account of myself to God; not of you.
A. T. J.

"What It Means to America" American Sentinel 14, 7 , p. 99.

FROM the recent press dispatches from Manila, we know what the imperial policy of the American Government means to the inhabitants of the Philippines. It will be well to inquire what it means also, if anything, to inhabitants of the United States.

It may be commonly supposed that the policy carried out in far-off lands means nothing to the people at home, and that the latter need not therefore concern themselves particularly about it. No view of the subject could be more short-sighted.

Imperialism as an adopted policy of the American Government, means new definitions of the words "patriotism," "treason," "pulic enemy," etc., for the American people.

This is not merely true in theory; it is already evident in existing facts. Not the following language of a New York City daily, which voices the sentiment of the imperialists in this matter:–

"Certain members of the United States Senate misunderstand their position in, mistake their relation to, the country. They are not merely part of a defeated minority, as they might have been on any measure of entirely domestic concern. They are accomplices in a crushed conspiracy. It is quite within the merits of the case and the proprieties of speech to call them revolutionists who have failed, and therefore, rebels. But, whether we exercise that privilege or not, the fact remains that they have been banded with the armed and savage foes of their country against their country. In some respects they differ not at all from the white men whom Jackson found and hanged in the camp of Florida Indians. In others they approach the status of the members of the Hartford Convention, and in others that of the Secessionist members of Buchanan's Cabinet, the most notorious of whom shipped arms to southern arsenals on the eve of rebellion. Their continuance of support to the 'government' of the dictator Aguinaldo after its followers had opened fire on the American outposts at Manila, in pursuance of a published and widely-circulated declaration of war against this country, undoubtedly constitutes them traitors in law and traitors of a sort for whom no sentimental sympathizers would go bail."

These "certain members of the United States Senate" were those members who adhered to the principle of government by the consent of the governed, as maintained in the Declaration of Independence, and vindicated by the terrible ordeal of the Civil War. For their adherence to this principle, than which until less than a year ago no principle was considered more plainly or firmly established in American Government, these men, and members of the Senate at that, are denounced as rebels and traitors, who ought to be arrested and held without bail. This sentiment is mere sentiment as yet, but in the natural order of things it will come to be clothed with the authority and power of law.

This is what imperialism means to the opposing minority in Congress, and what it means to the like minority among every class of American citizens.

"Noted" American Sentinel 14, 7 , p. 106.

THE United States Government is having trouble with the Filipinos. The latter want their freedom, and evidently distrust their ability to secure this under American rule.

Why is this? There is one feature of the situation which is sufficient to account largely for the friction that exists, if indeed it is not the foundation of the whole difficulty. That is the respective attitudes of the Filipinos and the American Government towards the papal institutions in the islands.

Archbishop Ireland says the Philippine leader is jealous of the authority of the priests. That may well be said of the whole Philippine people. They do not need to be told that they cannot have self-government while the authority of the priests remains.

The Filipinos want to be rid of the priests; but upon this point they have good reason to distrust the intentions of the United States. For in the expedition that was sent to the islands under General Merritt, to free the people from the yoke of Spain, was a Roman Catholic priest–the representative of that very despotism from which they most desire to be free. Is it any wonder that the Filipinos should distrust the freedom promised by a Government which sends to them such an emissary, and show a determination to resist its authorship by force of arms?

There is good reason to believe that this question of freedom from the yoke of the papacy is at the bottom of the whole trouble.

February 23, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 8 , p. 113.

THE fragrance of Christianity is not disseminated by force.

WHEN Christianity is put into human law, all the love in it is left out.

FIRST be master of yourself; then you will not want to be master of anybody else.

EVERY man has the ability to govern himself, and no man has the ability to govern more than himself.

THERE is nothing about the true religion which would suggest a "blue law" even to an atheist.

THE true ambassador for God will seek to win men by the grace of God, not to command men by law.

SO LONG as God tolerates the devil, it will not look well for people taking the name of Christ to be intolerant of their brethren.

IF Christians will pay enough attention to the example of Christ, they will have no time or inclination to force others to pay attention to them.

IN the temple of liberty, the rights of the weak are represented at the top, not at the bottom.

THE more politics in the church, the more hypocrisy in legislation.

A NATION, like an individual, might often profit by having the grace to acknowledge itself in the wrong.

[Inset.] A TYPE OF STATESMAN DEVELOPED BY THE DEMAND FOR RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION. THE cry is made by the great religio-political organizations, that the country must have "Christian statesmen." These great bodies aim, through their political power, to exclude from Congress and the legislatures men who do not conform to their ideas of Christianity. But when they pledge their power to the candidate who will vote for religious measures, many men will join hands with them with whom Christianity is a policy rather than a principle of the heart; and the legislative assemblies will be more than ever filled with men working for their own interests rather than the interests of the people.

"Lexington, 1775; and Manila, 1899" American Sentinel 14, 8 , pp. 114, 115.

THE United States Government now stands definitely committed to a policy of foreign conquest. As the shot which rang out at Lexington in 1775–that shot which was heard around the world–committed the American colonies to a struggle with Great Britain for national independence, so the battle at Manila has committed the nation to the new and untried experiment of imperialism.

The short fired at Lexington was aimed at imperialism in government, as represented by Great Britain. The shot fired at Manila reverses what was accomplished at Lexington, and unites America from Great Britain; the shot fired at Manila joins America again with the British government. In the former union with Great Britain there was involved a tax which the American people were unwilling to pay; in this new union with Great Britain there is likewise involved a tax upon the American people, which they will be most unwilling to pay, but which they cannot repudiate.

The short fired at Manila has been heard around the world, and has been noted with the deepest interest by every nation of Europe. And would that the American people themselves appreciated its significance as fully as do those nations.

The relation into which the United States has now brought itself with Great Britain may be understood from considering some facts to which allusion has recently been made by the press and by representative men both in this country and Great Britain.

The English premier, Lord Salisbury, at the banquet of the Lord Mayor of London, said that the appearance of the United States as a factor in Asiatic politics was likely to conduce to the interests of Great Britain, though it might not conduce to the interests of peace.

The London Saturday Review was more outspoken, and said this:–

"The American commissioners in Paris are making their bargain–whether they realize it or not–under the protecting naval strength of England. And we shall expect, to be quite frank, a material quid pro quo for this assistance. We shall expect the States to deal generously with Canada in the matter of tariffs; we shall expect to be remembered when she comes into her kingdom in the Philippines; above all, we shall expect her future of China shall come up for settlement. [Italics ours.] For the young imperialist has entered upon a path where she will require a stout friend; and lasting friendship between nations is to be secured, not by the frothy sentimentality of public platforms, but by reciprocal advantages in their solid material interests."

Not long ago, Senator Foraker, speaking for the ratification of the treaty with Spain, said that the Government was not proceeding "with the idea and view of permanently holding them [the Philippines] and denying to the people there the right to have a government of their own;" but that the possession contemplated was but temporary. Of the effect of this language in Great Britain, the associated press dispatches said:–

"When the American correspondents succeeded in impressing upon the British minds that Senator Foraker, in his recent speech in the United States Senate, spoke only for himself when he suggested that the United States might eventually withdraw from the Philippine Islands, a distinct sigh of relief might have been read between the lines of the British newspapers.

"Everyone here assumed that because the senator was from the President's State he was speaking for the President, and the declaration made not only succeeded in giving British public officialdom an unpleasant shock, but it fell like a dash of cold water on the ardor of the British for an Anglo-American understanding. They began to question what was the profit of this friendship if America did not propose to back up Great Britain's policy in the far East by retaining the most important base of operations in the event of war over China."

If this Government, then, retains the Philippines, it will be as the ally of the Great Britain in a struggle for dominion in the Orient. That is how Great Britain views it, and that is the view made necessary by the logic of circumstances. The naval power of Great Britain has already been of material service to the United States in the islands, and no one can tell how soon or how seriously its assistance may be needed again. And Great Britain, on the other hand, will expect and demand a "material quid pro quo" for her services, which will be nothing less than to "back up Great Britain's policy in the far East."

This is what must be if America remains in the Philippines. And what has occurred at Manila renders it all but certain that America will remain. That greatest of barriers has been erected in the way of retreat–national pride. Spain retained her pride and lost her colonies; she clung to her "honor" in the face of the certainty that such loss would be the result. And in all nations, the dictates of national pride are the most imperative, the hardest to set aside.

But what will be the cost of adhering to the sentiment that what has been taken in war must be retained,

115

and that where the flag has been raised it must never be hauled down? What will be the cost of this new union with Great Britain, in which the United States "backs up" British policy in China? A war for dominion in the far East, in which Great Britain measures her strength against the powers of continental Europe, will be a struggle from participation in which the United States may well wish to be excused. As Senator Bacon said, "If that war comes it will not be confined to the Orient. If that war comes it will involve every leading nation of the world. If that war comes, not only will our young men lay their bones upon the distant soil of Asia, but our own country will have to stand its defense. When that war comes, there is not a seacoast city but what will be in danger of destruction from the allied navies of the world."

And for all this a tax must be put upon the American people–a heavy tax–far heavier than that which brought about the separation from Great Britain. But unlike that tax, it will be self imposed, and one that cannot be repudiated. If the American people are not willing to pay that tax, they must repudiate it now.

"Human Rights" American Sentinel 14, 8 , pp. 115, 116.

THE principle that each person shall mind his own business (1 Thess. 4:11), and let other people's business alone (1 Peter 5:15); in other words, that each person shall give account of himself to God, and shall leave every other person absolutely free to give account of himself to God and to nobody else; is not only specifically stated in the Bible, but is emphasized by many illustrations.

When Jesus was talking to his disciples just before he ascended to heaven, he asked Peter, three times, the question, "Lovest thou me?" Peter responded that he did, and Christ replied, "Feed my lambs; Feed my sheep." And then as they were walking along,–Jesus, Peter, and John,–Peter turned to Christ and said, "What shall this man do?" Jesus replied, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me."

The Scripture says that Peter turned and saw the other disciple following Jesus. That was what John was doing,–following Jesus. Peter too at first was following Jesus; but when he turned to see John, what then was he doing? If he was following him at all he must have been following him backwards. But backwards is not way to follow Jesus. Men must follow him with the face to him and the eyes upon him. The only way for Peter to have followed the Lord was to keep on the way he was going. But he was so concerned with the other disciple's welfare as to whether he was following the Lord just right or not, that he himself must turn from following the Lord to behold the other who was following the Lord, and to inquire, Well, Lord, I am to do so and so; but what about this man? Jesus simply said in other words, That is none of your business. What that man does is nothing whatever to you. Follow thou me.

This illustrates the principle which the Lord Jesus established for the guidance of his disciples, and which he has drawn out in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Romans.

Therefore it is written, "Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way." That is the point we are to watch. I am to watch myself that I do not put in your way an occasion for you to fall; and the only way I can do that is by keeping my eyes upon Jesus, and him only.

Yet at this many will query, "Why, are we not our brother's keeper?" Yes. And it must not be forgotten that the man who first asked the question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" was brought to the point where he asked that question by his disregard of the very principle which we are studying. If Cain had regarded the principle which is here before us, of following the Lord for himself, and letting Abel follow the Lord for himself, rendering allegiance to his own Master in everything which he did, he would never have been brought to the place where he said, "Am I my brother's keeper?" for the question would never have been asked him–"Where is thy brother?"

It was only when Cain had failed to follow the Lord that he turned his attention to his brother; and because his brother's ways did not please him, he began to sit in judgment upon him and to find fault with him. And at last Cain decided that his brother's ways were so seriously wrong that he was not fit to be on the earth; and therefore the only reasonable and legitimate thing for him to do was to put Abel out of the way; and so he killed him. Why was not Abel fit to live? O, because his ways did not please Cain, who set himself up to judge and correct Abel, and say what he should do, and how he should do it.

This incident is placed at the very beginning of the Bible (Gen. 4:8, 9), and is repeated to the end of the Bible (1 John 3:12; Jude 11), as a warning to all people to regard the living principle that we are to honor God ourselves, and follow him ourselves, and let other people do the same.

There is a secret in this which people do not realize. When an individual is following the Lord, and him only,–with his eyes upon the Lord, his whole heart devoted to the Lord–an influence goes forth from him that is ten thousand times more helpful to the man who is the farthest away from God, than can possibly be all the superintending that man can do when he takes his eyes away from Christ. People forget that it takes the power of God to convince a man of truth; and because a man does not go in the way which they think the Lord would have him go, or because he does not go steadily enough to please them, or does not shape his ways satisfactorily

116

to them, they grow impatient, and put forth their hands to undertake to steady the ark. And there the mischief comes in.

There is no power but of God. "God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this, that power belongeth unto God." Ps. 62:11. We pray every day "Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory." Fellow Christians, Christians must depend on God's power alone to influence people to do right.

Listen! "Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savor of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish." 2 Cor. 2:14, 15. The power is the Lord's, so also the influence is his. The fragrance which goes forth from you and me must be the same that Christ carried, or we cannot influence anybody for good. Of all things this must be so, of those who profess to know Christ, who are "set on an hill" and therefore "cannot be hid." The Lord not only tells us not to judge other people, not to set them at naught because they do not follow exactly as we say, or observe exactly as we observe; but he tells us the secret of why we should not do so,–it is because all power and influence is his.

It is influence which draws. God himself,–we say it with all reverence–cannot drive people to himself. Jesus said, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." It is only by having an influence which draws that we can do any soul any good; and the only influence that can draw is that of Christ.

There is another notable instance in illustration of this great principle. Everything that is recorded in the life of Jesus, is a living lesson to us.

The Pharisees were always trying to entrap him in every way they could. At one time they found a woman who was taken in the very act of adultery, and they brought her to the Lord, thinking they had a fatal trap ready this time. After explaining the circumstances of the case, they said, "Now Moses said that all such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" They did not care how Christ answered that question. If he said, Go ahead; that is the right thing to do; stone her; they would have gone straight to the Roman authorities and said: "This man sets himself up to be the king of the Jews, and is usurping Roman authority." If he had said, You cannot stone such any more; that comes to an end now; Moses is to be set aside; they would have spread it everywhere that he would not observe the teachings of Moses, and was therefore an impostor. They intended to accuse him whichever way he might answer. But he disappointed them. He answered their question in the way of Christ; not in the way of the Pharisees, nor in the way of the Romans. He said, "Let him that is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her," and stooped down and wrote on the ground. When he rose up, about half of the people were gone. Saying nothing he stooped down again and wrote with his finger on the ground, and when he rose up again all were gone but the woman and himself.

Now he had said to them before he began to write on the ground, "Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone." But none of them threw any stones. Why? he opened the way freely. Ah! none of them could, because none of them was without sin. The only thing they could do to escape the condemnation of their own consciences was to go away. So there was none left but himself and the woman, and he was without sin, and HE DID NOT STONE HER. Yet he said, "Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone" at her. None of them could because they were not without sin; and he was without sin, but didn't. And this teaches the great Christian truth that he who is not without sin cannot throw stones; and he who is without sin WILL NOT throw stones. And all this teaches the mighty Christian truth, that with Christians there is NEVER any throwing of stones.

Then Christ turned to the woman, and said, "Woman, hath no man condemned thee?" She said, "No man, Lord." Did he reply, "Well, I do. You must get out of here. It is not fit that I should be seen in the company of such persons as you are. Go away; you will bring reproach on the cause?"–No; thank the Lord! This is what he said: "Woman, hath no man condemned thee?" "No man, Lord." "Neither do I condemn thee. Go, and sin no more." Those who have sinned cannot condemn others who have; and those who have NOT sinned, WILL not condemn those who have.

That one sentence of Jesus, "Neither do I condemn thee. GO, and sin no more," had more influence and power to hold back from sin that poor sin-laden woman, than all the condemnation of all the Pharisees of Jerusalem, Palestine and America put together.

There is where the power lies. The power of the Christian lies in the influence of Jesus Christ which goes forth from him as fragrance from a rose, as he stands with a heaven sent reverence in the presence of even the worst sinner.

The Christianity of Jesus Christ in the true believer looks reverently upon the conscience of the worst sinner; holds himself back from anything that would seem like condemnation or judgment; and lets God reach that soul by the fragrance of the influence of Jesus which goes forth from him.

"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savor of his knowledge by us in every place." That is Christianity; that is divine regard for human right; because only he who is altogether divine can rightly estimate a human right. And He has estimated it, defined it, and respected it. And He calls upon every soul to recognize that human right which, in his Word, He who is altogether divine, has set up above all things and all people to be respected.
A. T. J.

"Strange Synonyms" American Sentinel 14, 8 , pp. 119, 120.

AT the beginning of the war with Spain it was declared by President McKinley that "forcible annexation cannot be thought of," in the case of Cuba, because such a thing would be "criminal aggression." And Congress, in harmony with the same sentiment, declared before the world that "the people of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent."

Now, less than a year later, Congress has declared of the people of the Philippine Islands–a people as capable as are the Cubans–that they are not, and of right ought

120

not to be, free and independent; and what was declared to be "criminal aggression," has now been decreed and justified by the President under the name "benevolent assimilation." There are strange synonyms being brought to light these days, and there is much about them that calls for explanation.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 8 , p. 128.

IN these days, the principle of government by the consent of the governed appears to be construed as meaning that governments derive their just powers from "the sensible consent of the whipped."

WE are now having "higher criticism" of the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; and like the "higher criticism" of Scripture its effect is to take away the real meaning and life of the language to which it is applied.

March 2, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 9 , p. 129.

LIBERTY is not a thing of race or color; when it is made such, it becomes despotism for all the weak.

THE real question is not, What have I power to do? but, What ought I to do? To exercise power unlawfully leads surely to the loss of the power.

FREE government recognizes every man as a son of Adam, and Adam as a son of God.

EVERY real American of the first class, recognizes every other American as being on a legal equality with himself.

[Inset.] AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AMS IT SEEMS LIKELY TO BE SET UP IN THE PHILIPPINES. AMERICAN Government in the Philippines, without those constitutional safeguards of liberty which apply alike to individuals of every race and color and without the Declaration of Independence which affirms the principle upon which these safeguards are set up, would be something vastly different from American government as it has been understood for one hundred years past in the United States. But if the Declaration of Independence should be taken there, that part would have to be cut out which affirms that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, since it is not proposed to govern the natives by their voluntary consent at all. And the principles of government having been repudiated, the Constitution would be equally useless so far as concerns the security of the rights of the governed. Such a government would be in no sense free government.

"Human Rights" American Sentinel 14, 9 , pp. 130, 131.

EVERYBODY knows that the Government of the United States was founded upon the Declaration of human rights. And though it is equally true, yet not everybody knows that this Declaration of human rights upon which the Government of the United States was founded, was deduced directly from Christianity. The principles of this Declaration were intentionally adopted from Christianity, by those who framed the Declaration, and were laid down as the basis of the Government of the United States, upon which this Government was to stand forever.

The two vital principles of that Declaration are, that "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and that "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Thus this nation presented to the world every man first of all subject to the Creator and by the Creator endowed with inalienable rights. The founders of this nation, when discussing this before the people, said that these were the principles upon which the gospel was first propagated, and upon which the Reformation was carried on. They said that the Almighty God, being Lord of the human mind, and Lord only of the conscience, and having all power, chose not to propagate his religion by impositions of power upon the bodies or minds of people as was in his almighty power to do, but that he created the mind free, and that he left it free.

Thus and here for the first and only time in history the Christian principles of civil and religious liberty were intentionally chosen and established as the foundation of a nation. And thus from its beginning this nation has been the beacon light of liberty, civil and religious, "the classical land of religious liberty," to all the world. Through these principles alone, in quietness and peaceful isolation, this nation has most powerfully influenced all other nations in the world and drawn them away from their former selves toward enlightenment and liberty. This was the wisdom and this the power of this nation in the eyes of all the other nations, who were compelled to say "Surely this is a wise and understanding people."

But suddenly a change has come: and how great the change! a complete revolution in principle and practice. To-day the United States Government has abandoned the principles which were laid down as the foundation upon which the Government should stand, and by which alone it could be able or worthy to stand. The United States Government to day openly denies to people the equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and is governing, and expects forever to govern, people without their consent.

To-day in this nation the Declaration of Independence which has ever been the pride and the ultimate source of appeal of every American, which has been taught to the youth as the sum of all earthly good, is ignored, belittled, explained away, set aside, and repudiated, by leading journalists, both religious and secular, by leading men of all professions, and by national representatives at the Capitol. The following passage from the Congressional Record, of Dec. 19, 1898, p. 330, is only a sample of much that has been said at the Capitol, all of which has been indorsed by the ratification of the treaty of peace:–

"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."

Long ago it was written, "If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?" So in this case, when the foundation is destroyed, what shall the people, even the people of other nations, do?

This nation which God established for the enlightenment of the human race upon the divine principle of human rights–when this nation abandons these principles in the eyes of all the nations, what then? Where then lies hope for the other nations who have never yet had any opportunity to have any benefit of these principles except as the principles by their own inherent power have forced themselves upon the other nations? There is the danger that is involved in this subject of human rights. Abraham Lincoln, when he was conducting that immortal contest in behalf of human freedom against human slavery in the United States, said, "Not only do I hate slavery because it is slavery, but I hate it in addition, because it leads so many good men to whittle away the Declaration of Independence."

There is to-day the cry of "national expansion," "imperial America." This cry is a fact. The nation has

131

entered upon her world's career–no longer the career of the quiet and peaceable conquest of sound principles, but the career of conquest, and so of force. And when the defense of this new feature compels so many good men to explain away the Declaration of Independence and openly repudiate divine principle, there is in it all an element of danger to the world: and as in the days of Abraham Lincoln, it is a thing to be supremely hated.

Lord Salisbury, last November, in his speech to the world–for when the Prime Minister of Britain speaks he speaks to the world, and all the world listens–mentioning the fact that the United States Government had entered as a new element in world's affairs and the Eastern question, said that this does not promise peace to the world. But that though that may be so, it promises only good to Britain–no harm to her, but it is not an element that makes for peace among the nations.

The nations themselves are staggering and about to fall, under the weight of the immense armaments which they are compelled to maintain because of the mutual anger and jealousies that have persisted for more than half a century. The tension is already so great that by the chief ones concerned it has been likened to a magazine with the train already laid, and every moment in danger of being touched with the fire.

All this being acknowledged to be so, what alone can be the effect of the entrance into this awful arena of this new world-power which, beforehand, the world is told by its chiefest spokesman, is not an element that will make for peace to the world? And above all, what alone can be the effect of it, when this new world-power enters that awful arena with the direct repudiation of its own fundamental and native principles which alone can make for peace, and which are the very principles of the Prince of Peace?

What alone can be the influence of this nation upon the world when it has repudiated the principles by which alone it has influenced the world for good, the principles which were its life, which were given to it for the world, and which alone can make for peace on earth and good will to men?

In all these things there is involved the great question of Human Rights. The American people must face this fact. They cannot ignore it and still regard human rights. And when this nation openly disregards human rights, what shall humanity do?
A. T. J.

"Sunday-Law Agitation in Pittsburg" American Sentinel 14, 9 , p. 131.

AN agitation to arouse public sentiment in favor of Sunday enforcement, is going on in the city of Pittsburg, Pa. There the churches and a large labor union–the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers–have joined hands, and both labor and church parties are equally earnest in the movement. At a mass meeting held in February 19, resolutions were adopted denouncing the "Sabbath" work in certain mills of the city as being "unpatriotic, unconstitutional, and in direct opposition to the unalienable birthright of all toilers," and pledging coˆperation with the clergy "to stop this nefarious system by said firms." A "monster mass meeting" of labor organizations is announced for some date in April, to further arouse public opinion against Sunday desecration.

The usual arguments were offered at this meeting in proof of the necessity of a weekly rest, and the usual effort made to set up a distinction in Sabbath observance on religious and civil grounds. No such distinction can exist in fact, since both civil and religious laws for Sabbath observance demand rest from secular employments as the foundation of the observance, and such weekly rest is itself distinctly a religious act. This has been made so by the act of God, and no amount of mass-meeting resolutions or of legislation can make it different. The Sabbath itself was created a religious institution, and no amount of argument or of legislation can give it a "civil" character.

The subject of Sabbath observance is everywhere inseparably bound up with varying religious views and practices of men and their convictions of conscience; and when the State steps in with its man-made law of Sabbath observance for one and all, the result can only be that far more harm will be done than good. In the matter of Sabbath legislation, human authority, power, and wisdom, come into conflict with divinity, and achieve only a failure as complete as their effort was unnecessary.

Sabbath observance is a law of God. To obey God's law is the duty of one and all, and no human legislation is necessary to enable an individual to do his duty. Duty rests upon no such uncertain basis, and the law of God needs no such uncertain support. Let any individual decide to obey God's law, and he will find support in that law itself. Duty is to do right without human assistance, the same as with it. The assistance necessary to right doing comes from God, and is amply sufficient for the demands of duty under all circumstances.

In Sabbath observance, as in any moral duty, men need look only to God, and they are bound to look to God rather than to man. Whoever looks away from the Creator and Author of the Sabbath, to man as a legislator concerning it, will surely be drawn into a snare.

"The Sabbath was made for man." God made it and made it for man to-day, as in all other ages of time. Is the Sabbath then suited to man, just as God made it? It is if God knew enough to make it so; and as he made both man and the Sabbath, and is omniscient, there ought never any question to arise in any sane mind upon this point. Let the Sabbath and the law of observing it be as God has made it. Not to do so is to impugn the wisdom and authority of the Creator.

March 9, 1899

"Notes" American Sentinel 14, 10 , p. 145.

IMPERIALISM has always gone hand in hand with a union of church and state.

THE mightiest nation on the earth ought to be careful above all other nations that its course is right.

TRUTH, unlike sentiment, can never be manufactured.

IT is better and safer to approach the people with the voice of God than to approach God with the voice of the people.

[Inset.] THE WEATHER VANE OF POPULAR SENTIMENT. THE promoters of the movement for religious legislation are energetically seeking to work up a popular sentiment which will give the movement the needed support. When they have secured this they will quote the saying, "The voice of the people is the voice of God." But popular sentiment is only a weather vane; it is constantly changing; it is no safe guide to truth. The safe guide is not a weather vane, but a compass–the compass of eternal truth–the Word of God. When popular sentiment shall sanction legislation enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, it will still be true, as it always has been, that "the seventh day is the Sabbath;" and it will not be safe for anyone to observe any other than the Bible Sabbath, however unpopular it may be.

"Human Rights" American Sentinel 14, 10 , pp. 146, 147.

THERE is a phase of human rights which with the mighty men who made this nation took precedence even of the governmental principles of equality of civil right and government only by the consent of the governed. That is Religious Right. It has been this phase of human right, that more than the other, has made this nation what it has been in true greatness, and the light of the world.

With those noble men, those men of Providence, religious right was rightly set up first of all and above all. The right of a man to perform his duty to the Creator according to the dictates of his own conscience, absolutely untrammeled and unmolested–this was singled out, and discussed, and settled, first of all. The founders of our nation said that that must be settled first; for without religious liberty there could be no true civil liberty.

When they had settled that and spread it among the people of the then thirteen States, then they set about to frame a national government; and in that they established as a fundamental principle that the Government must have nothing to do with any man's religion or irreligion; that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; that no religious test shall ever be required: and that the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.

These are the declaration of the men who made the Government,–Washington, Madison, Jefferson,–all the noble patriots who made the Government of that day; and who made it to stand forever as they made it. But to-day vast throngs and combines are being compacted together to draw this nation into the very thing which our fathers repudiated to draw the nation into an alliance with what somebody may choose to call Christian religion; to enforce by law somebody's idea of what people ought to do with respect to religious observance; and the taxation of the people for the support of the church and religion. All these things are being persistently pushed upon the Government of the United States, against the Constitution, against the history that made the nation, against the plain fundamental principles established by those who made the nation.

When our fathers established the principles of this Government they announced them to the world, and actually fixed them in the great seal of the United States, so that when the great seal of this Government makes its impression upon anything it tells to the world that here is "A new order of things;" and that "God has favored the undertaking." Every time the Secretary of State of the United States places that great seal upon paper, parchment, wax, or whatever it may be, it tells to the world that this nation was established to show to the world "a new order of things," and that "God has favored the undertaking" of establishing a nation for that purpose.

When a nation publishes as its fundamental principle the separating the government from religion, leaving everybody free to believe and worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, uninterrupted by any person or power on earth–if that nation separates from that principle and takes the opposite course, setting to the nations the example of religious interference and religious persecution, then what is there left for the people of the other nations, who, so far as they have been enlightened at all, have been enlightened by this great principle? They must be swept back into the old order of things, there to perish. What then remains for this nation itself? What then remains for the world?

Our fathers in their day saw this danger and expressed it plainly. When they were asked to legislate in behalf of the Christian religion, they said, "What a melancholy departure is this bill!" If this principle is destroyed, what will the nations do who are looking to this nation for civil liberty and liberty of conscience? They will have to turn their steps away from us, and then where will they find a place on the earth? Where shall freedom find a refuge if that is done in this nation? That document was written by Madison in his own hand. He realized that legislation in behalf of religious observance was a melancholy departure, and was "the first step" in a course of things, of which the Inquisition is only the last step. Accordingly they declared that they would escape the consequences by denying the principle.

But this principle of our fathers with the others is being ignored and repudiated to-day; and it is time for all the people to begin to think on the question of human rights.

We have said that the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Romans are the basis of this study of human rights. In the fourteenth chapter we read: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." This is spoken in a connection in which "the powers that be" are considered. How then does the Scripture stand as compared with that which is

147

being carried on now all over this land? How does this Scripture comport with the widespread efforts to get the United States Government to legislate in behalf of the observance of a certain day. It matters not what any man's opinion may be. It matters not what any person's views may be of Sabbath observance,–whether of one day or none at all; there stands the Scripture with respect to the place which man shall occupy, and the place which the powers that be shall occupy with respect to the observance of a day. And none can disregard it except at the peril of the judgment of God. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" All are to be left free. We are not to judge anybody, nor interfere with him, nor question him, as to whether he is subject to his master in the right way or not.

There stands the Scripture; how does it compare with the action of the churches, with the work of those who profess reverence for the Scriptures, all over this land, who are persistently urging upon the nation to establish by law the observance of a day?

Here is the Lord's declaration of human right as to the observance of a day: "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord, he doth not regard it." "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." If I observe the day to God, I really observe it; if I do not observe the day to the Lord, there can be no faith in it, and therefore I sin in observing it. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to judge his doubtful thoughts; to his own master he standeth or falleth." Why should I compel you to observe the day which I observe? I cannot with this scripture in mind. Some observe one day, some observe another, and some do not observe any day religiously. It is true the vast majority observe one special day; but which of these three classes can secure or use law to enforce upon others the observance of the day which they regard, and still be Christians? Who can do it and recognize human rights as God has defined them and laid them down in his Word? Plainly none.

Again: Is it not written in the Scriptures, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, OR OF THE SABBATH DAYS?" Col. 2:16. And yet all over this land there are "Sabbath laws" on the statute books; Sunday laws, Lord's day laws, or whatever they may be called, and whosoever does not regard that day according to the law IS JUDGED BY MEN in the enforcement of the law. But the Scripture says, "Let NO MAN JUDGE YOU." Then that scripture requires every person who receives the Scripture as the Word of God, to protest against every law that is proposed, or that ever could be proposed, in favor of the enforcement of the observance of any day for the Sabbath?

"LET NO MAN JUDGE YOU, in respect of Sabbath days," saith the Lord. But when I go about to exert my influence with politicians, with legislators, with governors, and other authorities, to secure a law to compel my neighbor to recognize the day which I observe, and then when he does not observe the law which I have had enacted, he is judged BY MEN, is fined, and imprisoned; in that I do the very thing God has said that no man shall do. That Scripture then requires every Christian in the United States and everywhere else to everlastingly protest against anything by which any man can judge another for not observing a certain day, or any day at all, as a Sabbath.

This is not saying that the Lord does not require that the Sabbath shall be observed. God has commanded all to keep the Sabbath. He has told all what day is to be observed. He says distinctly, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." But the point is this,–it is God who has commanded it, and to Him alone men are responsible, and not to MAN. He alone, and not man, nor any set of men, is the judge.
A. T. J.

"We Are Not Going Into Politics" American Sentinel 14, 10 , pp. 147, 148.

THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is not going into politics. We make this statement for the benefit of some readers of this paper who see nothing beyond a question of politics in the new national policy of "expansion," and therefore have thought that in opposing this policy the SENTINEL was going off into politics and away from the path of its appointed work.

The fact that this policy has been warmly discussed in the political arena, does not make of it a mere political question. The Sabbath question has been discussed in the political arena, and will be discussed there again; but the SENTINEL has spoken on that question for years without going into politics. The principles underlying this question, and the question of "expansion," are broader than politics; and to contend for these principles it is not at all necessary to stand under any political banner.

The AMERICAN SENTINEL affirms that religious liberty is both Christian and Constitutional. It has affirmed this from the first. But in contending for religious liberty as a Constitutional thing the SENTINEL has never gone into politics. Nor is it, in opposing the "expansion" policy, doing anything else than contending for Constitutional liberty.

The AMERICAN SENTINEL has from the first contended for the principles of liberty embodied in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In the enactment and enforcement of religious laws these principles of liberty have been denied and set aside, and the SENTINEL has opposed such laws as being contrary to the Constitution and the principles of free government. In the policy of imperialism these principles are no less truly set aside; and the SENTINEL cannot contend for them without opposing that policy.

"It doesn't make any particular difference to us"–so

148

say some readers of the SENTINEL–"whether the United States annexed the Philippine Islands or not." We ask all such whether it makes any difference to them if the United States, in annexing those islands, repudiates those foundation principles of government under which they have enjoyed civil and religious liberty hitherto, and which alone promise them that liberty for the future.

When those principles of republicanism shall have been repudiated–it matters not in what way–republican government in the United States will be at an end, and nothing in American government will be left to which appeal can be made against civil or religious oppression.

The policy of imperialism involves a complete repudiation of the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Imperialism says not "the consent of the governed," but "the consent of some of the governed." That doctrine is as true in one part of the earth as in another; it is as true in the United States as in the Philippine Islands. If it is practiced in the one place, it must also prevail in the other.

When some years ago a tide of religious persecution arose in this country, through the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws, a coming crisis was betokened in American government. That was a startling thing, and the AMERICAN SENTINEL was established to endeavor to prepare the people to meet the issue. There was a movement which, if it continued, would finally involve a national repudiation of those principles of free government under which the people of this country had enjoyed civil and religious liberty. But even more startling is it when now, within a single year, that national repudiation of those principles has all but come. We now know, as we did not before, to what extent the nation has drifted away from the principles of freedom toward those of despotism, and how near we are to the complete fulfillment of what has been predicted of it.

We had thought that every reader of the SENTINEL understood that it was the mission of the SENTINEL to contend for these principles, and to warn against the consequences of repudiating them. We are surprised therefore to find there are any readers of the SENTINEL who, when the principle of government by the consent of the governed is directly repudiated, do not see that the SENTINEL ought to say anything about it. We can only conclude that, as concerns their own interests and the interests of others in the issues before them, such persons are asleep.

But "Not it is high time to awake out of sleep." Rom. 13:11.

"Pope Leo's Denial" American Sentinel 14, 10 , pp. 148, 149.

"THE Roman Catholic Church of to-day is not what it was in the Dark Ages," is a belief widely entertained, and a saying oft expressed–in actions if not in words–by modern Protestants. We are told that the Catholic Church has changed; has become liberal, etc. We are assured that even if this is not true of the Catholic Church in general, it must at least be true of that church in the United States.

We call the attention of these Protestants and all others to the fact that all this is now expressly denied by Pope Leo himself.

The pope has written a letter to Cardinal Gibbons on "Americanism." This letter was called forth by a book written by Rev. Walter Elliott, of the "Paulist Fathers," giving an account of the life and teachings of "Father" Isaac Hecker, the founder of the Paulist order. "Father" Hecker was the leading exponent of views to which in general the term "Americanism" came to be applied. Of these the pope's letter says:–

"The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas, if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the church proposes are recalled to mind."

The letter then goes on to say of "Americanism" that–

"If by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name. But if this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world."

The Catholic "Church in America" is not "different from what it is in the rest of the world"–in Ecuador, Peru, or Spain, for example. "Liberal" Protestants mark that.

And this is not all; the pontiff takes equal care to

149

assert in his letter that the church in this age is not different from what it was in former ages. He says:–

"We, indeed, have no thought of rejecting everything that modern industry and study has produced; so far from it that we welcome to the patrimony of truth and to an ever-widening scope of public well-being whatsoever helps toward the progress of learning and virtue. Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the church."

All liberality, progress, and enlightenment in the Catholic Church "can only be on condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the church." And what is this "wisdom" and "authority"?–It is that of the "fathers" and the church councils, to the writings and decisions of which the letter makes frequent reference. This is the standard by which what is modern must be measured and judged.

A thing may be called liberal, but it must be in harmony with the teachings it is to be rejected. And as the writings of the "fathers" and the decisions of the councils were in existence back in the days when Rome ruled the world and persecuted dissenters to the death–as these very "authorities" and this very "wisdom" were employed by the church in combatting [sic.] the Reformation–it is perfectly plain that all the modern liberality and progress there is in the church of Rome to-day is such as is in harmony–year, must be in harmony–with the spirit of opposition to every principle of the Reformation by fire and sword, by the dungeon, the rack, the stake, and every other means that Rome ever employed.

And this, by the word of Pope Leo XIII., is true of the Catholic Church in the United States, as everywhere else.

We wish all Protestants everywhere would mark this and not forget it. The Roman Catholic Church in America is "not different from what it is in the rest of the world;" and the church of to-day, in all the world, is not different from what it was in other ages of the world. This is the word of Pope Leo himself. Some Protestants have not been willing to believe us when we have asserted this; we are able now to give them the pope's own word that it is so.

March 16, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 11 , p. 161.

SELFISH generosity–giving some one else a "piece of your mind."

THE Christian church cannot keep one eye upon the state, and the other eye upon God.

THE sword of the civil authority cannot be used to reap harvests for the Lord.

NO PEOPLE ever preserved their rights except by working out their own salvation.

"BENEVOLENT assimilation" is governmental benevolence. Real benevolence means giving, not taking.

THE nineteenth century is no time for growth and fruit bearing from seed sown back in the Dark Ages.

TAKE the assumption away from the basis of the Sunday laws, and they would have no foundation on which to stand.

IF men are going to enforce God's laws let them also enforce God's penalties. The two belong together and no man has a right to separate them. But who will venture so far as to assume the right to inflict death upon people for sin? Let such a one first begin with himself.

YOU cannot save any person by making him keep the Sabbath; he can be made to keep the Sabbath only by being saved.

THE beef trust supplies men with embalmed beef; a Sabbath trust–for enforcing Sunday–would give to men only an embalmed Sabbath.

DON'T worry about whether the Sabbath is going to be "preserved" or not. God's Sabbath–the only one that is worth anything–is a living thing, giving life to man, so that he is refreshed in keeping it. It does not call upon men for their aid to preserve its life; it calls upon them to receive the life it has to impart, and that in never-failing measure.

"Human Rights" American Sentinel 14, 11 , pp. 161-163.

CHRIST said, "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47. Not if any man believe I judge him not; but "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not." This is so far from the practice of the professed Christian world that I have seen people who thought they were Christians, and I do not dispute but what they were so far as they knew, who would not believe that that statement was in the Bible when it was read directly from the Bible. When the Lord Jesus judges nobody for not believing, how can men judge anybody for not believing? and above all, how can those who profess to be the Lord's people judge anybody for not doing or believing what Jesus said.

Jesus said, "The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." John 14:24. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son."

162

Heb. 1:1, 2. God speaks to us in these last days by his Son. When God does not judge a man who hears his word and does not believe, is not that sufficient example for men? and above all, is it not a sufficient example for people who profess to know God, and to fear him? and does it not forbid every Christian forever, to sanction any law which would require anybody to observe any law which would require anybody to observe any day, or subject that man to judgment if he does not observe any day?

"If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him." "The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." When the words of God, as they were spoken by Jesus, are presented to a man, and he rejects them, he rejects eternal life; and when he rejects eternal life, by that very act he chooses eternal death. Then who brings him to eternal death? Who counts him worthy of death? None but himself, and God is forever cleared.

When Paul and Silas were at Antioch they preached to the people, and were besought by the Gentiles that the same things might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Acts 13. But when the unbelieving Jews saw the Gentiles coming in crowds they opposed the preaching, "contradicting and blaspheming." Then Paul and Barnabas said, "I was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

Who judged those people unworthy of everlasting life?–Themselves. Who then sentenced them to everlasting death?–Only themselves. Thus it is ever with the preaching of the word of God in truth. That word is the word of eternal life. He who preaches that word in sincerity presents to every soul who hears him, eternal life. Whoever rejects the word, whoever rejects the preaching, rejects eternal life; and in so doing passes upon himself, by his own choice, the sentence of eternal death.

Now, ought it not to be enough for any man, however vindictive, to know that his fellowman has rejected eternal life and is subject to eternal death? Ought not this to be enough to satisfy to satisfy the average preacher, without his feeling himself called upon to punish by law and fine and imprisonment those who choose to reject their preaching and refuse to observe the Sunday? Is not eternal death penalty enough upon such people without their being subjected to condemnation and misery the little time they may be able to live in this world? Surely it would seem that this should be enough to satisfy anybody with a spirit any less vindictive than that of Satan himself.

And it is enough to restrain even from thinking ill of such persons, all who have a vestige of the Spirit of the tenderness or pity of the Lord. "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." It is not condemnation but salvation, that men need. Men are already doubly, and over and over, condemned for not obeying the word of the Lord. Further condemnation can do them no good. And it must be a spirit that is only and thoroughly vindictive that will insist on condemning them yet more. Yet such and only such is precisely the spirit that is the spring and impulse of Sunday laws or any other laws favoring religious things.

But such is not the Spirit of Christ nor of God. God is the Author and the Respecter of Liberty. The Spirit of the Lord is the Spirit of liberty; for "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." God made man free to choose liberty and happiness; for in order to have liberty and happiness, liberty and happiness must be chosen. And if a man chooses this apart form God, the Lord still respects the freedom of the choice: and so does everybody else who is of God, and who has any of the Spirit of God.

Salvation, not condemnation, is what all people need. The Lord Jesus came to the world and gave himself a sacrifice on the cross that men might have salvation, and not condemnation. "As he is so are we in this world." Christians are here in the place of Christ to carry forward the work of Christ. His work was not to condemn the world but to save the world. This is the work of Christians, and nothing else if. The moment the spirit of condemning anybody is found in the heart of anybody who professes to be a Christian, that moment that person can know that he is departing from Christianity. And the moment the spirit of condemnation is entertained and indulged by anybody who professes to be a Christian, that moment he can know that he has departed from Christianity, and that his profession of being a Christian is hypocrisy and fraud.

The Christian must recognize and respect the rights of men which God has established. Not to do so, is not to be a Christian. And not to do so declares that man to be not a Christian, whatever his profession may be.

These things are worth thinking about just now. It will require Christian faith and Christian courage in these days not to judge your brother for not observing a Sabbath, and especially for not observing Sunday as a Sabbath. It requires Christian courage in these days not to set at naught your brother for doing this, that, or the other, on Sunday, and not fine him, nor put him in jail, nor bring him to the chain-gang. In scores of cases in the last eleven years, people have been put in jail, and judged worthy of the chain-gang, by men, for not observing the day which the law said should be observed as the Sabbath, when they had observed a day in harmony with their conscience and the Word of God.

God calls upon you to regard the human rights which he has established; and never to aid by law or any other way in forcing any man to observe a day which you think is right; and never to judge any man for not observing such a day. Christianity is a sensible thing.

163

The world, and even the professed Christian world, nmay not grasp these principles of human rights; but God will have a people who will recognize Christianity in all its length, and breadth, and height, and depth, and who will live genuine Christly lives before the world in such a way that the world shall realize what Christianity is, as really as they did in the days of Jesus Christ himself on earth.

The glory of God which belongs to the Christian is to enlighten the whole world, and the world will yet see what Christianity is. A. T. J.

"The Foundation of Sunday Laws" American Sentinel 14, 11 , p. 163.

THE preamble of the Bill for the proposed Sunday law in California, says that "Whereas 'Christianity is the common law of the land'; and as the people of the State generally regard the Christian Sabbath, or the first day of the week, as sacred to religious worship; and because the best interests of the State are conserved by Christian morality, which is inseparably connected with the proper observance of the Sabbath," etc.

This contains several assumptions. It assumes, first, that "Christianity is the common law of the land." This is nothing more than tradition. It states almost the lowest possible conception of Christianity, and this in itself stamps it as utterly untrue. Christianity is as far above the "common law" or any human law, as heaven is above the earth. Christianity is "the power of God unto salvation" to the believer on Jesus Christ. This is what God himself says of it (Rom. 1:!6), and therefore it is the absolute truth. But the power of God unto salvation is not in human law.

The "common law" is enforced by civil pains and penalties; and if Christianity is a part of it, Christianity must be enforced upon the people by the same means. This conception of Christianity therefore demands an enforced religion, which is contrary to every principle of free government. It is therefore both unchristian and un-American.

Assumption number two in this preamble is that the "Christian Sabbath" is "the first day of the week." This likewise is pure tradition. The highest and only Authority on the subject declares that the seventh–not the first–day is the Sabbath; and in all the Scripture there is not a word of authority for the sanctity of Sunday. If God's Word is true, it is true that the seventh day is–and therefore that the first day is not–the Christian Sabbath.

There is yet another assumption crowded into this short preamble; namely, that "the best interests of the State are conserved" by an enforced observance of the Sabbath. It is true that "the best interests of the State are conserved by Christian morality," and that this "is inseparably connected with the proper observance of the Sabbath"; but this is cited as an argument for a Sunday law, and must therefore refer to Sabbath observance as secured by Sunday enforcement. Sabbath enforcement is not Christian morality at all, for Christianity represents no force but the power of love. Only heart religion can be a conserver of the best interests of the State; and in this religion, Sabbath observance, like every other practice, is of faith, and not of force. Enforced religion is not of faith, is contrary to it, and is against every interest of the State, as all history unmistakably shows. This third assumption is as false as either of the others.

And these assumptions are the basis of the proposed Sunday law. The language of the Bill is that "Whereas," these things (which it cites) are so, "The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact," etc. Since, or because, these things are so, this proposed Sunday law should be enacted; that is what the Bill declares. But the things referred to are not so; and since they are not so, it is evident by the logic of the Bill itself that the Sunday law ought not to be enacted.

Assumptions of things which are not true can afford no foundation for an enactment of the people. No proper law can exist on such a basis. And this basis–this assumption of what has no existence–is the basis of every Sunday law in the land.

"Why Not?" American Sentinel 14, 11 , pp. 163, 164.

NOT long ago there was "a National Reform Convention" held in Bromfield Street Church, Boston, which called "upon this nation to make a recognition of God as the source of all authority, the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of nations, and the Bible as the fountain of all law in the Constitution of the United States."

A few days later a meeting was held by the Hebrew citizens of Boston. In this meeting "there were a large number of speeches made." The Hebrew citizens of this country, the speakers stated, were fully satisfied with the present Constitution, and it was shown that they were among the first to lend their money and their aid by taking up arms in defense of their adopted country in every war in which it was involved, from the war for independence up to the Spanish-American war. They all agreed that the Hebrew citizens had stood by the Constitution and are among the last to ask for any change in it. But as a change has been asked for, they desire that the rightful first lawgiver known to the world be given the honor of having his name placed in the Constitution.

The following resolutions were unanimously adopted at the meeting:–

"WHERAMS [sic.], free religious tolerance and freedom of speech is granted by the Constitution of the United States to its citizens of all creeds alike; and

"WHEREAMS, the Hebrew citizens are among those who

164

fought for the freedom and independence of the United States in every war in which this, their adopted country, was involved; and–

"WHEREAMS, a certain other creed desires to change the wording of the Constitution, in which all citizens should have their say, be it–

"Resolved, That as Moses was the first lawmaker of mankind, as stated in ancient history, an official recognition of his supreme headship over all lawmakers should be shown in the instrument of civil compact in the United States of America.

"Resolved, That the Hebrew citizens, while in a small minority, though of greater numbers than the National Reform Association, deeply deplore the omission of Moses' name from the Constitution of the United States, as his laws were used in framing the Constitution.

"Resolved, That in our judgment as Hebrew citizens, Moses should be recognized for his gift to the world as the only supreme head and lawgiver of all nations of the globe.

"Resolved, That by placing the name of Moses in the Constitution of the United States of America, that of no other Hebrew or descendant of Hebrews will find a place there, and a wrong done by the forefathers in framing the Constitution of the United States of America will be righted, and the proper respect shown the followers of the first law-writer known to the world: and thus remove all jealousy existing at the present time among other creeds, which must acknowledge the receipt of their laws from that ancient people of which Moses was lawgiver and leader.

"Resolved, That as many well-known lawgivers, who have served their individual states from time to time, have tried to pass bills through the legislature of their individual states asking for the adoption of some of the ten commandments, the laws given to the Hebrews by Moses, can be easily seen the power centered in these laws and the honor due the writer who presented to the world centuries ago these laws which have governed and will govern the world forever.

"Resolved, Since the residue of power is vested in the people in this Republic, men to show their good citizenship are obligated patriotically, morally, and religiously, and therefore should employ all proper means to secure the insertion of the name of Moses in the Constitution of the United States of America and thus prove his authority as king and supreme lawgiver.

"Resolved, That a mass meeting be called at an early date to further discuss this most important matter and arrange for its adoption by the Government at Washington.

"Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the National Reform Association, a body that has labored arduously to have a wrong righted, and that cooperation and assistance be asked to gain the proper recognition due the first lawgiver known to the world."

Since at "the National Reform Convention the attendance was small," while at the meeting of the Hebrew citizens "a very large crowd was present;" and since the cause of the Hebrew citizens is equally just with that of the National Reformers, why should not the cause of the Hebrew citizens be espoused by the Government in the Constitution, equally with that of the National Reformers? Why?
A. T. J.

March 23, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 12 , p. 177.

FORGETTING your neighbor's rights is the next step to losing your own.

THERE is something wrong about the appearance of a clergyman posing as an advocate of Sabbath observance on purely civil grounds.

LAWS which cannot bind the conscience, have no business in the domain of conscience.

FREEDOM of conscience is the same for Protestant and Catholic, pagan or atheist, the world over.

THE best man on earth, if made an object of worship, would not be able to avoid being a despot.

WE may well view with suspicion any movement in which Pilate and Herod are made friends.

THE rest which pertains to the observance of a weekly Sabbath, is a religious rest, made so by the act of God at creation. The Sabbath must be observed religiously, or not at all.

WHEN the church submits to the government of Heaven, she will not wish to control the governments of earth.

THE study of theology is not calculated to make a person wise about politics.

EVERY effort to force men to do right is an interference with God's purpose of winning men to the right.

THE only things concerning which man has a right to legislate in religion and morals, are those things which God forgot in his law to say anything about.

IF there had never been a religious Sabbath, there would never have been any thought of a "civil Sabbath." The religious Sabbath is the parent, and the "civil" Sabbath must be of the same nature–religious.

WE cannot judge others without passing judgment upon ourselves.

"The Present Situation" American Sentinel 14, 12 , pp. 178, 179.

THE treaty of peace with Spain has been ratified. Porto Rico and the Philippines are thus confirmed to the United States. The United States is now no more the United States of America; it is, as Senator Daniel said it would be, "the United States of America and Asia."

And how stands it as to principle with the United States of America and Asia? Immediately following the ratification of the treaty of peace, the following resolution was adopted by the Senate:–

"That by the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain it is not intended to incorporate the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands into citizenship of the United States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands as an integral part of the territory of the United States; but it is the intention of the United States to establish on said islands a government suitable to the wants and condition of the inhabitants of said islands, to prepare them for local self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of said islands as will best promote the interests of the citizens of the United States and the inhabitants of said islands.

No inhabitant then of the Philippine Islands is, nor can be, a citizen of the United States. They are, and must remain, only subjects. But when the United States possess people who are not, and cannot be citizens, but are held and ruled only as subjects, it is no more a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, no more a government of "We the People,"–it is no more a republic, but "a government of some other form."

That all this was intended in the very making of the treaty of peace is certain, as is shown by the words of Mr. Whitelaw Reid, one of the peace commissioners, in a speech in which he explained the difficulties and aims of the commissioners in the Paris convention. It was spoken in Chicago Tuesday night, February 14. His subject was "The Achievements of American Diplomacy." As reported in the New York Herald he said:–

"The Pacific Ocean . . . is in our hands now. Practically we own more than half the coast on this side, and have military stations in the Sandwich and Aleutian islands. To extend our authority over the Philippine archipelago is to fence in the China Sea. Rightly used it enables the United States to convert the Pacific Ocean almost into an American lake. . . .

"Let us free our minds of some bugbears. . . . It is a bugbear that the Filipinos would be citizens of the United States. It is a bugbear that anybody living on the territory or other property of the United States must be a citizen.

"Brushing aside these bugbears, gentlemen, what are the duties sf [sic.] the hour?

"First–Hold what you are entitled to. If you are ever to part with it, wait at least till you have found out that you have no use for it. Next, resist admission of any of our new possessions as states or their organization on a plan designed to prepare them for admission. Make this fight easiest by making it at the beginning. Resist the first effort to change the character of the Union. We want no Porto Ricans or Cubans to be sending Senators and Representatives to Washington. We will do them good, if we may, all the days of our life, but, please God, we will not divide this Republic among them.

"Resist the crazy extension of the doctrine that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed to an extreme never imagined by the men who framed it, and never for one moment acted upon in their own practice."

That is plain enough, and is stated plainly enough- to show to all, without any argument, that the principles of American republicanism have been repudiated, and intentionally repudiated, formally and officially by the United States, and that now it is a government of another sort.

What sort of a government it now is, as compared with what it was when it was founded and while it adhered to its original principles, is pretty well illustrated in the speeches of Senators Hoar and Hale against the resolution quoted in this article.

"Senator Hoar opposed it because it gave no hope of liberty or self-government to the islands. He said it was an infamous declaration."

Senator hale said:–

"Confess will adjourn and the war will go on, and there is not a man who will not realize in three months that it is a war of conquest and subjugation.

"And yet, we are told that we are traitors and are held up and blacklisted in the newspapers because we want to give those people a chance at least to show that they are friendly and can set up a government of their own.

"Instead we kill them, not by scores, not by hundreds, but by thousands. More Filipinos have been killed by the guns of our army and navy than were patriots killed in any six battles of the Revolutionary war. It has become a gigantic event. The slaughter of people in no way equal to us, meeting us with bows and arrows and crawling into the jungles by hundreds, there to die, has stupefied the American mind. No one has said that our mission of commerce and of the gospel was

179

to be preceded by the slaughter of thousands of persons."

Ichabod! The only word that now remains is Ichabod. A. T. J.

"The Spirit of It" American Sentinel 14, 12 , p. 179.

IN the annual report of the New York Sabbath Committee for 1897-8, it is stated that "For some time past, the Catholic pastors of Rome have been carrying on a campaign in favor of Sunday rest. They urged their people as good Catholics to close their shops on Sundays and on religious festivals. Subsequently some of them reinforced this appeal with the assurance that good Catholics would deal only with the shops which assented to this arrangement.

"The civil authorities regarded this action as in violation of the provision of the Penal Code which punishes with fine and imprisonment all threats or intimidation meant to interfere with another's liberty. The cures were summoned before the police and enjoined to cease their efforts in this direction. In reply, they declared that they had in view only the observance of God's commandments, and that their action in no way impaired the liberty of labor.

"Special orders were given by the vicarate of Rome to all the religious communities to deal only with the shops which close on Sunday; an effective measure, because those communities are numerous, and their patronage valuable. The cures also announced that they would publish a list of those who agreed to close their shops for all day on Sunday."

This shows plainly enough the animus of the Sunday movement. Its spirit is that of "rule or ruin." It says to the shopkeeper, "Close up on Sunday or I will ruin your business! What you believe or wish in the matter counts for nothing." It will work through the civil authorities if it can; and it will proceed without these, and even in defiance of them, if it can. What it has done in Italy it would do in America; it is the same movement in both countries.

Notice further, that what is compelled of these shopkeepers under threat of boycott, is homage to the Catholic Church. That church expressly declares in her books of doctrine that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by authority of the church, and rests upon no other basis. Hence it is not a command of God, but a command of the Catholic Church, that these shopkeepers must obey in Sunday closing. The Catholic Church is, by threats of boycott, compelling the shopkeepers of Rome to pay her homage.

What the Catholic Church is doing in Rome, she would do in America if she had the power. She would compel American shopkeepers to boy to her decrees here, as she does Italian shopkeepers in Rome. And the Sunday movement is putting just this power into her hands.

Sunday enforcement is enforced homage to the church of Rome; and Rome joins in the movement expressly to secure such homage to herself. But it is homage to Rome whether enforced by Rome herself, or by a "Sabbath association" calling itself Protestant.

"The Church Will 'Get the State'" American Sentinel 14, 12 , pp. 179, 180.

FOR years the church and the workingmen in this country have been drifting apart. The basis of unity between them which once existed has been lost, and no great effort has been put forth to restore it. From that basis the church, led by those who love money more than men, and the higher criticism more than the higher life, is daily moving further away.

But a new basis of union has been found, upon which the church and the workingmen can get together, although not to serve what were once the chief interests of church work. Apparently, the ends to be attained are a secondary consideration compared with the fact that the church and workingmen can once more stand together. The new basis is that of regard for the observance of Sunday.

In the cities of Pittsburg and Allegheny, Pa., this projected union has begun to take definite shape. Recently there was formed there a confederation of the churches, about 180 in number, to work up public sentiment in favor of more rigid enforcement of the Sunday laws. February 19, this federation, in conjunction with the "Christian Alliance," called a mass meeting of workingmen in one of the city theaters, and succeeeded [sic.] in forming a coalition with the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers. The president of the Association made a speech, in which he said:–

"What we have long sought assiduously has come in part. The church and the laboring men have come together. We will soon get the state, and with the church, the state, and the laboringmen united in a common cause, man's inhumanity to man will cease. All recognize the fact that the Sabbath is being desecrated by labor in the mills. The remedy for this wrong lies in unity and coˆperation. If this is not the remedy, it is the only force that can apply the correct remedy. The man who cavils at organization is weak or foolish. The church, the state, the nation are examples of its power. Legal enactments and independent political action for the preservation of the Sabbath will not be effective without the organization of labor. Would that all men could see this! I trust the results of this meeting may be as effective in throwing down the walls of the modern Jericho [Johnstown] as was the sound of the ram's horns in throwing down those of Jericho of old. May it result in the unification of all forces.

"Church and labor organizations are together in part only, because the church and labor organizations in coˆperating simply wait that the trio may be complete. We want the state. Thus armed we shall be enabled to make war upon every Sunday desecrator. Organize, unite and coˆperate. What we are after now are the

180

largest firms; these once fixed, the smaller ones will easily be brought into line. This meeting will really be the start of public work on the subject. The idea is to get public sentiment aroused."

First, the churches formed a federation to work up public sentiment against Sunday desecration. They called a mass meeting and secured the coˆperation of a great labor union. Next they will "get the state," and then they will be fully prepared to "make war upon every Sunday desecrator." The churches inaugurated the movement, then they led on the workingmen; and next they will lead on the state. The church will make war on Sunday desecrators through the agency of the state. And what kind of a proceeding will this be? Every student of history can answer this question.

When the church leads the state against those who will not regard a religious institution, nothing more can be wanting to constitute a complete union of church and state.

And then, when the churches shall "get the state" to do their bidding, "man's inhumanity to man will cease." Will it? History does not so testify. On the contrary, from what history does testify, we may be certain that "man's inhumanity to man" will go on worse than before. Man's inhumanity to man was never more fully shown than under a union of church and state.

Are the American people willing that a combination of churches shall "get the state"? Do they want a government which will be under direction of the churches? These are live questions for the people of Pennsylvania, and for the people everywhere, for the same influence is everywhere at work.

It is well that all people should observe the Sabbath,–but God's Sabbath, not man's, and in God's way and by God's power; not in man's way and by man's power.

March 30, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 13 , p. 193.

THE wedlock of church and state made never an unfruitful union.

POLITICS may be purified, but cannot be a means of purification.

THE State never made a success in playing the role of a missionary.

EARTHLY power was never joined with the church to accomplish a heavenly purpose.

THE law of man is in no sense a supplement to the law of God. The divine law is complete in itself.

THE more beams we have in our own eyes, the more easily can we see motes in the eyes of our neighbors.

A SUNDAY law represents an effort of the "Sabbath Trust" to "put up the price" on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is God's free gift.

THE State's right, or lack of right, to enforce Sunday observance, may be quickly discovered by asking, Would such a right be claimed for the State if it was known that Sunday is not the "Lord's day," or in any sense sacred?

THE Sabbath is a benefit to humanity, because it is divine. Take the divinity out of it, and the benefit is gone with it.

YOU can create hatred by law, but not love; hypocrisy, but not piety; and since love is not in human law, such law has no business in the realm of love.

THE Almighty has ordained the "powers that be," but He has not gone into partnership with them in governing the world.

"Power for the Church" American Sentinel 14, 13 , pp. 193, 194.

THE church to-day wants power. She wants to bring about reforms in society and in politics, and with these in view she is seeking to get control of the machinery of the State. She confesses that she has not now the power that she wants.

But the church professes to be proclaiming to the world the gospel of God; and that itself is power. It is the very power of God, and God is all-powerful.

The gospel is power; the realization of this fact seems to have been almost lost, notwithstanding its tremendous importance. The gospel is not a discourse about power. The Jews of old, we read, were astonished at the teaching of Christ, because "his word was with power." That was the gospel. The same was true of the preaching of the apostles. "My speech and my preaching," wrote the apostle Paul to the Corinthians, "was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power."

We must conclude then that where the gospel is, there is the power of God, which is certainly all the power required, and all that can be had, for any moral work. And where the power is not, on the other hand, there is no gospel.

What then is the trouble to-day? Is it with the

194

gospel? or with the church? Is it the church's duty to go into politics? or to get politics out of her sanctuary, and the power of God into it?

"Not by Politics, But by the Gospel" American Sentinel 14, 13 , p. 195.

THE United States Government has entered and taken possession of the Philippine Islands, for the purpose, professedly, of lifting the inhabitants to a higher level of moral, social, and political life. In justification of this policy the President said:–

"Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity? We had it in every aspiration of their minds, in every hope of their hearts. We were obeying a higher moral obligation which rested upon us, and which did not require anybody's consent."

This work of uplifting the Filipinos has been undertaken by the Government. It must therefore be carried out through politics. But is there any power in politics to accomplish the intended work?

Is it politics, or is it the gospel and savage alike? The Word of God, the highest authority for all Christians, affirms unequivocally that man has no power to save either his fellowmen or himself from any state of moral degradation; that salvation must come alone from the power of God, which is the gospel. Rom. 1:16.

And what is the United States Government now doing, in the fulfillment of this high moral obligation which it has assumed in the Philippines? It is actually slaughtering the wretched Filipinos by hundreds and by thousands. It has done this, and nothing more. This illustrates how a great work "for humanity" is performed by a civil government, through politics.

The gospel proceeds upon a different plan. The gospel never slaughters people. It always gives, and never "benevolently assimilates" the possessions of people against their will. The gospel slaughters vice and all immorality and wickedness in the hearts of men, but leaves the people themselves alive. It overcomes the opposition of people without killing them.

There is, therefore, another way of dealing with the Philippine problem–of discharging this "high moral obligation" resting upon the American people–which from the standpoint of regard for human life is infinitely preferable to the political methods employed by the Government. From the standpoint of economy, also, its superiority is no less evident.

This tremendous truth is realized by some at least who are interested in work "for humanity." Mr. W. H. Rice, writing in Our Day for March, pleads for "a higher plane on which to carry on the work of assimilating the people of our new possessions" than "the plane of politics." In his article he says:–

"The Indian is to-day the exemplification of the uselessness of political effort in lifting a people out of their degradation. The maxim of the politician is 'To the victors belong the spoils,' and the best way to treat the Indian is to despoil him. The work of the politician is purely mercenary. There may have been exceptions, but they are few.

"Socially, the North American Indians were no longer in the scale than the Sandwich Islander or the natives of Australia when our missionaries first went among them, yet in sixty years the Hawaiians were a Christianized and civilized people fit to take their place among favored nations.

"And mark this, the cost to the American Board was only a million and a quarter dollars for sixty years' work.

"Contrast this with the following:–

"'"Poor Lo" is an expensive burden. Since the United States Government was formed 19,000 . . . men, women, and children have been slain in Indian wars and affrays and about 30,000 Indians, at an expense to our Government of $807,073,658. To this immense sum must be added the civil expenditures of the Government on behalf of the Indians, which, between 1776 and 1890 amounted to $259,944,082, making a total of $1,067,017,740 for civil and military expenses in connection with the noble red man.'–Chicago Tribune, October 26, 1898.

"What made the work in Hawaii such a success?

"Certainly not politics nor parties. It was by the inoculation of moral principles. The basis of action was the principle that 'righteousness exalteth a nation,' and where this principle has been permitted free play, the Indian has been elevated thereby."

He cites also the results of missionary work done among certain of the Indians of Alaska:–

"In Metlakahtla there is no need of a jail, for there are no criminals, and the money that would in other towns be spent for enforcing law and order and caring for the poor, is here used for education and improvements. There are no filthy streets and no 'communal houses,' with their ten or fifteen families each, as in most Alaskan towns. Metlakahtla is a village of neat, pretty cottages, with well-cultivated gardens for each separate family. Here is an unanswerable argument for the power of the gospel to transform the degraded and ignorant, and a clear proof that it is worth while to seek to save the Indians. To allow these industrious, peace-loving, and godly Indians to be disturbed would be an everlasting disgrace to a nation claiming to be both civilized and Christian."–Missionary Review, July, 1898."

Who in the face of this testimony–and especially what Christian–will still say that the divine mission of this nation to the Philippines ought to be carried out by the Government through politics,–by the gospel of force rather than the gospel of love? If it ought not so to be, then a terrible mistake is being made, and the Government is perpetrating a terrible wrong, and every Christian in America ought to raise his voice in protest against it. The sentiment of the Christian church ought never to support (as it now does) the idea of regeneration.

"This Catholic Nation" American Sentinel 14, 13 , pp. 195, 196.

ARCHBISHOP IRELAND, who is as well known for his supposed Americanism as for his Catholicism, in a reply to the pope's recent letter on "Americanism," said:–

"The whole episcopate of the United States, in their own names and in the names of their people, are ready to repudiate and condemn those errors. We cannot but be indignant that such an injury has been done us–to our bishops, to our faithful people, to our nation–in designating by the word 'Americanism,' as certain ones have done, such errors and extravagances as these."

"An injury" "to our nation"; mark the words. The "errors" condemned by the pope's letter as being out of harmony with the teaching and practice of the papacy, do not represent Americanism, says this Catholic prelate. To say that they do, is to insult the nation. What then is true Americanism?–Why, of course,

196

that, and only that, which is in harmony with the mind of the pope! What else but this can be the meaning of the archbishop's language?

The prelates of Rome have not forgotten the Supreme Court decision that "This is a Christian nation."

"The Revival of Puritanism" American Sentinel 14, 13 , pp. 196, 197.

"HISTORY repeats itself;" not by accident, but because human nature is the same in all ages.

Human nature is the fallen nature. It is passionate, vindictive, superstitious. Out of the passions of human nature have arisen the persecutions which have stained the pages of history. Persecution is less seen to-day not because human nature has changed, not because men hate each other less than formerly, but because men hate each other less than formerly, but because the times have changed, and the methods which bigotry was once free to employ are no longer sanctioned.

But history will repeat itself in persecution, as in other things. "The spirit of the times may alter, will

197

alter." The cruel channels through which hatred most delights to move, now barred by custom and popular sentiment, will be reopened. Public sentiment is susceptible to change, and familiarity breeds contempt for injustice, in the place of fear. The spirit which calls for religious legislation–the spirit of the Sunday laws–has already begun to familiarize the public mind with scenes of religious persecution. It is the identical spirit of former persecutions, and is working–as it must–in the same way, and toward the same ends.

But the people of this generation are not familiar with the workings of this spirit, and the results that follow; and herein lies one of the chief dangers of the present time. The experiment of enforcing morality will be the more readily tried to-day because it is new; and the "new broom sweeps clean." There is a demand for the revival of Puritanism; and the movement for enforced morality means the re-establishment of Puritanism and nothing less. But what is Puritanism? In view of the manifest signs of the times, this question may well be asked by Americans and its answer kept constantly in mind. A full answer is given in early American history.

The nature of Puritanism is best shown by its acts. As an example of these, we cite the execution of Giles Corey, of Salem, Mass., for the crime of "witchcraft." The following account is taken from "The Blue Laws of Connecticut," a compilation from the early records, published by the "Truth Seeker" Company, New York City:–

"Giles Corey's case was a hard one. He was a sufferer under High Priest Parris and his female accusers. His wife had been complained of, and he knowing her innocence, spoke strongly in her defense. He was arraigned before the same court, but could not be induced to make a plea either of guilty or not guilty. He was a man of some property and he wished what he had to go to his children. He knew that if he confessed or pleaded guilty, his effects, in case of conviction, instead of going to his heirs would be grabbed either by the church or the court that convicted him. He adhered to his resolution, confessing nothing, and making no plea though three times brought before the legal dignitaries. In consequence of the silence he maintained, the sentence of peine forte et dure, from the code of King James I., was passed upon him, which was that he be remanded to his low damp dungeon, to be there laid upon his back on the bare floor, naked for the most part, a board to be laid upon him, and weights enough piled on the board to nearly crush the life out of him, and to have no sustenance, save on the first day three morsals of very poor bread, and on the second day three drafts of standing or stagnant water, the nearest to be found to the prison door, and this to be alternately his daily diet until he died.

"This horrible sentence was carried out and the suffering that man passed through cannot be conceived. . . It is said the last act in this diabolical tragedy was enacted in an open field near the prison. The wretched sufferer begged his executioners to increase the weights which were crushing him that his agonies might be ended. The hope, however, that he would yield and acknowledge his guilt, so that his property could be secured, induced them not to hurry his death. But he assured them that it was of no use to expect him to yield; that there could be but one way of ending the matter, and that they might as well pile on the rocks and have the matter ended. Calef says that as his body yielded to the pressure, his tongue protruded from his mouth, and an official forced it back with his cane. This inhuman act is attributed to the pious Parris, who made himself so officious in the Salem trials and executions. Upham, in narrating this horrid cruelty, says: 'For a person more than eighty-one years of age this must be allowed to have been a marvelous exhibition of prowess; illustrating, as strongly as anything in human history, the power of a resolute will over the utmost pain and agony of body, and demonstrating that Giles Corey was a man of heroic nerve and a spirit that could not be subdued.' This was a case of Christian persecution, where the recipient was, as has been the case in thousands of other instances, vastly superior, in everything that constitutes manhood, to the person who inflicted it."

And this, in company with all the other persecutions of that time, was done by men "of like passions" with the men of to-day. The lapse of two centuries has made no change in human nature. Human nature, inflamed by hatred, still delights in scenes of torture; and the burning of negroes at the stake, in this country, takes place even in defiance of the Constitution, which asserts that "cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted." Let the Constitution be changed (and it is now being changed); let the spirit of religious legislation–of enforced "morality"–be revived (and it is being revived); let the public mind be familiarized with civil prosecutions for conscience' sake (and it is being familiarized with such scenes); and the way will be fully open for a return of Puritanism, and the final extinguishing of the torch of "Liberty enlightening the world."

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 13 , p. 208.

WE must have purity in politics to sweep away the corruption that exists in the community, it is said: so the community is called on to go to the primaries and polls and purify politics. But which must we have first–pure politics? or a pure community? If we have the pure community we do not need to have it purified by politics; and if we have a corrupt community, how is such a community going to purify politics?

From the corrupt community comes corruption in politics; and from the corrupt hearts of men comes the corruption that taints the community. The heart is the fountain head of the whole stream: and from God, through repentance and faith, must come the purity that is to cleanse the heart.

OUTRAGES against Protestant missionaries in Ecuador are being reported from that country, and the United States Government is asked to protect them, they having been sent out by churches in the United States.

In Christian missionary work, the foremost consideration must always be that of how the cause of Christianity can be best advanced. Will it be by the protecting arm of the civil government? Of this, in the light of missionary history, there is room for serious doubt. Frequently the best interests of the missionary cause have demanded the sacrifice of the lives of the missionaries. Dependence upon God is a vital principle of Christianity, and this cannot well be taught in connection with an appeal to the civil power. God sent the missionaries; they went out to represent his government; and to his government–not to one which did not send them–they may properly look for protection. Why should Christian missionary work be put on a different basis now from that on which it was conducted in the days of Christ and the apostles?

April 6, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 14 , p. 209.

EVERY Sabbath law is a bond of union between the church and the world.

THAT an individual is politically saved, is no sign that he is not morally lost.

THE Christian policy of forgiving all trespasses would be suicidal in civil government.

IT is impossible for a State to maintain religion and still keep separate from all the churches.

THE work of the Christian minister is to touch the heart; that of the civil official is to restrain the hands.

THE Puritan spirit will not let a person be at ease without knowing that he is making some other persons ill at ease.

GOD'S Sabbath law provides for rest, with refreshment: man's sabbath law provides only restraint, without refreshment.

TO PRESERVE individual rights is as large a contract as any civil government can undertake. When it tries to do more, it invariably does less.

THE best thing in the world may become the worst thing by being put to an improper use. This truth is made prominent in the history of religion.

LOVE carries no sword save the "sword of the Spirit."

THE Bible in one hand of the civil power cannot sanctify the carnal weapon in the other.

IF society cannot be elevated by elevating its members individually, it certainly cannot be elevated en masse.

POLITICAL reform may dam up the stream of social and governmental impurity, but this only causes an overflow. Divine reformation cleanses the fountain head, and so purifies the stream itself.

"The Menace of the Trusts" American Sentinel 14, 14 , pp. 209, 210.

THE world of trade furnishes at the present time one of the most startling of modern phenomena, in the sudden and enormous extension of the dangerous principle embodied in the combinations called Trusts.

These combinations put enormous power into the hands of a few persons–a condition which is contrary to every interest of popular government.

It is essential to the success of popular government that there be an even distribution of power among the people. The people have equal rights; and every right means power. From the rights of the people springs all power that can rightfully be exercised in the government.

At the setting up of the Government of the United States special pains were taken to safeguard the rights of the people. It was feared that Congress and the Federal Government might usurp powers which it was not deemed for the popular good that they should have. Therefore it was provided in the Constitution that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be

210

construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Great power was centered by the people only in the Federal Government, over which the people were to exercise control at the general elections; and this power was fenced about by safeguards in the Federal Constitution.

But in the Trusts a power of vast dimensions arises which is not centered in any organization subject to change by a popular vote, or in any way to the control of the people. This disturbs the balance of power just as certainly and as harmfully as though power to a like extent had been usurped by the Government itself.

By the Constitution extraordinary power is put in the hands of a few persons chosen by the people and subject to their control. By the Trusts extraordinary power is placed in the hands of a few persons not chosen by the people, and subject to no authority but themselves.

Whether these Trusts crowned monarchs can be made subject to the popular will or not–whether, in other words, they have power under the people or above the people–is a question that is now before the courts for decision. The Trusts defy the power of both state and national courts alike, and thus far have done so successfully.

The attorney-general of the United States has recently declared that the Federal courts have no power to deal with "any combination constituting a restraint and monopoly of trade unless such trade is what is known as interstate or international trade and commerce." But by the provisions of the Constitution, each State in the Union is compelled to receive the products of every State, and permit the sale of the same within its borders, so that the products of a Trust in one State can be forced upon the people of every other State, under the authority and protection of Federal law, and in defiance of any power that can be exercised by a State legislature. It only needs the Trusts should find a home in some friendly State–as they have now in New Jersey–to enable them to flourish in spite of all legislation that can be enacted elsewhere, under the decision given by Attorney-General Griggs. And that the Trusts, with their unlimited riches, will not be able to buy themselves a home in some State, in view of the susceptibility of legislatures to touch of wealth, is entirely too much to expect.

This is the situation created by the Trusts to-day. The evil which they bring to the people is twofold. They drive multitudes of the smaller business concerns out of existence, thus crushing individual enterprise, reducing wages and wage earners, giving the country superior prices and inferior products, and swelling the already vast army of the unemployed; to which must be added the fearfully demoralizing influence of an example which denies that honesty is the best policy, that diligence and frugality are the parents of wealth; and declares that it is good for the public man to be led into temptation and that government exists by the consent of millions of dollars rather than of millions of men.

And this is not all, for, on the other hand, the well-known tendency of a capitalized business to "overstock," when carried out in such huge concerns as the Trusts, threatens the country with a deluge which will sweep away the financial resources of millions who are being led to put their money into Trust securities and expect," says Attorney-General Haines, of Maine, speaking on this point, "to see the greatest panic the . . . ever saw in less than five years as a result of Trusts."

What must result from this tremendous disturbance of the balance of power so essential to the interests of republican government? What such a disturbance means in the atmospheric elements, it no less surely signifies in organized human society; it is the precursor of a storm. And the violence of that storm will be in proportion to the extent to which the powers of the people have become unbalanced. It will be, indeed, a cyclone of human passion, the hail of which will be bullets and the rain of blood.

In the year 1898 the total of authorized Trust stocks and bonds was $916,176,000; for the first two months of the present year the total is $1,106,300,000; and the estimated total for the full year, according to the Financial Chronicle, exceeds $6,000,000,000. Thus rapidly is the barometer falling, and at this rate how long will it be before nature–human nature–will precipitate the struggle for readjustment, and the recovery of the . . . and rights of the people?

"Superfluous Vigilance" American Sentinel 14, 14 , pp. 210, 211.

SPEAKING of the work of the "American Sabbath Union," the Independent remarks that one of the duties devolving on this organization is that of watching the interests of the "Sabbath" in the legislatures. Much vigilance has to be exercised to prevent any lessening of the force of the "Sabbath laws." For example, it says a section of the penal code in a certain State read: "All labor on Sunday is prohibited, excepting works of necessity or charity. In works of necessity or charity is included whatever is needful during the day for the good order and health or comfort of the community." An amendment to the last clause was introduced, providing that "in works of necessity is included whatever is needed during the day for the good order, health, recreation, convenience or comfort of the community." Such proposed amendments to the "Sabbath laws" in the various States oblige the American Sabbath Union to keep a vigilant watch lest they receive legislative sanction and thus modify the rigor of the "Sabbath" statutes.

211

But what is there about recreation or convenience on Sunday to which any reasonable person need take exception? Must people be inconvenienced and denied recreation on that day? The Sabbath is a memorial of creation; how then can it be better observed than in recreation? Of the Creator himself it is written that "On the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." What then is there wicked about refreshment on the Sabbath day?

Cannot the members of the American Sabbath Union be at east without knowing that people are being inconvenienced on Sunday and after six days of toil are being denied any recreation?

Even if there were anything wicked in recreation on the Sabbath day, what would this have to do with the business of a State legislature? Is it the State's business to suppress a thing because it is wicked? What then is wicked? The Catholic says it is wicked to stay away from mass. Must the State endorse attendance at mass? If is wicked to . . . the Word of the Lord, must the State compel all people to believe? Must the State, in short, undertake to suppress sin?

The Sabbath means both rest and refreshment; but this is true of the Bible Sabbath, "the Sabbath of the Lord," the seventh day. The Sunday sabbath means rest without refreshment, rest under law, restraint, which is more wearisome than no rest at all. That it does mean this, is evidenced beyond controversy by the Sunday laws.

April 13, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 15 , p. 225.

NO CIVIL law can deliver anybody from moral slavery.

THE State cannot enact religious laws without assuming the attribute of infallibility.

IF righteousness by law were a possibility, the Pharisees would not have been hypocrites.

RELIGIOUS legislation cannot make anybody good, but it can help almost anybody to be bad.

THE devil has no objection to any plan of making men righteous which does not include the exercise of faith.

THE preacher in his God-appointed sphere is a lighthouse, in politics he is a will-o-the-wisp flitting over a swamp.

THE State says mankind needs a "civil Sabbath," the Creator says man needs a religious Sabbath. Which is right?

IF the Scriptures are true, the time will never come in this present world when the saints will be able to out-vote the sinners.

WHEN Christians take hold of politics, they pull themselves down to the level of the world, but do not pull the world up to the level of Christianity.

IF the "civil Sabbath" is something altogether distinct from the religious Sabbath, as we are told, why must the two always come on the same day?

BEING hopelessly divided as to what is true and right in religion, the preachers now offer to take charge of civil affairs and lead the country into a political heaven!

"The National Recognition of God" American Sentinel 14, 15 , pp. 225, 226.

THE separation of this country from the empire of Britain, and the erection of the American Republic in the place of the British monarchy, are based upon the assertion that "all men are created equal."

Upon this assertion is based the assertion that all men have "certain unalienable rights;" and by the assertion of these rights Jefferson and his compatriots justified the separation from Great Britain.

But the assertion that "all men are created equal" is an unequivocal recognition of God. The very existence of this American Republic is, therefore, based upon a recognition of God.

No one can justly claim, therefore, that God is not recognized in the American Republic. Yet precisely this claim is made by the National Reform party and their religious allies. They say that the nation will perish unless it makes a recognition of the Deity.

But upon a recognition of the Deity is based the whole national structure as it has stood since the Revolution; for, as pointed out, the recognition of God the Creator is made the basis and justification of the first and fundamental step in giving the nation a separate, independent existence.

226

What the "reform" combination wants, then, is a recognition of God different from that made in bringing the nation into existence. But a different recognition of God could be made only by taking away the lowest foundation stone of the national structure and thus upsetting the edifice itself. Any other recognition of God than that which has been made means a revolution in the Government.

By the recognition of God the Republic was called into being; and by it therefore have come the rights and liberties which the people of the nation have enjoyed. God gave the people these rights, and any so-called recognition of him under which the liberties of the people would be abridged, is not a recognition of him at all. It is a recognition of some other god than the Creator.

"Satanic 'Reform'" American Sentinel 14, 15 , p. 226.

TWO or three weeks ago we mentioned the face of a leading Salvation Army man in Wichita, Kansas, making a campaign for the office of mayor of that city. We mentioned also some of the great things that he proposed to do in the way of reform if he should be elected, among which were the abolition of all plays and games of all sorts on Sunday; policemen to be requested to carry Bibles; ladies wearing bloomers to be fined five dollars for the first offense, and to be put ten days in jail for the second offense; the city to pay the street car fare of all who desire to attend church on Sunday; religious services to be held in the city hall on Sunday, all public officials expected to be present; the meetings of the common council to be opened and closed with prayer; a public library made up wholly of Bibles to be added to the library already existing; all stores except drug stores to be closed on Sunday; and all poor people to be supplied with drugs and medicines free of charge.

From this it will be seen that this candidate proposes to be thoroughly consistent too, because "he holds that every one is born with moral instincts, and would not go wrong did not opportunities beset one on all sides."

That has been the religio-political reformer's theory from the beginning. It is the theory upon which the papacy was built, and consistently enough is the characteristic of the building of the image to the papacy. It places outside of men all the responsibility for their wrong doing. So in order that all men may be perfectly good, all that is needed is to take away all opportunities for them to do anything bad. Now if that principle be correct then Satan himself can be made a saint by that process.

The truth is, however, that this principle is as false as any other one of Satan's invention. By thus denying to men responsibility for any bad actions, men are also robbed of all virtue; because when men are good only by being deprived of the opportunity to be otherwise, all such goodness is altogether of a negative sort, an empty nothing.

Such is not Christianity. Such principles and such methods of reform never can come from God. The truth is that man is responsible, altogether responsible, for any wrong thing that he does. And recognizing this truth, the Lord extends to all men the virtue by which to love and choose the good, and the power to do the good in the face of all the opportunities to evil that this world of evil can present.

Such are the true principles and the true methods of reform. The principle and method of Satan can be carried out, and that "reform" wrought only by the power of the State. The principle and method of the Lord, and thus true reform, can be carried out only by the power of God. All who adopt the principle of Satan depend upon legislation and the power of the State. All who adopt the principle of the Lord depend upon the power of God.

The principle and method of Satan are fast developing in the United States, and this Satanic reform is being largely put into operation all over the land by means of the churches and religious organizations and combinations, etc., of the whole country. The Lord's principle and method also are growing, and true reform is being put into operation by true Christians throughout the land. And it is time that every man should be intelligently looking at this matter, and choosing on which side he will stand: whether with Satan or with Christ. There is no middle ground. The enemy has come in like a flood. The Spirit of the Lord is lifting up a standard against him, and will put him to flight. This alone is the safe side.
A. T. J.

"Liberty, 'Good Will,' and 'Fraternal Feeling'" American Sentinel 14, 15 , pp. 226, 227.

THE United States Philippine Commissioners have issued a proclamation to the Filipinos, promising them "ample liberty" if they will submit.

"Liberty" means, of course, the same thing the world over. It means the same in the United States that it means in the islands off the coast of Asia. What does it mean in these islands, according to this proclamation?

The proclamation begins with the statement that "The Commission desires to assure the people of the Philippine Islands of the cordial good will and fraternal feeling which is entertained for them by the President of the United States and by the American people." These are words that scarcely fit the tune to which the Filipinos have for some weeks been listening. And there can be no doubt in their minds of the primary importance of the meaning conveyed by the tune.

The President and the people for whom the proclamation speaks have the same "cordial good will and fraternal feeling" toward the Filipinos who were killed

227

in the battle with the American troops. It was only by chance–not intention–that this "cordial good will and fraternal feeling" did not affect the survivors in the way that it did their less fortunate companions in arms. When a person fires a gun at you with intent to kill, it matters not whether he is actuated by "cordial good will and fraternal feeling" or by cordial hatred.

The proclamation proceeds with the statement that "The aim and object of the American Government, apart from the fulfillment of the solemn obligations it has assumed toward the family of nations by its acceptance of sovereignty over the Philippine Islands, is the well being, prosperity and happiness of the Philippine people and their elevation and advancement to a position among the most civilized peoples of the world." This is to be brought about, under American rule, by "the assurance of peace and order, by the guarantee of civil and religious liberty, by the establishment of justice, by the cultivation of letters, science, and the liberal and practical arts, by the enlargement of intercourse with foreign nations, by expansion of industrial pursuits, by trade and commerce, by multiplication and improvement of the means of internal communication, by development, with the aid of modern mechanical inventions, of the great natural resources of the Archipelago, and, in a word, by the uninterrupted devotion of the people to the pursuit of useful objects and the realization of those noble ideas which constitute the higher civilization of mankind."

"Unfortunately," the address continues, "these pure aims and purposes of the American Government and people have been misinterpreted to some of the inhabitants of certain islands, and as a consequence the friendly American forces have, without provocation or cause been openly attacked." How has this misinterpretation been made? We know of nothing better calculated to misinterpret benevolent motives and intentions than weapons of war. Nobody ever gets any hint of benevolent intentions from such things; consequently, if benevolence is really behind them, they grossly misinterpret it. And since this is so, it is against reason to use them in the execution of benevolent designs.

What would be the meaning of an armed force of a foreign power being stationed on soil of the United States, and affirming an intention of staying till they got ready to go? What would such a thing mean to the American people? How much misinterpreting would be required to precipitate hostilities between them and the people?

And if that attitude would not be expressive of good will in the United States, would it be expressive of good will anywhere else?

The proclamation affirms that–

"1. The supremacy of the United States must and will be enforced throughout every part of the Archipelago, and those who resist it can accomplish no end other than their own ruin.

"2. To the Philippine people will be granted the most ample liberty and self-government reconcilable with the maintenance of a wise, just, stable, effective, and economical administration of public affairs and compatible with the sovereign and international rights and the obligations of the United States."

Would this mean "ample liberty" in the United States? Would it mean liberty in any sense? Would the American people who lived in the days of Washington have accepted this king of "ample liberty" from George III? Is not this precisely the liberty he was willing to grant?

No argument is necessary to convince Americans that this would not mean liberty for them. It would not mean liberty in the United States. And if it does not mean liberty here, does it mean liberty anywhere else?

The one thing that is withheld from these people under American rule is the one thing George III. wanted to withhold from the Americans–liberty. And that is the one thing above all others that they want.

But is the United States going to insist upon this definition of "ample liberty"? That is the question which lends vast importance to the situation at Manila. If this meaning of liberty is insisted on there, what is liberty going to mean here? If we accept this meaning for it there, can we refuse to accept it here? We cannot, without taking leave of consistency and logic.

Let American people maintain one meaning for liberty the world over, and that the meaning insisted on hold up to the world by this nation at the time of its birth.

"The Fly in the Ointment" American Sentinel 14, 15 , pp. 227, 228.

AT the late National Reform convention in Boston, one speaker said:–

"I see little difference between what Israel was and our nation should be except this: when difficulties arose God's will was sought through the prophets, while we have the completed revelation, the Bible, to solve our problems, and the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth."

That is all right if it is only left to the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide people into the truth; but this is not what the "reform" party wants. That would leave them out of the matter, and they do not mean to be left out. They believe themselves to be the successors of the prophets.

They want o be empowered to solve the religious problems for the nation; they want to be interpreters of the Bible to the nation, and have the will of God, as they state it, enforced upon the nation b law.

The National Reform party and their religious allies never spend any time advocating a scheme of government in which religion is to be applied only by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. But as certainly as the

228

Holy Spirit is the guide into all spirit truth, and free to all, so certainly is any human interpreter of the will of God superfluous, anti-biblical, and blasphemous.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 15 , p. 241.

LIBERTY is more than a political question. To discuss the advisability of granting or withholding liberty from any people, is to question the advisability of recognizing individual rights. And this, in the United States, is to question the advisability of maintaining or repudiating the Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution. But these cannot be repudiated without a political revolution.

All political parties have upheld the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. When the Southern States repudiated the latter document by maintaining the doctrine of negro slavery, it meant not a contest of politics, but a repudiation of the Government itself.

Political contests are settled every few years, quietly, at the polls. But this question of liberty or slavery was settled by four years of terrible war.

Yet to-day there are many people, and readers of the AMERICAN SENTINEL at that, who see nothing more than a question of politics in the policy of foreign conquest upon which the American Government has entered.

The denial of liberty to any people is a denial of the American doctrine of inalienable rights; and a denial of this includes a denial of the individual rights of conscience; and a denial of these rights is a denial of the right to observe a Sabbath day in accordance with the dictates of conscience–to observe the seventh day according to the commandment of God, in opposition to first-day observance by the commandment of men.

Do you see anything more than mere politics in that? We do.

April 20, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 16 , p. 242.

THE Creator means every man to be a monarch–never himself.

TO OBEY Cesar in any matter of religion is to rob God of his rightful worship.

IF the kingdom of heaven could be set up by vote, it would be liable to political overthrow.

WHEN religion gets into politics, it is only to be expected that politics will get into religion.

THE papacy never asked for anything more than that the State should enforce "the revealed will of God."

THE individual who is determined to attain popularity must expect to part company with all unpopular truth.

THE business of the Christian Church in this world is not to drive the world to God, but to reflect the glory of God to the world.

TO CLOTHE the State with the attributes of divinity does not elevate the State, but in principle degrades God to the level of a man.

THE man who claims to be a successor of the prophets, is pretty likely to be a descendant of the Pharisees.

YOU cannot legislate or vote good fruit out of a bad tree–good government out of a corrupt people.

THE man who needs a revolution in his own heart to set things right, generally imagines things can only be straightened out by a revolution in society.

"The Issue in Pennsylvania" American Sentinel 14, 16 , pp. 241, 242.

WE mentioned last week a very significant feature of the work now being done to promote Sunday enforcement in Pennsylvania; namely, that of a body of workers five thousand strong covering the large cities of Pittsburg and Allegheny with reform literature in a single day. This is evidence of the earnestness and resources that accompany this movement; and there were other evidences which could only be appreciated by listening to the speeches and witnessing the spirit which controlled the meeting.

Much was made of the fact by prominent speakers, and not without reason, that on this occasion the church and the workingmen had at last come together. Here, for the first time in the history of the Sunday movement, the long sought alliance of the Sunday and labor-protecting movements became an accomplished fact; and here, also for the first time, an army of workers gave the movement their vigorous support.

This is the beginning of what has been long expected by those who have watched this movement and understood its import,–the beginning of an impetus which is to sweep all before it and accomplish in full the union of religion with the State. It is the beginning of the end.

The Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers is one of the strongest labor organizations in

242

the land; and this organization, which is now the ally of the church forces in the cause of Sunday enforcement, has resolved to prosecute every mill and factory operator and railway official who violates the Sunday law of Pennsylvania. This is the first time that a great labor organization has taken up the work of enforcing the Sunday laws.

At the mass meetings held in the Bijou Theater, Pittsburg, one speaker said: "This country is being formed into one vast amalgamated association. Don't be alarmed, for we are all going to join it, and have one vast confederacy and federation; but woe to him who stands up against it! Woe to him who desecrates the Sabbath [Sunday]!"

Woe to him who stands up against the coming combine of religious and secular forces, armed with the power of legislatures and the courts, to dictate to every person the day which he shall observe as the Sabbath! That is the ultimatum that is coming; and what reply will you, reader, make to it? Are you ready for it, and are your friends and neighbors ready for it? Have you done all that you care to do to enlighten the people upon the principles of truth involved in this coming crisis?

"The World's New and Most Chivalrous Knight" American Sentinel 14, 16 , pp. 242, 243.

THE Rev. Dr. John Henry Barrows was one of the leading spirits in the calling and conducting of the World's Congress of Religions in Chicago, the year of the World's Fair. He was chosen to give the first series of lectures on oriental religions, which is conducted by the Chicago University in India. From there he continued his tour around the world, speaking upon the world's religions, in behalf of a world's religion. Since returning to America, he has traveled extensively throughout the United State, continuing the same work. About the first of the year 1899, he was called to the presidency of Oberlin College. March 20 a reception in his honor was given by the Congregational Club of Toledo, Ohio, at which he delivered a speech upon "Greater America." Because of the position that he occupied in the World's Congress of Religions, and the position he occupies now, and what he has done all around the world in behalf of a world's religion, the views which he expressed, of greater America and of its mission now in the world, are worth noting. As reported in the Tribune of this city, he said:–

"We have forsaken the policy of selfish isolation, and come to realize our world-mission in these days when God has made us a world-power. We have not abandoned the Monroe Doctrine, as European countries will discover if they attempt to disregard it. We are drawing into closer fellowship with the people of the Western Hemisphere. There must ever be peace and good understanding with Canada and Mexico and the South American republics. These are great areas for our commerce and for our ideas. But America has widened westward across the Pacific, which is to be the chief highway of the world's future commerce. In Hawaii and the Ladrones and the Philippines we have stepping-stones for American ideas clear over to the greatest and most populous side of the world. My own observations in the Orient have deepened the conviction that the greatest event of the twentieth century is to be the uplifting of Asia and thus the unitizing of the globe.

"Heaven forbid that we should go to the Philippines in the spirit with which Spain went to Cuba or Holland to the South-eastern Asiatic Archipelago. If we hold them, and I do not see how we can get rid of them, let us hold them as a 'trust for civilization.' Let us show that America does not mean selfishness and spoliation, but means enfranchisement, uplifting, enlightenment, peace, and toleration."

"We need great men, great leaders, to shape and direct. And God is giving them to us. The Greater America must have greater statesmen. We, of course, shall need a larger army and a larger navy. We could hardly have better ones. We must have a better diplomatic service, national schools, for training the representatives of the republic.

"We shall have a new national expansion in the days to come. We shall see our commerce and our ideas penetrating and controlling the West Indies and the East Indies. Our scholars, our missionaries, our preachers, our books, and our business, will have a deep entrance into the world of Asia. We are now the chief branch of what men call the Anglo-Saxon race, and whatever greatness we have already achieved is hardly to be mentioned by the side of the grandeur that awaits us before the close of the next century.

"The expansion has already come. America is no longer a babe in the wood, but the foremost of western nationalities, and the sight to-day of our people for the first time thoroughly united, contemplating expectantly and in no shallow and trifling temper, the greater destinies to which God is calling is a hopeful and inspiriting spectacle.

"I wish to express my confidence, reborn out of what I have seen in the Orient, and out of what I have seen in more than thirty thousand miles of travel in nearly all parts of our country, wherein during the last fifteen months I have been able to touch the vital centers of American thought and character–my confidence that this land 'to human nature dear;' this land which is not unbeloved of God; that this Republic, filled with God-fearing and man-loving people; that this Nation, proud and grateful for a history reaching from Plymouth Harbor to Manila Bay, is no longer to be treated as a foundling, but is the strongest and most chivalrous knight, equipped for valiant service in the kingdom of God, to be seen on the face of the earth.

"I have felt the pulse of National Christian conventions; I have had my Americanism refortified; I have entered the homes of men and women who pray to God for our country, the home of many a Christian pastor, East and West; and the home of the Christian President at Washington; I have talked with scholars, statesmen, far-sighted editors, university professors, devoted women, whose hearts are aflame with the purest patriotism; I have faced many thousands of college students and Christian ministers and candidates for the ministry.

243

I have stood by the grave of the mighty American dead, as more than a year ago I stood by the graves of American missionaries in India, beneath the rustle of the palm tree and the light of the Southern Cross; I have seen in the last six months a puissant nation rousing herself from sleep and shaking once more her invincible locks, and those timid and pessimistic teachers who are warning us to beware of our destiny and shrink back from it misconceive and underrate the mighty and noble spirit of the American people."

Thus it is seen not only that he is still pushing forward his idea of a world's religion, but that he is enlisting in the enterprise this "greater America" which he describes. And she, with her united people, her greater army and navy, her combinations of Christian teachers, and Christian scholars, and Christian professors, and Christian preachers, and Christian president, is already dubbed "the strongest and most chivalrous knight, equipped for valiant service in the kingdom of God, to be seen on the face of the earth." And thus this nation is expected to take the lead in turning this world into the kingdom of God.

There can be no doubt at all that in all this Dr. Barrows has rightly gauged the "Christian" public opinion of the United States, for this is exactly the new phase that the theocratic combinations already formed, might properly be expected to take on; it is strictly in their line of things; and as marking the progress of the National Reform elements of the country, it is a distinct sign of the times.
A. T. J.

"Christianity and Federation" American Sentinel 14, 16 , pp. 250, 251.

"WE believe," says the Christian Citizen (Chicago) "the day is not distant when there will be a federation of Christian people of all creeds and denominations under some such name as Christian Citizenship League, or Christian League, with some such motto as the organization has with which we are working."

But what have Christian people to do with "federation"? Federation is not Christian union. Christian union is unity, established and mained by the agency of the Holy Spirit. It is plainly declared in that Word which is authority to all Christians, to be even such unity and oneness as exists between the divine Father and his Son. It is a most important feature of the Christian system. Where it is lacking, there can be only a semblance of Christianity, and not Christianity itself.

Federation, therefore, does not serve the purpose of Christianity. Yet it is to hold together a "league" which claims to be Christian. But when an organization professedly Christian is held together by an earthly bond of union rather than the heavenly bond expressly provided by the Lord and set forth in his Word as indispensable for all Christians, we may be certain there is something wrong. We may be sure such a "league" is going to do something not in the line of Christian work.

We believe with the Christian Citizen that this league is coming. But when it does come, will it mark an advanced, or a retrograde, position for the churches en-

251

rolled in it? And what will be its attitude toward those Christians and others who dissent from its principles and aims? The history of such combines in the past is not very reassuring to friends of the Christian cause.

April 27, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 17 , p. 257.

"THE revealed will of God" is a phrase often used to conceal the will of a bigot.

THE true religion wants nothing which it is in the power of the civil authority to give.

STEEL and lead are not good conductors for an endowing current of Christian benevolence.

SOCIETY cannot elevate or reform itself any more than a machine can create power to run itself.

THE truly "Christian conscience" seeks not to have men punished for their sins, but saved from them.

THE saloon may be induced to keep Sunday, but this will be very doubtful honor for the "Sabbath."

THE doctrine of imperialism assumes the people of foreign lands to be guilty until they are proved innocent, incapable until they are proved capable.

THE Christian Church wants no help from the State any more than a steamship wants help from the ocean. For the State to get into the Church is as bad as for the ocean to get into the ship.

THE Bible in the one hand of civilization, will not induce the heathen to come near the sword in the other hand.

THE poorest conception of God and his government to be drawn from any source, is that derived from efforts made to enforce God's law by human tribunals.

"SIX days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," says the law of the Creator. Where does the "civil Sabbath" come in here?

THE way to lift society out of the mire of moral degeneracy is not by piling upon it more legislation and new "reform" organizations. Society has enough of these already. What the reform cause wants is not more machinery but more steam.

"What Evangelist Moody Says on the Question" American Sentinel 14, 17 , pp. 257, 258.

EVANGELIST D. L. MOODY does not agree with the clergymen who are preaching reform by "Christian citizenship" and similar theories. We hear it said everywhere now that the great need of the church is to secure the alliance of the State. In Pittsburg, for example, a federation of the churches has secured an alliance with a great labor organization, by which achievement it is thought an important step has been taken toward the overthrow of the kingdom of evil and the setting up of righteousness in the earth, or at least in that portion of it. The system only needs to be extended to produce general righteousness in society and government, and it is proposed to extend it; for as one speaker said, "We are going to have one vast confederacy and federation;" and then "Woe to him who stands up against it."

But Evangelist Moody takes no stock in anything of

258

this kind. He wants to see the church get power from an altogether different source. He says so very plainly and forcibly. Listen to these words addressed to a Chicago audience by the great revivalist a few days ago:–

"Ten great sermons have been preached by the apostles,–sermons that led the way for all the gospel sermons that have come in these later days. The power of God and of the Holy Ghost was with Peter. If that power rested upon the church to-day, we could drive the rum devil from the world. Human nature has not changed in the last 1900 years. Preach a different gospel from that which was successful in the apostolic days? O, bosh!

"There will be riots and revolution all over this land if things to on another twenty-five years as they have been going. What can prevent such horrors? What can save the life of the nation? Only the strength of a quickened church, and the church can only be quickened by a visitation of power such as the old apostles knew! May we get back that old apostolic fire again."

That is what Brother Moody says on this great question, and we think he knows what he is talking about. We think so because his words are in harmony with Scripture, and with his own experience and the history of all successful reform work since the Christian Church began.

"The New-Fangled 'Good Samaritan'" American Sentinel 14, 17 , p. 258.

A RELIGIOUS paper of Chicago, exulting at the triumphs of goodness accomplished by the United States as "the Good Samaritan" in the war last year, says: "We have made Cuba rejoice and Porto Rico glad, and we have given the Philippines a chance to breathe."

It is certain that from several thousand at least of the Filipinos "we" have taken away forever all "chance to breathe," and there is not much of "the good Samaritan" about that.

Further, this religious paper says: "We have stopped extermination. We can take up our morning papers without reading a daily chapter of Cuban horrors. The Stars and Stripes are now waving where the buzzards used to swarm over the dead." Alongside of that read the following lines from a letter written by a soldier in the Philippines, Feb. 7, 1899:–

"The natives fought with desperation. Their sharp-shooters planted themselves in trees and stayed there until they were shot down. Their trenches were just filled with the dead. But the boys have done their work well, and the insurgents are about fifteen miles out on all sides of the city, and still going. The boys are right after them, however, burning as they go. The skies at night are red with fires. The troops have been allowed to take anything they could find, and as a consequence considerable looting was done. One fellow got $600 out of a priest's house. Many have gotten diamonds and precious stones. Of course there has been great cruelty, but these people needed a lesson. The only way to govern them is by fear. So all the burning and devastation was necessary. I hope it won't have to go further."

"Of course, all this has not been accomplished without great loss on our part. Last night the list of the dead had risen to fifty. Thus far about two hundred wounded have been taken to the hospitals. I tell you it is a terrible sight to see the poor boys being taken into the hospitals. It just seems criminal to sacrifice so many American lives on such a country as this is. And the United States paid $20,000,000 for the privilege. The end has not yet come, and no one knows how long it will take to subdue these people."

"I sincerely hope that it won't take long to educate these people, and that they will soon be convinced that to resist the superior power of the United States is worse than useless. But it is a harsh and unpleasant lesson that we are forced to teach these people. And the worst of it is they are fighting for just the same principle which actuated us in our struggle for our independence; that is the right to govern themselves and to conduct their own affairs. They look upon us as invaders, and although we are feared we are heartily hated by the inhabitants. The Filipinos die with curses on their lips and hatred in their eyes, and we are paying too great a price."

This is the plain truth and the cold facts, just as they are written by one who is on the spot–one too whose heart revolts at it. Such things, of course, are only to be expected of the governments, states, and nations of earth; but when the churches, religious teachers, and religious papers identify themselves with all this and proclaim that in it all "we have played the Good Samaritan," this presents a condition of things in the professed Christianity of the Unity States, that poses as the exemplary Christianity of the world, which, to the one who has a regard for real Christianity, is more disheartening than is the Philippine campaign to that honest soldier. What can such Christianity be but a part of that Babylon which is fallen, is fallen, and is making all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication?
A. T. J.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 17 , p. 272.

IT cannot be too carefully borne in mind, and therefore too often repeated where it is liable to be forgotten, that in the field of morals knowledge is not power. There can be no moral reform without power; and no moral power without God.

WHAT a great problem it is to find out how the world, or society, can be reformed without starting with a reform in the individual heart! From earliest times reformers have been working on the solution of this problem, and to-day they are still at it. But the solution is still undiscovered.

May 4, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 18 , p. 273.

IN a really free government all things are subordinate to the individual.

THE church's power for good is not the power of federation, but the power of godliness.

THE man who can't keep Sunday without a Sunday law doesn't want to keep it very much.

A CIVIL government may profess Christianity, but the only religion it can practice is a religion of force.

THE State can depend upon the individual conscience; but the individual cannot depend on the State conscience.

RELIGIOUS error never meets truth without getting very much "disturbed;" but truth is always calm and unprovoked.

A NATION'S prosperity is not measured by the might of its armies and navies, but by the number of blessings enjoyed by the people under its government.

ANY Christian who will spend the Sabbath in the company of the Lord will not be disturbed by all the secular business that can be going on in the world.

JESUS CHRIST has shed all the blood that needs to be shed to insure the full success of Christianity.

THE pretended "successors of Peter" have withdrawn the sword which Peter sheathed at the command of Christ in Gethsemane; but Christ's command has never been withdrawn.

NEARLY all the States agree that the Sabbath must be "preserved," but nearly all differ–as the statute books show–in their recipes for preserving it. Would it not be well to determine the correct recipe before carrying "Sabbath" legislation further?

"Ancient History Repeated in Pennsylvania" American Sentinel 14, 18 , pp. 273, 274.

THE "federation of churches," in alliance with the Amalgamated Association of Iron Workers, at Pittsburg, Pa., are pushing steadily forward in the joint enterprise of securing Sunday closing in mills and factories. The latest word on the subject comes in a press item from Pittsburg stating that "committees representing the mill men and the local clergy met yesterday afternoon in the office of the Amalgamated Association to devise plans for stopping Sunday work in the mills."

At the mass meetings held recently in Pittsburg to further this project, president Shaffer of the labor union, with other speakers, referred to certain mills in the State which are being operated on Sundays. Most prominent among these are the Carnegie mills and the Johnstown mills. These mills were referred to in terms of severe denunciation. They were to be made the special objects of attack by the church and labor combination.

It has been mentioned as a singular fact that a great labor organization, like this "Amalgamated Association" in Pennsylvania, should undertake to enforce the Sunday laws. It is the first time such a thing was ever known. A correspondent in that State, referring to the

274

matter, says: "I was a member of different labor unions for twenty years, but I never before heard of one professing religion." It is a strange thing, and as significant as it is strange.

But there is a fact in connection with this that has not been mentioned, but which is vastly important; namely, the mills which are to be severely disciplined by the church and labor confederation are non-union mills. Is there any connection between the labor union's alliance with the church force, and the union's desire to discipline the non-union mills?

There is a chapter of ancient history which can be very profitably read in connection with this account. And singularly enough, that, like this chapter of modern history, relates to the enforcement of Sunday laws. That chapter takes us back to the time of the Roman emperor Constantine.

In Constantine's time the professors of Christianity had become a powerful party in the empire. Constantine, who was above all things else a diplomat, saw that this power was essential to his security upon the throne. He determined to profess Christianity. Upon this point Constantine said:–

"My father revered the Christian God, and uniformly prospered; while the emperors who worshipped the heathen gods, died a miserable death; therefore, that I may enjoy a happy life and reign, I will imitate the example of my father, and join myself to the cause of the Christians, who are growing daily, while the heathen are diminishing." ¹1

In 321 A.D., just before his profession of Christianity, Constantine enacted a Sunday law,–the first Sunday law ever framed, and the beginning of all the Sunday legislation that has been passed through the centuries from his time down to the present. That law commanded people in the cities and towns to rest on "the venerable day of the sun," but left people in the country places free to do Sunday work as usual.

After his profession of Christianity, Constantine added to what he had done as a pagan emperor, in giving his sanction to Sunday observance; and, says the historian, "By a law of the year 386, these older changes effected by the emperor Constantine were more rigorously enforced; and, in general, civil transactions of every kind of Sunday were strictly forbidden."–Neander.

The bishops of the church in Constantine's day had become divided over points of doctrine, and there was a violent struggle between the opposing factions for the supremacy. By their disputes, says the historian, they made themselves dependent upon the emperor. Each faction sought alliance with the imperial power. They wanted the help of Constantine and the civil power; and Constantine, on the other hand, wanted the help of the church's powerful influence in carrying out his plans as emperor. Each side say the opportunity for an alliance which would be to their mutual benefit; and accordingly the thing was done. Constantine, quite naturally, took sides with the most powerful faction.

This alliance continued after Constantine's death, and grew stronger and stronger; and the legal channel through which the civil power came into the hands of the church was the Sunday laws. Neander, the church historian, after enumerating the Sunday laws and edicts from the first one by Constantine down to a century later, says of them, "In this way the church received help from the state for the furtherance of her ends." ²2

When the church is allied with the state, state and church have each a purpose of their own to serve by the alliance. That is the way it has always been, and will be until human nature changes.

The secular unions of the present day represent the civil power. They are beginning to ally themselves with the church unions. They will have a purpose of their own in this, and the church will have a purpose of her own. Each lends its aid to the other; and in this way the weapon of civil power will again be placed in the hands of the church.

That is what is coming; and that is the sinister meaning of what is seen to-day in the alliance of church and state forces.

"A Self-Erected Obstacle" American Sentinel 14, 18 , pp. 274, 275.

IN the Evangelist, Prof. Warren Clark writes upon "The Great Obstacle to the Progress of Christianity in Heathen Countries." He declares this great obstacle to be "the inconsistency of Christians." Yet, when we come to read his article, this "inconsistency of Christians" is not indeed the inconsistency of those who profess to be Christians; but that which is counted the inconsistency of the people who are not Christians at all, in their going from what are called Christian lands to what are called heathen countries, and acting there in a way unbecoming to Christians.

He says that "to veterans long on the field [of missionary work in heathen lands] the ingenuity is taxed to know how to answer the questions of heathen converts, as to why these rich and wealthy people from Christian lands are indifferent to all religion." He speaks of having taken from Japan "two of our most earnest Christian converts on a visit to the foreign resident quarter of Yokohama," when "the first thing they saw in front of the English Episcopal Church, was a drunken British 'tar,' assaulting an equally intoxicated American sailor, and both of them were being arrested by a heathen Japanese policeman!" Further, he mentions a Japanese student whom he met in London, and with whom he went around to see "the sights of the metropolis," and, "returning at night along the Strange,

275

the evidences of drunkenness and licentiousness were so glaring, as to put to blush anything I had ever seen in any 'heathen' country, and my Japanese companion (whom I had been trying to convert to Christianity) was dumb with surprise and horror. 'Is not this the capital of the greatest Christian empire in the world?' he asked. 'Did you ever see such wickedness in heathen Tokio?' 'No,' was the only answer I could give. 'Then why don't your churches convert these degraded men and women here in London? You need not send missionaries ten thousand miles to find the heathen when they are at your very doors. Before I left Japan,' he continued, 'our consular agent advised me against the immoralities of London, and warned me against the temptations in this great Christian city!'"

The great mistake of all this is in speaking of Britain, America, etc., as Christian lands, and of London, New York, and the like, as Christian cities. There is no such thing in the world as a Christian country, nor even a Christian city. Only those are Christians who individually and decidedly choose Christ as their life, their all in all. Whoever does not do this is as certainly a heathen as is any person in any heathen land or heathen city, who does not make such a choice of Christ. But to count these countries Christian countries when they are not such at all, and to give the people in heathen countries the idea that these are Christian countries indeed, according to the Christianity which is preached to them, and which alone they can look upon as Christianity, and then blame these people with inconsistency in not being Christians in those heathen lands when they never thought of being Christians in their own "Christian" land–this is the greatest inconsistency of all. It is an utter misleading of the people in those so-called heathen lands. And when the missionaries themselves so mislead the people in heathen lands, they themselves are the ones who are responsible for this "great obstacle to the progress of Christianity in heathen countries." And they cannot in justice wonder that the people in heathen lands are caused to question the power and virtue of Christianity when the missionaries themselves give the people in heathen lands to understand that these others are "Christian countries," and when they teach those people to expect Christianity in the people of these "Christian countries" and "Christian cities," when in fact the vast majority of these people make no pretensions to Christianity and care nothing for it whatever.

There is a way for the missionaries out of this difficulty; but it is not by complaining of the inconsistency of Christians, when the people of whom they complain any more heathenish than the heathen, and are in no way connected with Christianity. The true way out of the dilemma is to get down to the truth of Christianity upon its true foundation: that Christianity is an individual thing, and that the only Christians that there ever can be, whether in America, in England, in Japan or in China, are those people who, as individuals, have chosen, in the true Christian way, Christ as their portion forever; and along with this recognize also the truth that every person who does not do this, is a heathen, whether he be an American, a Japanese, a Britisher, or a Chinese.

This conception of things would also amongst the missionaries and all Christians, break down at once all national lines and race distinctions. Then the people of no country would stand any higher in the estimation of no country would stand any higher in the estimation of the missionary than those of any other country; because, not having accepted Christ, all being heathen, and the missionaries having a message to all such,–the people being all alike, and the message being one to all people, the missionaries would necessarily look upon all alike.

But the missionaries will all at once say, "It would never do to call the American people heathen." Very well, then, why call the Japanese, or the Chinese, or any other people, heathen? And if other people must all be called heathen, and the people of America and other such "Christian lands" cannot be called heathen, when all know that, as a matter of fact, multitudes of these are more heathenish than are those who are called heathen–then it is a mere matter of favoritism on the part of those who do the calling. But why should there be such favoritism, especially toward those who are the worst in the comparison?

We do not say that people in America and other such countries, who are not Christians, should be called "heathen." No more do we say that the people in China, Japan, and other such countries, who are not Christians, should be called "heathen." The people in America who are not Christians, are simply sinners and lost men; and the people in Japan and China who are not Christians are simply sinners and lost men: wherever they are, they are all alike; and there is no respect of persons with God nor with those who are of God.

Let all the missionaries, ministers and Christians in the world recognize everywhere the Christian truth that only those are Christians who have chosen Christ as their Saviour and their portion forever, and that all who have not so done are all alike in all the world, wherever they be, and whatever they may be called. Then this "great obstacle to the progress of Christianity in heathen countries" that is here and so much elsewhere complained of, will no longer exist anywhere in the world.
A. T. J.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 18 , p. 286.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN said that while you couldn't "fool all the people all the time," you could "fool a part of the people all the time," and "all the people a part of the time." And this is how it will be in the movement for Sunday enforcement. Public sentiment would not sustain such work all the time; but it can be so "educated" that it will sustain it for a while; and just this is being rapidly accomplished now. All the people–or a great majority–will be fooled a part of the time into thinking Sunday enforcement a necessity; and in this part of the time, when dissenters to the movement are being vigorously suppressed, the mischief will be done. There can be, and will be, in this way, a revival of religious persecution, and a conformity in government with the principles of the papacy, which will hurt the nation beyond remedy.

May 11, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 19 , p. 287.

CHRISTIANITY does not "follow the flag;" it follows the cross.

THE "civil Sabbath" represents an effort to secure rest without religion, recreation, or sleep.

TRUE Sabbath rest is derived from the Sabbath itself, not from an enforced quiet and cessation of business.

THE true Christian warfare is not where one nation overcomes another, but where an individual overcomes the world.

ONLY the law of Christ can provide the religion of Christ. A Sunday law can provide only the religion of the State.

A SUNDAY law shuts off competition in trade; it provides a way to be religious without costing anything. But religion which costs nothing is too cheap to be worth anything.

THE religion God has provided costs something. The price of it was advertised on Calvary. Nor has it gone down in price since the crucifixion. It costs now just as much as it did then.

THE true religion demands the crucifixion of self. And he who has crucified self for the sake of religion has done infinitely more than any Sunday law could secure. He has done that which State religion does not demand, and the Sunday law is expressly designed to avoid.

THE law of Christianity demands the crucifixion of self; the State Sunday law demands the crucifixion of conscience. That is the difference between the religious laws of God and of man. And that is why no man or body of men has any business to enact such laws.

GOVERNMENT of the people by the people, cannot be any more righteous than the people are themselves. And the people cannot make themselves any more righteous than they are.

"A Definition of Protestantism" American Sentinel 14, 19 , pp. 287, 288.

AN Episcopalian authority, Canon McColl, is calling for a definition of Protestantism. He maintains that there is no definition of the word which shows it to be suitable as a designation for the Christian Church. He says:–

"In common parlance, a Protestant means anybody who is not a Roman Catholic, and Protestantism is thus a sort of drag-net that 'gathers fish of every kind,' from the believer in the Trinity and Incarnation to the Mormon and the agnostic, and even the avowed atheist. What, then, is 'the Protestant faith' of which we hear so much? It is a contradiction in terms. The note of faith is 'I believe.' The note of Protestantism is 'I do not believe.' It is a negative term, and therefore to call the Church of England 'Protestant' is much the same thing as to define a human being as 'not a quadruped.'"

If "anybody who is not a Roman Catholic" is a Protestant, then anybody who is not a Protestant is a Roman Catholic; and anybody who says he is not a Protestant because he finds fault with that term as

288

being a mere negation, might as well own up that he is a Roman Catholic and take his stand openly with that church.

Protestantism is either a lie, or it is truth. If it is truth, it is not a mere negation.

When Wycliffe, "the morning star of the Reformation," at one time lay sick upon what his enemies hoped would be his death bed, some monks and friars came to him to taunt him with the prospect (as they believed) that the cause for which he had contended was about to perish. They had about the same idea of Protestantism as is held to-day by some who are "not Roman Catholics." But Wycliffe knew what Protestantism was. Raising himself upon his bed and looking his enemies in the eye, he exclaimed in ringing tones: "With what do you think you are contending? With a feeble old man, trembling upon the brink of the grave? No! but with truth–truth, which is mightier than you, and will one day vanquish you!"

Wycliffe's prophecy came true. Truth–drawn from the Scripture–vanquished Rome, and that victory established Protestantism in the world.

Truth is always a protest against error; but truth–religious truth–is at the same time the most positive thing in the world.

So long as the principles and doctrines of the papacy are upheld in the world by great organizations of men, so long will Protestantism be a proper designation for the opposing principles of truth. For one who makes no protest against the principles of the papacy, might as well identify himself with the papal party.

"The Protestant faith" presents no contradiction in terms. "I do not believe," is a phrase of papal coining. Concerning truth, the meaning of Protestantism is, "I believe;" concerning error it is "I protest,"–which, of course, implies non-belief; but papal opponents have taken this negative side of Protestantism and held it up before the world as being the only aspect which Protestantism presents.

It required something very positive on the part of Wycliffe, Luther, and other leaders of Protestantism to make headway against the vast and long-established power of the papacy. It required a very positive belief of gospel truth,–it required true faith. And the fact that Protestantism did make headway against that great system, even through the dungeon, the rack, and the stake, is evidence of the most convincing kind that it was, and is, the most positive thing in the world.

And anybody who will practice true Protestantism to-day will not be long in discovering that it must of necessity be as positive a thing to-day as it ever was in the past.

"Note" American Sentinel 14, 19 , p. 288.

It is well known by all that those Americans who oppose the conduct of the United States in the Philippines, do so solely upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And yet the sending of such literature to the Filipinos is definitely denounced as treason by the imperialist newspapers. And the most peculiar thing about the whole matter is that the charge of treason against such conduct is not far from correct; for the Constitution defines treason as the levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. And since the United States counts the Filipinos as enemies, and as guilty of levying war, it is plain that to justify them in it and encourage them in their resistance by sending them literature, even though it can all be done with the plain reading of the Declaration of Independence, can be made to appear as at least akin to giving them aid and comfort. But what a queer turn of affairs it is by which loyalty to the fundamental principles of the Government of the United States becomes treason against the Government of the United States! Then this what could more plainly mark the complete apostasy of the Government of the United States? And what but national ruin can possibly follow such national apostasy?

"Christian or Heathen–Which?" American Sentinel 14, 19 , pp. 288, 289.

A SHORT time ago at a banquet in Philadelphia the Chinese minister to the United States was present and made a speech in which he very neatly stated some quite closely pertinent truths. One of the passages is the following:–

"The most important questions with which the Chinese government has to deal arise from the spirit of commercialism and the spirit of proselytism. Unfortunately most of the troubles occurring in China have arisen from riots against missionaries. Hence it has been said by some foreigners in China that, without missionaries, China would have no foreign complications. I am not in a position to affirm or deny this.

"But let us put the shoe on the other foot, and suppose that Confucian missionaries were sent by the Chinese to foreign lands with the avowed purpose of gaining proselytes, and that these missionaries established themselves in New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and other cities, and that they built temples, held public meetings, and opened schools. It would not be strange if they should gather around them a crowd of men, women, and children of all classes and conditions. If they were to begin their work by making vehement attacks on the doctrines of Christianity, denouncing the cherished institutions of the country, or going out of their way to ridicule the fashions of the day, and perhaps giving a learned discourse on the evil effects of corsets upon the general health of American women, it is most likely that they would be pelted with stones, dirt, and rotten eggs for their pains.

"What would be the consequence if, instead of taking hostile demonstrations of this character philosophically, they should lose their temper, call in the aid of the police, and report the case to the Government at Washington for official interference? I verily believe that such action would render the missionaries so obnoxious to the Ameri-

289

can people as to put an end to their usefulness, and that the American Government would cause a law to be enacted against them as public nuisances. Can it be wondered at, then, that now and then we hear of riots occurring against missionaries in China, notwithstanding the precautionary measures taken by the local authorities to protect them? It must not be understood that I wish to justify or extenuate the lawless acts committed by ignorant mobs, nor do I underestimate the noble and unselfish efforts of Christian missionaries in general who spend the best part of their lives in China. What I desire to point out is that the preaching of the gospel of Christ in the interior of China (except with great tact and discretion) will, in the nature of things, now and then run counter to popular prejudice and lead to some disturbance."

Therein is strikingly exposed a glaring evil that attaches to the work of the majority of the missionaries to such countries as China and Turkey. They go there depending far more upon their governments than upon God. They are therefore more American missionaries than they are Christian missionaries. Depending thus upon their government and being backed up by the power of their nation, they act arrogantly and disrespectfully toward the people and even toward the government; and then if checked or called to account they at once appeal to their government for a man of war or an army to vindicate their standing and rights as citizens of the United States.

If the missionaries would go as Christian missionaries only, depending upon God for protection and support, they would realize more the essential need of winning their way with all the people, by a respectful bearing toward all whatever their dress, their manners, or customs; by deference also to authorities; and by presenting their new and strange doctrines for acceptance upon their own inherent merit more than upon the weakness and foolishness of the religion which the people already possess. Then they would never be an element of discord between nations, threatening the disturbance of the peace of the world.

As to what is civilization, this man who in the eyes of "the great Christian nations" stands as a heathen gave some instruction which every one of these so-called Christian nations would do "right excellently well" to follow implicitly. He said:–

"Some people call themselves highly civilized, and stigmatize others as uncivilized. What is civilization? Does it mean solely the possession of superior force and ample supply of offensive and defensive weapons? I take it to mean something more. I understand that a civilized nation should respect the rights of another nation just the same as in society a man is bound to respect the rights of his neighbor. Civilization, as I understand it, does not teach people to ignore the rights of others, nor does it approve the seizure of another's property against his will. Now, if people professing Christianity and priding themselves on being highly civilized, should still so far misconduct themselves as to disregard the rights of the weak and inexcusably take what does not belong to them, then it would be better not to become so civilized.

"China welcomes to her shores the people of al nations. Her ports are open to all, and she treats all alike without distinction of race, color, nationality, or creed. Her people trade with all foreigners. In return she wishes only to be treated in the same way. She wants peace–to be let alone, and not to be molested with unreasonable demands. Is this unfair? She asks you to treat her in the same way as you would like to be treated. Surely this reasonable request cannot be refused. We are about to enter into the twentieth century, and are we to go back to the Middle Ages and witness again the scenes enacted in that period? I believe that in every country there are men and women of noble character–and I know in this country there are many such–whose principle is to be fair and just to all, especially to the weak, and that they would not themselves, nor allow their respective governments to commit acts of oppression and tyranny. It is such men and women that shed luster on their respective countries."

To all of which every true Christian will heartily say, Amen.
A. T. J.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 19 , p. 302.

WHEN the AMERICAN SENTINEL was started upon its mission, there was no thought in the minds of its writers that this nation would set aside the principles of republican government in any other way than by the enactment of laws to compel the conscience, as was foreshadowed by the work of the National Reform party. The work of this party could only end, it was seen, in the subversion of the rights and liberties of the people which this Government was established to preserve, and therefore the AMERICAN SENTINEL opposed that work and warned the people against it, contending for the principles of government set forth in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the fundamental national law–the Constitution. It has contended for the preservation of the Constitution without alteration or amendment in such manner as was proposed by political church parties.

But lo, suddenly and in an unforeseen way, the Declaration of Constitution are completely set aside by the new national policy of imperialism; so that this is no longer a "government of the people, by the people for the people," but a government by "some of the people," for "some of the people." The National Reform party aimed at no more complete overthrow of the rights and liberties of the people than is involved in this policy of imperialism. Both aim at a government of the people by "some" of the peoples–government by "the consent of some of the governed," only in the one case "some" meant the National Reformers and their allies, and in the other case "some" means the imperialists, or the strong as distinguished from the weak. In either case the rights of conscience and all for which the SENTINEL has contended are to be swept aside.

And this is why the SENTINEL has had so much to say about imperialism. It could not be true to its mission and overlook so startling significant a sign of the times.

THE best thing to do with facts is to look them in the face. Whether they are reassuring or not, it is best to know what they are. It is poor policy to be an optimist because your eyes are shut. There is always hope, so that no one ought to be a "pessimist;" for the Scripture declares that hope "abideth," though it is to be noted that it abideth with faith and love. But hope must rest upon knowledge, not on ignorance, if it is to be of advantage in the end.

May 18, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 20 , p. 303.

NO GOVERNMENT can give securities which can be deposited in the bank of Heaven.

WHEN coercion is joined with religion, many people are made hypocrites, but none are made Christians.

A RELIGION which is joined with the State if a friend of the world, and therefore an enemy of God.

HUMAN law cannot enter the realm of conscience without coming in conflict with the law of God.

THE Sunday laws are based upon the decisions of majorities; but Christianity never rested on this basis.

THE wisdom of man nowhere appears in more painful contrast with the wisdom of God than in the provisions of the Sunday laws.

WHEN religion gets into politics, religious bigotry and intolerance disguise themselves in a political garb, and do their work in the name of political necessity.

AMS MAN cannot create anything superior to himself, it is certain that the interests of civil government cannot be superior to those of the men who make it.

AMS NO civil government ever yet loved its enemies, and as Christianity demands the love of one's enemies, it is plain that civil government cannot rise to the level of Christianity.

WHEN a civil government professes religion, it is logically bound to coerce dissenters from its religion, as it does dissenters from any of its laws; and to coerce dissenters in religion is to persecute.

AMS IT is true that "out of the heart are the issues of life," and as no human law can reach the heart, it is plainly true that human legislation is powerless to reform the life and save society from moral decay.

"Sunday Enforcement in Georgia" American Sentinel 14, 20 , pp. 303-305.

HARDLY a week goes by that does not see the Sunday issue brought to the front in one State or another of this greatest of republican governments. North, south, east, and west, the agitation for Sunday enforcement is in progress, and he who will pause to consider the movement as a whole, will be deeply impressed with its significance.

In Pennsylvania there is a union of the federation of churches, with the largest and most powerful workingmen's association, which is making Sunday enforcement a leading issue there. In Michigan the legislature is considering the question of more stringent Sunday legislation; the same is true of Rhode Island; and now in Georgia, in the leading city of the State, a crusade is in progress for the strict enforcement of the existing Sunday laws. From the Atlanta Constitution we gather some noteworthy facts in connection with this crusade.

In the Constitution of May 1st we note the following:–

"The police yesterday made a swoop upon all classes,

304

all colors, all businesses–big merchants, small dealers, ice cream peddlers, bootblacks, showmen, fruit venders, pop sellers,–and all were asked to show cause why they should not be fined in the recorder's court for keeping open doors on the Sabbath. The sellers of cigars and tobacco, cigarettes, flowers, candy, fruit, groceries, and sundries were all told that they must appear in the police court this morning as defendants.

"Fifty names were spread upon the police docket, making, with the regular run of business, the biggest Sunday's work the police have ever done in Atlanta.

"The city ordinance under which the police are working is as following:–

"'SECTION 722.–Any merchant, billiard-table, or ten-pin-alley keeper or other dealer who shall keep open doors on the Sabbath day for trade or traffic on that day, or any person who shall work or in anywise labor or cause work to be done on the Sabbath day (except it be work of necessity) shall be fined in a sum not exceeding $100 and costs or be imprisoned in the calaboose or common jail of said county not more than thirty days, in the discretion of the court; provided, that the mayor and general council may not punish for violating the State laws on the Sabbath day, and provided further, that the above shall not prevent the sale of soda water on the Sabbath day by those who may have paid for selling the same and who are entitled to keep open doors on the Sabbath day.'"

The moving spirit which is behind this crusade means that it shall do thorough work, as is evident from the nature of some of the cases brought before the court. The Constitution notes that there were some "special cases," and among these makes mention of this:–

"Albert Thomas was arrested for driving his team faster than a walk while passing the First Methodist Church Sunday morning during services."

Also this:–

"While the investigation was going on yesterday an officer saw a watchmaker engaged, as he thought, in repairing a watch on the Sabbath day. The matter was reported to the captain and a case was ordered. When a closer investigation was made it was ascertained that the watchmaker was assorting a lot of fish hooks preparatory to going fishing this morning. He was not disturbed, but he was the only lucky one in the whole batch of Sunday suspects."

These fifty cases were tried before the recorder the next morning, and all the defendants were found guilty, but were not fined, this being their "first offense." The recorder let is be known that the Sunday law was henceforth not a dead letter, and would be strictly enforced. This decision, says the Constitution, "carries with it a revolution of the Sunday business in Atlanta."

No side shows in the parks are to be allowed on Sunday, and even the Sunday blacking of shoes by boot-blacks is made a crime.

The arrests made included those of "two of the largest cigar and tobacco dealers in the city," who, "with all other dealers, have been selling their goods on Sundays for many years without molestation." With this is

305

connected a peculiar though characteristic feature of Sunday legislation.

These tobacco dealers were arrested not because they sold cigars and tobacco on Sunday; this is allowed by the law. The offense–the "desecration of the Sabbath"–as regards tobacco dealers, consists in the sale of other articles known as "tobacco dealers' supplies," in which are included such articles as canes and umbrellas. In Atlanta, the law prohibits the Sunday opening of tobacco stores where these "supplies" are kept in stock, so that a sale of them on Sunday would be possible. The tobacco dealers of the city, in view of this, have petitioned the mayor and city council for an amendment which will permit them to open shop "on the Sabbath day" for the sale of tobacco, "provided that they do not sell such canes and umbrellas on the Sabbath day." It is thought this petition will be granted.

We say this is characteristic of Sunday legislation, for the Sunday sale of tobacco is everywhere allowed by the Sunday laws, as an article of "necessity."

Why is the Sunday sale of tobacco considered a necessity? Is tobacco one of the necessaries of life?–No; for we know thousands of people who never touch it. We know people who were formerly addicted to its use who now get on much better without it; and we know of people to whom a "necessity" of life was that they discontinue its use. We read almost daily of people who are killed or seriously injured by tobacco indulgence. In the face of such facts no one can say there is any truth or reason back of the idea that tobacco is a necessity.

Tobacco is considered a necessity by the Sunday laws simply because the use of tobacco is so nearly universal that the great majority of the people will not tolerate any restrictions upon its sale. They want their tobacco and they must have it, on Sunday as on any other day. The sale of other things may be restricted; but a restriction upon tobacco is an interference with appetite, and men will not tolerate an interference with appetite. And so public sentiment, upon which human law depends, will not permit any Sunday ban upon tobacco.

And thus it comes that tobacco is permitted to be sold on Sundays as an article of necessity, while food and clothing are prohibited. A thing which is an injury to the human system, which never saves life but often destroys it, and which ministers only to appetite, is put by the Sunday laws above the food and clothing which really are necessaries of life, and the sale of which on Sunday night often contribute to the saving of life under various circumstances. And this is done in the name of Christianity–in the name of the "sanctity of the Sabbath"!

Reader–if you happen to be a citizen of Georgia, or if you favor the Sunday laws, whether you live in Georgia or elsewhere–can you feel free to uphold such inconsistency in the name of your religion? Can you believe

305

that a righteous God approves it? Can you not see, upon a candid examination of them, that the Sunday laws bear the stamp of the human–that there is stamped on them the inconsistency and injustice of fallen human nature, instead of the righteousness of the all-wise God?

The Sabbath law of God–the fourth precept of the Decalogue–bears the stamp of the wisdom and justice of the infinite mind. Could there possibly be a better Sabbath law than that,–one better adapted to the conditions or human life? Ought not this law to be enforced in preference to any other that can be passed? And is not this Sabbath law actually in force to-day? Has not the Creator power to enforce his own law? and can any but divine power enforce a divine law?

Where the wisdom of God is, where is there room for the wisdom of man? Where the power of God is, where is there room for the power of man? Where the Sabbath of God is, where is there room for the sabbath of man? And the Sabbath of the Lord is everywhere, even as far as the jurisdiction of his law extends.

"True Christianity Forsaken" American Sentinel 14, 20 , pp. 305, 306.

SO CALLED good citizenship organizations and movements are increasing in number, and professed Christians and prominent clergymen are the most prominent in this work. For instance, Philadelphia has an "American Citizenship Alliance" which is providing lectures "in the various churches throughout the city." The leading objects of this Citizenship Alliance are:–

"1. To unite all religious and moral forces for the suppression of wrong and for building symmetrically our national life.

"2. To inaugurate a system and to utilize existing forces for the promotion of this work.

"3. To encourage intelligent observance of our national holidays.

"4. To coˆperate in all social, industrial, and civic improvements with other associations."

In Boston also lately a "Good Citizenship Society" was formed, and noon meetings are held in Tremont Temple to promote the interests of this society whose object is "the better organization of the world;" and one of the leading speakers is also a leading clergyman of New England.

Now suppose that all of these professed Christians and professed ministers of the gospel should be completely successful in their work for the building up of "our national life" and thorough "observance of our national holidays," and advance, to their ideal, "all social, industrial, and civic improvements," and thus secure their object–"the better organization of the world"–what have they then accomplished in the fulfillment of their own proper mission to the world under the profession which they make of Christianity?

Christianity is to call people from this world to the world to come. To be a Christian is to be separated completely from this world, to be chosen out of the world unto God. Christians belong to the other world. To accomplish this, and this alone, is the sole object of Christianity in this world. For this object alone Christ came into the world, insisting while he was here, "I am not of the world," "My kingdom is not of this world." For this purpose he commissioned the ministers of this gospel to go into the world and preach this gospel to every creature. For this purpose to his disciples, he says, "As my Father sent me even so send I you," and of all his, it is written: "As he is so are we in this world," and "Ye are not of the world even as I am not of the world;" "Ye are not of the world because I have chosen you out of the world." His Word declares that this world is "the enemy of God," and that "whosoever therefore will be the friend of the world is the enemy of God." Such a loan is the object and work of true Christianity in this world.

Now, in view of all this, when professed Christians and professed ministers of the gospel, having out of the other world, turn their attention to this world to the better organization of it, the building up of national life, the promotion of earthly citizenship, even though they were to attain in this their highest ideal, what would they have accomplished? None of this, for all of it together, prepares men for the other world. And while they are thus putting forth their endeavors in the interests altogether of this world, thousands of people are perishing all around them, simply because of their not having received the message which these people profess to bear: calling people from this world to the other world.

It is perfectly plain, therefore, that nothing can show more plainly then these movements do, that all of these professed Christians and professed Christian ministers, have lost all their connection with the other world, with the message from the other world, which they profess to bear to this one; and are becoming in their aims, interests, and efforts, altogether of this world. And while these people professing to bear a message from the other world to this one, instead of delivering that message in its sincerity and in its power, forsake it and turned all their attention to this world, and to the things of this world, and to men's interest only as they are in this world, what our men to do for the message which God sends from the other world, which Christ Jesus came to bring, and which poured out his life to make sure to the people of this world?

This is not to say that the message of the gospel and the lives of true Christians in the world, will not benefit this world. This will supremely benefit the world if only Christianity is maintained in its true integrity and in strict loyalty to the other world. But when that is forsaken, or when it is neglected, or when an attempt is made to use it for the benefit of this world, every such

306

effort only robs it of all its power to benefit this world, and deprives this world of that which belongs to it as a benefit from Christianity. The only benefit this world can ever receive from Christianity is by the lives of those who are true Christians and who, as true Christians, are individually separate from this world, as Christ was; and who live apart from, and above, the world, even as Jesus Christ did.
A. T. J.

May 25, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 21 , p. 319.

POLITICS and popery naturally flourish in the church together.

IF the pulpit is losing its power, it is not because the gospel has lost any of its power.

CIVIL government cannot be carried into the sphere of religion without antagonizing the work of the gospel.

WHOEVER sets aside human rights sets aside the God who instituted them; and whoever said, God aside does ignore God, but only sets himself aside from God.

THERE is something wrong when men show more deference to the demands of a Sunday law than to the principle of the Golden Rule.

The "civil" Sabbath acknowledges both the civil power and religion as its parents, and hence from proclaims well the child of that evil union–church and state.

AMS God made the Sabbath by resting on the seventh day and the Sabbath is his rest, there can be no real Sabbath rest without God; and as no human law can perfect God, it is plain that no human law can help any person to secure Sabbath rest.

SOME people professing to be Christians are more disturbed by an act some other person does which is contrary to their opinions of right, then by a spirit of hatred and revenge in their own hearts.

The "best people in the world"–the religious people–are the very ones who are fitted to do and are doing the worst thing in politics; that is, forming a union of church and state. The best emperors of pagan Rome were the ones who most rigorously persecuted the Christians; and the more religious the people who engage in politics, the more danger is there that religion will be advanced by political means, and the jurors become united with the state. If the "best people" had kept out of politics, and let the "worst people" run politics, that worst of all things–the union of church and state–would never have been in civil government.

"War–The True and the False Estimate" American Sentinel 14, 21 , pp. 319, 320.

VERESTCHAGIN is a Russian artist who paints war scenes so horribly real that rulers and generals do not like to have either the soldiers or the people see the pictures, lest they refuse to go to war. This artist has been in Battle himself, and fought so well as to be honored with the highest military decoration known to Russia. This man who has been in it, who knows so well exactly what it is, and to can so powerfully reproduce it on canvas, thus defines war:–

"War is the loss of all human sense; under its influence men become animals entirely. The artist looks always for passion, and passion is seen at its height on the battle-field. . . . Every hour brings something new, something never seen before, something outside the range of ordinary human life: it is the reversal of Christianity."

And yet to-day in the United States, actually the great majority of professed ministers of the gospel hold

320

war to be perfectly compatible with Christianity–that Christians can go to war and still be Christians!

Read the following from a sermon on Sunday, April 30th, by Rev. Frank C. Brunner, of Grace M. E. Church, Chicago, on "the sword in American civilization":–

"The sword is a great history-maker. There is such a thing as a Christian war. Such to-day is the case in the Philippines. Nothing can check the advance in the Philippines. It is the hand of God in history. The pessimists may hold howl about the slaughter of the innocent and hold their anti-expansion meetings. It will avail nothing. They mistake the signs of the times. God is marching on. Some of these timid souls forget that hero is the stuff out of which divine history is made. The thunder of George Dewey's guns had the roar of a marked civilization in them. Manila, the Venice of the Orient, it is to become the hub of a new civilization. It is to radiate the light of American intelligence to the uttermost rim of the 1,200 islands. The crack of the rifles of General Otis' advancing army has in it the muscle of the coming of the Son of man. In a hundred years that territory, equal in English miles to Great Britain and Ireland, will be under the sway of the Son of God, the fruits of the triumph of the American sword. Nothing can change the sovereignty of human history. The purpose of God is right in the present conflict. He who opposes the struggle hits the providence of God in the face."

Is it not high time that there were a revival of the preaching of the gospel of peace? Is there not a loud call for the message of that angel of the revelation, "flying in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people"?

Jesus Christ is the Prince of peace, not war. His gospel as the gospel of peace, not war. The preachers of his gospel are sent to preach "peace by Jesus Christ."

The creatures that preach war are not the ministers of Christ, whatever their profession may be. General Sherman, one of the greatest warriors of modern times, in the quiet of times of peace, soberly declared that "War is hell." How can any Christian, then, go to war? How can any Christian preacher preached in favor of war? "Babylon is fallen, is fallen." Apostasy, apostasy, apostasy, has overtaken the church.
A. T. J.

"Note" American Sentinel 14, 21 , p. 320.

IF the legislature can properly tell an individual what is allowed on the Sabbath and what is a desecration of the day, the legislature can take the place of conscience in the matter of Sabbath observance; and if it can take the place of conscience in this matter, it can take it in other matters as well, and the individual conscience can be dispensed with.

And this is exactly the tendency of religious legislation. It invades the realm of conscience, and wherever conscience consents to the invasion, it is weakened, and the individual robbed in like degree of his manhood.

Legislation which destroys manhood is not a blessing to any land, but a curse.

"Popery in Protestantism" American Sentinel 14, 21 , p. 320.

POPERY is the religion of human nature. But nature calls for a pope, and loves to be led by one. But only the divine nature, the nature conferred by Christianity, that frees men from the influence of the . . . popery. And as Protestantism, in the nominal sects is not synonymous with Christianity, but embraces the numbers in whom the divine nature has not supplanted in the human, it is only to be expected that in such Protestantism there will be seen outcroppings of popery.

The system of Mormonism is nominally Protestant, but represents popery full-fledged. Popery is seen wherever the word of finite man is laid down as of blind authority in matters of conscience; and of this instance are, unfortunately, not at all scarce, on scales greater of greater or less magnitude, in the nominally Protestant bodies.

Just now public attention is being called to an example of this kind in the city of Chicago. This example is furnished by the "Zion" Church of Dr. Alexander Dowle. In making note of this growing religious institution, a late issue of the N. Y. Independent says:–

"What requires serious warning is the new development which proposes to erect this Zion of Dr. Dowle, into a financial, perhaps political, organization very much like that of the Mormon Church. In a late number of The Leaves of Healing, which is Dr. Dowle's organ, he issues an order, as general overseer, to the members of his 'Christian Catholic Church in all parts of the world. It is on the subject of tithes, and it commands that every member shall contribute a tithe of his income for the purposes of the church. These tithes go to Zion's Storehouse, and are administered by Dr. Dowle and his assistants appointed by him. For he is apparently an absolute dictator of this remarkable denomination, as absolute as ever was Brigham Young. This is the way he lays down his commands for tithes:–

"'I have no fear of being misunderstood, and it is only wicked and unregenerate hearts that could doubt my statements. Zion is no place for those who do not trust their general overseer, and who will not obey his Lord and Master's commands.

"'Elders, evangelists, deacons or deaconesses, and conductors of the gatherings of the friends of Zion, will please read these words to all members in conference assembled. I also charge such officers to report immediately any who will not obey, and who speak disrespectfully of or dispute this order.

"'This order must not be discussed. It must be obeyed.

"'Immediate suspension will follow disobedience, and, if there is not repentance and obedience, then who shall cut off all who so conduct themselves from those who are enrolled in Zion.

"'Obligations to family, obligations to the State and business obligations and debts of every kind, must not be dealt with until the whole tithe has been sent into Zion's Storehouse.

"'God must be first, and God must be last in all things.

321

"'No matter what the consequences may be, I have issued this letter at God's command, and I am prepared to part with nine tenths of the fellowship should it be necessary.'

"He allows no discussion. He declares that others 'cannot know the needs of the field as I do here at headquarters,' and he adds:–

"'I hereby solemnly call for the resignation of every member who wilfully disobeys these plain commands of God, and of myself as his overseer.

"'That human nature can long submit to such over-topping audacity we could not imagine had we not seen it actually exemplified in Utah. We are not surprised to see that last week two evangelists and one elder were removed for cause.' His organization is likely to break down on the side of its very ambitious financial schemes, and as Archbishop Purcell nearly wrecked the Catholic Church in Cincinnati with his banking and his building. He says he has, in the ten years he has been in this country, 'spent more than a million dollars in God's work,' and has used for himself and his family less than a quarter of a tithe of his income–that is, less than $25,000. When religion goes into great financial schemes it leads either to great tyranny or to a great collapse."

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 21 , p. 334.

SUNDAY laws are not made to compel any person to work on the day he regards as the Sabbath, we are told. Nevertheless, just this thing is wrapped up in them. The law arrests him for working on Sunday, convicts him and puts him in the chain-gang, and then he is forced to work on the seventh day, which he observes as the Sabbath. First it makes a criminal of the man, and then it compels him to work on his sacred day as a matter of prison discipline. There is merely a little beating round the bush to accomplish the same thing that would be done by a law directly commanding Sabbath labor. We do not say every Sunday law has done this; but this is what might have been done, and doubtless will yet be done. It is a possibility which stamps the Sunday laws as bad legislation.

June 1, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 22 , p. 335.

THE law of man is a law of restrictions; the law of God is a "law of liberty."

THE civil authorities have no right to gather a tribute which belongs to God.

NO MAN is in any danger of losing the Sabbath so long as he maintains faith in God.

LAW and conscience are both essential in their places; but neither one can be substituted for the other.

A PERSON can be an observer of every law of man, and at the same time a violator of every law of God.

CHRISTIAN warfare means death to self; carnal warfare means death to whatever gets in the way of self.

SO LONG as a legislature cannot promulgate spiritual laws, so long will it be powerless to deal with spiritual evil.

THE best thing in the world needs only to be perverted from its proper use to become the worst thing. This is true of perverted religion, and religion is always perverted when it is joined with the compulsion of the civil power.

THE gospel provides that every man shall govern himself, and so declares that every man, civilized or savage, has the right to self-government and liberty.

SELF-GOVERNMENT is a demand of Christianity; hence self-government cannot be denied to a people without the assumption of a right to set bounds to the gospel.

THE man who is "compelled" to work on Sunday for fear of losing his job, is not a slave to his employer, but to his fears.

HE who loses life to preserve conscience, saves both conscience and life; but he who parts with conscience to preserve his life, has surrendered both.

"Christ's Laws and the Laws of Society" American Sentinel 14, 22 , pp. 337, 338.

HOW BAD could society in this country or elsewhere become and still be as good as the law of the land demands?

Let us suppose society in a condition where the only attention paid to the demands of morality was such as the law of the land actually compelled the people to give. Nobody committed murder, yet everybody hated everybody else, and when one died everybody else was glad of it. Nobody stole anything, yet everybody coveted the possessions of his neighbors, and only the most sleepless vigilance made any possession safe. Nobody swore falsely against his neighbor, yet nobody had any regard for the truth. Nobody committed adultery, yet everybody wanted to; nobody doing anything for which the law could take hold of him, yet not a spark of love, not a grain of mercy, not a trace of principle, in any breast. Would such a condition of society be expressive of righteousness? Or of total depravity?

338

We are led to make these reflections by such words as the following from the Union Signal:–

"Christian citizens everywhere should give real honors to Christ, the king, by seeking to make his laws the laws of society. To that end, let individuals and deputations from churches and Christian societies, especially preachers' meetings, called on senators and congressmen while they are at home for the holidays, and urge them to aid these reform movements. . . . Let us be willing, a few of us, to go to the next street, or the next town, to enlist our congressman actively on the side of sound morals."

To make Christ's laws the laws of society, go and petition the legislature to put new enactments on the statute books! Are not our observations pertinent to the idea here expressed?

Go and compel–if you can–the legislature of the state or nation to enact new statutes or strengthen old ones, in the interests of "sound morals." Go as far as you please in getting the legislative bodies to make Christ's laws the laws of society. Then, when you have all the statutes of this kind that could possibly be enforced, how much of Christ, how much of righteousness, by virtue of such statutes, will society have? Will it have any more, by virtue of those statutes, then it would in the describe condition of total depravity?

If society observes every law of man, it is, from the standpoint of that law, a supremely good; and yet at the same time, as we have seen, it may be totally bad. Think of it, you who believe in the efficacy of civil enactments to make society good–you who believe the civil power can enact and enforce Christ's laws. Consistency with this idea would force you to pronounce society really good when in reality it was totally bad. Can you not see that the idea involves something radically wrong?

Of course, society could not become totally bad and still refrain from the violation of just civil laws. But this is not because of any power in human enactments. It is only the regard for justice, mercy, and truth–only the principle of love, which the Creator has implanted in the human heart, as a part of Himself, and which no legislative enactments could put into any heart–it is only this power that restrains society and holds it back from the pit of total corruption; and were this restraining power removed, all the statutes in the world would be powerless to prevent a universal carnival of crime and destruction. Society is bad, and it is getting worse, not from any fault of the legislatures, but because there is no power in legislative enactments to keep in men's hearts the love of right which alone can keep society good.

All talk of legislation to enforce or preserve morality is worse than useless. Legislation cannot concern itself with morality as such, without becoming at once involved in hopeless difficulties. Legislation can enforce respect for rights, and it cannot go too far in this direction; but this is its only province. The invasion of rights necessitates some outward act of injustice, and with such acts, and such only, legislation can effectively deal. Guide legislation by the necessity of preserving rights, and all is clear and consistent; but attempt to make it satisfy the demands of morality, and at once justice is obscured and consistency is left behind.

Why is it that our friends of the W. T. C. U. cannot see the mistake calling for legislation to make Christ's laws the laws of society? However, we know many of them do see and are protesting against it, and it is only justice to this body of Christian workers to believe that many more will see and protest against an idea so potent with mischief to the cause they have enlisted to serve.

"Totally Illegitimate" American Sentinel 14, 22 , pp. 338, 339.

IN considering the required obligation to observe Sunday, it will be a help to all concerned to know the origin of Sunday observance and the character of the obligation.

The only obligations that can properly rest upon men are from two sources and only two. These are defined in the words of Christ: "Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and to God the things that are God's." There is no obligation, therefore, resting upon anybody except such as originates in one or the other of these two sources. There are obligations which are due to Cesar. Cesar is the civil power, and every Christian, as well as every other man, is commanded by the Lord to be "subject to the powers that be." There are obligations also which are owed to God alone, and in no way connected with any other power person.

Cesar and God are distinct authorities: obligations to these are distinct. Obligations to God are religious, and only religious; obligations to Cesar are civil, and only civil. All things, therefore, that are of obligation upon men, springs from one or the other of these two sources; and all things which come properly from either of these two sources, are of obligation upon all; and nothing else can be. For these two being positively defined by the Lord himself, as the obligations which come upon men, cover all.

Now, if the obligation to observe Sunday, came from the Lord, then it must be observed by all who recognize the Lord. But even then, the obligation would be due only to the Lord; and with it the civil power could not in any sense rightly have anything to do. If the obligation to observe Sunday sprung from the civil power, then it would have to be recognized by all, wherever the civil power so expresses itself. But, if Sunday observance crept in from a source apart from either of these authorities, then there can be no obligation upon any man to observe it; because its authority is out of bounds.

Now, it is not only recognized, but universally

339

taught, whether by Catholic or Protestant, that Sunday observance originated with the church. There is no command of God for it. Its most ardent advocates recognize this and trace its origin to the church alone–as having originated in "apostolic example," "the practice of the primitive church," etc. etc. But the church is neither God nor Cesar. The church is of God, but it is not God. The church is joined to God; it is to obey God; it is the house of God; but whatever it is, it is not God. No more is it Cesar; it is altogether religious, not civil. Whatever government the church may have, it is ecclesiastical only, and never can be civil. Anything, therefore, which springs only from the church, being neither of God nor of Cesar, can never be of any obligation whatever upon any man. And Sunday springing confessedly from that very source, can never of right be of any obligation whatever upon any soul.

But it may be said that there are Sunday laws, that these are laws of the state, and that these, requiring the observance of Sunday are from Cesar. Yes, there are Sunday laws, and these laws are nowadays enacted by the State–the civil authority; but whether there be any civil authority exercised in such legislation–whether they be of any authority as from civil power,–is altogether another question.

What were Sunday laws in their origin? By what authority was the first Sunday law enacted? This must be understood in order to know what obligation there is in Sunday laws. Because, if the civil power of to-day borrows something altogether and fixes it in a law, that does not make the thing civil: that law is not a civil law, but an ecclesiastical one. And the State, in such an act, instead of acting properly in its civil capacity, abandons the realm of civics, and enters that of the ecclesiasticism; and this, of itself, would destroy all true obligation that might be claimed from such act as coming from the civil power.

What, then, was the origin of Sunday laws? and of Sunday observance by law? It is well known that the first Sunday law that ever existed, was framed and issued by Constantine, at the solicitation of the church and in the interests of the church–the apostate church at that. Yet, even then the Sunday law did not proceed from Constantine as the emperor, but as supreme pontiff. True, the same man was both; but the offices of emperor and supreme pontiff, were distinct. Things which he could do as emperor, he could not do as supreme pontiff: things which he must do as supreme pontiff, he could not do as emperor. And one of the things which belong solely to the office of supreme pontiff, was "the plenary power of appointing holy days." If the offices of emperor and supreme pontiff had been held by two men, one the emperor, and the other the supreme pontiff, it would have been the prerogative of the supreme pontiff alone to appoint holy days, even for the emperor's recognition. And when the two offices were held by one man, the prerogatives of the two offices were distinct, and the one man exercising these prerogatives, must act as emperor and supreme pontiff, respectively and separately. And the appointing of days to be observed, was exclusively the prerogative of the supreme pontiff. Duruy on this point says plainly:–

"In determining what days should be regarded as holy, and in the composition of a prayer for national use, Constantine exercised one of the rights belonging to him as pontifex maximus."–History of Rome, chap. CII, part I, par. 4 from end.

Now, the pontifex maximus was not the Cesar, nor was he God. True, he claimed to be, and he was regarded as, the representative of the gods; but he was not God. Therefore, Sunday observance, in a law coming from the emperor acting only as supreme pontiff, proceeds from neither God nor Cesar; and this, as in the origin of Sunday observance, coming from neither God nor Cesar, is out of bounds, and, consequently, never can be of any obligation upon any soul. For all that has been done since, whether in Sunday observance by the church, or in Sunday laws by the State, has been but copying and perpetuating these things from their origin, and cannot in any sense, change their character; because the origin fixes indelibly forever the character.

"Render therefore to Cesar things that are Cesar's; and to God the things which are God's." These "things," only, are of obligation. All things from any other source are not, and cannot be of any obligation whatever upon any soul–and such are Sunday observance, and Sunday laws.
A. T. J.

"Re-naming the Declaration of Independence" American Sentinel 14, 22 , p. 340.

SPEAKING of the Declaration of Independence, the Outlook, exponent of imperialism, says that "it so happens, as a matter of fact, that this document says nothing whatever about self-government. Only one clause, and that a parenthetical one–the phrase 'deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'–can be interpreted to imply, even remotely, any doctrine of self-government, and this implication from this phrase is by no means a necessary one."

This is worthy of note as a sample of the assertions by which American imperialism is driven to seek justification, and of the lengths to which its defenders have gone in the repudiation of American principles.

The Declaration of Independence was given to the world in general, and to Great Britain in particular, by the American Colonies, for the sole purpose of announcing that they had decided upon self-government, and of justifying themselves in that step. This is plainly affirmed by every American history that was ever written.

The Outlook's statement, therefore, amounts simply to the assertion that Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration were fools–they did not know enough to say what they meant. They meant to separate from British government, they meant to govern themselves; but in undertaking to announce this and justify it before Great Britain and the world, they said nothing at all about self-government, save to remotely hint at it, and even this was not necessary to be inferred from their words! How that document must have mystified the British parliament and the courts of Europe!

But as plain matter of history, it didn't mystify parliament or any European government in the least. Parliament never asked for an explanation of its meaning. Parliament simply redoubled its efforts to subdue the "insurgents." And Benjamin Franklin well understood that parliament would hold no doubtful view of the Declaration's meaning when it, at its signing, in reply to the remark by one signer that "We must all hang together," he said, "yes; or we shall all hang separately."

But what new name with the imperialists give to this famous document? For if it says nothing about self-government, it was obviously no declaration of independence. For whoever heard of independence without self-government? How is an independent State governed if it does not govern itself? And when it was declared that the thirteen American colonies "are, and of right ought to be free, free and independent states," what kind of government were they expected to have if not self-government? But the imperialists tell us at once what the "Declaration of Independence" ought to be called.

Obviously, the doctrine of imperialism is in desperate straits for any means of justification before the American people. But it cares little for justification; it means to proceed in defiance of justification, as its nature is to do.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 22 , p. 352.

OBSERVERS of the seventh-day Sabbath do not hold that the fourth commandment obliges them to work six days out of the week, but they do hold that the commandment forbids them to show deference to any day of the week but the seventh.

"IT is the law and the law must be enforced," is the plea made in defense of prosecutions for Sunday work; and further, "The best way to destroy a bad or foolish law is to obey it."

If, then, a wicked statute can be enacted, it will be necessary to commit the wickedness of enforcing it before it can be set aside. Do reason and justice support such a view as this?

If a law were passed affixing the death penalty to some trifling offense, would the courts feel bound to enforce it as the only thing that could be done with it? Would they feel bound to commit murder because "it is the law, and the law must be enforced"?

Certainly not; and the plea that a bad law ought to be enforced simply because "it is the law," or in order to get it repealed, is only sophistry. There is no justification for enacting such a law, and no justification for enforcing it after it has been passed. A bad law is injustice, and injustice is binding on nobody. An unjust law ought to be repealed at the first opportunity, and meanwhile be let severely alone.

June 8, 1899

"Notes" American Sentinel 14, 23 , p. 353.

JUSTICE, whether embodied in statute or not, has always the binding force of law.

MEN can do nothing to save the Sabbath, but the Sabbath can do much to save men.

A SABBATH without religion is a Sabbath without rest; hence Sabbath rest by law is an impossibility.

REAL law being always synonymous with justice, to enforce an "unjust law" is to visit a law and enforce anarchy.

MORALITY cannot be saved by legality. Not the forms of godliness, but the power of godliness, makes an individual truly moral.

THE Sabbath must be preserved not by law, but by its own inherent life. God's Sabbath, like all that God has made which has escaped the taint of sin, is immortal.

THE State must not be allowed to profess religion; it is not right that it should do so. If it does, it will want to join the church; and who will say that it should not if it can rightfully profess religion? But when it joins the church, there is a union of church and state, which is always an unmitigated evil therefore it is evident that in religion the state cannot do that which would be proper and right for an individual.

WHILE the state is not a moral personality like the individual, it is yet bound to do that which it was instituted to do; namely, preserve the natural rights of man. Man was created for the glory of God; the state was created for the protection man and society. Only through force can the state protect society; but only through love can men glorify God. The state cannot glorify God because it cannot love. The state represents man's power, but God does not want man's power. He wants man's love, and by loving God men will work most effectually to preserve peace and uprightness in society. Love to God is the great preventive of the ills of society; and an ounce of this prevention is worth a pound and more of the state's attempted cure.

"Self-Government a Right" American Sentinel 14, 23 , pp. 356, 357.

SPEAKING of the right of people to self-government, The Outlook says that "In fact, self-government is not a right at all; it is a capacity." "Self-government is a capacity, and the right to exercise a capacity depends upon the possession of it."

No one, then, has a right to exercise a capacity when he has the capacity itself. Is this so?

Walking is a capacity; and so is swimming. But no one has a right to walk until he is able to walk, or even until he is able to swim. Therefore, no person has of right to go in the water to swim until he is able to swim, and no child should be allowed to stand on its feet until it is able to walk!

Such is some of the logic of imperialism.

A capacity cannot be conferred; it must be developed in the individual who is to gain it.

One person cannot confer self-government upon another; one nation cannot give self-government to another. History contains no record of such a thing.

To acquire a capacity for anything, the individual must be allowed to attempt that thing. He cannot acquire the capacity by watching some other person perform it, any more than a person can learn to swim by watching some other person swim.

A people must develop the faculty of self-government out of themselves, and as long as they are denied the right to attempt this, they are denied self-government. The conquerors may set up their own self-government over the subject people, but this will confer no new capacity upon the latter. It would benefit them about as it would benefit an ordinary person to have bequeathed to him the instrument of a great violinist. The instrument would do him no good because he had no ability to play on it.

No nation or people wants to have bequeathed to him the government of another people. Circumstances and needs vary among different peoples, and the governments are adapted to suit these varying requirements in the different countries of the earth. The United States does not want the government of Great Britain, and

357

Great Britain does not want the government of this Republic. Norway and Sweden do not want American or British government, and neither Britain nor America wants their government. And so of all the nations, each has developed its own government, and each can exercise its own government far better than it can any other.

The United States would do well to give the principle of republican government to all countries of the earth. These principles are the best principles of government everywhere, and can be adapted to suit the conditions in all lands. But when this nation goes to another and strange land and there sets up its own government over a strange people, it is going too far either for the benefit of that people, or for its own good people.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 23 , p. 368.

NO HUMANE official of the civil government would be willing to enforce a law commanding the execution of a person known to be innocent; and the fact that he would refuse to perform such a deed, is evidence that every such official does weigh the law in his own mind, and approve it before he enforces its penalty. He does not enforce it simply because "it is the law." If the principle of enforcing law because it is the law is to be followed in one case, it is to be followed in all cases, regardless of the character of the law; but no individual could do this without parting company with his humanity. The principle of such a thing is against humanity, and is therefore wrong.

June 15, 1899

"Notes" American Sentinel 14, 24 , p. 369.

THE realm of conscience is sacred to the individual and his God.

A MAN has the same right to enjoy himself on Sunday that he has to enjoy himself on any other day, goer or not.

IRRELIGION is a sin, but it is not properly a crime.

THE more aid the church receives from the state, the weaker she becomes as a spiritual power.

SO LONG as the church upholds Sunday laws, she denies the Scriptural doctrine that an individual can do right only through the exercise of faith.

IF a person does not want spiritual recreation on the Sabbath, he ought not therefore to be prohibited from taking what recreation he can get in a physical way.

NO person has a right to prohibit other people from holding and teaching opinions contrary to his own, or to have his feelings guarded by law against a possible shock. No progress in the knowledge of religious truth was ever made without a shock to somebody's feelings.

A SUNDAY law invades one individual's rights for the sake of saving another person's feelings.

THE church can impress the world only by manifesting to the world the power of godliness. When she invokes the civil power in the aid of religion she only impresses the world with a sense of the hypocrisy of her profession.

NO HUMAN law can offset the power of the "law of sin and death" that, as the Scripture declares, is at work in every unconverted heart. Until that is overcome by the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," the individual will be bound by it in spite of all the Sunday laws or other religious laws that can be enacted. And when he has been freed from the power of sin by the "law of the Spirit of life," he will need no man-made religious laws to enable him to do right.

"The Abuse of Power" American Sentinel 14, 24 , p. 371.

NO PERSON in the world is so good that he can be solely entrusted with the arbitrary exercise of great power. No person in the world, under such circumstances, could be safely relied on to make no invasion upon the rights of his fellows.

The truth of this is seen to-day in the use that is made of their power by individuals who occupy positions of financial or political preÎminence. It is the arbitrary exercise of the power of vast wealth or of a political dictatorship or of something else, that is disturbing so seriously the equilibrium of society.

The man who commands millions of dollars, or millions of votes, or the backing of a vast organization holds more power than can safely be exercised by one man's judgment and will. But it is human nature to wish to exercise power in just this way; and to feel fully competent to exercise properly any degree of power that can be acquired.

Power, in itself, if a proper and necessary thing for all persons; but there must be something to guard against its perversion. And here is seen the wisdom of God in the gospel. For the gospel provides him who receives it with great power, even the very power of God, but to be exercised only by a will that has first been submitted to God, and by the wisdom of God given to him who has been fitted for its reception.

And this is the true remedy for the evils that afflict society from the perversion of power. Under the provisions of the gospel, the humblest individual has more power than the mightiest man of earth who stands outside its provisions. He has power sufficient for every human need, while the mightiest man of earth has not the power that he needs to save himself from final destruction. The power of the one is a blessing to mankind, while that of the other is a menace and often a terrible curse.

The remedy is not to put more of earthly power into the hands of men, but more of the divine power into the hearts of the people. And the clergy, of all men, should be laboring most earnestly to this end.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 24 , p. 384.

SABBATH-KEEPING–as designating the religious observance of a weekly rest-day–is plainly shown by existing conditions to be on the decline among the Protestant bodies of this country, with one exception. That exception is the class of people who observe the seventh day of the week. And note: their Sabbath-observance is not anywhere supported by human law, is in many States discouraged by law, and is everywhere against the tremendous force of popular practice and belief. This Sabbath observance is not declining, but growing; while the other, which has all the Sunday laws behind it and the support of popular custom and tradition, is passing away. How do you account for it? And what is demonstrated by it as regards the utility of Sunday laws?

THE "American Sabbath" is passing away; that is, the religious regard for Sunday is dying out, as it pointed out in the article quoted from the New York Sun, page 373. But the desire to enforce Sunday observance by law is not dying out. A person may desire to enforce Sunday on others who cares nothing for it himself; this has been seen over and over in the cases that have been brought into the courts. The enforcement of religious observances is religious persecution, and religious persecution will never die out as long as the religion of Christ is in the world. Religious persecution is in most case not prompted by a regard for religion, but by a desire to get rid of the witness which religious truth gives against religious error, which righteousness gives against unrighteousness. It is the repetition of the story of Cain and Abel.

June 22, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 25 , p. 385.

THE Sabbath is in the world to save men; not men to save the Sabbath.

THE Sabbath, to be kept at all, must be kept holy, and as no human law can command holiness, no such law can promote or protect Sabbath-keeping. Hence, even were Sunday the Sabbath, a Sunday law could be no barrier to Sabbath-breaking.

SUNDAY laws overlook the fact that a man must be good on other days than the Sabbath in order to keep it. People who are not good on week days are very apt to be bad on the Sabbath, and certainly do not come up to the seventh day in any condition to remember it to keep it holy.

THE Sunday-closing people want everybody and everything, good and bad–the irreligious, the atheistic, the saloon, the theater and the gambling house–to keep the Sabbath. God wants nobody to try to keep the Sabbath before he is converted; and wants no evil thing to pretend to do homage to his day. There is no call for such places to be closed on the seventh day.

IT is the proper business of the Christian clergy to proclaim to the people, not condemnation, but reconciliation; not the power of human law for the punishment of the guilty, but the power of God for their salvation.

THE nation has an Independence day, but this does not matter nearly so much to you as the answer to the question whether you have one or not. Are you independent, and do you govern yourself?

THE Christian life is lived not by depending upon the world, but by overcoming it. Christianity seeks no aid from any worldly source.

ABRAHAM of old was obliged to leave "his country," and from the modern standpoint would not have ranked very high as a patriot. But he forsook his country that he might not forsake the right. And people who profess to be children of Abraham can be consistent only by doing as he did. They can be citizens of no country which has forsaken the right. They must be content to accept the name "pilgrim" in the place of "patriot."

"Why Celebrate the Fourth?" American Sentinel 14, 25 , pp. 385, 386.

THE "glorious Fourth" is celebrated as the anniversary of the day on which this country became independent of Great Britain.

Independence was desired not because the seat of British government was the British Isles; it was desired not to secure a difference location of the government, but a different government. The aim was not to establish a government on separate territory, but upon separate principles.

Now that these separate principles have been abandoned, what real propriety will there be in a celebration of Independence Day? Now that it is no longer held that all men are created equal, or that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, why should we celebrate the anniversary of the day when those principles were announced to the world? But for the fact that Americans of that time held those principles, the Declaration of Independence would not have

386

been written, and independence would not have been attempted. Why celebrate a day which stands for that which is not held to by Americans of to-day?

The government of Great Britain was imperial; and being such, it was oppressive. That oppression was felt by the people of the American colonies. Now that Americans are again under an imperial government, why should not the Fourth of July pass as it did priot to 1776?

Independence Day was not designed to celebrate the transfer of imperial government from the shores of England to those of America; and unless something far more than that remains to-day for the benefit of the people, there remains no point in the observance of the Fourth.

"Sunday Enforcement is Ruinous" American Sentinel 14, 25 , p. 386.

THE leaders in the Sunday movement make one of the foundation claims of their work "the preservation of society, the State, the nation." It is for this that they insist upon the enactment of Sunday laws. Accordingly they are always calling for more Sunday laws. It matters not what far-reaching Sunday laws may be already on the statute books, they call for still more Sunday laws, and the more vigorous enforcement of them all round.

Yet this whole thing is one of the most pernicious of fallacies. It is not only such pernicious fallacy in principle; but it has been abundantly demonstrated to be such in practice. Every point advocated by the Sunday-law workers to-day has been weighed in the balances of practice and of experience; and has been found utterly wanting. The whole thing has been tested on the world-theater, and has been found absolutely vain and ruinous.

The greatest example of national ruin, the most complete destruction of the State, the most thorough annihilation of society, that has ever been seen on this earth, occurred where there were the most and the most far-reaching Sunday laws. That was in the Western Empire of Rome.

In A.D. 313 the Western Empire became "Christian." In 314 the first State favor was shown for Sunday. In 321 the first direct Sunday law was enacted. And so it went on with one Sunday law after another, till by 425 every kind of secular work or amusement was strictly forbidden on Sunday. By that time, too, wickedness and corruption of every sort had multiplied in this "Christian" empire to such an extent that the judgment of God in destruction had already begun to fall unchecked.

In 351 the Franks and Alemanni swept like a sire, a space of one hundred and twenty miles from the source to the mouth of the Rhine.

In 400-403 the Visigoths carried destruction and devastation through Roumania and into Italy as far as to Milan.

In 405-29 a mighty host of Suevi, Vandals, and Burgundians ravaged Italy as far as to Florence, the greater part of Gaul, all of Spain and all of Africa to Carthage.

In 408-419 the Visigoths overflowed the whole of Italy, all southwestern Gaul and all of Spain.

In 449 the Angles and Saxons entered Britain and never rested until "the arts and religion, the laws and language, which the Romans had so carefully planted in Britain, were extirpated;" nor until "the practice and even the remembrance of Christianity were abolished."

In 451-453 the Huns under Attila carried fire and slaughter, from the Danube to Chalons, and to Milan.

In 453 the Ostrogoths took possession of the province of Pannonia, and the Lombards of Noricum.

In 476 Odeaur and his barbarian followers to possession of Italy and abolished the office of the emperor of the West: and the Western empire of Rome–the State, and even society–had been swept away by ruin upon ruin.

And that was the "Christian" empire of Rome. That was the empire that had exhausted the subject of Sunday laws and enforced Sunday observance. That was the State that had done all this on behalf of the kingdom of God, and for the preservation and even the salvation of the State.

There is not a method of Sunday enforcement either mild or cruel that has not been in that "Christian" Roman Empire. There is not a phase of Sunday laws that has not been employed by the clerical managers of affairs of that "Christian" Roman State. There is nothing on that subject left by those, for the Sunday-law clergy of to-day to discover. And the Sunday-law clergy of to-day must hide their eyes not only from the principles, but also from the practical effects of Sunday legislation of every kind, before they can go on in their pernicious Sunday-law course.

For, pernicious that course is even to the ruin of the greatest nation and state in the world. This has been thoroughly demonstrated to the last detail. And in the demonstration it has been made plain that enforced Sunday observance is the worst thing that can ever be put upon a nation or practiced in society.
A. T. J.

"Prophetic History" American Sentinel 14, 25 , pp. 388, 389.

It has been a proverb, that "history repeats itself." And in that lies the truth that history is in itself prophecy which conveys to the careful and wise student instruction and admonitions concerning important movements in his own day and nation.

Of all the nations that have existed, whose history has been completed, Rome was the greatest and had most of the elements of instruction and admonition to future peoples. And of all people, the people of the United States are the ones to whom the history of Rome speaks most personally.

Rome was a republic. The United States has been a republic. These only are the two great republics of history.

The republic of Rome was the professed and acknowledged exemplar of liberty among the ancient nations. The republic of the United States has been the professed and acknowledged exemplar of liberty among the modern nations.

The republic of Rome assumed that it devolved upon her to extend by her power the blessing of liberty to foreign peoples. The republic of the United States has assumed that it devolved upon her to extend by her power the blessing of liberty to foreign peoples.

In order to do this the republic of Rome sent over the seas her fleets and armies, sacrificed treasure and the lives of Roman citizens, fought battles, gained victories, and established peace, for other peoples in order that those other peoples might have the privilege of enjoying assured liberty. For the same purpose the republic of the United States has done the like things precisely.

So far, the course of the modern great republic has been exactly that of the ancient great republic. So much of the history of the ancient great republic, therefore, has been prophetic of that of the modern great republic. The history of the ancient republic did not cease at that point. Did the history of that republic, which up to that point was prophetic of that of this great republic, cease at that point to be prophetic when the history itself did not cease at that point?

When the republic of Rome had by her power secured to foreign peoples freedom from other masters, she asserted over them her own mastery. And whereas formerly for those peoples there had been some hope of freedom, because of the weakness of those kings who designed to rule over them; now that Rome had gained a position to claim and assert mastery over them, their prospect of liberty was rendered absolutely hopeless by reason of the strength of the new master.

In this, open despotism was established and practiced abroad by that ancient great republic. And this practice of despotism abroad soon reacted and brought about the practice of despotism at home. First it was a despotism of the majority, next it was a despotism of a few, then a despotism of three, and at last a despotism of one. And from a republic, a government of the people, and the exemplar of liberty, she was become a minority, a government of one, and the extreme of despotism.

Nor did the history of the ancient great republic stop at that point. After reigning in the extreme of despotism for a season and a time, a union was formed between this monarchy and an apostate church. And the multiplied evils of increased despotism and every and of every other sort speedily brought irretrievable ruin of government and even of society itself.

Such was the course, and such is the history, of that ancient great republic from the point unto which that history is plainly prophetic of the course of this modern great republic. And, viewing conditions and procedure as they actually are to-day, what single indication is there that from this point to the full end, the history of the ancient great republic is anything else than prophetic of the course and destiny of the modern republic?

It may be asked, Where could be found new peoples, whence could they come, to sweep away in ruin the modern great republic at its culmination according to the prophetic course of the ancient great republic?–The answer is, that they cannot be found on the earth. But they are found, and they are appointed unto that very work. And here they are, also whence they come, and the work that is before them:–

"Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand; a day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations. A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them. The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run. Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array. Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness. They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war;

389

and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks: neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded. They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the wall, they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief. The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining: and the Lord shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?" Joel 2:1-11.

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." Revelation 19:11-21. 8.
A. T. J.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 25 , p. 400.

THE Declaration of Independence was the basis not of a struggle for freedom from bad men, but from bad principles. The men who were oppressing the colonies would soon have passed away, but so long as these were bound by the principle of taxation without representation,–by the principle, to use a more modern phrase, that government derives its just powers from "the consent of some of the governed"–they would have known no real freedom. "Some of the governed," as applied by the king and parliament, did not include the American colonies, and the colonies fought through seven long years to throw off that principle. Later, their descendants fought each other for five terrible years to throw out of American government what was left of that principle. And now, lo! it is established again as firmly as ever, by the new policy of imperialism. The poison is back again in the system, and must either be thrown off by another convulsion or prove fatal.

WHILE legislatures and governments are setting aside the principle of religious freedom, it becomes all the more the duty of the individual to preserve these principles for all in himself. Whatever is done by the powers that be, no one need . . . these principles out of his own heart and life; and that is where they will do most good to the individual.

July 6, 1899

"Notes" American Sentinel 14, 26 , pp. 401, 402.

LEGISLATION can never serve as a moral guide.

IT is better to be a great man in a small country than a small man in a great country.

GREAT men do not make principles, but principles makes great men. The greatness is inherent only in the principles.

CHRISTIANITY means self-surrender, self-sacrifice. For the State to be Christian it would have to sacrifice itself, and so cease to exist.

SINCE the carnal heart is not subject to the law of God, and cannot be subject to it, how can it possibly be subjected to righteousness by the law of man?

IF the minority can get along in the observance of the seventh day without support of law, why cannot the majority get along without such support in observing the first day?

THE idea that uncivilized peoples have not the same natural rights that are possessed by the civilized, is of near kin to the idea that white men are not bound to respect the rights of a person whose skin is black, and to the idea that the aristocracy are not bound to recognize any rights in the Lord classes.

PEOPLE who think to safeguard the moral interests of a community by a Sunday law, should remember that the "righteousness of the law" is only the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, which can save nothing.

THE strong arm of the law in support of a religious institution proclaims the weakness of the religion the institution represents. If the Sunday institution is of God, it is strong enough in itself to survive all opposition.

THE Christian Church is set in the world to show a contrast with the world, as light with darkness, and not to have the world conformed to herself by religious laws. Conformity of the world to the church, by law, is conformity of the church to the world. What the church needs is to present a sharper contrast with the world, not to have what contrast there is obliterated. Hence a Sunday law is a detriment to the church, and cannot be anything else.

AN apostate State–one which has forsaken the true principles of government–is always found united with an apostate church. The United States is the only nation founded on the true principles of government, and the only one in which church and state are not united. This was not an accident, but a necessary consequence of the national recognition of the true principles of government, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Union of church and state is wholly incompatible with government by the consent of the governed. But now that the principle of government by consent of the governed has been repudiated, and the nation has become committed to the policy of government by consent of some of the governed,–which principle it is putting in practise in the conquest of the Philippines–its union with an apostate church will be sure and speedy. That

402

is the product of a law as certain as the law of gravitation.

"Un-Christian Endeavor" American Sentinel 14, 26 , p. 402.

THE Christian Endeavor leaders are swinging the youthful enthusiasm of that religious movement into the current of conquest and imperialism of the United States.

The Christian Endeavor department of the Interior of June 22, 1899, in presenting matter for "A Christian Citizenship meeting," makes the "topic," "Our Country for Christ"; and as a sub-heads gives such as these: "A blessed nation–Ps. 144:15"; "A victorious nation–2 Chron. 20:1-30"; "Praise for victories–Ps. 44:1-8"; and "The nation for Christ–Luke 14:15-24." Any Christian endeavor that can apply to the United States and its victories the Scriptures, as is done in this Christian Endeavor lesson, can easily do anything else that it pleases with the Scriptures.

The lesson continues in the same strain, as follows:–

"There is a mighty contest abroad. The Goth has risen from the dead; the modern vandal stalks throughout the land. The call for patriotism was never louder, the demand for Christian courage was never greater than it is to-day. Let every citizen consecrate his right of franchise to the rule of Almighty God, and pledged himself to stand by those principles that have made our country what it is. Let every patriot feel again the tingle of loyalty that burns like a flame in the veins of every ardent lover of home, and native land, and Christ, and good. Let every woman to whose guiding care has been given the training of some Washington or Lincoln, pour into her children's ears the rich lore of our country's Christian heroes and sacrificing heroines. Let every soldier enlist again in the war against vice and immortality; every youth join in the drum beat that leads to victory; every infant be taught lisp, 'Jesus, Lover of my Soul,' and the 'Red, White and Blue'; every boy to join Christ and country, and nail the flag just beneath the cross. The cause of America is the cause of humanity. It has a mission among the nations. May it adorn the centuries, shedding its blessings to the last shock of time."

If that does not mean a union of church and state, then there never was such a thing in the world. Any boy or anybody else who "joins Christ and country," will always put country before Christ. Anybody who in his thought joins Christ and something else, will always in his conduct put the something else before Christ.

There was never conceived a more deceptive thing than that which is almost universally conceived by professed Christians as the very ultimate of Christian loyalty, namely, "Christ and the Church," or "Christ"–and anything else. In the vocabulary of Christian loyalty, nothing–absolutely nothing–can have any shadow of a share with Christ. Christian loyalty knows simply and only Christ; Christ and Christ alone; Christ, all in all. And in this loyalty there is embodied unswerving allegiance to every cause that is true, and everything that is right.

Anything else, or anything in addition, is a deception; and is disloyalty, in some of loyalty, to Christ.
A. T. J.

"History Repeats Itself" American Sentinel 14, 26 , pp. 402, 403.

A FEW weeks ago the Christian Herald of New York City published the answers that it had received from a large number of public men to certain questions which it had sent to them as to their attitude toward Christianity. Of course favorable answers were given even by Li-Hung-Chang. The truest statement of the whole case, that we have seen is the following by the public of June 24, 1899:–

"One of the most paganistic performances of our day and generation is to be credited to a New York paper called the Christian Herald. Assertions having gained currency that the prominent men of the country have become so saturated with commercialism as to be indifferent to Christianity, the Christian Herald catechised a select lot, including the President, and has published the answers. Here are its interrogatories:–

"'Are you a friend of Christianity?

"'Do you believe that Christianity is the friend of mankind?

"'Does your belief extend to a recognition of a Supreme Being, and to the divinity of Christ, to the surpassing potency of Christianity as a civilizing influence?'

"These interrogatories do not touch the core of the question. Had the public manner of Rome in Cesar's time been asked if they believed in the gods, every one would have replied in the affirmative, though it was notorious that the Roman upper classes were atheists. But it was not good form to deny the gods openly. So now with Christianity. A certain conventional piety calling itself Christianity, is to our day with the gods were in Cesar's day. No public man would dare deny believe in it. Ingersoll tried it and fell from a high estate and lofty possibilities in politics to the grade of a peripatetic lecturer. Who does not know the trick of sensational evangelists, who at their meetings ask all Christians to stand up. Of course, everybody stands. But that does not prove all to be Christians. Just so with the answers to the Christian Herald's questions. Everybody from the President down answers in the affirmative. They all believe in Christianity. But to yield a perfunctory, conventional, pietistic profession of belief in Christianity is a very different thing from being a Christian. So the answers to the Christian Herald's questions prove nothing. It is quite possible to profess a belief in Christianity while being so saturated with commercialism as to be utterly without either Christian practise or Christian spirit."

That is all true. And yet it is not as close to the whole truth as it might be. To cite the times and prominent men of pagan Rome, is not as close a comparison

403

as can be fairly drawn with the stroke of the Christian Herald's.

Think a moment: Pagan Rome became at last professedly Christian Rome. And when it had been so for fifty or even longer, how was it in such matters as this which is raised by the Christian Herald and touched by the Public? Here is the answer in the words of the historian Merivale:–

"If the great Christian scholars had themselves come forth from the schools of the pagans, the loss had not been wholly unrequited; so complacently had even Christian doctors again surrendered themselves to the fascinations of pagan speculations; so fatally, in their behalf, had they extenuated Christian dogma, and a acknowledged the fundamental truth and sufficiency of science falsely so called.

"The gospel we find was almost eaten out from the heart of the Christian society. I speak not now of the pride of spiritual pretensions, of the corruption of its secular politics, of its ascetic extravagance, its mystical fallacies, of its hollowness in preaching, or its laxity in practice; of it saint worship, which was a revival of hero worship; its addiction to the sensuous in outward service, which was a revival of idolatry. But I point to the fact less observed by our church historians, of THE ABSOLUTE DEFECT OF ALL DISTINCTIVE CHRISTIANITY IN THE UTTERANCES OF MEN OF THE HIGHEST ESTEEM as Christians, men of reputed wisdom, sentiment and devotion.

"Look, for instance, at the remains we possess of the Christian Boethius, a man whom we know to have been a professed Christian and a churchman, excellent in action, steadfast in suffering; but in whose writings, in which he aspires to set before us the true grounds of spiritual consolation on which he himself rested in the hour of his trial, and the on which he would have his fellows rest, THERE IS NO TRACE OF CHRISTIANITY WHATEVER, nothing but pure, and mangled naturalism.

"This marks decline of distinctive Christian belief was accompanied with a marked decline of Christian morality. Heathenism reasserted its empire over the carnal affections of the natural man. The pictures of abounding wickedness in high places and the low places of the earth, which are presented to us by the witness of the worst pagan degradation, are repeated, in colors not less strong, in lines not less hideous, by the observers of the gross and reckless iniquity of the so-called Christian period now before us. It becomes evident that as the great mass of the careless and indifferent have assumed with the establishment of the Christian church in authority and honor, the outward garb and profession of Christian believers, so with the decline of belief, the corruption of the visible church, the same masses, indifferent and irreligious as of old, have rejected the moral restraints which their profession should have imposed upon them."

If the men of high standing at that time–the emperor, generals, naval captains, politicians, etc.,–had been asked these identical questions, they would invariably have given precisely similar answers. Thus it was in professed Christian Rome of the fourth and fifth centuries, and not in the Pagan Rome of Cesar's time, that is found the closest comparison and the fittest likeness to the performance of the Christian Herald. And, be it remembered, all that was in the very time when the judgments of God, in the floods of barbarians, were being poured out to the utter ruin of the whole framework of society there.

And history is still repeating itself. Who will read the history in its true meaning? Alas! how many read it in vain!
A. T. J.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 26 , p. 416.

A READER of the SENTINEL asks us to explain what imperialism has to do with religious liberty. The SENTINEL has been explaining this for some time, but will be glad to keep on explaining as long as there are honest people who desire to be enlightened.

Imperialism is a name designating government by the consent of some of the government.

True republican government is government by the consent of all of the governed. It rests upon the doctrine that "all men are created equal," and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

If it is true that all men have "certain unalienable rights," and that "to preserve these rights governments are instituted among men," it is necessarily true that governments derive their just powers from the consent of all of the governed.

And if it is not true that governments derive their just powers from the consent of all of the governed, it cannot be true that all men have certain unalienable rights. It necessarily follows that some men have no rights.

Imperialism, therefore, plainly asserts that some men have no rights. It asserts this in theory, and it has always asserted this in practise, wherever it has been put into operation. History is voluminous upon this point.

Now, what has the doctrine that a man has no rights, got to do with religious liberty? Is it a denial of religious liberty to an individual to declare that he has no rights?

How much religious liberty would an individual possess who had no rights?

If an individual had no rights, would he have any right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience?

This is what imperialism has to do with religious liberty. Do you see it?

NOT many years ago the people of this country were engaged in a great and fierce dispute about the government–so fierce that they took up arms and fought each other till hundreds of thousands of them were killed, and the country was sunk under the ruin and paralysis of a great war. Did that state of things call for outside interference to stop Americans from cutting each others' throats, because they did not know how to govern themselves?

Now, the same Americans are interfering in the Philippines, assuming the right to control the affairs of the islands, and slaughtering the natives who resist, to save them from the internal war and ruin which it is alleged would follow because they do not know how to govern themselves.

Would these Americans have been willing that any outside power should have saved them from ruin and bloodshed which resulted from their disagreement about government, by stepping in and "benevolently assimilating" this country? Would they have been willing any power should have done to them what they are now doing to the Filipinos? What imperialists would answer this question?

"THE kingdom of God is within you," said Jesus Christ; and hence his kingdom is "not of this world." Christ's kingdom is advanced only by means which operate in the heart, the kingdoms of the world only by means which cannot reach the heart. The one is by faith; the other is force. This is a distinction always overlooked by those who think to establish the kingdom of God on earth by legislation and politics, but it is a vital distinction, and cannot be overlooked by him who sees the truth.

July 13, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 27 , p. 417.

THE boldest anarchy is that which sets aside the oldest law, which is the law of God.

TO compel the observance of unjust statutes, is as vital to good government as to allow the non-observance of just ones.

A PEOPLE who look to no higher source than their legislatures for moral laws, will soon be far below the correct standard of morality in their practice.

AMS "WHATSOEVER is not a faith is sin," and as enforced Sabbath-keeping is not of faith, such Sabbath observance is sin, and the law which enforces it only serves to make people sin.

CHRISTIANITY aims at purification not by casting out men, but by casting evil out of men; it aims not to purify that which is of the world, but to purify men through renunciation of this world.

GOD allows every individual to govern himself–to be wicked or good, as he may choose; so that whoever is included in the divine government, is governed by his own consent. The Creator is no imperialists.

AMS MORALITY must pertain to the inward thought and motive as well as the outward act, and is no human law can apply further than the outward act, it is certain that human law is wholly inadequate to conserve the interests of morality.

"THE Sabbath was made for man," not for one man more than for another, nor for any particular class of men. All men have an equal right to it, and no one is answerable to another for his use of it. All this is denied when the majority makes Sabbath observance a subject of legislation.

THE empire of Rome fell when it had carried out to the fullest extent the idea that "Christian institutions"–and especially Sunday observance–must be protected by law. France fell into the French Revolution when it was amply supported by "props" of this character. The empire of Spain, just dissolved–exemplified the same thing. And in the republics of South America, where "Christian institutions"–Sunday included–had long been most fully and firmly enforced by law, there has been the most complete revolution in government. The truth is, religious legislation, so far from protecting the State, is the sure means, sooner or later, of its dissolution.

"'Religion in Politics' Illustrated" American Sentinel 14, 27 , pp. 417, 418.

THE "United Christian Party, which imagines it is working to set up a political government of God on earth," has been organized in Iowa. A press dispatch says of it:–

"A new party has been organized in Iowa. The platform is: 'We believe in direct legislation of people, and in order to make the government a government from God through Christ we should be governed in all things, law-making included, by the standard, "What Would Jesus Do?'"

"One hundred delegates were present and forty counties were represented. The party was christened 'The United Christian Party.' The following ticket was named: Governor, C. D. Heacock, Brighton; Judge of Supreme Bench, John M. Helmick, Dubuque; Superintendent of Public Instruction, W. D. Pidgeon, Richland."

The statement follows that the candidate for governor is serving time in jail, having been sentenced for criminal libel and contempt of court.

This is a sample illustration of religion in politics, and it would not be less ridiculous, only more dangerous, if it were on a larger scale. It only carries the principle out to the full extent, and church people who advocate the taking of religion into politics need not condemn it or regard it with disdain. They will do well if they will study it and learn from a practical illustration what they fail to discern in the theory.

"'A Religious Trust'" American Sentinel 14, 27 , p. 418.

THE following editorial from the New York Sun, under the above heading, is very significant as indicating how the "Trust" idea is beginning to take root in the field of religion. If the combination of business concerns into a Trust is profitable financially, why may not a combination of churches be of advantage in religion? The question is being asked, and an affirmative answer is being given. The Sun says:–

"It is not remarkable that the system of combination in business undertakings known as the Trust, is now recommended for adoption by churches and other religious enterprises. The suggestion is made by a correspondent of the Church Economist, with reference to 'church consolidation' more particularly, but if the Trust would be saving of money and energy, then its advantages can be carried not less strikingly to all religious undertakings.

"This correspondent gives as an example one city where there are three churches of a single denomination in one block, and he calculates that by their consolidation a saving of $20,280 a year could be effected. If the 'ordinary business man' would be likely to think of the propriety of getting rid of useless competition by consolidating three churches. He asks, therefore, 'Is it not really strange that rational men, who, in their affairs of business, count with exactness every item of expense, should allow themselves literally to be robbed in the conducting of their religious concerns?"

"If the churches of one denomination may be consolidated thus profitably, why should not all denominations unite in a Trust? Such a proposition is now actually under consideration, for that is what the 'Religious Conference' started in New York recently amounts to practically. It is to combine Trinitarians and Unitarians, Christians and Jews in religious effort, or essentially a Trust.

"The very proposition is an indication of a state of feeling among those making it as to questions of religion. It seems to indicate that the formation of such a Trust is possible with them, for it suggests that the radical difference of opinion out of which grew their religious competition has passed away and been succeeded by an indifference which can now be gratified by a religious Trust of Jews and Gentiles, infidels, agnostics and nominal believers.

"By following the plan of Bishop Potter and throwing over dogma, such a religious Trust will get rid of the sole reason for division. In place of contradictory belief in dogmas it can set up a religious philosophy, a system of philanthropy, in which there will be agreement. At any rate, there is nothing else for it to do if it is to have any practical issue.

"The Trust could then be extended to all religious enterprises, at a great saving of money, many millions of dollars; for in place of numerous competing machines in every field, one common machine would be sufficient for the purpose.

"Why, then, is not such a religious Trust formed, and when will it be formed actually? So long as religious conviction remains it is impossible, but it will be feasible if there shall ever come a time when men cease to have any religious belief."

Not all the facts pertaining to this subject are observed by the Sun. The formation of a religious Trust is not by any means dependent upon the demise of dogma and religious belief. The very object of the combine may be, and will be, to promote dogma–to advance religious belief of a certain kind by driving other beliefs out of active existence. The main object of a Trust is to destroy competition; and in religion, such an institution will have the same nature as elsewhere. In all ages, men in the church have been eager to stifle religious competition, and if the Trust can be made to serve this end, the mere saving of dollars will be a matter of secondary moment in its formation.

Denominational rivalry has largely disappeared between the popular churches; but religious controversy, along certain lines, is as active now as in the past. Never indeed was there a time in the history of this nation when the question of Sunday observance was more generally agitated than it is to-day. And Sunday observance, be it noted, is the one dogma upon which the popular denominations stands [sic.] as a unit.

Here, then, is the foundation of a religious Trust; or, more strictly speaking, a Sabbath Trust. Such a Trust has been in process of formation now for a score of years, and about all that is needed to complete the undertaking is an act of the National Government, recognizing the Sabbath of the Trust as the true Sabbath, and commanding all citizens to take and use it as the Trust directs. And for this, millions of church people, old and young, are hopefully working.

"Note" American Sentinel 14, 27 , pp. 418, 419.

LAW supersedes argument. Where the law commands, there is no need of argument to persuade. If it is right to command men to keep the Sabbath, it is useless to spend time trying to persuade them. And if this be so, Sabbath observance is outside the gospel. It is

419

disconnected from love, for there is no love in law. And if disconnected from love, it is disconnected from God; for "God is love."

"Rome and Imperialism" American Sentinel 14, 27 , pp. 420, 421.

THE Roman Catholic church has declared herself favorable to American imperialism and an alliance of America with Great Britain to secure Anglo-Saxon supremacy in Asia. This is the accepted import of a speech made at the Independence Day banquet of Americans in London, by Cardinal Vaughn, the papal primate in England.

The New York Sun hails the event as a great gain for imperialism, and under the heading, "Rome with Us in the East," prints the following:–

"London, July 4.–A declaration of immense importance concerning the fate of the Philippines and all Asia was made to-night by Cardinal Vaughn, Archbishop of Westminster, at the Independence Day banquet given by the American Society and London. There is good authority for saying that his utterance is an authorized announcement of the Roman Catholic church on the Far Eastern question. When it is said that he astonished and electrified his audience by his eloquent appeal to America and England, in cooperation, to carry civilization into Asia in opposition to Russia, it may easily be imagined what a sensation his words created.

"Nor was his the only imperialistic speech of the evening. It was the keynote of every word spoken, and the spirit of imperialism aroused an enthusiasm surpassing anything witnessed at former gatherings of Americans in London. The banquet was attended by the largest and most representative assembly of Americans ever held in Europe. It was nearly midnight when Cardinal Vaughan spoke, but the tremendous significance of his words entitles them to be the first quoted. He said:–

"'I have in my heart the deep-seated and mature conviction that the welfare of the Christian world, especially those portions which have not yet been brought into the pale of civilization, depends in great measure on the good feeling and coˆperation that shall exist between the American and English peoples. [Cries "Hear!" "Hear!"] we are living at the end of one century, and are about to enter another. Some men may glory in looking backward, and they will have much to see in retrospect. Others look forward. Their minds are cast toward the future, leaving behind the things they have accomplished, and they press forward. We are on the eve of a new century the English-speaking peoples look forward to see in what direction their mission will be accomplished. It seems to me from the evidence of past years, and from the manifestation of friendly feeling expressed it this table by your ambassador and senators who have spoken, that we are preparing the American and English peoples for the great work before us in the century to come.

"'You no longer, if I may speak to my American cousins, you no longer are a self-contained power. You have come forth from your continent, forced by the acquisition of lands abroad. You stand with your hand on the threshold of the vast continent of Asia. You have entered into the comity of nations that have declared itself in many ways interested in the welfare of the future of the Asiatic continent. You will never be able to withdraw [Cries of "Hear!" "Hear!"] the influence you have, and it will be greater in the future than ever it was in the past. It must make itself felt on the tremendous population of Asia, which is waiting for the advance of true Christian civilization. [Italics ours.]

"'The question that presents itself constantly to my mind–I do not know how it will strike your minds–is this: Which power in the future of the world shall be predominant over the great continents yet unreclaimed by Christian civilization? Shall it be the great despotic power that looms north of Asia, or shall it be the power of the liberty-loving nations represented by the English-speaking peoples? [Cries of "Hear!" "Hear"!] It is the question of which of the two extremes in modes of government shall prevail. There can be no doubt in this hall to which the preference should be given. If then the liberty-loving peoples bring happiness, civilization and all the benefits of Christianity to the largest majority of the human race yet uncivilized, it can only be, it seems to me, through a good understanding being established between the two great branches of the English-speaking people. [Cries of "Hear!" "Hear!"]

"'I am not speaking of commercial interests. I am not speaking of the wealth of England or America. I am speaking on the point alone of your influence and our influence abroad. I pray that the sentiments expressed so eloquently by many speakers to-night, sentiments which animate the English heart as deeply as the American, may continue to be woven one with the other, and that the missions of the English-speaking races may be carried on successfully in the new century, and that the century may see the completion in a great measure of our common mission.' [Cheers.]"

Rome, ever since the days of the Roman republic has represented imperialism; Hence it is not strange that she favors imperialism to-day. The papacy presents a system of government as far removed from republicanism as anything that could be devised. Rome denies that any person has a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. This is

421

as complete a denial of the doctrine of human-rights, set forth in the Declaration of Independence, as could well be made. If individual rights have no existence in the sacred domain of religion, they have no existence at all. As no individual is under obligation to obey some other one in religious matters, he is by the same token bound to obey the same authority in matters temporal.

Recently the Pope said of England that "England's deference to Roman Catholicism is daily becoming more apparent"; and of the United States he said, also recently, that it is marching into the Catholic church with rapid strides. Hence Cardinal Vaughn can very consistently see British and American supremacy in Asia; for Asia, of course, is not under the influence of the papacy as are England and the United States. Rome knows that these two countries will become supreme in the Far East, and by that time she hopes to be supreme there.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 27 , p. 432.

THE position of the individual in popular government is that of a director of the machinery of the government; when he becomes only a part of the machinery himself, directed by another, the government has become a despotism in fact, whatever it may be in name.

THE crusade against Mormon polygamy which has been in progress since the Mormon B. H. Roberts was elected to Congress, has borne fruit in the arrest of a prominent Mormon leader named Cannon, in Salt Lake City, and the announced intention of taking similar action against B. H. Roberts, President Snow and others, who do not deny the charge of maintaining a plurality of wives.

SEPARATE a great man from a great principle, and only a small man is left. The greatness remains in the principle.

A NATION, like an individual, is most likely to pick a quarrel when it goes about armed.

July 20, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 28 , p. 433.

GOOD character is built not upon human law, but upon love of good principles.

IT is the province of the civil authority to deal with crime, but God's province to deal with sin.

EVERY man has a right to rest from work on Sunday, and he has also the privilege; there is no law to prevent him from so doing.

THE laws of nature govern man's physical wellbeing, and none of these laws were or can be framed by a legislature. Nor can any government enforce them.

IMMORALITY has vastly greater power for destruction than any human law has for salvation. The latter is not a panacea for the effects of the former.

AMS THE true standard of morality cannot change, only that authority can properly legislate upon morality which is not subject to change, and that is the authority of Omniscience.

INJUSTICE is no more binding on an individual when in the form of a statute, than before it was enacted into "law." As justice is always binding, in justice can never be binding in any form. Therefore the paramount question is not whether a law shall be enforced or not, but whether it is just.

CONGRESS and the State legislatures are designed to represent the people of the States. No legislative body in a republican government can represent a church, or a religious organization. And for this reason churches and religious societies ought to keep out of politics.

AMS JUST laws are binding upon all individuals, and conscience is also binding upon each one, it is evident that both cannot occupy the same sphere without conflict, and therefore that their proper spheres are separate from each other. Law is not made to take the place of conscience, and conscience cannot surrender itself to law. The province of law is simply the preservation of human rights, and the office of conscience is to guide the individual in doing right. To protect rights, and to enforce right, are vastly dissimilar things.

"What Jesus Did Do?" American Sentinel 14, 28 , pp. 433, 434.

MUCH is being said of a certain book professedly written from the basis of "What would Jesus do?" As this question is akin to the Christian Endeavor pledged, the theories of the book are expected to have a large place among the Endeavorers: indeed it seems that this is so already.

Whatever may be said of the book as to its application to the individual life in general, of the question, "What would Jesus do?" it is certain that in one important particular it is altogether in error: and that is that it carries into politics and all the affairs of the state and endeavors to apply there the question "What would Jesus do?"

But this is altogether an error, because the only way anybody can truly tell "What would Jesus do?" is by

434

what Jesus really did. What Jesus really did and commanded all to do, is written out in his Word for the guidance of all. And in all that is written of what he either did or said, there is no suggestion that he ever in any way whatever took any part in politics, or had anything to do with the affairs of state. On the contrary, there is direct and positive evidence that he refused to do so.

This was not by any means because there was no need of reforms in politics nor improvement in administration; for if ever there was in the world corruption in politics, and evil in administration, that was preeminently the time.

"The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and repressive: on every hand were crying abuses–extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example, kept aloof from earthly governments. Not because he was indifferent to the woes of men; but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart."

With reference to all matters of politics and governmental administration, the only proper answer to the question "What would Jesus do?" is that he would utterly separate himself from it, and would have nothing whatever to do with it. And when anybody enters into politics and affairs of government asking "What would Jesus do?" he leaves at once the realm of Christ, enters an utterly foreign field, and can get from Christ no answer to his question for his guidance there; for Christ never was there and never did anything there. The only true answer that anyone can get there to that question is, "My kingdom is not of this world." "Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." "Come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you."

All therefore who enter politics and affairs of state contrary to the whole example and word of Christ, as they must do to do it at all, and then expect to apply the question "What would Jesus do?" the only answer they can ever get allowing them to continue there, is such answer as they themselves can give to themselves. And the answer that religionists have always given to themselves in those places is abundantly told in the persecutions and oppressions that have afflicted the people in every country where the thing has ever been done.

And for this perverse sentiment to be imbibed and carried out by the enthusiasts of the so-called Christian Endeavor movement, in the interests of that most stupendous error of Sunday observance, would speedily flood this nation with evil enough to ruin it.

No: the state is not the realm of Christ. Politics is not the work of Christ. The spirit of earthly government is not the Spirit of Christ. It is all "enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." And in all such connection the only answer to "What would Jesus do?" is, He would do just what he did when he was here–separate entirely from it all and be joined body, soul and spirit to the realm, the work, and the Spirit, of God, which are not of this world.

That is what Jesus did. That is what Jesus would still do. And that is what every one will do who will go in his steps.
A. T. J.

"'Lost–the American Sabbath'" American Sentinel 14, 28 , pp. 434, 435.

LOST in Elmira, N. Y., the "American Sabbath." So says The Defender, an Elmira journal. No reward is offered for its recovery. We quote:–

"Lost–the American Sabbath!

"Will the church bells of Elmira ring out this alarm? Such contempt for the day as the city reveals now would have been considered shocking not long ago. To tell truth, it is not now so openly manifested by the liquor people as by others. Not a Sunday goes by but that the cigar stores, the candy stores, the drug stores, the ice cream places, the fruit stands, and the soda fountains of Elmira are all in full blast, and doing more business than on any other day of the week.

"The liquor saloons have as good a right to hold open as these. It is unjust to the saloons to demand closed doors of them, and let these other places be wide open.

"The Law and Order League grows red in the face because a prostitute walks the streets, and insists that the police prohibit all that sort of thing; but we hear nothing of righteous anger because the Sabbath is desecrated by a hundred tradesmen with impunity; the majesty of the law is not invoked, in behalf of good morals and of tradesmen who respect the Sabbath sanctities.

"Lost–the American Sabbath!"

But all this growing business and pleasure on Sunday does not at all interfere with the Lord's Sabbath–the seventh day. That is not lost. Ask any observer of that day, and he will tell you this is true. He will only be surprised that you should ask the question.

And here is an important truth that should be noted and kept in mind; the fact that in spite of all the work that is being done week after week on the "Sabbath of the Lord," and the worldly pleasures to which so many people devote the day, this Sabbath is not being lost, is proof that it cannot be lost. And if it cannot be lost, it is plain that whoever will keep it cannot be lost, either. He will not be lost, to all eternity.

The "American Sabbath"–the first day of the week–is lost; so its own friends confess. And how many who were its adherents are lost with it? A Sabbath that can be lost itself has obviously no power to save a soul

435

from being lost. But why not choose that Sabbath which cannot be lost–"the seventh day [which] is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God"?

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 28 , p. 448.

THE National Reform theory of government is that of government by consent of the "orthodox" clergy; an oligarchy is a government by consent of the "nobility;" a plutocracy is a government by consent of the rich; an imperial government is a government by consent of an emperor and his favorites or by some party holding supreme power; and all of these various forms of despotism rest on the same principle–that of government by consent of some of the governed. On that principle it is impossible to erect anything else than a despotism.

THE apologists for the war of subjugation in the Philippines have much to say in disparagement of Aguinaldo and his followers, but they never say anything about the principles by which the campaign is justified or condemned. The attempt to justify the campaign by alleging that the Filipinos are treacherous, mercenary and generally an incapable and worthless lot,–as if all this, even if true, could make any difference in the matter of their natural rights. The most worthless specimens of the white race in America–men as base and degenerate as any to be found in the Philippines–are accorded all the rights of American citizens, and no imperialist would dare attempt to put in practise here the doctrine he preaches with reference to the people of Luzon. Despotism bases its claims upon differences–real or alleged–between men; but just government is based not on human differences, but on human-rights. Despotisms are based on men, but just government rests on principles.

THE aggressiveness and success of Mormonism in this country is regarded, and rightly, as a national menace. But why? Not because of its peculiar religious doctrines, but because it is a political power. It dominates State affairs in Utah and has a strong hold upon the surrounding States, and may soon hold the balance of power in congress. The Mormon Church is in politics, and this is the menace of Mormonism to the nation; but the other churches in the land are estopped from making any protest, for they are doing the same thing. They all believe that Christians should go into politics and make politics pure by the application of Christianity to it. The Christian should vote "as Jesus would have him vote," etc. This is what they say for themselves, and why cannot Mormons say the same for themselves? They can; Mormonism as a national menace can never be consistently or successfully combated by the churches, since the principal–the genuine Christian principle–that religion and the state should not be mixed.

July 27, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 29 , pp. 449, 450.

ENFORCED rest always makes a well man very tired.

DEMOCRACY and great wealth cannot flourish together in the same land.

EVERY Sunday law finds fault with men for following the example of the Creator.

THE cords that hold mankind in the channels of morality are not attached to any earthly source of power.

THIS age is doing its best to give the lie to that old and familiar Scripture, "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches."

THE nations all profess friendship for one another, but no nation has as much friendship for any other nation as it has for gold.

THE only significance that can belong to a weekly rest upon a specified day is a religious one. That was the significance given it by the Creator in the beginning, and no sophistry of man or act of the legislature can make it different.

THE only Sabbath which God ever provided for mankind is a spiritual Sabbath–"the Sabbath of the Lord;" and that the Omniscient never provided any other ought with Christians at least to be proof that no other is needed.

IT is not more and louder thunders of law, with all awe-inspiring manifestations of power and majesty, that is needed to make things better in the world. The ancient Hebrews had all this at Mount Sinai, but instead of drawing them nearer the Lord, it only drove them farther away.

IN republican government an institution is subservient to the individual, and not the individual to an institution. Government serves the individual, and is not his lord and master. The former was made for the latter, not the latter for the former. The individual was the crowning active God's creation, and man has not made anything greater than was made by him.

CHRISTIANITY aims to purify men by casting out the world from their hearts. But there is a false Christianity in the land to-day which aims to purify the world by casting out men.

Great religious organizations are holding conventions and planning for an aggressive campaign to "purify politics." Certain classes of men must be cast out of Congress and the State legislatures, that these political bodies may be purified and we may have a truly Christian government. When the government has been purified the evils that are now rampant in a society will disappear, and there will be ushered in a reign of righteousness and the establishment of the kingdom of God, so they say.

This is the old story of the world purifying itself, which is only one form of the subtle doctrine that man can be his own Saviour. Politics is of the world, civil government is of the world. In this country the most

450

worldly men, equally with those who profess religion, participate in the government, and any scheme for a less worldly government must contemplate withdrawing the franchise from worldly people. This could not be done, and if it could, by that very act would the government proclaim itself to be hopelessly unchristian than before. The right of self-government is proclaimed by Christianity for every man, whether good or bad. Without self-government, no man can be fit for the kingdom of God.

Politics cannot be separated from the world; and the attempt to purify politics and to cleanse the temples of civil government, is an attempt to purify the world. In the Christian sense of purification, it cannot be done. The world cannot be purified. Whatever is of the world must be destroyed, and is reserved unto destruction, against a future day so graphically portrayed in the second epistle of Peter.

The attempt, therefore, the purified politics, Congress, and the legislatures, in the name of Christianity, is a tremendous mistake and can only end in complete failure and disappointment. It aims at governmental rather than individual salvation, and rejects the individuals who most need saving. Christianity seeks out the most sinful and erring, not to cast them out but to save them. It brings to them not condemnation, but pardon and hope. It knows no salvation that is not of the individual.

"'A Strange Fourth of July'" American Sentinel 14, 29 , p. 450.

The New York Sun comments upon a "Strange Fourth of July in Hawaii," saying that an orator delivering an address might speak of "the President," the "Constitution," or "the flag," without having it understood by his audience whether he meant President McKinley or President Dole, the Constitution of the United States or that of Hawaii, the flag of the one country or that of the other. It appears that Mr. Dole is still acting in the capacity of President of the Island government, the Constitution of the Hawaiian republic is still in many respects the fundamental law, and the Hawaiian flag is still officially recognized.

"No wonder," says the Sun, "that at an enormous mass-meeting in Honolulu on the Fourth of July, the American or rather Americanoid citizens there assembled. . . should adopt a preamble setting forth their weariness of the present state of uncertainty and confusion, and a resolution as follows:–

"'That this assemblage earnestly and respectfully asks of President McKinley and his advisors and the Congress of the United States to take such action as will cause the speedy expansion of American territorial laws to Hawaii.'"

But in the way of their hopes stands the decision reached by the United States Government, that the island possessions recently acquired are merely the property, and not a part, of the United States. Considering that these islands are populated mostly by people of inferior and uncivilized races, it is much more conventional for the Government to treat them as its property than as territories entitled to enter the American Union.

So while it was a "strange for the July" that was celebrated at Honolulu, it was a perfectly natural one under the new policy of imperialism. Indeed, under this policy a fourth-of-July celebration is logically a strange thing anywhere.

"Would Christianity Lose Anything?" American Sentinel 14, 29 , pp. 450, 451.

A great outcry is raised over the growing desecration of the "American Sabbath," and the breaking down of all barriers which restrain it is set before us as a possible stupendous calamity, to avert which proper legislation must be earnestly invoked.

Suppose all barriers were removed; suppose everybody in every State were left perfectly free to observe Sunday or not, to rest or to work or to play, just as he might feel inclined: would the church lose anything by it? Would Christianity lose anything? Would not every Christian in the land keep the Sabbath just the same as before? Yes; every church member who is a Christian would be true to his convictions of duty; and the world, whether in the church or out of it, would simply act as it is in their hearts to act, as regards Sabbath observance. And as the church has nothing to gain from worldly people in her fold, and as such people only do her harm, it is plain that the removal and complete breaking down of all man-made barriers about the Sabbath would not only do no harm to the Christian Church, but would be much to her advantage. The line of demarcation between the true church and the world would only be more sharply drawn, and that would always be to the advantage of the church.

"Reform Should Begin at Home" American Sentinel 14, 29 , pp. 450, 451.

THE actors' society of America has published the following resolution as a declaration of its attitude toward Sunday theaters:–

"Whereas, the usages of Christian civilization and the customs of our forefathers have ever observed one day in the week as a day of rest; and whereas, we believe that one day in the week may be with advantage to the actor always respected as a day of rest and of moral culture; therefore, resolved, that as a society, we object to theatrical performances at any hour of the day on Sunday, and will always use whatever legal influence we may have to suppress the same."

It may be inferred, though it is not declared, that the actors will use their moral as well as their legal in-

451

fluence against Sunday theatricals; and if their moral influence is really used, it will be used first of all on themselves, in themselves refusing to perform on Sunday, whether there is any law on the subject or not. Moral influence that stops short of this is no influence at all, and if their moral influence is not exerted against Sunday work, it will only be inconsistent and absurd for them to use their legal influence against it. And the same is true of any other class of laborers.

August 3, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 30 , p. 465.

"LAW and order" was never conserve by Sunday idleness.

PEOPLE who fight the devil with fire, only kindle the blaze more fiercely.

INDEPENDENCE has been many times won by a people, but never once granted.

WHEN personal independence dies out among the people, national independence must quickly follow it.

CHRISTIANITY represents the only government in which there is neither minority nor majority rule.

THE subtlest of all evil doctrines is that which, plainly stated, declares that man can be his own saviour.

LOYALTY to the United States does not demand that the principles of republican government be repudiated for the sake of agreeing with the party in power.

THE fact that rights are God-given, is the ground of hope that will not be finally lost. But he who would finally preserve his rights must ally himself with the infinite Source of power in which they originated.

WHEN a people lose the love of personal liberty and independence, a despotism must inevitably result; for free government cannot possibly be kept alive where individual freedom is lost. In proportion as the people part with this, they erect a despotism over themselves.

CHRISTIANITY is founded upon individualism–the individualism of Jesus Christ; and when individualism is repudiated and set aside for the doctrine which demands the sacrifice of a few for the alleged good of the many, Christianity is denied, no matter what profession is made by the ones that do it.

"Loyalty, and Politics" American Sentinel 14, 30 , pp. 465, 466.

THE Government of the United States is, or should be, a perfect republican Government. The Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution were designed to be, and are, the proper basis of a government which preserves the natural rights of the governed. Every national act ought to be in harmony with the principles which these documents embody.

The Government ought to be true to the principles on which it was founded. But under the leadership of the party in power it may, and often does, depart from those principles. When this is the case, loyalty to the government does not demand that an individual side with the party in power against the principles of the fundamental law. If the party in power repudiates the doctrine of government by consent of the governed, it is not disloyalty in an individual still to adhere to that principle, at the cost of differing with the Administration.

Loyalty to the Government is loyalty to the principles of the Government, and not loyalty to the political party. The Government is broader than any party; and the party in power may be itself disloyal to the principles for which the Government stands.

466

The principles of the Declaration and the Constitution–the principles of free government–are fixed and unchangeable. Our forefathers did not originate them; the Declaration and the Constitution did not give them being; they, on the contrary, gave being to those great American documents. Those principles are eternal, and since time began have been worthy the homage and fealty of mankind. Such they have been and such they will be while time endure.

Political parties, on the other hand, are constantly changing; and if loyalty to the Government meant loyalty to the party in power, it would be a very unstable thing. But true loyalty must be as fixed as are the principles to which it adheres.

In true loyalty to the Government, therefore, there is nothing distinctively political; and when we are accused of taking sides in politics by adhering to American principles of government against the policy of the party in power, the charge is without foundation. On the contrary, if we said nothing when the principles of free government were repudiated, but adhere to the party in power, to show our loyalty and avoid getting into politics, by that very thing we would get into politics beyond any mistake, and be obliged to defend our course of action on political grounds. The AMERICAN SENTINEL is not, and does not intend to be, in politics; and the only way for it to keep out of politics is to adhere firmly and plainly to those principles of justice and right government which existed before politics were ever heard of, and will exist when political parties shall pass forever.

"Right Thought On the Lord's Day" American Sentinel 14, 30 , pp. 466, 467.

THE Presbyterians hold the lead in the membership of the Christian Endeavor societies. The Interior is the Presbyterian paper published in Chicago. This paper publishes weekly lessons for the Christian Endeavorers. The lesson for them the week beginning July 23, 1899, was "Honoring the Lord's Day." By the term "Lord's Day" in this lesson the Interior means Sunday. And Sunday, the calendar of this very lesson, shows to be the first day of the week.

The first instruction of the lesson is on "The Origin of the Lord's Day." In the first two sentences of this instruction are as follows:–

"The origin of the day is significant, and is an education in itself. The fact that God rested on the seventh day, that he hallowed it, that his example ought to be incentive, is the very beginning of right thought on the subject."

Yes, that is the very beginning of right thought on the subject. And what has it, or what can it possibly have, to do with the first day of the week? As this lesson instruction says, God rested on the seventh day and hallowed it. But the seventh day is not the first day of the week. How much right thought is there in citing God's resting and hollowing the seventh day, as incentive to people's serving as a rest day the first day of the week? And when the Word of God says that God rested the seventh day, and that he hallowed it, and when the writer of that lesson knows this so well as to repeat the very expressions of the Lord's word, then how much right thought is there in the writer's taking what the Lord has said of the seventh day and applying it all to the first day, just as though it had all been originally said of the first day or as though the first day were the seventh day?

No; the Word of God says that he rested the seventh day; that he blessed the seventh day; and that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; and no right thinking can ever find the first day, or any other than the seventh day, to be the rest day after the example an incentive of the Lord.

More than this: Where can there be any right thought in thinking that Sunday is the Lord's day, or that the single expression "Lord's day" in the Bible (Rev. 1:10) can have any reference to the first day of the week, or Sunday? The Lord calls the Sabbath "my holy day," "the Sabbath of the Lord": and that shows that the Sabbath is the Lord's day. And "the seventh day is the Sabbath"; and this shows in turn that the seventh day is the Lord's day.

To present this a little more forcibly, if need be, we set it down here in the form of promise and conclusion, thus:–

"The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark 2:28.

"The seventh day is the Sabbath." Ex. 20:10.

Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the seventh day.

As surely as the Scripture is true so surely is that conclusion truth.

Then using that conclusion as a premise we can form the following:–

The Son of man is Lord of the seventh day.

The day of which he is Lord is the Lord's day.

Therefore the seventh day is the Lord's day.

With that conclusion again as a premise we have the following:–

The seventh day is the Lord's day.

John says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. 1:16 [sic.].

Therefore John was in the Spirit on the seventh day.

The premise and conclusions in these formule are all true–as true as Scripture, because they are simply the statements of Scripture in different forms.

Of course the second and third are dependent upon the first; but both premises in the first formula are positive statements of Scripture, and the conclusion is therefore strictly according to Scripture. Therefore as surely as the Scripture is true, so surely is it true that the Son

467

of man is Lord of the seventh day; that the seventh day and that day only is the Lord's day; and that the prophet of Patmos was "in the Spirit" on the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord. Whosoever therefore would keep the Lord's day must keep the seventh day; for "the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath," and "the seventh day is the Sabbath."
A. T. J.

August 10, 1899

"Notes" American Sentinel 14, 31 , p. 481.

THE Creator worked on the first day of the week; and why find fault with any man for following the example of the Creator? The reason why moral and social conditions are alarming to-day is not that men have followed the example of the Lord, but that they have not followed it.

[Inset.] A HOPELESS IDEA OF "REFORM." THE would-be reformers of the day who depend upon the power of civil enactments to reform society, have summoned the legislators of the land to A hopeless task; namely, that of making the "narrow way" broad and smooth, and the "broad way" narrow and difficult. In other words, they want laws that will make it easy for people to do right, and difficult to do wrong. The illustration shows this modern type of "reformer" addressing a group of those to whom he looks for the realization of this idea of reform. He calls upon them to level down the mountain of which the narrow way leads to life, and make this way broad and smooth so that it can be easily traveled, and at the same time fill up the "broad way" leading to destruction, so that it will be made a difficult path. The narrow way cannot possibly be made smooth–right doing cannot be made easy–by any human reformer. For help in traveling the way of life the soul must look alone to God.

"The State and Religion" American Sentinel 14, 31 , pp. 483, 484.

A GREAT many people who are much opposed to any union of church and state, as they declare, still think it would be a dreadful thing for the state to be separated from religion. They seem to think that if the state had no religion, it would be opposed to all religions, and would wickedly disregard every religious right of the people.

But let us see about this. From whence comes the most violent opposition to religion? Does it not come from religion itself? In other words, is there not more bitter hostility between two opposing religions, than between any religion and mere worldliness? Yes, the history of religious persecution shows this beyond any question. Every state that ever persecuted, was joined with religion. Religious hostility, and that alone, has always been the actuating motive in persecution.

Separated from religion, the state would never persecute; joined with religion, the state will always persecute, because it will then be a party in a strife between opposing religions.

And besides, if the state is to be religious, why should it not join the church? For all professors of religion, church membership is a logical necessity; the church exists for the very purpose of joining professors of religion into one company. If the state can properly profess religion, it can properly be joined with a church; and if it cannot properly be joined with a church, it cannot properly profess religion.

Whatever religion the state may profess, will in itself identify the state with some church. For the state's religion must be something definite, and there is no definite religion that does not belong to a definite church or religious body.

Separation of religion from the state, therefore, is the only proper attitude of the one for the other. No one person has power to force his religious views upon another, and if civil force cannot properly be joined

484

with the religious views of one person, it cannot be properly joined with the views of two or more persons. A non-religious state does not mean an anti-religious state; for as we have seen, it is always a religious state that employs its force against religion.

The non-religious or purely secular state simply interferes with no religion, but leaves all religions free to stand on their own merits, to survive or perish as the case may be. All false religions ought to perish, and the true religion, being imbued with the life and the power of God, cannot fail. Religion and the state, therefore, must be kept wholly separated in order that both may fulfill their proper mission in the world.

"Law as a Remedy for Bad Society" American Sentinel 14, 31 , p. 484.

THERE are many good people who, as they note the indications that things are going to the bad in society and in politics, feel it their duty to raise a cry of alarm and call for vigorous legislation to stay the advancing tide of evil. And it is quite proper that they should sound an alarm; that much is perfectly scriptural. But what is to be gained by an appeal to legislation?

How good can society be made by the power of human law?

The fountain of all this evil is in the heart, where no human law can touch it. "An evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil things." "From within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these things come from within, and defile the man."

What would human society be with all these things, or even a part of them, in the hearts of the people, unrepressed by any power save that of the law of the land? Human society would simply be unendurable; it would be utterly that. The society of the beasts of the forest would be far preferable.

In antediluvian days will whole earth became so wicked that it had to be destroyed by a flood, and that wickedness is described by the statement that "every imagination of the thoughts of his [man's) heart was only evil continually." But how much can legislation do to suppress the imagination of the heart? And if it can do nothing to root out these, how much can it do toward preventing the earth from becoming even as wicked as it was in the days of Noah?

The only law that touches the thoughts of the heart is the law of God; the only power that cleanses the heart is the power of divine grace, exercise through faith. When the tide of moral evil is rising in the land, good people should double their zeal in holding up and calling the people to the one great remedy. To spend time and strength in efforts to stop the flood by legislation, is worse than useless.

"Civil Government Enforcing God's Law" American Sentinel 14, 31 , pp. 484, 485.

THE purpose of all human law is not to enforce what is right, but to enforce rights.

God's law commands what is right; and it seems, at first thought, that the laws of men should do the same. It is often said that we must have laws which will enforce the laws of God. Many have the idea that unless the ten commandments were "backed up" by the laws of the land, society would lapse into chaos, and government would go to ruin.

But as a matter of fact, the law of the land does not enforce the law of God in any case. In the first place, it cannot do so, for the divine law prohibits wicked thoughts as well as wicked acts. It prohibits covetousness as well as murder. It commands love to God and to man. And in the second place, it would be suicidal for the state to attempt to enforce God's law.

Why?–Because that law prohibits sin, under the penalty of death. And as all men are sinners, there would remain only the death penalty to be enforced upon all by the state. The state would thus exterminated self.

There is a large religious party in this country which is laboring to "put God into the Constitution" and incorporate his law into the law of the state. They are trying to get Congress and the legislatures to remodel the Government on this basis; and if they could succeed they would be ready to run the Government on this Christian (as they call it) plan. But where would they begin executing the penalty of violation of God's law? Would they begin on themselves? or on others? Evidently, they would begin on the dissenters, and would never reach themselves. History tells us it has always been this way in the past, and there is no reason to suppose it would be different now. Of course, it would be bad enough if they should be consistent enough to begin at home; for the purpose of the gospel is to save man

485

from the immediate execution of the penalty for sin that he may have time to repent and accept the substituted sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Enforcement of the law of God by a human government would be a proceeding diametrically opposed to the gospel.

"Not More Law, But More Liberty" American Sentinel 14, 31 , p. 485.

"MORE law, more law," is the cry the comes from the conventions of the religious societies of the land, as they consider the threatening evils in civil government and in society. Prominent among the things that appear most evil in their sight is the growing desecration of Sunday. This impresses them deeply, and they give expression to their feelings on the subject by resolutions calling for more stringent Sunday legislation.

All this they do as professors of the Christian religion. They do it in the name of Jesus Christ. But is this what Jesus would have them do? Is this the fulfilling of the mission of Christ to the earth? This is a vital question, and should be carefully considered by Christians before taking action as has been taken by these societies.

Did Jesus Christ come to the world to condemn the world, or to add condemnation to that already upon the world?–No; he expressly declared that he came not to condemn the world, but to save the world. The world is condemned already; it is overwhelmingly condemned by its sin, and unless it can escape from the condemnation, it must perish. The mission of Christ was to provide this way of escape from condemnation, and the mission of Christians is to point the people to this way of escape.

The law of God condemns the world. Every law condemns the transgressor; and that is all it can do for him. The more law, therefore, the more condemnation. The people of the world are already overwhelmingly condemned by their sin, and now professed Christians want to keep upon all this the condemnation of new laws for observance of the Sabbath. They want new and more stringent legislation, to make the world better! But legislation has no power to save, but only to condemn.

Jesus Christ came to save the world, but made no effort to secure legislation. He did however give a "new commandment," and what was it?–"A new commandment I given unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." John 13:34. This is the only new law that can properly be advocated in the name of Christ.

In the synagogue at Nazareth Jesus Christ announced his mission to the world in these words: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and the recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised." The gospel message is a message not of repression, but of liberty. This and this only is the message of Christians to the world to-day.

"Is He a Methodist President?" American Sentinel 14, 31 , p. 486.

AT the late meeting of the Epworth League at Indianapolis, the committee on resolutions seriously considered for a while the framing of a resolution demanding of President McKinley the dismissal of Attorney-General Griggs from his cabinet on account of Mr. Griggs's annulling of the army canteen law by his violent interpretation.

Such a resolution was not offered; but one of the reasons given by members of the committee as to why it might be offered is of interest. Two members of the committee declared that the convention to "unite in requesting a Methodist President to accede to the wishes of a great Methodist society."

It is true, we believe, that President McKinley is a Methodist. But is he a Methodist president? Is he a president of the Methodists?

Such a suggestion as that shows how ready church members are to take the advantage of the denominational affiliations of a president in crowding upon the government their own will. It illustrates too the danger to the nation, and the evil to themselves, of religionists engaging in politics. The danger to the nation is of a union of church and state, the religious power dominating the civil. The evil to religionists themselves is in their compromising or even abandoning their religious principles and moral standing for political effect.

Nor was this the only token of the union of church and state, the religious power using the civil for the furtherance of its aims and the executing of its will upon those who are not in any sense under the church's jurisdiction. The convention adopted the following resolution on the enforcement of Sunday observance:–

"The encroachments continually made upon the Christian Sabbath by Sunday newspapers, Sunday excursions, and Sunday baseball games and kindred amusements, demand unwearied vigilance by precept, example, and the enactment of the vigorous enforcement of laws on the Sabbath question; we shall continue to oppose the wanton desecration of the Sabbath day."

If the Epworth League, the Baptist Young People's Union, and the Christian Endeavorers, should unite their zeal and their forces, in what they all extol as "good citizenship," a religious despotism would not be far off. And one great danger is that they will do it, and that soon.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 31 , p. 496.

"WE have a law," was the excuse by which the Pharisees justified themselves in putting Jesus Christ to death.

IT is a bad sign when the clergy get more concerned over the suppression of crime than over the eradication of sin.

UNTIL there can be a law passed which will make the devil cease work on Sunday, it will be well not to have laws making idle hands for him to find employment for on that day.

THE best people in the State are not those who are willing to conform their consciences to the decisions of legislatures, but those with whom conscience is the dictator of conduct under all circumstances.

THAT the Creator did not make man incapable of doing wrong, is conclusive proof that He did not mean that any man should be forced to do right.

JESUS CHRIST did not say to his followers, Tarry ye in the halls of legislation, till ye be endowed with power from the State; but "Tarry ye, . . . until ye be endowed with power from on high."

A QUIET Sabbath can always be obtained by spending the day in the company of the Lord of the Sabbath. No worldly labor by others will disturb the one who does this.

THE Creator stamped man with His own image, yet this did not save man from falling into the gulf of ruin; yet it is now proposed to save the nation by stamping God's name on its Constitution.

SINCE the people create the state, it is radically wrong for the state to act as if it were the creator of the people, and the dispenser of their rights.

THE more state religion, the less home religion, is a never-varying rule.

STATE law and religious persecution never settled a religious controversy.

TRUE religion is ever intolerant of false principles, but never intolerant of men.

THE sacredness of a right depends not at all upon the number of people that possess it.

HUMAN law cannot be based upon God's law, for the divine law is finitely higher than the level of the laws of men.

CIVIL government cannot undertake to compel people to do right without working at cross purposes with the gospel.

CHRISTIANITY has invariably proved a blessing to the savage races of the earth, but mere "civilization" has more often than otherwise proved a curse. The white man's vices are copied far more readily than his virtues.

THE deep piety and spirituality which may be seen in the religious work of people who derive no aid or support in religion from either the law of the land or popular custom–as for example those who observe the seventh day Sabbath–is proof positive that real piety and spirituality are in no way conserved by such "helps," and will in no way suffer among the people if these are wholly withdrawn. The more a person leans on the world, the less will he depend on the Lord.

A RIGHTOUS nation cannot be a nation whose righteousness is of the law. For righteousness is not of the law, but of faith.

August 17, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 32 , p. 497.

A SUNDAY law would have stopped creation itself on the very first day.

THE Christian faith needs no defense from the power of human law. The best possible way to defend the faith is to let the faith defend itself.

A LAMB and wolf–religious liberty and religious legislation–cannot be kept alive in the same enclosure.

THE public . . . in a community can be . . . disturbed by the enforcement of Sunday statutes in a single day, but it is by the quiet pursuit of business callings on Sunday in a whole generation.

IT is the wolf that accuses the lamb of soiling the stream at which they drink; it is the outlaw that most loudly cries, "stop, thief!" It is the unjust statute that poses most conspicuously as the bulwark of right and liberty.

THE State cannot safeguard religious freedom and uphold a religious dogma at the same time. For a religious dogma that desires the support of the State, is always the implacable enemy of any opposing religious doctrine, and will attack it under the State's authority at every opportunity.

ANTIQUITY is not always a point in favor of the thing which it invests. A thing subject to decay, becomes altogether unfit for human use by the lapse of time. And as every human institution is subject to a more or less speedy dissolution, it must needs be a mistake to attempt to perpetuate such an institution because it has grown hoary with age. An old error has accumulated evil about itself until it has become must worse than when it was new.

"AMS the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." So says the Lord in Isal. 55:9. The law of the Lord reaches and covers the secret thoughts and motives of the heart; it is infinitely broader and higher than the law of man. It is plain, therefore, that a human law upholding the law of God represents an inverted pyramid, and therefore that the idea which it embodies is altogether wrong.

"The Failure of Republics" American Sentinel 14, 32 , pp. 498, 499.

EUROPEAN writers are expressing and discussing "a decline of belief in the value of the republican form of government." In this discussion, of course, the United States forms a prominent item. This is altogether a pertinent question.

A republican form of government being "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," is simply self-government. The people govern themselves by themselves for themselves. And as each individual, as far as he personally is concerned, is the people, a republican form of government–self-government–is that in which each individual governs himself by himself–by his own powers of self-restraint exercised upon himself–for himself, for his own best good in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And so long as that is done, a republic anywhere is a success. But, in a republic, just as soon as a single individual fails to govern himself by himself for himself, that republic has begun to fail; and so far as that individual is concerned, a republican form of government is a failure, is of no value.

Just as soon as two individuals fail to govern themselves, the republic is just so much more of a failure. Yet so long as the majority of the people composing a republic, do individually govern themselves, by themselves for themselves, the government will be a success; because they, being the majority, are able to protect themselves from the infringements of those who fail to govern themselves and have to be governed.

But just a moment the majority turns to the other side, the moment the number who fail to govern themselves crosses the line and becomes greater than the number of those who do govern themselves, that moment republican government has failed. And though the name may continue for a time, the thing is gone: the government is no longer a republic. At that point however the failure does not so palpably appear as when the majority–those who fail to govern themselves–has become larger yet larger. But when that majority that fails to govern itself, each by himself, becomes so great that its influence is felt upon all the procedure of the government–then republican government has failed utterly; it is no longer a republic in any true sense: it is a despotism. Not indeed a despotism of one, nor of a few, but of the many. And a despotism of the many, of the majority, is not at all the least of despotisms. Yet, then, it is only a question of time when the despotism of the many will merge in a few, then in a very few, and finally in a despotism of one,–and that is monarchy.

Wherever in a republic there is found a man who fails to govern himself by himself, in that man there is found an open bid for a monarchy. And when that man becomes the majority, a monarchy is certain. It may indeed be an elective monarchy, but it is none the less a monarchy.

Thus it is literally true that in government there are just two things, one or the other of which people must consider–republicanism and monarchy: self-government or government by another; liberty or despotism. What is the republic of France to-day, but the former monarchy under another name?

Now any one who for any number of years has read and thought, knows full well that in the United States the number of those in all phases of society who fail to govern themselves is very great and is rapidly on the increase. Notice the startling increase of crime. Notice the strikes that so frequently occur, and at times almost cover the country, invariably accompanied by violence and often by rioting. Notice the electoral corruption–municipal, State, and national. Notice the procedure of State legislatures, especially in the electing of a United States Senator. See the large number of organizations and combinations in different fields, that are constantly being formed for protection and to beat back that which they know is certainly coming to grind them under. But all these combinations, organizations, and associations, are composed only of men who have failed to and do fail as individuals to govern themselves. And a combination of men who, individually, have failed to govern themselves, for the purpose of governing themselves and others, is just as much of a failure in self-government, is just as much of a failure as to a republic, as in the case of the individuals before forming the combination.

Since it republican form of government is only self-government, and since all these things are universal testimony that the great mass of the people of the United States are failing to govern themselves, it is perfectly plain that this great example of republican government in the world is certainly failing. And when such is the truth that is forced upon the attention of the world, and which the outside world is seriously discussing, what is there left for the world to contemplate other than that which with foreboding is mentioned by the London Spectator:–

"The peoples consider only monarchy and republicanism, and, for the reasons we have indicated, the favor

499

of republicanism declines, with a grave result, we fear, in an increase of political hopelessness, and therefore a decrease of political energy."

And yet, that can only be that monarchies and even society itself, shall fail and perish in their own corruption. Thus has it ever been with the nations; thus only will it ever be. And the end hastens.
A. T. J.

"Should Christians Run the Government?" American Sentinel 14, 32 , p. 499.

THERE are in this land a number of very large and growing religious organizations, of which the Christian Endeavor Society, the Christian Citizenship League, League for Social Services, etc., stand as examples. The watchword of these organizations is, Reform.

They see among other things that there is great need of reform in the civil government. They see that corruption is enthroned in politics; that bad men are running the affairs of State. And they come naturally to the conclusion that the remedy is to turn the bad men out of office and keep them out, and put good men in their places. They conclude that they ought to go in and take the political reins into their own hands, and run the government themselves. They are fully confident that if the politicians would only do as they say, this would be a truly Christian Government in a very short time.

The idea is a plausible one, certainly. It seems axiomatic that the good people ought to run the Government; and, of course, the best people are to be found in the church. Whatever dispute there might be on this point, not a doubt of it is entertained in these religious societies. Nor would we imply that the statement is at all doubtful. We believe the best people are in the church.

But of the "best people"–the good and zealous Christian people of the land, who compose the church congregations on Sundays–ought these people to run the government? We think not. But as our arguments on the subject might have but little weight, we will refer to the testimony of history; for history certainly gives an emphatic caution upon this point.

The colonial history of America had its beginning in the efforts of the church people in England to run the government of that country. They made the conditions there so uncongenial for the religious minority, that the latter decided to emigrate to the wilds of North America. The hardships of life in a strange and unsettled country, with separation from kindred and friends, were preferable to the conditions imposed upon them by the government under the control of the religious majority at home.

When Massachusetts had become a flourishing colony, there was one Roger Williams, who, for dissenting from the authority assumed by the civil magistrate, was driven out under a decree of perpetual banishment. The government was in the hands of the church people, and under their management of it Roger Williams founded the society of wild beasts and savage Indians more congenial than that he left behind him in Massachusetts.

Other Baptists, and the Quakers also, found that they would have been much better off under a government of the most irreligious men in the colony, than they were under one run by its "best people."

When the colonies won their independence, there was a reaction from the theory that government could be best administered under ecclesiastical direction, and statesmen came to the front with principles of government which completely separated religion from the affairs of state; and under those statesmen the government rose to the highest pinnacle of excellence.

Washington, the highest example of American statesmanship, was so little identified with the church that it is a disputed question whether he believed in the Christian religion not. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, is claimed by the Unitarians, but by the majority of people since his day he has been hardly distinguished from an atheist. Andrew Jackson, that conspicuous exponents of pure democratic government, is equally inconspicuous as regards religion; and the name of Abraham Lincoln is entirely unknown in the country's religious annals. Yet all must submit that the Government was never run upon better principles than when under the guidance of these statesmen.

The very fact that a religious organization is ready to go into politics and seize the reins of civil power, is unquestionable proof that the organization is ready to join forces with religion, and that for the coercion of dissenters.

But for the idea that the "best people"–the orthodox church people–ought to run the government, that worst of all forms of government–a union of church and state–would never have been.

"What Good can It Do?" American Sentinel 14, 32 , p. 499.

WHAT good can a Sunday law really do? It can make a man act the hypocrite, by pretending to regard the day when he cares nothing for it. It can make loafers and idlers in the place of men doing honest work. It can put hardships upon good people who conscientiously observe a different day. It can unite church and state. It can do all this evil; but it cannot make a bad man good; or change any heart, to put into it more love for God or man. It cannot force anybody to rest, for mere idleness is not rest. Such laws do not originate in any thought of conferring physical benefits or preserving rights, but solely with the idea of protecting a religious institution from desecration. They never accomplished any good in the past, and they are potent only for harm to-day.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 32 , p. 512.

THE importance of the Sabbath institution to the moral and physical welfare of mankind, constitutes the strongest argument against its enforced observance. For force–the compulsion of the civil power–takes out of the Sabbath, when the two are joined, all the love and blessing the Creator put into it for mankind, and leaves in their place only the harsh hand of the law. It puts a dead fly in the ointment, which gives it a "stinking savor" in the place of the odor of Paradise.

GEORGE WAMSHINGTON, in the treaty made with Tripoli, declared that "the Government of the United States is not founded, in any sense, upon the Christian religion." Yet it is common at the present day to hear ministers and others assert that "the perpetuity of American institutions depends upon the maintenance of the American Sabbath." If this be true, Washington's fame as a statesman rests upon a delusion.

August 24, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 33 , p. 513.

CONFEDERATION represents the highest power of man, but it never represents the power of God.

THE devil never engineers one of his worst deceptions without first transforming himself into an angel of light.

THE greatest deception of the age is that which leads Christians to look through the gateway of politics for the coming of the kingdom of Christ.

EVERY effort of the civil authority to settle a religious controversy, only makes the controversy rage more fiercely.

THE declaration made by Jesus Christ before Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world," is equivalent to a declaration that he is not in politics.

CIVIL government cannot concern itself with sin without forming a union of church and state; for under any union of church and state, all that the government undertook to do was to punish sin and repress heresy. Moral grounds, therefore, cannot be considered by civil government in determining what acts shall be prohibited; for if immorality is a sufficient cause for prohibition in one case, it is in all cases, and the government would be logically bound to prohibit everything immoral, which would simply amount to a prohibition of sin. When the civil authority gets off on this path it will only entangle itself in hopeless difficulties. The true question and the only question for the civil authority is that of preserving rights. Whatever invades the natural rights of the individual citizen, is a proper subject for prohibitive legislation.

IN true republican government, all individual citizens are represented but not any institutions of individuals. Therefore only individuals–only "we, the people"–can rightfully go into politics. When a trust or a church goes into politics, and influences elections and legislation, something is represented in the government which has no just claim to representation there, and the government is no longer truly republican.

"The 'Mission of Liberty and Humanity'" American Sentinel 14, 33 , pp. 513, 514.

IN a speech made at the Catholic Summer School grounds at Lake Champlain, the 15th inst., the President said with reference to the American flag: "Rebellion may delay, but it never can defeat its blessed mission of liberty and humanity." This was an allusion to the present "rebellion" in the Philippine islands.

The American flag, in the President's view, is in the Philippines on a "blessed mission of liberty and humanity." Is it then a fact that the American flag, floating over the armed hosts of the nation, the symbol of the force of the civil power, represents the true "mission of liberty and humanity" in this world? Is civil government, even in its best form, the true preacher of "liberty and humanity" to the race?

There is a square contradiction between the view that the American flag in the Philippines represents the "blessed mission of liberty and humanity," and the statements of Scripture.

The Scripture says that Jesus Christ the true

514

messenger of "liberty and humanity" for the human race anywhere and everywhere in the earth. No one can deny this; and no one can deny either that the American flag in the Philippines, at the head of the forces dealing death and destruction to their opponents, does not represent the cause of Christ. The Saviour did not go about shooting people down who refused to be "benevolently assimilated" into his kingdom. His mission was not to overcome any man by force. He came to manifest the love of God, and sought by self-sacrifice to draw all men to himself.

He charged his disciples to go forth into all the world, proclaiming his gospel. He came to "preach deliverance to the captives," to "set at liberty them that are bruised." He came to teach men to "love one another." That was a mission of "liberty and humanity," and his followers were commissioned to carry this message to all people and fulfill his mission in the earth. Is this the true "mission of liberty and humanity," or is it not?

This is the vital question. What is the true uplifting, liberty conferring, love producing power in the earth? Is it the gospel? or civil government? Love? or force? The principle of self-sacrifice? or the principle of self-supremacy? The sword of the flesh? or the "sword of the Spirit"? If the Bible is true, it is not the former, but the latter.

The Filipinos need to be uplifted, enlightened, brought into a condition where they can enjoy the privileges and blessings to be realized on the higher planes of life. What is to confer this benefit upon them–the gospel of love? or the gospel of force?

The Government is answering this question. It has sent its forces to the Philippines, equipped to enforce submission upon the natives. It has assumed that this is fulfilling the "blessed mission of liberty and humanity" to those people. Is this assumption correct?

No! a thousand times no! If it is, the gospel is false. Under it, the Filipinos are having the blessedness of liberty and humanity shot into them and burned into them and beaten into them, while their hearts are filled with rage in their country with desolation and sorrow. Far otherwise the results which come through the agency of the gentle yet all-powerful message of the Prince of Peace.

Let the gospel supplant the Government as the agency of missionary work in the Philippines. Let us have Christian savages, in the place of the dreadful spectacle of savage "Christians."

"The Conquered is Conquering" American Sentinel 14, 33 , pp. 514, 515.

IT is a familiar remark in history that Rome was conquered by those whom she had conquered: that while Rome conquered the East by her arms, Rome herself was conquered by the vices of the East. Even a Roman writer of the time noted:–

"Luxury came on more cruel than our arms,
And avenged the vanquished world with her charms."

This fact of the conquerors being conquered by the conquered, though perhaps not identically the same way, seems certainly to be repeated in this modern great republic.

Of all the accepted family of nations Spain is the one to which in principles of government, the United States was the most extremely opposite.

In Spain, the most subservient to Rome, and the "home of the Inquisition," was the most thorough union of church and state. In the United States, by the fundamental principles and the supreme law of the nation, there was the most complete separation of church and state. In laying down these principles and words it was expressed that Rome and the Inquisition for the ragged rocks of warning which induced this total separation of religion and the state.

Now the United States has conquered from Spain her colonial possessions, almost solidly Roman and inquisitorial in religion. Before this Rome and her religion was occupying no small place in the affairs of the national Government. Is Rome's influence in and upon the national Government likely to be lessened when in dealing with these colonies, the Government must necessarily deal directly with Rome? Is it not certain that through this vast opportunity Rome will enlarge her influence, and fasten her power, more and more, upon the Government of the United States, until she shall actually dominate–if not clearly, yet just as certainly–by the balance of power? And thus the conquered may be, yea, almost certainly will be, the conqueror of her conqueror.

Nor is it only in this that Spain is likely to conquer. Civilly, it is likely to be so also. This phase of this thought has been so well put by Professor Sumner of Yale, that we cannot do better than to quote:–

"The Americans have been committed from the outset to the doctrine that all men are equal. We have elevated it into an absolute doctrine as a part of the theory of our social and political fabric. It has always been a domestic dogma in spite of its absolute form, and as a domestic dogma it has always stood in glaring contradiction to the facts about Indians and negroes, and to our legislation about Chinamen. In its absolute form it must, of course, apply to Kanakas, Malaya, Tagals and Chinese just as much as a Yankees, Germans and Irish. It is an astonishing event that we have lived to see American arms carry this domestic dogma out where it must be tested in its application to uncivilized

515

and a half civilized peoples. At the first touch of the test we throw the doctrine away, and adopt the Spanish doctrine. We are told by all the imperialists that these people are not fit for liberty and self-government; that it is rebellion for them to resist our beneficence; that we must send fleets and armies to kill them, if they do it; that we must devise a government for them, and administer it ourselves; that we may buy them or sell them as we please, and dispose of their 'trade' for our own advantage. What is that but the policy of Spain to her dependencies? What can we expect as a consequence of it? Nothing but that it will bring us where SPAIN IS NOW."
A. T. J.

"The Insular Commission's 'Insult'" American Sentinel 14, 33 , p. 515.

REPRESENTATIVES of the papacy in this country have not taken kindly to the report of the United States Insular Commission on Porto Rico. It was not to be expected that they would be pleased with a report drawn up by Protestants, but neither was it anticipated that their sentiments on the point would be expressed in a tone of bitter hostility, as was the case. For example, note the following from the Catholic Standard and Times, Philadelphia:–

"Nothing could well be more offensive toward Catholic sentiment than the tone of the Insular Commissioners' report; nothing possibly more asinine than its recommendations to the Government on the subject of its relation for the Catholic Church in Porto Rico. The suggestion to absolve priests and nuns from their vows, in order that they might be at liberty to follow the example of Luther and Catharine von Bora, so stupid yet withal so full of wanton malice, transcended all the bounds of rational conception of a process of severance between church and state. It simply destroyed its own pretext of action. It recommended the state to interfere, willfully, impertinently and wickedly, with the lawful concerns of the church. This recommendation, if we are to trust the report now in uncontradicted circulation, has been repudiated by the President, and the gentlemen who made it had been rebuked for their arrogance and ignorance in making it. Should this turn out to be the case, we are sure the fact will be hailed by many as a most gratifying one. It would be quite in keeping with what we already know of the President's disposition. His disapproval of religious intolerance was markedly shown last year in the Washington sermon affair. We may easily believe that he is a man of liberal mind himself, and we may also conclude that his public experience would cause him to shrink from the indorsement of insult to any religious body in the country as very bad politics indeed."

What is the trouble? Has the Government been recommended to force Catholics in Porto Rico to do something contrary to the papal religion?–No; not at all. The recommendation made by the commission was, "That priests and others who have taken vows of celibacy be permitted to renounce said vows and enter into marriage relations, the same as other people." They are left perfectly free to do in the matter as they choose. They are not to be bound in the matter by the law of the land.

Under Spain, they were bound by the civil law, for breaking such vows could be punished as criminals; for under Spain, with its union of church and state, the laws of the church were, in most things, a part of the law of the land. The United States, as represented by the commission, simply does not propose to maintain this arrangement in force. But the Catholic Church regard such things as sins if you will; the Government will not for that reason treat them as crimes.

The papacy complains of being "insulted" by this recommendation, yet in its very complaint it makes a fling at the great Reformer and his wife, which might with much more reason be taken as an insult by Lutherans and other Protestants; for "the example of Luther and Catherine von Bora" was not meant in any complimentary sense.

This papal authority hopes that this recommendation, representing only the American principle of severance between church and state, "has been repudiated by the President," and that "the gentlemen who made it have been rebuked for their arrogance and ignorance in making it." This is bold language,–the language of one who sees Protestantism and American principles of government far on the decline in the United States. This is the significant feature of the matter.

"Rome and the Calendar" American Sentinel 14, 33 , pp. 515, 516.

"THE Pope in Error" is a heading which appears in a leading Protestant journal in this city, as if a papal error were a thing rare enough to call for comment. The pope is charged with being in error regarding the calendar:–

"Certain forthgivings from the Vatican seem to imply that the pope thinks the next century begins with 1900 instead of 191. The Times, commenting upon this, says: 'It is a fact beyond intelligent doubt or argument that the next century begins Jan. 1, 1901. Of course this is a point which involves neither doctrine nor dogma, and therefore the venerable head of the Catholic Church might be mistaken about it without throwing any light on his claim to infallibility. But still in so simple a matter no mistake should be made by anybody, and least of all by a man with a mind as keen and quick as that of Leo XIII.'"

If the pope is in error over the calendar, it need not be thought a strange thing, for it would not be the first error that the papal church has made in her reckoning of time. There are a number of these that stand charged against her, and have stood so for centuries.

The pope reckons the beginning of the day at midnight. In truth it begins at the setting of the sun.

He reckons the year as beginning January 1, in mid-

516

winter. In truth it begins with the awakening of Spring.

He believes that Jesus Christ was born as the babe of Bethlehem on December 25. In truth no person knows the day of Christ's birth, but all evidence is against December 25 as the date.

He reckons the day of Christ's resurrection as falling always on the first day of the week; which is as obviously false as to suppose that the day of Christ's birth would always remain the same day of the week.

Calendar error, indeed, is a "strong point" in the papal church. These errors have a purpose to serve; and it may be there is a purpose to be served in making 1900 the first year of the new century.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 33 , p. 528.

THE papacy stands for a union of church and state. Its adherents claim to be good citizens of the state, and are such, no doubt, in many cases. But they can be good citizens and at the same time good Catholics, only in a state which is united with the Catholic Church. Roman Catholics can be good citizens of the United States only to the extent that they repudiate the principle of church and state union.

THE Christian Statesman, organ of the "National Reform" movements, says that "The most enthusiastic admirer of the United States will not claim that, in the deepest sense of the words, we are a nation in true allegiance to God and Jesus Christ." This is what the AMERICAN SENTINEL has always said; and it follows that since the nation if not Christian in the deepest sense, it is not really Christian at all; for in our relation to God, nothing but truth in the "deepest sense" is acceptable. His actions have all the "deepest sense" of their meaning for us, and we likewise must manifest the deepest sincerity towards him.

The National Reform Association hopes however to make this "a truly Christian nation." That is its avowed object. But to secure this the association is not working to convert individuals to the Lord, but to secure "a wide range of reforms" by legislation. It looks to the national and state legislatures, and to other political bodies, to secure what it wants to make the nation "truly Christian." Possibly it will succeed in getting all the legislation it desires; but even should this be so, its task will remain unaccomplished; for reform legislation is one thing, and the reform itself is quite another thing. The latter by no means necessarily follows as a result of the former.

Faith is the one sure means of genuine reform. It is the one sure means of moral purification. This is God's means of reforming all that can be reformed in the world. If legislation could bring the needed reform, God could legislate and enforce it too, far beyond any thing that man is able to do. But he works by faith in the individual heart. Whatever is capable of exercising faith in Christ, can be reformed according to God's idea of reform, and nothing else can be. As for the world and all that is of the world, the only thing that awaits them is the coming day that shall "burn as an oven" (Malachi)–that day of fiery destruction foretold by Peter, when the very elements shall "melt with fervent heat." That is the only kind of reform that awaits this world.

IT was better in the Creator's view than sin and death should enter an mar the universe, than that His creatures should be deprived of the liberty to do either right or wrong. What higher testimony could be given to the value of absolute religious liberty?

PEOPLE who enact a Sunday law bind themselves with the chain they forge for others.

RELIGION mixed with politics makes a mixture good only for political purposes.

August 31, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 34 , p. 529.

HE who leans upon the crowd for support, is likely to find himself sooner or later underneath its feet.

NO PERSON can be a follower of the Lord and a follower of the crowd at the same time.

A TRULY Christian government must be one which rules by love and not by force; but if any civil government now upon the earth should attempt to proceed upon this principle of love, it could not carry on its functions a single day. When it is possible for a truly Christian government to be set up on the earth, God will set it up, and all efforts of men to make such a government out of any of the existing governments must utterly fail.

AMS THE Bible is spiritual, and as spiritual truth must be spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14), it follows that without a spiritual agency the Bible cannot even be understood by the people, much less enforced upon them as "the supreme law" of the land. And as no civil government has a spiritual agency at its command, it is only supreme folly for it to concern itself with the enforcement of biblical rules of life.

NO MAN can be a citizen of two countries at the same time, he cannot give allegiance at one time to two different governments. A man cannot be a subject of Great Britain while he is the subject of the United States, or of Germany, etc. But as the difference between two governments of earth is far less than the difference between any earthly government and the government of heaven, much less can any person be at once a citizen of earth and a citizen of heaven. Christ's kingdom is "not of this world."

IT is not the power of the civil government that hinders the advance of the cause of righteousness in the earth, but the power of unbelief in the human heart. Overcome all the power of the government–put an acknowledgement of God in its constitution, frame all its legislation in harmony with the strictest rules of right–and unbelief would still bar the way of the cause of Christ. But overcome this unbelief, and all the governments on earth, whatever their laws, could not hinder that cause for a moment. The attack of the forces of Christianity upon unrighteousness must be directed at the enemy that is intrenched in the heart.

"The Deceptive Spirit of Politics" American Sentinel 14, 34 , pp. 529-531.

A GREAT deception is upon the religious world, and this deception is steadily drawing the religious world towards the brink of irreparable disaster. To point out this impending danger which threatens at once both the church and the state, is a mission than which none could be greater or more urgent at the present time.

The professedly Christian churches are in politics. Through politics they are seeking to advance the kingdom of God. By this we do not mean that they have joined hands with any political party, but that they have adopted political principles and methods. The Spirit of politics has become diffused through their midst, and they see no conflict between this spirit and the Spirit of Christian piety. They hail it as the spirit of righteousness and the agency of salvation. This is the great deception.

530

An illustration of the working of this deception is seen in the commingling of the most sacred themes and themes that are purely political–the exaltation of the nation's military heroes, the approval of war, the indorsement of the policy of the Administration, etc.–at the gatherings of the leading religious bodies.

The idea of all this is that the civil government–the political power in the nation–can go hand in hand with Jesus Christ in working out the world's salvation and setting up the kingdom of God.

In order to get the truth upon this subject we must get down to first principles and clearly define the two leading agencies concerned,–the spirit of politics and the spirit of Christ.

Politics, always and everywhere, is a contest for the supremacy. It is a contest between men, which results in the uplifting, not of the divine, but of the human. It exalts and glorifies, not man, but a man. And wherever this is done, whether in a political party or in the church, whether for political purposes or for church purposes, whether by many or by few, the spirit of politics is there as the ruling spirit.

Anything which aims at the exaltation and glorification of something else than God, is political in its principles and nature. This is politics defined in its broadest sense.

Where did the spirit originate? Where first was the effort made to exalt and glorify something else than God? To this question there is a plain answer given by Scripture. It was Lucifer, the exalted one who stood by the throne of God in heaven, who first sought the exaltation of something else than God, which something was himself. Then he induced others to join with him in the effort for his exaltation. And there was formed the first political party that ever existed.

The leader sought to get himself in the supreme power in heaven. He sought to win the votes of all the beings in heaven, excepting of course, the One to whom he had made himself a rival. Heaven was divided; and finally, Satan with his party was cast out, and the movement to exalt and glorify some other being than God was forever banished from the celestial realm.

But being shut out of heaven, it came down to the earth, and here it has found a home ever since. Eve sought to exalt herself to a higher realm of knowledge, by eating of the tree in Eden, contrary to the command of God. Man fell, and there was implanted in the race the spirit of self-supremacy; and ever since that time, this spirit has dominated among men everywhere outside of the true people of the Lord.

But even in the Christian Church it has been continually showing itself, and a continual source of trouble and peril. In the gospel narratives it stands out very plainly as influencing the course pursued by the Saviour's immediate followers, the twelve apostles. Even they were not free from it, although they were the most intimate associates of the spotless and perfect Pattern. So deceptive is the spirit, that it creeps into the most sacred sanctuaries undistinguished from the spirit of righteousness. If it was so marked among the very apostles of the Lord while there with him, small wonder is it that it should gain entrance to-day in the most select Christian circles, and should so distort the view of Christian truth as to influence powerfully movements which seem to have but one aim of advancing the cause of Christ.

Even when the most serious and solemn thoughts should have engrossed the minds of the disciples, this political spirit rose up and completely blinded them to the important truths the Saviour desired them to comprehend. It turned them completely aside from their proper course of action and left them unprepared for the crisis before them. The record tells us that near the close of his ministry, when Christ was going up to Jerusalem to be condemned and crucified, he took the twelve disciples and endeavored to open to their minds the truth pertaining to this trying experience awaiting them. Three separate times he endeavored to break through the earthly influence that darkened their understandings, and each time the spirit of politics within them shut off their view of the truth. They were contending among themselves as to which should be the greatest!

There it was–the spirit of self-exaltation, of self-supremacy, right among the twelve apostles themselves, doing its foul and fatal work. Notice how it is set forth in the following from the narrative by Matthew:–

"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,

"Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,

"And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

"Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshiping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

"And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

"But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask." Matt. 20:17-22.

Then, pointing them to the trying experience that awaited him and them before they could attain the kingdom of glory, he told them it was not given to him to bestow offices upon his followers, but the positions desired should be given "to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."

Note the following points:–

The mother of James and John (Zebedee's children) came unto Jesus with them, worshiping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. Here was (1) a "cut and dried" plan between James and John and their mother to get themselves into the chief places in the kingdom of

531

glory. (2) "Pull"–the all essential thing in politics. Jesus had always been so considerate of womankind, that surely the request would be more likely to be granted if made by their mother. (3) Hypocrisy–they came "worshiping him," not in sincerity, but to further, as they thought, the chances of success for their selfish scheme. (4) Office-seeking, not as a reward of merit, but as a favor. This was the spirit of politics, through and through. And Jesus then and there put a rebuke upon it, which should be good for all time with those who profess to be guided by his example.

"And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren." Verse 24.

Thus they showed that they were of the same spirit; for instead of pitying the two disciples for their blindness, as they would have done had their own eyes been open, they were angry with James and John for endeavoring to get honors they coveted for themselves.

The Saviour endeavored to enlighten them and lead them out of the great delusion in which they had become entangled. He set before them the contrast between the spirit that was actuating them and the spirit that must prevail among his followers; and it would be well if his professed followers to-day would keep in mind his plain instruction upon this point. He said to his disciples:–

"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:

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Verses 25-28.

This is the spirit of Christ, the spirit of self-denial; the spirit not of serving self, but of serving others. And that is the spirit God; for God seeks not to serve himself, but to minister to all his creatures; to preserve them in life, to surround them with that which will conduce to their happiness and welfare. God's infinite power flows out from him to all the universe, to give light, and life, and love, and happiness to the myriads of his creatures. Imagine for a moment the infinite One withdrawing his power from the universe, and turning it inward upon himself, to exalt serve himself. That very moment the universe would collapse, and only ruin and death would be the result. Yet in that God would be doing only what men are constantly doing in this world, under the control of the spirit of self-exaltation, the spirit of politics. But the spirit, that principle, is a principle of death and not of life.

Self-denial and the service of others, is the spirit of God; and that spirit had always ruled in the universe from the beginning until Lucifer introduced its opposite in seeking to exalt himself.

The spirit of Christ, therefore, the Christian spirit, the spirit which should rule in the Christian Church, is the spirit which seeks to serve others, and never to serve self; to exalt and glorify the Creator and never the creature. The opposite spirit is a spirit of self-exaltation and self-supremacy, the spirit of politics, the spirit of the devil.

The disciples, under the blinding influence of this deceptive spirit, failed to discern the most important truths of the teachings of Him whom they called their Lord and Master; they were let off into error and delusion, and entirely failed of the preparation they so much needed for the crisis before them. They came up to that crisis wholly unprepared; and when there Master spent hours of agony in Gethsemane, while they should have watched with Him, they slept. And when He was betrayed and delivered a prisoner into the hands of the Gentiles, they all "forsook him and fled." And Peter, a little later, denied Him with cursing.

That was the result then of the deceptive spirit of politics–the spirit of strife for the supremacy, with its accompanying conception of an earthly, political kingdom of God–in their minds. And if the end of all things had come then, that deception would have involved them in final, eternal ruin. And it is because the like deception will bring just this result upon its victims in the generation when the end does come, that the study of this subject is of tremendous importance to-day.

"Precedents That May be 'Catching'" American Sentinel 14, 34 , pp. 531, 532.

THE Filipinos fought Spain for years to be freed from foreign control, and to have the government of their own. They had their purpose almost accomplished, when the United States, by the victories of Manila and Santiago, relieved them of any further opposition from Spain.

But the United States did not stop with that–she actually took the place of Spain; and now the Filipinos are fighting the United States for the same reasons and for the same things that they fought Spain. And a real substantial question is now, Will not the Filipinos fight the United States as long as they fought Spain?

It may be said that they can't fight the United States as long as they fought Spain; because the United States is stronger than Spain was, and fights harder than Spain could. This may be true in substance; but will not fight the United States, if not actually as long as they fought Spain, yet as long as the predominance of strength and ability of the United States over Spain will allow? The United States began with 30,000 troops, and conducted one campaign. She proposes now to take sixty-two thousands and make another campaign will she win with sixty-two thousand and in only a second campaign? Spain, with many more than sixty-two thousand men in the Philippines

432

as well as in Cuba, was obliged to stand far more than a second campaign.

Now another question is, If the Filipinos should be able to compel the United States to drag along for considerable time unsuccessful; if they should be able for considerable time to maintain such an unsettled condition of affairs as they have so far caused, thus materially interfering with the commerce of the great nations; is there not a possibility of the intervention there, of some of those great nations after the example of the intervention of the United States between Spain and Cuba? Is there not a possibility that the example set by the United States in intervention, may prove to be "catching"?

By her victories over Spain the United States has won a standing among the great nations of the earth, and has forced their recognition of her in such standing. Yet for all this the United States has no more of the love of the nations than she had before. Rather she has far less. And those nations will be glad of a chance–the first chance or any chance that offers–at which they can surely distress, perplex, or humble her.

There is another matter in which the United States has taken the initiative, and in which she has been also insistent, which may yet be taken advantage of by the European nations to distress, perplex, and even humble her: that is, International Arbitration.

Even at the very threshold of the establishing of the international arbitration principle and tribunal, the United States found it necessary to close an opening that might give entrance to this very thing; and the detection of this possible opening, by the United States delegates, was instantly proclaimed and lauded as not only a decisive diplomatic victory, but as a plainly served notice upon the European nations that although the United States was new in international proceedings, she was not a novice.

However all that may be, the point worthy to be considered is that when such observance and critical watchfulness must be maintained at the very threshold, what will be called for further on? and will the United States be able to save herself always, as she did in this initial instance?

If the course upon which the United States has entered in the world's affairs, does not end in her being humbled to the very best, it will not be because the European nations do not desire it, nor even because she herself has not given to them cues which can easily lead them to hope that they may accomplish it.
A. T. J.

"Will the United States Maintain Polygamy and Slavery?" American Sentinel 14, 34 , pp. 532, 533.

THE United States claims possession of the Philippine Islands by virtue of the treaty with Spain. To repudiate that would be to throw away the basis upon which the Government seeks to justify its course in the Philippines before the world. But to stand by the treaty, also involves the United States in a dilemma, for under it this Government is obliged to maintain the Sultan of Sulu, a Mohammedan polygamist, at a salary of $4,900 a year; and also the system of slavery which prevails in that island of the Philippines group. The facts of the situation are set out in the following narrative of an interview between the Sultan of Sulu and Philippine commissioner Jacob G. Schurman, just back from the Philippines, which we copy from The World, of the city:–

"'He received us cordially. We went through two rooms and were then seated in the reception room. I sat on a lounge and the Sultan seated himself, while a score of his household guards stood behind him. They were big, muscular, brave-looking fellows, and each one had a big knife handle sticking out of his belt.

"'I told him that Spain had ceded its rights in the Sulu group to the United States and that we could carry out the same treaty terms he had made with Spain. He said that was all right, but for one thing; he would like to have some customs revenues and increased pensions, and, therefore, he wanted an island of the group in which he could have a port to collect tariffs customs. The only port in the group is the city of Sulu and that is a free port.

"'The reason the Sultan gave for wanting that port was that he had twelve wives and it took a good deal of money to support them. Already they were learning Occidental extravagance in dress and were pestering the life out of him for foreign finery.

"'Another reason for wanting this port for its revenue was that he wished to go to Mecca to make his pilgrimages, and that, too, cost money.

"'The treaty with the Sultan which the United States became a party to as Spain's successor, provides that he and his chiefs shall receive about $5,000 annually. The Sultan has many subjects in Borneo also, and the North British Borneo Company pays him $5,000 a year to stay out of Borneo.'

"Mr. Schurman was asked whether or not the system of slavery in the Sulu Islands is likely to be disturbed by the United States Government.

"'I am not in a position that answer that question,' he replied. 'I assured the Sultan that all of his rights would be preserved as defined under the treaty with Spain, and he seemed contented.

"'Slavery, as it is practiced in the Sulu Islands, is not the cruel, inhuman slavery. On the contrary, it is

533

rather beneficent in form, and the relations between masters and slaves are, as a general thing, most friendly.'"

The treaty of Spain with the Sultan of Sulu provided for the maintenance of the Sultan at a salary of $5,000 yearly, with polygamy and slavery as carried on by him; and now the United States, "as Spain's successor," has "become a party to" this treaty. The United States is bound by this which was included in the treaty with Spain, the same as by any other part of that treaty. The Government can repudiate this part of the treaty, but it will not be very consistent to do this, while constantly holding up the treaty as the justification of its claim to the possession of the islands.

Spain never had any right in the islands, save such as the robber and the freebooter acquires to the ownership of the property he steals. This is one inequity recognized and sanctioned by the treaty with Spain. And even had Spain once possessed any rights there, she had forfeited them by her merciless oppression of the people. This is another iniquity; so that the treaty with Spain was only a justification of Spanish iniquity, and the iniquity of maintaining polygamy and slavery in one of the islands is only on a par with the rest that the treaty embodies.

Will the United States, then, unseat congressmen Roberts of Utah for polygamy, and maintain the Sultan of Sulu in polygamy at a salary of $5,000? Will it maintain slavery in Sulu against the express prohibition of the Constitution, that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. . . shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction"?

What right, anyway, had the treaty makers to make a treaty which recognized slavery as a lawful thing in a territory that was to come by virtue of that treaty under the jurisdiction of the United States?

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 34 , p. 544.

THESE are stirring times; but it does not follow from this that you are stirred by the developments of the times. It has frequently happened in this world that the most stirring and momentous periods of history were undiscerned as such by the generations then living, and the people of those times were indifferent and unconcerned right at the time when they should have been aroused to the greatest activity. The forces of good and evil, of despotism and of liberty, are being marshaled for the final conflict, which will center around the principles of liberty of conscience. To compel the conscience, will be the effort made on the one hand; while to maintain it in full freedom as a guide of individual conduct, will be the resolution taken on the other.

Just now, there is a lull in those acts of religious persecution which were a mark of apostasy on the part of the church; and our attention is drawn to the spectacle of apostasy on the part of the state. We see the state renouncing the principles of free government, and the spectacle is no less significant than was the other, when the church was laying the hand of intolerance upon dissenters. Both these apostasies are preparatory steps to the union of church and state which the SENTINEL has foretold in this country. And apostate church could not join hands with any other than an apostate state.

In the industrial world, we see conditions arising which are the enemy of individual independence; and he who would retain that independence necessary to self-respecting manhood, must be prepared to contend for it against powerful opposition. This is the day of combinations and federations, every one of which is for the express purpose of carrying individualism out of sight, and of exalting the doctrine that human rights are inherent not in individuals, but only in majorities.

These are some of the developments that should engage the attention of people to-day and arouse them to the fact that they are facing a crisis. Now, the voice of duty calls every one who has understanding of the times, to bestir himself in seeking to enlighten others and to rally the people round the principles of truth and righteousness. We trust that among the readers of the SENTINEL, there may be many to whom this call of duty will not come in vain.

September 7, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 35 , p. 545.

NO STATE, or government, ever yet became religious without doing harm both to religion and to the rights of the people. No state can profess one religion without being against some other religion.

THE serpent of falsehood will always choose paradise is the place from which to do his speaking, when he can get into it. We cannot accept unguardedly any statement, no matter with how much truth and goodness it is associated, without running grave risk of deception.

THE antediluvians remained unconcerned on the eve of the day deluge, taking no steps to save themselves from the coming catastrophe; and their mistake has been repeated by men in every age since that time. It is being repeated by many to-day. It is being made by you, if you are engrossed with pleasure-seeking and the service of self. That pathway always ends in an unpleasant surprise.

THERE are many places in this country–one at least in every State–where a model community exists, so far as it is in the power of law to produce such a community; places where the inhabitants never get drunk, never steal, never commit adultery; where the great majority go to church, and all observe Sunday. Those places are the State penitentiaries. And when people advocate a scheme of reforming society by law, as so many are now doing, it devolves upon them to show what power there is in law to maintain society on a higher moral level that prevails in the penitentiaries.

THE object of law is to protect man in the enjoyment of their rights. It protects man from one another; it guards each one against encroachment by the others. But it can protect no man against himself–against evil in his own heart. It cannot keep him from doing wrong. And therefore human law cannot undertake to prohibit wrongdoing, as such. It prohibits the wrong-doing when, and only when, that would invade another's rights. All men have the opportunity to do wrong–they must have it in order to develop character. And there to be judged, and condemned or justified, not now, but at the end of the world; not here, but at the bar of God, and by the law of God. Any human law, therefore, which prohibits a thing merely because it is wrong, or is deemed so, is contrary to the purpose of God, and can work only evil as long as it exists.

"The Deceptive Spirit of Politics" American Sentinel 14, 35 , pp. 545, 546.

SINCE writing was printed last week under this heading, an incident has occurred which strikingly illustrates the commingling of religion and politics which has brought the religious world under the spell of a great deception.

In the press reports the incident is thus described:–

"Ocean Grove, August 27.–A most extraordinary scene, the climax of the great camp-meetings of the past week, took place to-day when a great crowd was aroused to heights of religious and political enthusiasm.

"The latter was a result of the visit of President McKinley, which called forth a remarkable address by Dr. A. E. Schell, of New York, corresponding secretary of the Epworth League. He said:–

"The church militant salutes the nation militant, and recognizes that their mission in duty is to-day

546

are identical–the civilization and evangelization of the world.

"'There are more than 1,000,000 young men in the Epworth League alone. No Alexander or Cesar ever had an army like that. We aspire to be the Tenth Legion for any campaign.

"'President McKinley may plan for peace at home or peace with honor abroad. These young men with their blood and breeding will march through sand or jungle and fling themselves at a breastwork with a hardihood and a daring that no veteran of the Old Guard or Wellington's Iron Brigade could surpass.

"'He has our prayers to-day. He can have our money to-morrow, and the whole million will enlist the day after if we are needed.'"

This goes beyond the demonstrations that have been made at the conventions of the great religious bodies of which the Epworth Leagues is a type. But it does not depart from it in principle. It only expresses more fully what is in the principle of glorifying political heroes and political power, and to what the spirit of politics and the church must lead.

The political spirit which was manifested in the contest for supremacy among the twelve apostles, was renounced by them after it had led them into grievous deception and sin; but the contest for the supremacy was not long kept out of the Christian Church. "Grievous wolves," foretold by St. Paul, entered into the flock; false teachers, whose aim was to draw away disciples after themselves. The question as to which should be the greatest became again the all-absorbing theme, until finally by an imperial edict, it was settled in favor of the bishop of Rome. He was declared to be the rightful head over all the churches; in recognition of which supremacy he assumed the title "pope."

That was the fruit of politics in the early Christian Church. And wherever that spirit comes in, popery is a result, and the only result that can follow. There are many popes in the world besides the chief one who sits in the Vatican at Rome.

When the spirit of politics came into the early church, in proportion as it came in the spirit of the Lord went out, and the church ceased to be Christian. When finally the political spirit assumed complete control, the church still called herself Christian, but she was teaching abominable error and persecuting the true saints of God.

The Reformation came and new denominations arose; but in each of them this history was repeated. They began to exalt the human into the place of the divine. In their religious gathering there appeared the contest for supremacy. They directed the Lord's work by "cut and dried" plans of cliques conceived in human wisdom. They look to men for spiritual guidance rather than to the Word of God. They joined hands with the state and persecuted dissenters. This has been in a substantial degree the history of every prominent religious body that has taken the Christian name down to the present time.

And now this same subtle spirit continues to work among the followers of Christ, and prepares a fresh and crowning catastrophe. As it led the early disciples to see visions of the kingdom of God to be set up through political agencies, by force, on the earth, so now it leads the multitudes to dream of Christ's kingdom being set up on the earth through political power. "The kingdom of God," say the W. C. T. U., "is to enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics." "The church militant," says a spokesman of the Epworth League, "salutes the nation militant, and recognizes that their mission is to-day identical;" and he declares that the church forces are ready to fight the battles of the civil power. And the Christian Endeavor Society, Christian Citizenship League, and kindred organizations, have expressed by word or action substantially the same thing.

And the subtlety of this deception lies very largely in the fact that this political spirit associates itself with so much that is good and true. That was the way it first began its fatal work. Had it not been Lucifer, the exalted one who stood by the throne of God, that introduced it in heaven, the deception might not have extended far among the celestial host. But for the very reason that Lucifer had so much goodness, wisdom, and brightness, the deception did extend until it involved myriads of heavenly beings in eternal ruin. And because the Epworth League, Christian Endeavor Society, and like religious bodies represent so much that is good, and true, and Christian, the political spirit that has crept into their purposes and methods is unsuspected of being evil, and will the more readily do its fatal work to-day. A serpent in Paradise deceive the parents of the race.

The power represented by the "church militant" joined with the nation militant is political. That union will be made, as was said by the speaker at Ocean Grove, to fulfill the mission of the church in the world. That is to say that it will be done to establish the kingdom of God. And as the kingdom of God was not set up in that way in the days of the apostles, and could not be without going contrary to the spirit of Christianity, so it cannot be established by such means to-day; and as surely as this false conception concerning the kingdom led the disciples of old to forsake their Lord, so surely will it lead disciples of this time away from him, and into even more fatal error.

When the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost, the disciples new by what power the Lord would work in the earth for the establishment of his kingdom. They knew then that no political agencies would figure in setting up the reign of righteousness; that it would be "not by might, nor by power," but by the divine Spirit that had been poured out upon them. That Spirit did not come upon them until there were all "with one accord" assembled in waiting for it; not until every particle of the spirit of controversy, of self-suprem-

547

acy, of planning for the exaltation of the human–in short, the spirit of politics–had been banished from their midst. And when they received that spirit, that mind was in them which was in Christ, which led him not to exalt himself but to humble himself, even from his position of equality with God, to the likeness of sinful man, to be born in a manger, and after a life of poverty and reproach, to consent to a death upon the cross.

These two spirits–the spirit of politics and the Spirit of Christ–have been working in the world, the one really and the other professedly and only so, for the setting up of the kingdom of God. They are at work to-day; and as the scheme which involves political agencies gathers magnitude and power, the contest between them will grow in magnitude and intensity. For they have nothing in common, and not the least compromise can be made between them.

The churches and religious societies are working to fulfill the purpose of God that righteousness shall be established in the earth. But to accomplish this they purpose to reform the civil governments. They purpose to "purify politics." They purpose to step into the political arena, and by their political power control the elections, and put good men in public office. They will not allow men to get into public office and unless he has their certificate of good character. What will follow from this? What does all history teach will follow, what else can follow, but that on principle politicians, rank hypocrites, will come with pious face knocking at the doors of the church? But will not these good people be able to detect the hypocrites? For answer, we might refer to the experience some of them had a few years ago with Congressman W. C. P. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. He was then a member of Congress, and was their champion in furthering a bill for "purifying" government in the District of Columbia. He was therir noble Christian politician, the type of what the country needed in public office to establish a Christian government. But when by accident they found out what he was, they ceased lauding him and referred to him as "that infamous old libertine." But the details of that are too well known to need repeating.

No; human powers of discernment cannot be relied on to detect hypocrisy. Clothed with a pious exterior, it can easily gain admission to the sanctuary. The safety of the church in this regard lies in maintaining the pure principles and practices of Christianity which are repugnant to hypocrisy in all its forms. It lies in maintaining the spirit of self-denial, which makes church membership and undesirable thing for any one of the spirit of the world.

But there is one agency which can and always does detect hypocrisy, and that is the Holy Spirit. And that is just the work the Holy Spirit will do among the true disciples when it is given them, as it is to be, in full measure. For just as it was in the early church which received the "former rain," so it will be in the "remnant" church when it receives the "latter rain." And how was it in the early church? That question is answered by the narrative of Ananias and Sapphira. And when they had been struck dead for their hypocrisy, "of the rest [those like them] durst no man join himself to them," but "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." See Acts 5.

For the hypocrite, the Christian Church was then the worst of all places to be in,–a place to be gotten out of with all possible speed. And just such the Christian Church will be again when the climax of the great controversy shall be reached, and God's people are clothed with the divine power to perform their part in that stage of the controversy. And thus will be presented to companies, both religious in profession, both working professedly for the same end, but embodying two opposing spirits,–the spirit of politics in the spirit of Christ; the one glorying in its numbers and political power, the other few in numbers but clothed with the power of God; while hypocrites of every class will be flocking into the one, and flocking out of the other.

Worldly, political power rises to its greatest height by confederation. Combines are now the order of the day everywhere, and religious combines are almost as prominent as those in the secular sphere. And still further combination and federation is aimed at in the religious world. But the final and greatest combine of all will be when the religious and political forces of the earth join hands, in which the religious world is now being led by the deception that is upon them. That combine will represent great power,–the greatest that the author of deception and the "prince of this world" can muster in the earth. But over and above it all, and far beyond its utmost limits, will be seen the power of God in his people: when his true followers, separated from every unworthy character, and endued with power from on high, it shall stand forth as the true church, "fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners."

The Spirit of Christ, or the spirit of politics–by our choice between them will be determined the position we shall occupy in that day.

"'Peacemakers' for the Philippines" American Sentinel 14, 35 , pp. 548, 549.

THE president of the official commission from the United States to the Philippines has returned. In published interviews he has made some statements that are of much interest to all who would study and trace the course of national affairs. In the interview published in Chicago Times-Herald, it is said that "he seemed to regard the Talagos, the real rebels, rather than as brave and promising children who had been led astray by bad counsels and who would be all the better when their castigation at the hands of the United States soldiery had put them in a position to appreciate the real meaning of the coming American rule."

That he more than "seemed" to regard them as children is plain from the fact that he plainly said in the interview as published: "It will not do to consider the natives in the same way you would fully civilized peoples. They are to be regarded more as children. The great difference between such half-civilized peoples and the fully-civilized races is that the former lack an adequate sense of fact. They are easily led astray."

And so the United States must become altogether a paternal government, for the sake of these misguided children on the other side of the earth, and by live libera [sic.], "castigation at the hands of the United States soldiery" give them "an adequate sense of fact," and so put them in a position to appreciate the real meaning of American rule. Then how long will it be before this same paternalism will be exercised at home to convey to people here "an adequate sense of fact" and teach these too how to appreciate the real meaning of American rule. Indeed we do not need to ask how long; for the thing has already begun and is steadily going on.

And it is American rule, do not forget. Now and henceforth it must be borne in mind that the President of United States is a ruler: not a presiding officer, to learn and execute the will the people; but a ruler, a pater patre, to decide what is best for the children of the State, and deal it out accordingly.

However, it is on the subject of the Filipinos and the Catholic Church that Commissioner Schurman makes statements that reveal a new and interesting feature of the American-Philippines matter.

One of these statements is that "the armies on both sides are very apt to use the church buildings as headquarters or barracks, because the churches of the most strongly built structures." Now since only last year the United States Government paid to the Methodist Church South $484,000 for the occupancy of only one building that belonged to that church during the war of Secession, is it likely that the Catholic Church will fail to use the precedent? Will she not most surely present her claim to damages in the case of every church building and every piece of church property that has been in any way occupied or used by the United States in the Filipino war? And since the Methodist Episcopal Church South obtained $484,000 for the occupancy of only one piece of church property, how much will the Catholic Church probably get for the occupancy of all the pieces of church property touched in the Filipino war?

Another statement is, "I think it would be one of the best things that could happen if many Catholic priests would go to Luzon, as they would undoubtedly have a great influence for good, and I have written some of my Roman Catholic friends, telling them how strongly I feel about it." He says that the Filipinos all insist that they are "devout Roman Catholics," however much they may be opposed the religious orders and Spanish priests in the islands.

The Times-Herald explains and approves president Schurmans plans in the following words:–

"Professor Schurman's discussion of the church question in the Philippines is of great importance in its bearing on the general situation. It presents a delicate and intricate problem which must be carefully studied if it is to be solved satisfactorily.

"In order to understand it we must go back of the origin of the Tagalo insurrection against Spain. This we found in the ill-treatment of the natives by the friars. Four religious orders had acquired possession of the immense tracts of country, and their members abused their powers in various ways. They finally exercised a tyranny in which there was confiscation, corruption of the courts and desecration of the home.

"When we succeeded to Spain's title to the island by treaty we assumed the obligation to maintain property rights is the were. But that Tagalo had determined upon reprisals. He proposed to despoil the friars. When, therefore, his leaders told him that the United States would not consent to this the conclusion was accepted that the Americans were prepared to become the champions of the old abuses.

"The question is complicated by the fact that notwithstanding his hatred of the religious orders, the Tagalo is a devout Catholic. His complaint is not against the church as a whole, but against the offending orders only. Hence it will be necessary to persuade him that we are neither the friends of the friars nor the enemies of Catholicism. In the opinion a Professor Schurman our best advocates would be American Catholic priests.

"The professor cites the experience of Father Mc-

549

Kinnon, chaplain of the California regiment, to show how easy it would be to avail ourselves of such an agency. The father has been given a parish by the Archbishop of Manila, and will enter upon his duties with the greatest enthusiasm. Other appointments of a similar nature might be procured without difficulty, and there would soon be in numerous body of the most influential peacemakers at work in the islands.

"Those priests would be equally loyal to church and country. They would speak with authority to the natives, and our interests might safely be confided to their care. They could explain as no one else could why we were constrained to respect property rights, and at the same time they could and would make it clear that though church and state were separated in this country the former had nothing to fear from the latter. They would show how the church had flourished here, how it had expanded and grown with the growth of the nation and enjoyed with all others the blessings of liberty and equality under the law."

This phase of the Philippine situation offers the best possible opening for the Catholic Church to secure a further hold upon the United States Government, and a permanent recognized place in national affairs. For as certainly as this scheme is accepted by the Catholic Church, and her priests do become these "most influential peace-makers at work in the islands," so certainly this Government will be obliged to make for such service returns that will be as detrimental to the nation as they will be advantageous to the church. For it should never be forgotten that always it has been so that the "peace" of which Rome is the author is only the greater destruction to all concerned. From the beginning of Rome's career it has been written that "by peace" she "shall destroy many" and she should "destroy wonderfully."
A. T. J.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 35 , p. 560.

A RELIGIOUS government must be a government in which one person is religious for another–the majority for the minority. And this Christianity demands that each person be religious for himself, and denies that one person can represent another in religion, it follows that a religious government cannot possibly be a Christian government.

THE liberty to worship God according to the dictates of conscience, without molestation, is a part of the civil liberty which is every individual's right by creation. And when civil liberty is denied an individual, religious liberty, in this sense, is denied with it. To deny the principle of government by consent of the governed, is to deny religious liberty, in the sense in which the SENTINEL has considered it. Religious liberty in its truer sense, as meaning liberty in Christ, cannot be taken away from any person without his consent; it is enjoyed inside the prison cell as well as in the house of worship. But freedom from state interference in religious belief and practise, is a freedom which rests directly on the principle that just government is by the consent of the governed. Deny that principle, take away from an individual the liberty of self-government, and you take away that person's religious freedom. He cannot possibly be free to act as he sees fit in matters pertaining to religion, and at the same time not be free to so act in the secular concerns of life. There was never in all history an instance where one person was governed by another in civil affairs, where he was not also governed in religion by that other person, or at least the right to govern him in religion was assumed by the governing individual. In all governments which have not been by the consent of the governed, church and state have been united, laws for governing the people in religion have been in force, and people who asserted their religious freedom have had to do so in defiance of the government, and at the cost of the penalty which the state saw fit to inflict.

Now, the Government of United States is denying the principle of government by consent of the governed in the case of the Filipinos. In doing this it is denying to people the right of religious freedom. And as religious freedom is the right of every person, black as well as white, savage as well as civilized, and as the SENTINEL stands for this principle, and has stood for it from the first, it cannot but declare itself against the governmental policy of imperialism; and in so doing it is not departing from the stand it has always taken, and is not going into politics.

September 14, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 36 , p. 561.

THE early church derived her marvelous power in the earth not from politics, but from Pentecost.

THE law can establish the letter of righteousness; but we are divinely warned that the letter alone "killeth."

LET men pass what laws they please; it will still remain true that "the word of God is not bound," and will prevail in spite of all opposition.

IT never does anybody much good to be forced to accept a benefit that he ought to take of his own free will. The law is out of place when it tries to force people to accept an unappreciated blessing.

LAWS and informalities never kept any institution alive after the spirit of it was dead in the heart of the people. How then can laws be relied on to "save the Sabbath"?

WHAT is needed here, and everywhere, is not that laws should be brought to the aid of Christianity, but that Christianity should be brought to the aid of law. When people are made good, they will do right; but no amount of commands to do right can make any person good.

BECAUSE "evil men and seducers" are waxing worse, as foretold by the prophet, crime is increasing in the land; and if the law cannot prevent crime from increasing, how can it prevent the progress of the moral degeneracy that is back of the crime?

WITH the gospel in the world as the divinely-appointed agency to persuade men to do right, it cannot be the province of the civil law to compel men in the moral sphere. If compulsion is right, persuasion must be wrong; and vice versa.

THE only authority which can rightfully speak in matters of religion, is that Authority which is infallible; hence the pope puts forth the claim to infallibility and "it is at least impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects that profess the Christian faith without erecting a claim to infallibility which would lead us back to the church of Rome."

"The Protestant Churches 'Buncoed'" American Sentinel 14, 36 , pp. 561-563.

THE Protestant churches in the United States have been almost wholly in favor of the forcible establishment American sovereignty in the Philippines. Their interest in the future the Philippines, however, has not been that of the politician or financier, looking for new territory from which to acquire new power and riches. The churches have seen in the Philippines and a new field for religious enterprise–for the spread of the gospel of salvation by faith. And in the policy of imperialism upon which the Government has entered there, they have seen what they have taken to be a divinely-appointed means of opening this new field before them. In this, as now appears, they have been sadly mistaken. The hand of the national Government that was so con-

562

fidently counted on to help them in missionary work, is stretched out as a bar across their path. Imperialism is not a friend of gospel.

It was only to be expected that Rome would bring determined opposition to bear against the opening up of the Philippines to Protestant missionary work. Rome had long ruled the islands through Spain; she would continue to rule them through the United States if that were possible, and Rome believed it was possible. She has bestirred herself to make her hold on the islands secure under American rule; and from facts now apparent it is evident she has good reason to be pleased with the prospect.

1. Where American rule has been established in the islands, the Government recognizes not only the regular American holidays, but twenty "holydays" of the Catholic Church.

2. When the first Protestant missionary landed in Panay, he was promptly ordered out by the American officer in command at Iloilo, in the interests of peace.

3. The Government recognizes the Catholic Church and in allowing claims presented by the church for "holy water," wine, and wafers, and in paying rent to that church for the use of two monasteries for hospitals, although these buildings were formerly the property of the Spanish government.

4. The Government has concluded a treaty with the Sultan of Sulu, by the terms of which "home rule" is to be maintained in his Mohammedan territory. Mohammedan rule is of course hostile to any other than the Mohammedan religion.

5. President Schurman, of the Philippine Commission, has made his report on the situation, and in effect tells Protestants to let the Catholics in the Philippines alone. "There may be," he says, "a small field for Protestant activity in the islands, but I am inclined to think the Roman Catholics will continue to have the advantage." (Italics ours.)

And how comes it that Rome has been so successful in getting into this position of advantage over the Protestants? A statement which leaves little need of further explanation in the matter, and which Catholic papers affirm, is that "Archbishop Ireland quietly saw the President" about it; and between them arrangements were made under which the Catholic Church was given all the advantage for maintaining her supremacy in the Philippines unimpaired.

The Protestants are, naturally, much disappointed and chagrined over the situation; feelings which Protestant journals have expressed in forceable terms. The N. Y. Evening Post, for example, says:–

"It thus appears that Mohammedanism and Romanism are to have free course and be glorified in the Philippines, with the sanction of our Methodist President, while the Protestant missionary societies are to be practically warned off the preserves. It is Dr. Burchard's, 'Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion' over again, with the addition of polygamous and slave-holding Mohammedanism flying the American flag."

For the Post says that the Protestant missionaries–

"have good reason to think they have been buncoed by Mr. McKinley. He has effusively joined them with pious thanks to Providence for having taken us to the Philippines, has shrewdly availed himself of the good political aid they have rendered him, and now is leaving them in the lurch. It is enormous shipments of liquor which have so far been the chief result of his policy and exports of the Bible to the Philippines are distinctly discouraged. The missionaries have our sympathy. They thought this Philippine enterprise was to be a good religious affair, with themselves in charge; and now they find the whole thing a business scheme, with religion shoved one side, and plans ripening every day to keep out the missionaries and let the brewers and distillers in. Providence may in time make the wrath of men the praise Him in the Philippines; but, so far certainly the wrath of man is getting an awful start."

The Springfield Republican notes how tables have been turned on, "those who helped to drive the Republic into imperialism–with vassal States, like the slave-holding sultanate of Sulu–in order that Protestantism might be extended and enhanced in prestige and proceeds with a telling statement of facts:–

"Archbishop Ireland quietly saw the President, and it happens that the treaty with Spain guarantees that the monastic orders in the Philippines shall be formally protected in their lands and establishments. Under Spain these orders my been expelled. Indeed, the Spanish governor-general, in his agreement with Aguinaldo in December, 1897, conceded the expulsion of the monastic orders. The result is that the monastic orders, which are essentially missionary organizations, are better off than ever in the Spanish rÈgime, while the Roman Catholic Church remains absolute master of the spiritual field in the archipelago, outside the Molera Islands. Even Dr. Schurman comes home and says the Protestants 'may' find there a 'small' opportunity. He is doubtful of that even.

"It is one of the ironies of the situation that the Protestant zealots in imperialism should have accomplished nothing for their own kind of Christianity, and, at the same time, have strengthened Roman Catholicism not only in the Philippines, but in America. For it can hardly be denied that the Roman Church must gain in importance here at home when the church possesses at the outset a spiritual dominion well nigh absolute in all the territories wrested from Spain. The American branch of the Roman Church is as vigorous as any part of the world's ecclesiastical organization, and it will not miss its great opportunity. The Philippines, it is safe to predict, will stay Catholic, if for no other reason than that the ceremonial of the Church of Rome appeals strongly to the emotional, esthetic, and sensuous natures of the tropical Filipinos."

The Protestants have again been beaten on Rome's ground. And just as long as they venture on Rome's ground, they will be beaten. Just as long as they try to advance Protestantism by Rome's principles and

563

methods, they will advance Romanism, and relegate Protestantism to the rear.

This is what the Protestant churches have gained (!) by allying themselves with the Government in the cause of imperialism. They have "strengthen Roman Catholic Catholicism not only in the Philippines, but in America." A possible result, this, and one which can follow only from a terrible mistake. The "church militant," as a prominent Protestant clergyman recently said, has "saluted the nation militant," and recognized "that their mission and duty is to-day identical;" but now, behold, the nation militant recognizes its mission and duty as being more nearly identical with that of the Church of Rome.

Alliance with the state–dependence upon the power of the government–is a papal characteristic entirely. And imperialism is an essentially papal form of government; for imperialism, in common with the papacy, denies the right of individuals to govern themselves. In furthering the cause of imperialism, therefore, it could only be that Protestants would strengthen the hands of Rome.

If the Protestant church had raised her voice in behalf of liberty, condemning the projected policy of conquest, the nation might have been turned from the course which has weakened Protestantism and strengthened Rome at home and abroad. Will the Protestant church now learn the lesson and take up its neglected duty? It is not yet too late. A firm stand by the Protestant bodies throughout the land in support of the principle of self-government affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, would suffice to turn the tide of sentiment that is sweeping the nation toward the imperialist goal.

Protestant missionaries cannot succeed hand in hand with the Government. Protestantism cannot gain ground against Rome in that way. Protestants must go to foreign lands, not as representing a civil power of earth, but the government of heaven, and supported by the power of Christianity. Thus they can go always and succeed in spite of all the power of Rome and of earthly governments.

"Another Rebuff" American Sentinel 14, 36 , p. 562.

THE editor of the Outlook–Lyman Abbott D. D.–wrote a letter to Archbishop Ireland asking him if there could not be "agreement and coˆperation between Protestants and Catholics in the Philippines, Cuba and Porto Rice, and the work carried on in such relations of mutual friendliness. . . as will help to draw Protestants and Catholics nearer together rather than to estrange them from each other in the United States." The Archbishop replied "frankly" "as a Catholic" and "as an American" and said: "As a Catholic, I cannot approve of any efforts of Protestants to affect the religious duties of the inhabitants of those islands. Catholics are there in complete control; they have a thorough church organization; the inhabitants are Catholics. . . . Protestantism will never take the place in their hearts of that faith. . . . As an American, I will no less object to efforts to implant Protestantism in those islands"–and much more of the same sort. When will professed Protestants learn enough to quit humbling themselves before Rome only to be spurned? But nearly twenty years ago the compromising Protestants, the church and state "Protestants," declared that they must, in spite of rebuffs, seek coˆperation with Rome in any way that she shall consent; and there diligently following it up. "Protestants, there are some; but Protestantism is dead."
A. T. J.

"Ready for a New Constantine" American Sentinel 14, 36 , pp. 563, 564.

AT the Methodist camp-meeting at Ocean Grove, N.J., about three weeks ago, President McKinley spent a short time one day and made a speech. After he had gone away, Dr. Schell, the general secretary of the Epworth League, in a sermon, says the New York Tribune, "aroused the enthusiasm of his hearers, and the auditorium resounded with the loud 'amens' when he said, "When President McKinley spoke about peace with honor, and meeting our duty in the islands of the sea like men, our souls lead within us, for we recognized in him the conquering spirit of the old Roman and the militant aggressive spirit of Christianity. . . . He spoke as a patriot and a Christian. There are more than one million young men in the Epworth League alone. No Alexander or Cesar ever had an army like that. We aspire to the Tenth Legion for any campaign. President McKinley may plan for peace at home or peace with honor broad. These young men with their blood and breeding will march through sand or jungle and fling themselves at a breastwork with a hardihood and a daring that no veteran of the Old Guard or Wellington's Iron Brigade could surpass. He has our prayers to-day. He can have our money to-morrow, and the whole million will enlist the day after if we are needed."

How much of a degree is that removed from the spirit of the times of Constantine?

Another preacher the same day "aroused much enthusiasm" by calling upon all the people of the United States to "stand by the President in his Philippine policy" and declaring that "God has thrown down a thousand isles in the Pacific as jewels, as stepping-stones over which Columbia, with the Stars and Stripes in one hand and the cross of Christ in the other, may pass to the commerce, education, and spiritual salvation of one half of the people of this world."

Every sentiment of this whole performance is that of a complete union of church and state, of conquest of

564

the cross with sword and cannon, of "spiritual salvation" by carnal weapons in warfare.

One of these days these fanatical religionists will find a politician willing to make capital of their thoughtless enthusiasm, and in this country will behold in speaking acting power in this nation the living image of the papacy of the fourth century and onward. A. T. J.

"Imperial Rome and 'Imperial Democracy'" American Sentinel 14, 36 , pp. 564, 565.

THE similarity of the course pursued to-day by the American Republic, to that taken by the Roman Republic just previous to the establishment of the empire, is in fact not lost to the view of American imperialism. Although they fatuously predict a different outcome from the working of the forces which established would-be despotism two thousand years ago. For example, from the following taken from a paper read by Samuel I. Irish, before the Social Science Association at Southampton, September 6:–

"I know that in the busy world of to-day close comparisons are somewhat out of date, and yet it may not be inappropriate to recall to mind that nineteen hundred years ago three men, Roman citizens, divided the world among them, Antony, Lepidus, and Octavius Lepidus took Northern Africa and Spain, Antony took Egypt and the East, and Octavius took Italy and the rest of the world. But it was not many years before Octavius, by force of arms, became Cesar Augustus, the ruler of the world. And then it was that the gates of the temple of Janus were closed, which signified, under the Roman law and custom, that war had ceased and that universal peace reigned throughout the empire. And then, too, it was that the Prince of Peace was born.

"And so, as I look into the future, I see again the world divided into three, but this time it will be three nations and not three individuals who will divide the world among them. If not in actual territorial divisions, at least in dominating political influence. And now three nations will be, in fact are, named in the reverse order of their ultimate political importance. First, Russia, the grim specter of the North, that seeks to enfold in her chill embrace the destinies of the world. Second, Great Britain and her colonies, a vast and magnificent federated empire that will be standing for ity and order, and third and last, the United States of America. And the last shall be first.

"And as I seek to draw aside the veil still more and gaze still further down through the corridors of the centuries I see again Cesar Augustus sole ruler of the world. But this time it will not be a single individual, but the imperial democracies of the English-speaking race, ruling with directing mind and guiding with sympathetic, outstretched hand a Christian world, bound together by the iron bands of order, justice and of peace."

The picture of "imperial democracy" ruling a Christian world is pleasing enough, but is one that can never materialize; for imperialism is not democracy and democracy is not imperialism. The establishment of imperialism marks the end of republicanism. It is impossible to separate imperialism from empire, and empire

565

from emperor. The rule of the many over themselves is republicanism. This gone, there must follow the rule of a few, and eventually of one over the many; and that rule was never anything else than despotism.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 36 , p. 576.

WHEN you read of some whose liberty under this Government is being denied them, by that very token know that your own liberty is in danger.

September 21, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 37 , p. 577.

"WHOSOEVER will," says Christianity; "everybody must," says the Sunday law.

"COME unto Me," says Jesus Christ, "and I will give you rest." "Take my rest," says the Sunday law, "or I will lock you up."

"WE beseech you," says the embassador for Christ, "Be ye reconciled to God." "We command you," says the religious law-maker, "be ye outwardly religious, whether you are reconciled to God or not."

GOD'S way of national reform is to write his law in the people's hearts. Man's way of national reform is to write God's name in the Constitution. Which is the better way?

OF the kingdom of God it is authoritatively stated, "The kingdom of God is within you." It is not visible in the world, but is in the heart of the Christian believer. But of no earthly kingdom or government can it be said that it is within the heart. The sphere of the kingdom of God is distinct from that of earthly kingdoms, and the laws of the one cannot be of service to in the realm of the other.

"WHATSOEVER is not of faith, is sin." This is scripture, and it may be assumed that every person claiming to be a Christian believes it. All such will admit, therefore, that it is better that a person should not perform a religious act at all, than to perform one without faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him" to whom every religious act is performed. Without faith any religious act is but a piece of sham and hypocrisy, mocking Him by whom faith has been ordained. And yet, plain as is this truth, vast multitudes of religious people in this land to-day are working diligently for the enactment and enforcement of laws to compel people to perform a religious act,–to observe Sunday; causing them perform this act without faith; compelling them to commit sin! And these people call themselves Christians, too.

"Religious Liberty in the United States and Canada" American Sentinel 14, 37 , pp. 577, 578.

IN both these countries religious liberty is now on trial in the courts of law.

In the State of Georgia the question of allowing freedom in Sabbath observance will in a few days be passed upon by the Supreme Court. The case is that of a young man named Waters, a resident of Rome, who several months ago was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court for doing secular work on Sunday, he being an observer of the seventh-day Sabbath. If the Supreme Court of Georgia sustains the verdict of the lower court, Mr. Waters will have to serve six months in the chain-gang, where, according to information sent us, there is no provision for his Sabbath rest and a determination not to allow it. He must then work on the day he believes to be holy, or be disciplined as a refractory criminal. Should his case be appealed from the Supreme Court of Georgia to that of the United States, and an adverse decision rendered by that body, the cause of religious freedom throughout the nation will have received a tremendous blow.

In Canada a similar situation exists, minus the

578

chain-gang horror. Some time ago, in Ontario, a seventh-day observer, named Sherk, was convicted under the "Lord's Day Act," for working on Sunday, and an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, under the British North-American Act guaranteeing religious liberty to British subjects. The ground of the appeal is that the Ontario "Lord's Day Act," is in violation of the higher law embodied in the British North-American Act. The attorney of the Lord's Day Alliance resisted the granting of this appeal, and succeeded in having it held back in the Court of Appeals pending the decision in another case gotten up by the Alliance with the object of trying to sustain the law. We are informed that this decision will be rendered in a few days. And if the "Lord's Day Act" is sustained by the Court of Appeals, the liberty of seventh-day observers will be seriously curtailed, in the teaching as well as the practice of their faith, throughout Canada.

It is not alone in the southern districts of United States that seventh-day observers are made the target of the attacks of opposing religions. In Michigan, the headquarters of the seventh-day Adventists, such efforts are made to stir up religious animosity against them and subject them to any form of persecution, as are represented in the following which are which was contributed recently to the Michigan Christian Advocate. Full as it is of the spirit of Ahab calling Elijah troubler of Israel, it becomes significant when indorsed by this representative Methodist journal. This Methodist writer says:–

"Most causes suffer more from thoughtlessness than any other source; if not more than from all other sources combined.

"Will you, dear readers, follow me somewhat patiently while I pass over some of the past and present plannings of a would-be set of reformers? Over fifty years ago our Saturdarian friends began an active effort to overthrow the accepted Sabbath of the Christian world, and supplant it with something else. Instead of having convictions of a great 'truth discovered' associated with charity for those whom they assert are in error, they commenced an attack on the Christian Sabbath with a determination to accomplish its overthrow. They have searched among the writings of all the enemies of the Christian Sabbath and all ages and lands, since the crucifixion, for arguments against Sunday-keeping. They also joined hands with every man or company of men who assist to degrade the day and rob it of its sacred character.

"They acted on the supposition that if they could overthrow the Christian Sabbath and bring it into disgrace, they could bring about a revival of Sabbath observance and supplant Sabbath-keeping with Saturdarianism. But as one studies the history of that movement, he can see that while they have been destroying the faith of the people in regard to Sunday sacredness, they have increased disregard for all days, and for the God who made them.

"It is plainly discoverable that they, more than any other class, are responsible for the Sabbath labor of to-day and for the disregard for the Sabbath that now disgraces us as an American people. . . .

"While churches have been growing consciousless on the question of Sabbath observance, the various classes who perform compulsory Sabbath labor, have grown in disregard for the churches, until now there is a condition among a large body of laboring people, of hatred for the churches, and disrespect for all who profess to be Christians. Instead of our Saturdarian people comprehending the real cause of the present situation, they are undertaking work, which, if accomplished, will deepen the disregard for the Sabbath and intensify among all classes of people their disregard for the churches.

"During this decade there has been a rapid trend among the laboring people to turn from and to hate and oppose the Christian churches. If we can see, as laborers and church-workers, where the chief cause of the trouble is, we can then take right bearings for the removal of the wrongs. There will then be blame attached where blame belongs most. The Saturday-keeping Christians have done all that could be done by them to have Sunday excursions, Sunday ball games, Sunday shows, Sunday saloons, anything, everything that could rob Sunday of its sacredness. In this fact lies the chief trouble. Because the people are few in number their work has been overlooked as of no influence and of no importance. But the time has come for all persons interested in Sabbath observance to study ther [sic.] work in relation to this question. . . .

"Is it not enough that nearly 3,000,000 men are being robbed of their Sabbath, and nearly a quarter of a million are being hurled into premature graves, and a large percentage of these into a drunkard's graves, annually? And what for? That a few thousand Saturdarians may have the privilege to work on the Sabbath, in open violation to the law of God and the laws of this land. A form of religion that cannot exist without working on the Sabbath, even if it helps to send four or five men to a drunkard's hell every year that no man might be protected in this liberty to pollute the Sabbath, should be regarded and understood as it really is,–the greatest enemy of labor that exists, the devil excepted. Shall not the Christian people of this land rise up and guard against such a stream of poisonous literature being put into the hands and heads of the women and youth of this country? If you love the souls of the toiling thousands were robbed of their rest, will you not manifest that love by standing firmly in the battle for a Sabbath for all the sons of toil?. . . .

"If the conditions are allowed to been made worse along the lines that our Saturdarian folks are moving toward, labor will be driven downward with rapidity increasing velocity, or a revolution will be provoked. Every patriotic citizen should take his stand to prevent either of the above issues from being forced upon us."

In all this there is food for the most serious thought, and incentive to the most active efforts on the part of the friends of religious liberty.

"Discreditable Advice" American Sentinel 14, 37 , p. 579.

A FAVORITE piece of advice to those who will not keep the Sabbath, to those who do keep it, is that they "obey the law of the land" and "the powers that be" and keep Sunday. This advice is of such a character, that really deserves to be analyzed.

Invariably this advice is given by those who not only believe in keeping Sunday themselves, but also in compelling all others to keep it. And their course in advising Sabbath keepers to keep Sunday only because the law says so, betrays themselves as occupying one of two positions, one of which is most discreditable to themselves, and the other is utterly discreditable to Sunday as worthy of observance at all.

In advising Sabbath-keepers to keep Sunday because the law requires it, they admit that they themselves would keep the Sabbath and not Sunday if only the law of the land required it.

If they are honest in that, then they admit that Sunday has no sacredness at all and has no claims whatever upon the conscience: that its only claim to recognition is merely human, and that the obligation to observe it is only in the merely human statute, just as the catching of oysters or the killing of game is prohibited except within certain dates.

But there is not one of those persons who believes that concerning the Sunday. Every soul of them believes that there is some religious obligation that requires the observance of Sunday: that in some way there is involved in it a duty toward God.

Then as they believe that in some way, however that way may be, there is some religious obligation, some duty toward God, involved in the observance of Sunday, when they advise Sabbath-keepers to keep Sunday "because the law requires it," and thus admit that if the law required the observance of the Sabbath instead of Sunday they would keep the Sabbath, they know that their whole proposition is mere pretense. They know that they would not observe the Sabbath however much the law my require it; and that if the law did require it they would denounce it as oppressive, persecuting, and a violation of the rights of conscience. And in so doing they would be in the right, and they know that they would be in the right. And by that, they know that their advice to Sabbath keepers to keep Sunday because the law requires it, is oppressive, persecuting, and violative of the rights of conscience.

Moreover they know that such advice is contrary to the whole Bible which they profess to believe, and which they even quote to sustain their pretense. They know that the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace, Daniel in the den of lions, the words of Christ and his disciples, and the course of his disciples themselves, are all a divine protest against that which they advise. They know also that the whole history of religious progress in the world, which they themselves profess to honor, is a positive repudiation of the proposition which they make.

What then is their proposition, their advice, in this, but a juggling with conscience–their own as well as well as that of the others,–the playing of the trick with the Scriptures, and a deceiving of their own selves?

And what for?–Simply that they may have their own way instead of God's way. This is made certain by the fact that when God himself has rested a certain day and appointed that day as a day of rest, they will persistently refuse God's example and his appointment as to that day, and rest another day. Is not the resting they oppose, for they themselves rest and compel other people to rest. It is not resting a certain day that they oppose, for they themselves rest a certain day and compel others to do so. It is simply resting on the day which God has chosen and appointed, that they oppose.

Sense, then, they themselves rest, and rest on a certain day, and rest the whole day, and count it so all-important that they must compel all others to do that same thing, and yet refuse to rest on the day which the Lord appointed for rest and on which he himself rested–shows conclusively that it is an arbitrary taking of their own will and way against the will and way of God; that, in the last analysis, is the real essence of Sunday observance.
A. T. J.

"A Religious Trust" American Sentinel 14, 37 , pp. 579, 580.

SUCH is the system which propagates the doctrine known as "Christian Science," of which Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy is the leading exponent. In proof we cite the following statement by the editor of the Washington News Letter, a paper devoted to the spread of "Christian Science," which is unquestionable authority upon the point:–

"I found surrounding the so-called Christian Science Church what we might term a religious trust, all books being copyrighted and sold at prices ranging from five to ten times their value, protected under a copyright.

580

That, instead of religion being free, as promised and commanded by the Saviour of mankind, no one could be taught this new religion, so-called, except by the payment of $100 in money to a class teacher, besides buying all the literature at exorbitant rates."

The grace of God is free; and the most emphatic condemnation is put by the New Testament upon any scheme for prostituting it to the purpose of financial gain. And when religion is so prostituted, that religion is not Christianity. Christianity can never be cornered into a "trust." That will always be free as the air of heaven.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 37 , p. 592.

"SUNDAY laws do not compel seventh-day people to work on their Sabbath; they do not interfere all with their worship on the seventh day," is an oft-made statement intended to justify such laws. Apparently it is true, before the seventh-day Christian gets into their toils; but when this is done, then, as a criminal, he is compelled to work on the seventh day regardless of everything; in case of refusal being subjected to the horrors of prison discipline. This justification of Sunday laws is as lame is that which it is intended to support.

CHRISTIANITY does not ask the privilege of invading any individual's rights, and no other religion ought to have it.

TRUST in God will make you independent of the trust on earth.

September 28, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 38 , p. 593.

RIGHT is mightier than might.

IT is ideas, not armies, that rule the world.

NO power but that of love can rightfully compel the conscience.

WHEN religion becomes a religion of law, it ceases to be a religion of love.

IF human law could benefit religion, the religion of the ancient Pharisees would have been the best on earth.

WHEN religion is incorporated into civil enactments, it is lowered from the plane of the divine law to that of the human.

PROTESTANTISM is a protest against the acceptance of human authority and human wisdom as a source religious obligation.

EVERY word of God is an opening into the mind of Omniscience–a pathway of light and knowledge reaching to infinity. Therefore no man can ever tell all that he ought to know, or set bounds to all he ought to believe.

EVERY man is the creator of its own destiny, and no man ever attained a happy destiny without a strong will and earnest effort to that end.

THE state cannot conform to Christian ethics, because "the moment it becomes generous, it ceases to be just." It cannot donate to Peter without robbing Paul.

NO captain of an Atlantic liner ever entrusts the helm of his ship to the hand of "manifest destiny;" and no more can the ship of state be steered by "manifest destiny" to any safe harbor.

IT is just as possible defense in sunlight as it is to protect the sanctity of the Sabbath by civil enactments. Sanctity is a matter not merely of the outward deportment, but of the heart.

"Rome Prying the Government Over the Philippines" American Sentinel 14, 38 , pp. 593, 594.

THAT papal leaders in this country and at Rome know how to turn into account the situation in the Philippines, has been several times pointed out in these columns, and current events continue to call attention to the fact. And it is evident there Rome expects to profit much from the position in which the United States has placed itself, by errors committed both there and here.

Rome is now pressing upon the Government the alleged fact that she has been grossly mistreated by the American forces in and around Manila. Her church buildings have actually been occupied by American soldiers, and in some cases the altars have even been found convenient for use in establishing telegraphic communi-

594

cation between Manila and the American front. Added to this are tales of desecration of "sacred" garments and instruments committed by sacrilegious soldiers. It is admitted that much of this alleged desecration is not yet substantiated by proof.

An illustration of this attitude by American Catholics was given at the Silver Jubilee of the Catholic Young Men's National Union, at Newark, N.J. Bishop Walker there said:–

"It seems to me that this is the proper time to investigate the rumors of the desecration of Catholic churches and monasteries by American soldiers in the vicinity of Manila. If reports are true, the perpetrators should be punished.

"The Catholic Church in Manila stands for the same thing as the Catholic Church here. In one of our New York illustrated magazines there appeared recently a picture of the interior of a Catholic church near Manila, used as a telegraph station by soldiers of the United States army. The very altar on which Catholics witnessed the offering of the sacrifice of the mass is desecrated and the tabernacle used as a place for wires.

"These altars are as sacred to us as are our own, and it is our duty to protest to the Government if all this be true. It is our sacred duty as Catholics to demand the punishment of those were responsible. I would express a wish that your convention pass a resolution asking for an investigation."

To diverge momentarily from the subject, it is a pity that since "the Catholic church Manila stands for the same thing as a Catholic church here," those Americans who think that Rome stands for enlightenment and progress in this country cannot go to Manila and there see for themselves what Roman stood for there and elsewhere throughout the islands. It is true enough that Rome stands for the same thing in one land as in another, and for what she stands in the most Catholic lands, she stands for and those least under her control.

But the church has not stopped with a mere protest and call for investigation made at Catholic gatherings. Cardinal Gibbons has had an interview with the President. What was said at that interview of course is not divulge, but it is an admitted that it related to affairs in the Philippines; and also that the President has given the assurance to the cardinal that strict care will be exercised for the protection of Catholic property in Luzon from desecration.

That there is considerable "desecration" of church property in the Philippines, incident to the war, is no doubt true. Appropriation of church property or of any other property to military uses is incident to war everywhere. It is expected that every other consideration will remain secondary to that of making a successful campaign. In no other way could war be successfully conducted. For this "desecration" in itself, however, Rome cares little. What she has in view are the claims to be presented to the Government for damages, and–more important still–the opening of negotiations between the Government and the Vatican. The United States seized these churches in hostile territory. They were property of an enemy. But no matter; the precedent has been established on that point, which makes it liable for church property, in all cases, even when confiscated from an enemy. It recently paid $280,000 as damages for having occupied one building in Nashville, the property of the M. E. Church South, during a campaign of the Civil War. Will it not now pay to the Catholic Church $288,000, or more for having occupied a number of her fine edifices in the island of Luzon? or compensate for the same in some other way?

That the papacy is making use of the situation to establish official relations with the Government, is widely recognized as a fact. Referring to Cardinal Gibbons' interview with the President, a dispatch from Washington says:–

"The great significance of this meeting between the President and the official head of the Catholic Church of this country attaches to the belief that Cardinal Gibbons called at the direct instance of the Vatican, and in pursuance to the pontiff's recent declaration to the chaplain of the 'Olympia' that he would soon open communication with this Government."

And all this comes from the error of the Government in departing from the principles of justice on which it was first established. It should not have recognized the claim made on religious grounds in behalf of the property of the M. E. Church South; then it would not have established a precedent for paying out untold amounts that will be demanded from the public treasury in time to come. And secondly, it should not have undertaken the conquest of the Philippines. Then it would have had no "desecration" of Catholic property to answer for, and Rome would have no excuse for an attempt to set up negotiations with it.

So long as the United States adhered to the established American principles of government by consent of the governed, and separation of religion from the state, Rome could gain but little in a political way. But Rome has stood ready to take advantage of every departure of the nation from these principles, and on every such occasion she has advanced and occupied the ground surrendered by the failing champions of free government, until she stands to-day where she sees but little room remaining to debar her onward march to complete victory.

Nevertheless the principles of eternal truth and right remain; and some there are who stand fast with them, and will so stand against the utmost advance of Rome, proclaiming to the end the gospel message of the right of every man to physical, mental, and moral freedom.

"The Origin of Selfishness" American Sentinel 14, 38 , p. 595.

WITH the Hon. William J. Bryan's politics or statesmanship, we have nothing all to do. But when a gentleman of Mr. Bryan's vast influence makes a false stroke in ethics, with all respect to him his statements may in the interests of sound thinking be examined.

In his great speech to the nation, at the Chicago conference on trusts, Mr. Bryan said that "God made man selfish." We are sorry to see such a statement from such a source.

Now, the Scriptures which tell us that God made man, also tells us that God made man "in his own image." Therefore since God is essentially character; and since God made man his own image, to take the position that God made man selfish, is to be at once shut up to the conclusion that God is selfish. But the cross of Christ is the eternal witness to the universe that God is not selfish. He gave himself for his enemies.

In explaining such a broad statement, Mr. Bryan said: "I do not mean to say he made a mistake when He made did [make man selfish]; because selfishness is merely the outgrowth of an instinct of self-preservation. It is the abnormal development of a man's desire to protect himself." But as man was made there was no possible ground for any thought of protecting himself. He was made upright and was expected forever to remain so. And he ever would remain so, had he only obeyed the simple and plain word of God. And he being upright, righteous, and holy, and all about him being the same, there could never be any possible ground of self-protection, because there could never possibly have been any encroachment from others.

That this only was, and was intended to be, the condition of man, is shown in the fact that the first of all the commandments of God to intelligences is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. And the second is like unto it, thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." These commandments beeng [sic.] fulfilled, there could not possibly be any encroachment, any aggression, any invasion, by any one, of the perfect right of any other. Love is the opposite of selfishness. And as only perfect love was intended to characterize man in all possible relations, there could not possibly be any place for self-protection, and consequently no selfishness, which is but the abnormal development of the desire to protect self, and an outgrowth of the instinct of self-preservation.

It is true that the theory that "Self-preservation is the first law of nature," is universally recognized in nature is nature is. And indeed as nature is, that is the truth. But nature as it is, is not as God made it. Nature is perverted. And though it be true that in nature as nature is, "Self-preservation is the first law of nature," that is not true as an original principal. It is true only as a consequence: a consequence of the entrance of sin. Sin broke up man's original and true connection with God, banished perfect love, and established selfishness, in all relations of man. This brought in self-exaltation, the disregard of the rights of others. This demanded self-protection against the aggressions of the self-exalted, and from the encroachments of each upon all the others. And this in turn begat the instinct of self-preservation. Every vestige of it is only the consequence of the entrance of sin. Hence the truthful deduction of Augustine: "All selfishness is sin; and all sin and selfishness."

Self-preservation is the first law of nature; but self-sacrifice is the first law of grace.

Self-protection is the only means of self-preservation; Self-surrender is the only means of self-sacrifice.

Force is the only means of self-protection; love is the only means of self-surrender.

Force is of the earth; love is of heaven. Forces of the state; love is of the church–the true church, the church of Christ.

Force is only of evil; love is only of the good. Force is of Satan; love is of God.

God made all things "very good": he made Lucifer good, and Lucifer made himself evil–Satan.

God made man loving; Satan by seduction made him selfish.

It God had made man selfish, how then could man have ever been saved? And what could be the use of the cross, and the all-important injunction, "If any man will be my disciple, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me?"

It will never do to allow that God made man selfish. Men are entirely too selfish in spite of all the love and self-sacrifice of God to prevent it. What would they become if they should believe that God made man selfish? Bad as men are when the devil is the author of selfishness, what would they be if God were the author of it? God is love, not selfishness. God gave himself, surrendered himself, "emptied himself," absolutely; and neither protected nor preserved himself from attack, nor from crucifixion.
A. T. J.

"Militarism Against Christianity" American Sentinel 14, 38 , p. 596.

THE cultivation of military power is certainly a strange thing for people professedly Christian to urge upon a nation. Ever since the time when the greatest enemy of Christianity led King David to number Israel an object lesson has been before the world teaching that dependence upon military power is wholly contrary to the mind of God.

God would have all people depend upon Him. He is the God of battles, and the cause which is allied with Him will triumph in spite of all the "heavy battalions" of the enemy.

"Put not your trust in princes," wrote the psalmist, "neither in the son of man, in whom there is no help." Ps. 146:3. Against the tide of right, the alien armies can no more prevail than could the Assyrians against King Hezekiah, when a single angel from God slew a hundred and eighty-five thousand of their number and a night.

David's sin and that of the people with him, when Israel was numbered, was that of trusting in their own power. It was the sin of pride, than which nothing separates the soul further from God. In proportion as a nation develops military strength, national pride is fostered, and the spirit of dependence upon God, which is the essential spirit of Christianity, is cast aside. This of course gives rise to a condition which is highly unfavorable to the spread of the gospel with its doctrine of self-denial and humility before God.

This is not a mere theory, it is a truth exemplified in the world to-day, and so much so in Japan that attention is being called to it by religious journals. The Christian Intelligencer says of it:–

"There has been a decline of interest in Christianity in Japan since the successful war in China produced a high degree of national self-confidence among the Japanese. The cry was heard everywhere, 'Japan for the Japanese.' One result was religious, and became manifest in a decline in the number of converts to the Christian faith, and a falling off in the membership of the Christian churches. Not a few abandoned Christianity. At the same time the policy of some of the missions was modified. Self-support was more and more insisted on both in relation to churches and schools. Contemporary with these influences has been a perhaps a decline, under the power of an increasing military materialism, in the interest and the prayers of the churches which have established the missions."

The same feeling prevails in Germany, whose . . . only recently declared that the "only hold" of the churches against the unbelief of the times, is "the imperial and escutcheon of the German empire." In its pride of a great military power, the German state has actually put itself in the place of God. And there is not a great military power on the earth that does not embody this anti-Christian doctrine and spirit.

This spirit and that of militarism go together. The cultivation of the one fosters the development of the other. When the church encourages the one she encourages the other, and erects a stumbling-block in her own pathway, barring the way to the accomplishment of her appointed mission in the earth.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 38 , p. 608.

THE Lord himself does not assume the right to govern another intelligence in the universe without the other's consent; and when such a right is assumed by finite man, it is only made manifest that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

THAT the pope is a good politician need not be thought at all strange in view of the fact that the whole papal system is the outcome of politics and the church. No one not a good church politician can ever become pope, and a good church politician is a good politician all around.

October 5, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 39 , p. 609.

THE devil is a master hand at the game politics.

THE true theory of civil government is no respecter of persons.

IT is a good deal better to look at the dark side of truth, than at the bright side of error.

IMPERIALISM takes away the enlightening torch in the hand of the goddess of Liberty, and puts in its place a dripping sword.

SINCE the "prince of this world" is Satan, to ask Jesus Christ to be this world's king under the present order of things, is to ask him to go into partnership with the devil.

THE "powers that be" which are "ordained of God," are not the power ordained of God to spread the gospel in the earth and turn wicked men "from the power of Satan unto God."

WHAT is the use of trying to overthrow the demon of Sabbath desecration, by means which have proved wholly inadequate to dethrone the demon of intemperance? Only that which will cast up the latter from its seat of power in the heart, can put down the former. The true remedy for one moral evil is a remedy for all.

IF there could be such a thing as a "civil" weekly Sabbath, it would be necessarily a counterfeit of the divine institution, and would therefore be under the divine condemnation.

IT matters not what any man may do to become morally better if he does not believe the Word of God; and as belief must be wholly a voluntary act, it follows that men can not be made better than they are–society can not be saved–by any system of force.

AMS NO one can keep a command of God without faith, and Sabbath-keeping is a command of God, no one can keep the Sabbath without faith: and therefore all the resolutions that can be passed by trades unions, or legislation enacted, on the subject Sabbath observance, can not promote such observance in the least.

"Force vs. Example in Civilization" American Sentinel 14, 39 , pp. 609, 610.

THE United States has started out on a career of conferring the blessings of civilization upon other peoples of the earth, by force. In not every case may it be compelled to subjugate such a people by actual war, as in the Philippines; but in every case its policy is to enforce complete submission to its sovereignty, as the first step to the realization of the promise blessings.

In changing to this policy from that heretofore pursued, the United States has exchanged the power of persuasion by example, for the power of compulsion to fear. It has declared that the latter is more potent for lifting people to a higher civilization than is the former. It has declared that people can be unwillingly lifted to this higher plane more readily than they can be willingly. It has declared that the sword is a mightier civilizer than the pen: that the whirlwind and

610

earthquake, rather than the "still small voice," manifest the working of Providence.

The doctrine which it has thus affirmed is not true. There is no question at all but that the influence of the United States over the world, as a republic based upon the true principles of government, and exemplifying the blessings of free government before all people, is vastly greater than any influence it can exert as a martial figure brandishing its sword before the world and declaring that its civilization must be extended in the earth by its military prowess.

Such an exhibition awakens in the onlooking world scorn and derision, hatred, and some fear, but never any feeling of increased regard for American principles of government and of desire to adopt them in other lands.

The United States has, unquestionably, during this nineteenth century, exerted a great moral influence upon the world. This is a truth which by many seems now to be forgotten or overlooked. It has continually instilled into the minds of all people the aspiration for free government. It has continually dropped into the soil of their hearts the germ of freedom which had power to grow and become a giant tree, rending asunder the institutions of despotism as the clods of earth are rent by the pushing sprout. It has thus continually worked along the line by which the greatest and most complete revolutions among earth's peoples are brought about; for as all history shows, such revolutions come always from a force generating within the hearts of the people, rather than from a force passing upon them from without.

The United States could not indeed expect to persuade other governments of the earth–the monarchies of the Old World–to abdicate their power and voluntarily step aside in favor of republics; nor was it necessary that its influence upon the nations should take effect in that way. But it could expect to instill the love of free government into the hearts of the people of other lands, until they themselves should rise up and set aside the institutions of monarchy and the principles that had held them in subjection to a ruler, replacing them with the principle of self-rule and the institutions that are based upon it. This is a statement justified not alone by reason but by historical events.

There is in the hearts of all people a natural love of free government: a love which can be awakened and fostered, and which, nourished by a mighty influence streaming continually from the shores of the New World, would grow and in time work wonders for Old World peoples held in governmental bondage. And this would be true not only in Europe, but in the less civilized lands of Asia; in those very lands, indeed, where the United States is now seeking to impose its civilization by fire and sword. With the great Republic standing true to the principles on which it was set up, the leaven of free government would ere long have done for remote and semi-civilized lands all that the same Republic is essaying but will not be able to do by force of arms.

Other lands do not want American civilization, and least of all do they want that civilization imposed on them. American civilization, as it is in the United States, is fitted only for the United States. But the spirit and principles of free government are the same in all lands; and the structure of free government must be reared upon those principles by the people themselves. The civilization of every land should be its own. Free government in one land, cannot mean the establishment there of an alien civilization.

"The Message Must Be Given" American Sentinel 14, 39 , pp. 610, 611.

IT is written in the Scriptures of truth that the things which happened in old time were for examples and are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come. Then of all times in the world's history, now is the time in which the things written in the Scriptures are of importance to the world, and must be told to the world.

Of all the parts of the Scriptures, those parts which relate to the nations and kingdoms of the world are of the most particular interest in this time of our day. There is much scripture that touches individual experience: this is of equal value at all times and to all people. There is also much scripture that concerns national destiny: this in the case of each particular nation, in its own particular time in the past, was all-important for that time as the message of God; and being a national example is of particular interest in instruction and warning to every nation that follows. And when the world has come to the time of the end, then all these national examples cited in the Word of God stand with their lessons of instruction and admonition as a manifold message to the nations of to-day whose guilt and ruin must be the greater as they despise and reject the manifold message of the Word of God.

The history and fall of Israel, of Assyria, of Babylon, of Medo-Persia, of Grecia, and of Rome, has all been recorded in the Bible, for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world have come, and for the admonition of the nations of the earth in this time of the end. And the lessons of instruction and admonition, which are in these historical records in the Bible must be, and they will be, given definitely and distinctly to the people and the nations that are upon the earth in this time of the end.

God has put into his Word messages that concern nations, as well as messages that are to individuals. It was so in Israel, it was so in the empire of Assyria, it was so in the empire of Babylon, it was so in the empire of Persia, of Grecia, and of Rome. Some of the kings of Judah; one of the kings of Assyria; Nebuchadnezzar of

611

Babylon; Darius the Mede; and Cyrus and Darius, and Xerxes and Artaxerxes the Persians, listened to the messages of God. The kings of Israel, and the last ones of Judah, Belshazzar the last one of Babylon, the last ones of Persia, none of the Greek empire and none of the Roman paid any attention to the messages of God to them, nor to those concerning their time.

It came about, in the order of God, that the rulers of all these nations that the truth of God in such a way as to be responsible for its rejection and for the consequences which followed to themselves and to their respective nations and empires. Belshazzar, Alexander, and Nero, are but examples in bold relief on the one side, as are Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus on the other, of what the Lord has ever done and is ever doing to rulers; and especially in times of crisis. But the great difficulty has ever been, and still is, that in the vast majority of instances these messages of God are passed by as nothing more than mere incidents, and many times is hardly even that. Nevertheless those rulers in so doing rejected the message of God to them, and for their day and nation; and were responsible for the consequences that might have been avoided, and which at the very least were hastened by there unheeding course.

And the United States to-day is not an exception. Evils are flooding this nation to-day, concerning which the national responsible authorities were plainly and repeatedly warned. Those authorities were told of these things at the opportune time, when by heading the message they could have cleared themselves of all responsibility for any coming evil, could have honored God, themselves, and their position, and at the very least could have stayed the tide of evil. And this must, and will, still go on.

It is true that there will be those who will say, as there have been those who have said, that that is "meddling with politics." But it is nothing of the kind. Was Daniel meddling with politics when he gave to Nebuchadnezzar, to Belshazzar, to Darius and to Cyrus the message of God as it was in the Word of God? Was the high priest at Jerusalem meddling in politics when he gave to Alexander the Great the message of God written for that very time? Were the Christians in the Roman empire meddling in politics when they gave the message of God as in his Word, concerning the coming ruin of that empire and the planting of the ten kingdoms? Were they guilty of treason in telling to all people that the empire would certainly go to utter ruin, that the Barbarians would certainly triumph, and that every soul must seek God with all the heart to escape that certain ruin? They were so charged of course; but was it fair so to charge? Were they guilty?

No more were these men in our day meddling in politics when they presented time and again to State legislatures and governors, and to the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress, and to the President, the message of God in counsel and warning against the evils that would certainly come, upon the rejecting of the law of God and the principles of justice and human liberty.

And still this work must go on, and still it will not be in any sense meddling in politics. To hold forth, by tongue and pen, to people and rulers, the message of God as he has given it in his Word and portrayed it in the course and in the of the great empires of history, can not possibly be meddling in politics; it can not possibly be treason, nor can it truly be said that it is interfering in affairs of government with which religion has nothing to do. Not to do so, is nothing less than to see the sword, and the people be not warned. But God has set watchmen to see the sword coming, and to warn the people. And he says that if the watchmen see the sword come, and, because of a cry of "meddling in politics" or for any other "reason," he blow not the trumpet and the people be not warned, whosoever is taken away by the sword, "his blood will I require at the watchman's hand." And if the watchmen be such, or stood in such an attitude, as not to see any sword coming, the result is the same to him and to the other wicked.

No, history has not occurred in vain. Neither have its vital lessons been set down in the Word of God in vain. And if in this all-important time those who know these things should hold their peace, the very stones would cry out. And if those who in this time professed to know these things, or have opportunity to know them, be yet unknowing, then shall the message and deliverance arise from another place, and these will be overwhelmed in the destruction that overtakes all them that be asleep in this startling time.

Blow the trumpet and warn the people. Tell them Thus saith the Lord God: whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. And in so doing thou hast delivered thy soul.
A. T. J.

October 12, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 40 , p. 625.

THE American dollar was meant to be the product, and not the foundation, of American civilization.

THE sacredness of liberty is not affected by changes in latitude or longitude. Like gold it has a fixed value throughout the world.

THE specter of corrupt government in America is not going to be changed into the angel of good government in Asia by going across the sea.

THE man who assumes the right to govern another man takes upon himself the responsibility of that other's conduct before God; but the God who will require every man to stand independently before him at the bar of final judgment, sanctions and demands independence for every man now.

THE weapons of Christian warfare are aimed at sin; those of carnal warfare are aimed at the sinner. The whole object of Christian warfare is to save men alive; the whole object of carnal warfare is to kill men. Christian warfare means self-denial; carnal warfare aims always at self-supremacy. How much Christianity then can there be in carnal warfare?

THE nation demands that no citizen within it shall be an open polygamist; that is its highest standard of conduct. But God and Christianity demand that no man be a polygamist at heart; and this only is the right standard of conduct. But should the state adopt a standard, it would be necessary to set up the Inquisition in order to extort the secrets of the heart; and even then it could not enforce heart righteousness.

"CIVILIZATION" goes to the heathen with tremendous sinking power of drunkenness and other vices, but with no uplifting power to save them from it; for though it may bring to them the knowledge of what is high and noble, the knowledge does not give them power to attain to it. The mere knowledge of good gives no one strength of character; but it requires no strength of character to imitate vice. The heathen, therefore, in their weakness, need not the contact of civilization, but the gospel. And nobody who receives the gospel was found afterward in need of becoming civilized.

"The Natural Enemy of Free Government" American Sentinel 14, 40 , pp. 625, 626.

MILITARY government is necessarily despotic government, and therefore necessarily contrary to the free government ordained by the first American statesman for the people of this nation.

Under military government, the citizen to whom freedom was ordained as a birthright, is brought again in subjection to the despotism that has been characteristic of Old World empires; he is no longer recognized as the independent possessor of unalienable rights, entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" but as a servant subject in all things to the will of his military master.

All that makes military government necessary, therefore, or that leads up to it, is the natural enemy of free government, of all men, and of man's Creator.

This is made very plain in the following which re-

626

cently appeared, editorially, in the New York Sun, discussing "The Problem of the Volunteer and the Treasonable President":–

"A gentleman in Orange, N. J., who had probably found his post-office box to file with seditious pamphlets from Boston or Brookline, took the trouble last week to write Atkinson. He asked that melancholy person what he, Atkinson, would have done if he were a volunteer enlisted in the United States Army and his commanding officer had ordered him to attack the Filipino insurgents.

"Atkinson promptly responded from Boston: 'I should have refused to fight in an unjustifiable slaughter of our allies.'

"A correspondent of The Sun, at Baltimore, thereupon pointed out the circumstance that the volunteer swears upon enlistment not only 'to serve the United States of America honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever,' but also to 'obey the orders of the President of United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the Rules and Articles of War.'

"The punishment prescribed by the Articles of War for the line of conduct which Atkinson unblushingly declares he would adopt, in the case stated, is death.

"Now another correspondent, apparently sympathizing with Atkinson's views of the soldier's duty, asks us these questions:

"'TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN–Sir: Will you be fair enough to let me reply to the article about "The Volunteer's Oath?" If that form is correct it should be changed, as a soldier swears allegiance to the President and not to the Union. Again, even with the present oath, the signer is entitled to the supposition that the President must not, as McKinley has done, violate his oath to sustain the Constitution of the United States.

"'When the President is guilty of treason is the volunteer bound to follow him?

"'STANLEY G. LEONARD.'

"The form of the soldier's oath is correct as it stands. It covers both allegiance to the United States and obedience to the President and to the officers appointed by him to command the private.

"As to the hypothetical case in which the President is guilty of treason, that is a question which cannot arise and the volunteers experience. Neither the Constitution nor any law of the United States constitutes Private Atkinson or Private Leonard a tribunal to decide whether the President is guilty of treason.

"If Atkinson and Leonard, in the presence of an enemy whom they were ordered to attack, should refuse on the ground that Atkinson and Leonard were convinced, after mature reflection, that the commander-in-chief whom they had sworn to obey, had himself violated his oath of office, thus relieving them of the obligation to obey, they would be probably court-martialed and shot, with the hearty approval of all right-minded soldiers and civilians.

"On second thought, they might not be shot. The reviewing authority might look them over and decide to consign them to a lunatic asylum."

Thus, no matter what the individual's own convictions of right may be, he must act as another man may dictate; and if he refuses to do what he believes to be wrong, when commanded, he will be "promptly court-martialed and shot;" and this should have "the hearty approval of all right-minded soldiers and civilians." Where does God come in under this arrangement?

Plainly, God is left out of the matter entirely; and what must be said, from a Christian point of view, of an undertaking in which God is left out? To what must it lead the nation and the individual involved in it?

And plainly, from the Christian standpoint no individual is ever justified in entering into such a God-denying and God-defying compact; he is never justified in substituting any human authority for the authority of conscience, which is the voice of God; he is never justified in divesting himself of the individuality which constitutes him a free moral agent.

From the Christian standpoint and from that of an American citizen, war, militarism, and the war spirit, are things to be shunned and protested against, always and everywhere. In the direction of militarism is the road that leads surely back to the despotism from which our fathers fled across the Atlantic to an unknown world. The road to military greatness is one upon which a nation early bids farewell to civil and religious freedom.

"The Messages, the Messengers, and the People" American Sentinel 14, 40 , pp. 626-628.

FROM 1120 B.C. to 800 B.C. a mighty empire was built up by the kings of Assyria. Many nations were overrun, plundered, and laid under tribute. Thus vast sums of treasure were brought into the coffers of the kings of Assyria and into the hands of the Assyrians, especially in the capital city of Nineveh.

This long-continued flow of wealth carried in its train corresponding luxury. With luxury came love ease. With luxury and love of ease inevitably came vice. And at last their wickedness became so great that it reached heaven and deserved vengeance. The Lord sent Jonah to warn them of the coming destruction. "And Jonah begun to enter the city a day's journey, and cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown."

And in that proud city–the leading city of the world–wicked as it was, and though the word came to the king upon the throne, Jonah was not accused of disturbing the peace; he was not put in the lock-up; he was not taken to the station-house; he was not accused of inciting insurrection; he was not charged with being an enemy of the country.

Instead of any such thing is that, "the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them unto the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And

627

he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn everyone from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not."

And nobody has ever charged that in this procedure Jonah was taking part in politics, nor that he was speaking against the government, nor that he was in any way disrespectful to the authorities. And if anybody had ever charged him with any of this, it would have been false; and by it the one making the charge would have shown that he did not know any distinction between religion and politics: and in that he would have shown that he did not know anything in reality of religion, but politics only.

In the course of empire Assyria was followed by Babylon. It was, too, the course of conquest, wealth, luxury, ease, and vice, even to the danger of ruin that Babylon followed. One day a man walked into the broad streets of Babylon and took position on the bank of the Euphrates which flowed through the midst of the city, and there as the vast crowds of the busy and pleasure-loving city passed and repassed he read with a loud voice a long arraignment of Babylon for her pride, her oppression, and her great wickedness; and also the doom of destruction that certainly would come. When he had read the whole account, he tied a stone to the scroll of what he had read and plunged it into the river, and exclaimed, "Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her."

And in that proudest and wickedest of cities the man was not arrested or charged with any disturbing practises nor mischievous intent.

But, unlike Nineveh, Babylon paid no attention to the warning. In a few years her doom came. In the midst of a drunken and lascivious feast the judgment was written, and spoken, "God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." And before the judgment was spoken, he who interpreted it said the king, citing the example of the king's grandfather, how he was taught "till he knew that the most high God ruleth in the kingdom of men and appointeth over it whomsoever he will. And now, his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven . . . and the God in whose hand thy breath is and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified: then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written."

And instead of that man being punished as a disturber of the peace, or as an inciter to insurrection, or charged with meddling in politics, he was rewarded with the highest honors a king could possibly bestow. The Lord Jesus himself came and lived among his own people and sought to bring them to God. They rejected his counsel and would not receive his message. He knew that national ruin could be the only result. And he told them so: woes that would reduce them to ruins and bring them even down to hell, proclaimed against Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida. He declared that Jerusalem should be compassed with armies, she should be laid low even in the dust, and her children within her, and the temples which were their pride and their trust should be so ruined that not one stone would be left on another.

He was charged with high treason. In the condemnation proceedings, his saying that the temple should be ruined was produced against him and perverted by a false witness into the charge that he had said that he would destroy the temple. Yet at the time everybody knew, and ever since everybody has known, that the charge of high treason or treason of any other kind was false, as well as every other charge was false. And these charges of treason, although made by the chief religionists, were in reality made only by the chief politicians: which is to say that their religion was only politics.

His disciples went everywhere preaching the word of the gospel. Paul reasoned with the people out of the Scriptures, "opening and alleging that Jesus must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus who I preach to you is Christ." And in so doing he told them of certain ruin of the Roman Empire, the establishment of ten new kingdoms in its place, then the coming up of another that should destroy three of the ten and establish itself "the man of sin, the son of perdition," "the mystery of iniquity;" and in the time of this one and of the remaining seven of the ten, Christ should come the second time and the world should end.

And when Christianity had been spread throughout the Roman Empire the Christians were always expecting the fall of Rome and were talking of it, and were prepared for it when it came.

It is true that the early Christians and the later Christians in the Roman Empire were charged with undermining the state, and like Jesus were condemned and put to death upon the charge of high treason. But everybody knows that all such charges against them were false; that all these things that the Christians said were true; and that to be faithful to their trust in the world and to their fellow-men, the Christians must say these things.

And God's Word stands to-day with instruction and warning to the nations of to-day, as truly as it ever did to Assyria, Babylon, Judea, and Rome. That word will be spoken to the nations of to-day as really as it ever was to those of old. It is true that the politicians, even of the professed brethren of the understanding ones, will

628

charge "disrespect of authority," "treason," etc., even as they did against Jesus in Judea, and the early and the later Christians in the Roman Empire. Nevertheless the truth of God will be spoken and the people will be warned.

Yet there is a striking contrast between the treatment of the messengers in Nineveh and in Babylon, and those in Judea and Rome and the United States. The world is not better than it was, nor is it getting better.
A. T. J.

"Militarism Against Christianity" American Sentinel 14, 40 , p. 628.

THE worst wounds ever inflicted on the world's Redeemer, are those that he receives in the house his friends; that is, of his professed followers. And when his professed followers justify militarism and war, and command the armed battalions going forth to slaughter and be slaughtered as being divine agents going out to fight the battles of the Lord, they deny the Prince of Peace and give great occasion of glory to those who are his open enemies. This is illustrated in what a well-known atheist has to say of Christianity as exemplified in the practises of the armed "Christian nations" of to-day. The prevalent militarism, in which these armed nations of the earth, with their vast millions of hosts ready to fly at each other's throats, their horrid engines of destruction, and there gospel of force, immensely outdo in display of brutal might all that paganism, ancient or modern, ever accomplished or dreamed of, is, says the spokesman of atheism, the shortest and most effective arraignment of Christianity that the despise pagan of to-day can desire.

"The world has been devastated with sanguinary encounters, and the followers of Jesus have neither prevented those horrors nor done much to mitigate their evil effects upon mankind. Indeed, Christians on both sides of the contending forces have implored God to aid them in killing each other. This was the case in the Crimean War, the Franco-German war, and the Civil War in America. In all these conflicts each side prayed to God that it might win all the battles. One would think that the disastrous consequences of those dreadful struggles between Christian nations would have been sufficient to destroy all belief in the efficacy of the prayer of supplication, for every Sunday during all these events the clergy repeated the request: 'Give us peace in our time, O Lord.' Still, the tragic slaughters went on, and got ignored all such appeals. Surely, if anything could show the impotency of the Christian faith as a promoter of peace, it would be the present expenditure of millions of people's money, and the loss of millions of human lives in reckless warfare. Even to-day the prayers of the churches are offered up for the peace conference, which does not even propose to adopt Christianity as a cure for the evils of war. What a satire on Christian prayer for peace are the busy state of the warship building trade and the extra military preparations now going on, absorbing as they do a vast proportion of the earnings of the laborers of all the great nations of the world!"

In view of such statements by the champions of atheism, why can not Christian people understand that they are deeply wounding the Christian cause when they encourage the spirit of war?

"'When?'" American Sentinel 14, 40 , p. 628.

THINGS will go right when the people are right and public opinion is informed with the principle of justice. Cabinets will reach fair and humane conclusions when the members of the cabinets are broadly intelligent, and lovers of their kind as well as of their country. Rulers will rule in equity when their hearts are set on righteous ends, and there is a sentiment abroad which will tolerate neither duplicity nor oppression.–Rev. F. A. Noble, D. D., at Detroit Christian Endeavor Convention.

And "when" will the people be right? When will the first and leading "when" become a fact so that the other "whens" can fall into line and follow? Plainly, something must first be done to set things right which the people themselves can not do; for they can not make themselves good. Only the power and grace of God can do that. And the work of divine grace upon the heart is not hastened by the preaching of the power of legislation, of the ballot, and of the gospel of force.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 40 , p. 640.

THE bigger tyrant a man is, the fewer people does he see in the world who ought to be allowed self-government. And the biggest tyrant of all is only the man who thinks his own ideas of propriety and right ought to be the standard and the law for all others.

POLYGAMY is a bad thing, whether it be simultaneous polygamy, as sanctioned by Mormon custom, or consecutive polygamy, as sanctioned by the marriage and divorce laws of the States, or secret polygamy, which lurks everywhere beneath a cloak of respectability. And we are not sure that the Mormon form of polygamy is the worst one.

THE more militarism there is in the nation, the less freedom will there be, since military government is in its very nature despotic. And the less freedom there is in the nation, the less manhood will there be; for despotism always crushes out the manly qualities in those who submit to it. And the less manhood in the nation, the less power will it have, for national virility is inseparable from manhood in its citizens. So that by cultivating militarism with the idea of making itself powerful, a nation really makes itself weak. This may seem paradoxical, but it is a statement approved by experience.

IT was predicted that the disciplined troops of Spain in Cuba would prove superior to the "raw" American volunteers who went against them; but just the opposite proved to be true. The volunteers were better men, because they had grown up under a freer government. And all history testifies that the breath of civil and religious freedom does more to create power in a nation than the discipline which reduces men to mere machines. That nation is strongest which can depend on its citizens rather than on its soldiers.

The United States has nothing to gain, but much to lose, from a development upon military lines.

"EXPANSION" is in harmony with the Declaration of Independence when it is peaceable. Forcible expansion is imperialism.

IDENTIFY yourself with a truth that is eternal, and that truth will identify you through eternity.

October 19, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 41 , p. 641.

JESUS CHRIST conquered the world–not by shedding the blood of others, but his own.

WHILE the church seeks the power that is from beneath, she need not expect to be endued with "power from on high."

THE armies and navies of the great military powers can speak like the whirlwind, earthquake, and fire; but God yet speaks in the "still small voice."

AMS THE man who controls themselves as a disposition to let other people alone, so the government which is "of the people" is not found meddling with the rights of a foreign race. But all this is changed when the principle of self-government is cast aside.

MAN does not exist to direct law; the law exists to direct man. The law existed before man was created.

MAN cannot make law. He cannot make a law of nature, and cannot make a moral law. It would be as easy to make the one as the other. The moral sphere was no more left without law at creation than was the physical sphere. And as man can only discover and apply physical laws, or laws of nature, so also he can but discover and apply the laws of morality. The law of gravitation is older than the law against murder or any other act destructive of rights.

THE province of the human "law-maker" is to be a discoverer and not an inventor. He may invent some "moral" laws of his own, but he cannot improve on the moral legislation of the Creator, which covers every possible point of moral relations. As an inventor in the domain of legislation, no man is ever entitled to a patent.

THE Creator of all things made the law for all, and therefore all law is just and perfect, and anything not just and perfect is not law. A bad "law" always sets at naught the real law of the point to which it applies; and to obey the one is synonymous with breaking the other.

THE only power that man has of himself is the power to do wrong. The power to do right is a higher power, being the power of God. The power to do one righteous act is superior to the power to do all wrong acts.

"The Government Cannot Speak for Peace" American Sentinel 14, 41 , pp. 641, 642.

A STRONG effort has been made, through mass meetings and petitions, to induce the Chief Executive of this Government to offer its services to Great Britain as arbitrator to avert war in the Transvaal.

It is felt by very many that the influence of this Government exerted in such a way might be the means of averting a terrible war, a war that would be one of the greatest disasters and horrors of the century.

The Government, in defining its position, declines to say anything in behalf of arbitration, and a semi-official statement bases the Government's attitude upon its new "love for England," begotten of its new policy of foreign conquest.

The Government is probably aware that it could not consistently interfere with what Great Britain is doing in South Africa, while itself conducting an enter-

642

prise of precisely similar character in the Philippines. The supporters of this enterprise are aware of it, and almost without exception, so far as we have seen, side with Great Britain and the latter's determination to extinguish the South African republics.

And there is no question but that England would view the intervention of the United States in behalf of peace, as an exhibition of gross inconsistency and insincerity; for the English people discern nothing but the spirit of their own imperialism in the course of foreign conquest upon which the American Government has entered.

More than this, the United States would be accused of gross ingratitude. For, as a London journal has said, the American bargain for Asiatic territory was made "under the protecting naval strength of England;" and (speaking for England) "we shall expect, to be quite frank, a material quid pro quo for this assistance. "It will be expected, among other things, that United States will look the other way and say nothing while Great Britain is ridding the earth of republics.

That a word for peace from the United States, spoken under other circumstances, would have weight with Great Britain, there is good reason to believe. The friendship of the United States is, from both a commercial and a political point of view, of the utmost value to the British Isles, and of this the British government has shown itself to be fully aware. Standing isolated among the nations of Europe, England is in no position to lightly turn aside from the proffered friendship of a giant power across the sea.

Who can say, therefore, that had the United States remain true to its foundation principle of government by consent of the governed, and as the mighty champion of free government, had expressed to Great Britain its wish for the preservation of peace and of republican government in South Africa, Great Britain would not have listened to its counsel, and left the settlement of Transvaal disputes to arbitration or other peaceable means? And who, therefore, can say but that the terrible war that is threatened and is even now reported as begun, will not stand in history as a fearful indictment of the American Republic for being recreant to republican principles?

"A Valid Reason" American Sentinel 14, 41 , p. 642.

MR. HOMERULE to Mr. Forcerule: My friend, why do you shoot down these poor savages to whom we have come for their benefit?

MR. FORCERULE (looking at some savages he has killed): I told them to submit to my authority, and as they refuse, I had to shoot them.

Mr. H. but might you not have left them alone, even though they did not want to be under your authority?

Mr. F. No, indeed; for if I had, they would probably have got to quarreling and might kill each other!

"The Only True Remedy for War" American Sentinel 14, 41 , pp. 642, 643.

THE Independent says that "none but a Quaker will assert that war is never right." Then there are a good many Quakers in the world who are not recognized as Quakers. And from the vast numbers of people who profess to be Christians, there should be millions who would "assert that war is never right" whether they were Quakers or not.

War is never right simply because the conditions which allow war to be possible are absolutely wrong. There was war in heaven. That is the first war that ever was. It was made by the devil. And plainly it was not right. That was the origin of war: and that is the spirit of it ever. How, then, can it ever possibly be right?

Yet when it is said with reference to the nations as they are, that war is never right, it is like saying to the natural man that sin is never right.

It is true that sin is never right; but the natural man will still continue to sin. He cannot do anything but sin a long as he is the only the natural man, so long as his nature is unchanged.

To tell a man whose nature is unchanged, who is not spiritual, that sin is never right, and expect him not to sin, while retaining that unchanged nature, would be but a mocking platitude. And to tell him that sin is right, would be worse. And this would argue that the one who expected him not to sin while retaining his unchanged nature, also expected him to be his own saviour: and this because he who expected all this knew of no Saviour who can give another nature and change the natural man to a spiritual man, from sin to righteousness.

He who knows the Saviour who can change the natural man to a spiritual man, who can give him another nature, who can deliver him from sin and from sinning, does not expect the natural man not to sin. While he may tell him that sin is never right, he will also tell him that the only way that he can cease from sin and do the right, is by being saved from sin, by being made partaker of the divine nature, by being changed from the natural to the spiritual man, by being born again.

It is precisely so as to war. War is never right. Yet so long as men possess the warring nature, they will make war. And for the churches to tell the nations that war is wrong, and then expect the nations not to make war, while still unchanged from the warring nature, is but a mocking platitude. And for the churches to tell the nations that war is right, is far worse.

For the churches to expect the nations not to make war, while still possessing the warring nature, is nothing but to argue that the people of the nations can change their own natures, can deliver themselves from themselves, and can be their own saviours. And that is nothing but for those churches to confess that they know of no change for deliverance from the warring nature to the peaceful one.

And that in turn is for those churches to confess that in nature they are only like the warring nations; that in nature there is no distinction between the churches and the nations; and that there is essentially a union of the churches and the nations.

But that is all wrong. There is an essential distinction between the true church and any nation. And this because of the essential distinction between the natures. The nations are natural; the church is spiritual. The nations are human only; the church, though composed of human beings, is composed of human beings who are all partakers of the divine nature. The nations are of this world only; the church is not of this world. And being thus essentially distinct in their natures the church and the nations can never have any fellowship, any union, nor any connection to any extent in any way whatever.

And so the church can and does tell to the nations that while it is true that war is wrong, yet the only way that they can ever be free from war is to be freed from the warring nature, and made partakers of the divine nature of the God of peace as manifested in the Prince of peace. The only way is for each one to be born again, to be born from above, to be translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son, which kingdom is "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
A. T. J.

"A National Anti-Polygamy Crusade" American Sentinel 14, 41 , pp. 643, 644.

WE have received from the Salt Lake Ministerial Association (Utah), an organization embracing Methodists, Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Lutheran clergymen, some printed communications and asking our coˆperation in an effort to prevent the seating in Congress of an alleged polygamous, Brigham H. Roberts, of Salt Lake City, and to put polygamy under the ban of national law. The association calls for "a constitutional amendment prohibiting polygamy and polygamous cohabitation in every State and Territory of our Union."

The SENTINEL is unqualifiedly opposed to polygamy, as it necessarily must be in standing for the preservation of natural rights. It therefore stands with those who seek by every lawful means, to restrict the existence of this evil within the smallest possible limits.

As polygamy is against natural rights, and civil government is instituted to preserve such rights, civil government can properly do nothing to justify or sanction polygamy; and the Government of the United States cannot properly allow a polygamist to take a seat in Congress.

Polygamy is immoral; but Congress cannot unseat Mr. Roberts on that ground. It is unchristian; but Congress cannot take action against him on that ground. It cannot unseat a member on the ground that he is a sinner. Congress is not constituted to be a judge of morality, or to try to enforce a standard of morality. Congress is invested with authority to enact laws for the best interests of all the people, within the lawful sphere of civil government, which is the preserva-

644

tion of rights. If polygamy were consistent with the preservation of human rights, it could properly be opposed only by the agencies God has instituted to combat sin.

It is altogether probable that the effort to unseat Mr. Roberts in Congress will be successful; but more than this is desired by his opponents. They want measures to be taken for the suppression of polygamy itself, and is stated, they propose a national law in the shape of a constitutional amendment "prohibiting polygamy and polygamous cohabitation in every State and Territory of our Union."

We are entirely in favor of the suppression of polygamy. But when we consider the question of the means to be employed, and especially the means that is proposed, we are reminded that the popular sentiment necessary to enforce even a constitutional law against polygamy in this country has become an uncertain quantity. For it is a recognized fact that the divorce evil, which by its nature is allied with polygamy as the flow of domestic virtue and happiness, has become so widespread throughout the Union as to alarm thoughtful men in the church and in the state, and has stirred them up to demand some action suited to a national emergency. The country is yet talking about the action taken at the late Episcopal diocesan convention in which Bishop Potter and others called for some stringent legislation by the church to check the increasing prevalence of divorce. When the people themselves throughout the Union given the evidence of such general moral obliquity touching the matter of the domestic relations as the records of the divorce courts show, what can seriously be expected from them in the way of support for a law against polygamy? Can one who practises or views without concern the practice of what may be termed consecutive polygamy, be expected to be seriously concerned over the spread of that form of polygamy which is unattended by divorce-court scandals?

It is one thing to have a law, and another thing to have the law enforced; one thing to be against an evil outwardly, and another thing to condemn it in the heart; one thing to be a Pharisee, and another thing to be an "Israelite indeed." The latter part of the first chapter of St. Paul's epistle to the Romans depicts an anomalous condition of society illustrating this distinction, and that has been only too frequently a reality in human history. The apostle describes a class of men who were "filled with all unrighteousness," guilty of every crime against God and man, "who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but had pleasure in them that do them." And this class actually existed in Roman society and predominated in the empire at the time the apostle addressed this letter to the Roman church. The laws of the Roman empire forbade such acts and made them punishable with death, by which the Romans testified their knowledge "that they which commit such things are worthy of death"; but everywhere, from the emperor down to the people, these very things were done, almost as if there were no laws against them in existence. Law, even with the death penalty affixed, was no barrier then to the grossest immortality; and civil law, in itself, has no greater power to-day.

Another fact presents itself upon the side of the question; and that is that the United States Government has but lately countenanced polygamy by the treaty made with the Sultan of Sulu, who will henceforth practice and maintain polygamy in a part of the Philippine Islands under American authority. Having given this virtual sanction to polygamy abroad, the Government has greatly weakened the hands of those who oppose it at home. This is a part of the evil advantage of the policy of foreign conquest.

The Salt Lake Ministerial Association will not do well to oppose polygamy by the power of a constitutional law, in preference to the power of godliness, which it is their special mission to reveal to the world.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 41 , p. 656.

NO NATION can survive indefinitely upon a policy which sets aside the law of justice and the rights of mankind. History exists to attest this fact to the people of to-day. When a nation sets out upon the path that diverges from the path of justice, it sets out upon the road to its own extinction. The nations of former times did this and came to their end one after the other, though they were warned by the messengers of God against taking a wrong course. And to-day there is nothing more appropriate for the times than to sound the same warning, as the AMERICAN SENTINEL and other agencies are doing.

BEYOND certain limits, the expansion of national domain must mean the addition of power in the hands of men who already have more power than they know how to handle properly. Great power concentrated in the hands of one person or of a few individuals always cursed the world, and is one of the worst of the evils that darken the outlook to-day.

THE greatest republic on the earth ought naturally to be the friend of the lesser republics, at least to the extent of speaking a word for peace when one of them is threatened with extinction by an imperial power.

THE grace of God is given freely, but can be received only by him who takes it freely; that is, of his own free will. Hence there can be no slavery in the service of God, but religious liberty in the true sense.

WHEN evil is overcome with good, the victory is lasting.

October 26, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 42 , p. 657.

THE government tolerates no counterfeit of a thing upon which it has placed its stamp. And if such a counterfeit be wrong, what must be said of a counterfeit of that which bears the stamp of heaven?

COUNTERFEIT money interferes seriously with the business of earthly governments; and a religious counterfeit works no less evil in the government of God. Recognizing this truth, the devil has ever sought to force as many religious counterfeits upon the world as was in his power to do.

THE Sabbath is institution bears the stamp of Heaven, being "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." What, then, must be said of a weekly day of rest which is not the Sabbath of the Lord? What must be said, for example, of the "civil sabbath," which is confessedly something different from the divine institution, although to most people it is just the same in appearance? Or what must be said of a weekly sabbath in which there is any alteration, however slight, from the Sabbath instituted for the race by the Creator? And is not an institution which most nearly resembles the divine institution, without being that institution in fact, the most dangerous of sabbath counterfeits?

THERE is a counterfeit of the Holy Spirit in the world, and its effects have been very widespread and disastrous. When the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples of Pentecost, some who were in their company said, "these men are drunk with new wine." The Holy Spirit is given to fill man with joy, to lift them above the fears, discouragements and trials of this life; but men have been led to the use of wine and strong drink to attain to this desirable condition. And this has been a terrible illusion, bringing physical and moral death upon countless numbers, and engaging to-day the earnest endeavors of upright men and women to stay its progress.

AND surely those who cry against the gigantic evil of intemperance, who demand legislation against it, cannot consistently favor any counterfeit of that which is divine, or demand that man's substitute for a divine institution be forced by legislation upon the people.

"The Promise of Liberty" American Sentinel 14, 42 , pp. 657, 658.

THE world is hearing much to-day, as it has always heard, of the promise of liberty made by one people to another. But can one people confer liberty upon other people? And if so, what people can do this? These were always important questions, and were never more so than just now.

The Apostle Peter wrote about a class of men who promised liberty; and we have therefore some information on the subject from an authority that church people at least will not question. He speaks of a class who while they promise liberty to others, are themselves the "servants of corruption." 2 Peter 2:19. And this is equivalent to a plain statement that nobody who is himself in bondage can confer any true liberty upon another. And this is to say that the promise of liberty made by the servant of sin is an empty boast; for it is of the bondage of sin that the apostle is speaking.

We may set aside, then, as altogether vain and de-

658

lusive, the promises of liberty made by any people who are not themselves free from the chains of sin. Such people do not know what real freedom is. And having the tyranny of sin upon themselves, they perforce have the spirit tyranny in their hearts, which seeks never to confer liberty, but always to restrict it.

To-day we hear the promise of liberty made by one people to another whom they are trying to overcome. Can such a promise of liberty be realized? The answer of Scripture to the question is, "Of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage;" and though a whole nation should with united voice deny the statement, it would still be true.

One man is not overcome by another man, or one people by another people, to be made free. And when the conqueror is himself the servant of corruption, it is doubly impossible that the conquered should be made more free.

The work of setting men free was undertaken by the Author of freedom, who came not to overcome any man, but to overcome the evils by which men are bound; not to get the victory over any man, but to give to every man a victory gained over the whole world. And only as men work with Him, will the cause of freedom be really advanced in the earth. His promise of liberty, and his only, will be gloriously fulfilled.

"The Needed Power" American Sentinel 14, 42 , p. 658.

THE following stirring words from an address by Dr. W. A. Spencer, Secretary of the Church Extension Society of the M. E. Church, strike at the root of the problem of the means by which the church to-day can become equipped to grapple with prevalent evils and accomplish the reforms that are so urgently needed in society. Endued with the power of which this earnest man speaks, the church is prepared to do just that work that is needed in the nation to-day, and that God would have her do; but equipped with any other power, as the power of legislation or of the ballot, she is not prepared for her task, and the reforms accomplished by such means will be of the wrong kind, that can only make the situation worse:–

"In our pulpits to-day we have a multitude of preachers, too, who have lost their power, but, like Samson, they wist not that their power is departed from them, and try to make up for the old-time power by scholarship, polish, and dignity. Think, beloved, what times we have fallen upon, when the Board of Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with her revival history back of her, has to send out a piteous appeal to our people to pray for a revival of religion within our borders! It ought to be enough to send every one of us to our faces in the dust, crying out for a return of the old-time power! . . .

"See how our D. D.'s have been trying to account for the depletion in the life-blood of Methodism! Oh, my God, why don't they strike the true secret of it, and recognizing it, fall upon their faces all along the line and cry out for a return of Pentecost, instead of trying to blame it upon this and that that has no more to do with it than the wind blowing among these mountain pines! God help us!

"But then, if a man has a heart paralysis, you can't blame the poor fellow if he doesn't work as he did before he was afflicted. Neither can you expect a church member or a Christian, if he is devoid of power, to do much. Some things follow each other as a natural sequence, and this is one of them. A powerless Christian is a useless Christian.

"But you ask, how shall we have convincing, persuasive power in the pulpit and pew? I reply, get it down from heaven. It is there. God hasn't died. Christ is on the throne. The Holy Ghost is alive. His power is at your command. Get it, for God's sake, for your own sake, and for the sake of this old dying world!"

"A Baneful Progress" American Sentinel 14, 42 , pp. 658, 659.

ABOUT two years ago, in this paper we gave some Bible Studies in Christian Citizenship in Church and State, for the especial benefit of the Christian Citizen.

At that the Christian Citizen was very diligently working for union of church and state in every relationship of man throughout this whole land; and at the same time was denying it, and even seemed not to be able to discern it. For this reason we printed in the SENTINEL, addressed to the Christian Citizen, the Bible Studies in Christian Citizenship and Church and State.

These lessons were all simply studies of the plain statements of the New Testament and of confessed fact. These scriptures just as they stand, with a study of simply what they say, showed plainly that there cannot be any such thing as Christian Citizenship of this world without a union of church and state. A candid study of confessed facts demonstrated the same thing.

It therefore appeared perfectly plain that, directly contrary to the plain word and principles of Christ, the Christian Citizen was definitely pushing a propaganda of the union of church and state in every relationship of men throughout this whole nation; and that this Christian Citizenship idea and the Christian Citizenship movement as a whole, and in each individual feature of it, is nothing else than a propaganda of the union of church and state after the very likeness of things in the Dark Ages. All this plainly appeared, whether or not it was discerned by the Christian Citizen and those who are engaged in the Christian Citizenship movement.

And now, as announced in last week's SENTINEL, all this is acknowledged in the changing of the name of the Christian Citizen and now calling the same paper Church and State; because as stated by itself, "The name Church in State expresses the Christian Citizenship principles we wish to advocate better than the old name Christian Citizen did or could."

659

It is acknowledged also in the very idea, and almost in the very words, of the Studies, that, "In the make up of individuals they are essentially one; for the same man may be both a Christian and a patriot." And there can be no possible shadow of a doubt that when "the same man" proposes to "be both a Christian and a patriot," at the same time both a member of the church and a member of the state, there is in the "same man" a positive union of church and state.

That Christian Citizenship and the union of church and State are one and the same thing, is acknowledged by Church and State, which was the Christian Citizen, also in the confession that "Clearly church and state are one in the individuals of which they are composed." This is the very point upon which we insisted in the Studies with the Christian Citizen as making it absolutely certain that political Christian Citizenship is inevitably the union of church and state. The truth of that can never be escaped. Every candid mind, every honest soul, must knowledge that in every individual who proposes to be at the same time a member of the church and a member of the state, there is decidedly a union of church and state.

In one sense it is a distinct gain to have these people take their stand openly in favor of a union of church and state, when they advocate the principles of such a union. Yet it marks a deplorable apostasy when people who know the evils of a union of Church and State do openly take a stand in favor of it. And that they do know the thing to be unworthy of advocacy is evident from the fact that at first they professed to be opposed to a union of church and state, though they maintained the same identical principles that they now maintain. For what but apostasy can it possibly be for people to espouse that which they had professed to avoid, knowing it to be evil?

Yet this case of the Christian Citizen and those whom it represents, is only an item which illustrates a general tendency among the churches and religious organizations of this time. From the beginning of the organized form of the National Reform in 1863, day of every division and every phase of it have at first persisted that they were opposed to any union of church and state. Yet all the time they all advocated principles that meant nothing but a complete union of church and state.

Now, however, they have about all ceased making that plea, and some, like the Christian Citizen, openly acknowledge that they advocate a union of church and state. Religious journals which at first opposed the National Reform movement, because it meant only a union of church and state, now favor not only that movement but also a union of church and state.

All these things show a steady moving tide toward a recognized union of church and state in the United States. And the thing about it which is particularly to be remarked is that this union of church and state is recognized and promoted by the very people who at the first have invariably professed to oppose the union of church and state as an evil, and such an evil as to deserve the opposition of every true Christian–of every right-thinking person. This then reveals a steadily moving tide of apostasy. For again we ask, Without apostasy how can it be possible for people to advocate what they have long opposed as a confessed and well-known evil?

If in the beginning they were really opposed to a union of church and state, and honestly believe that what they were advocating was not in principle the union of church and state, then sincerity of purpose would have led them to abandon the whole scheme the moment that they discerned that their principles did involve the union of church and state. But the facts of experience demonstrate that when they are obliged to acknowledge that their principles do indeed mean a union of church and state, instead of abandoning they espouse it and definitely advocate it. And all this certifies either that they were not sincere in the beginning, or else that the tide of an acknowledged evil has proved too strong for them and has carried them away from their own sincerity to the espousal of a confessed evil.
A. T. J.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 42 , p. 672.

FROM a political point of view, from any worldly point of view, the prospect is not bright. But from the Christian point of view, the prospect is altogether glorious. The Christian has no cause for discouragement in what he sees around him: and while he may point out these things, he does not imply by that that he is a pessimist. It is from this standpoint that the SENTINEL would call attention to existing wrongs and dangers.

THE SENTINEL has appealed to the civil authorities in behalf of religious freedom, upon the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which affirms that all men have equal rights, and the government must be by consent of the governed. If this great American document is set aside, that basis for an appeal for religious freedom is gone; and if the SENTINEL allows it to be set aside without protest, it in effect surrenders the doctrine of rights which the Declaration affirms. But that doctrine is the only basis upon which a plea for religious liberty can be made that will stand against all the assaults of sophistry and worldly logic. We cannot surrender the basis of eternal truth.

THE New England Sabbath Protective League announces through its organ, The Defender, that its purpose is to defend "the Sabbath against the persistent encroachments upon its sacredness by business and pleasure" (Italics ours); and in the same connection adds "Therefore this League aims to defend and secure such legislation as will maintain a proper observance of the Lord's day." What is this, therefore, but a statement that the League wants legislation to maintain the sacredness of the Sabbath! And what power is there in legislation to preserve the sacredness of a divine institution?

The rest day which God instituted is sacred, and its sacredness is altogether independent of human legislation. No legislation can therefore affect the sacredness of the Sabbath day itself. The resting of God upon the seventh day, which remains a fact, and his blessing, which remains on the day, maintain its sacredness.

But may not legislation enforce sacred conduct on the part of the people in Sabbath observance, so that in this sense it may be said that legislation will preserve the sacredness of the day? The answer must still be, No. Legislation can affect only the outward conduct; and the outward conduct of the man who does not in his heart keep the Sabbath holy, amounts to nothing. It is not sacred at all, and if it appears to be such is only a pretense and a cloak for hypocrisy.

Having neither the power to make the day itself sacred, nor to compel any person to observe it sacredly, how can legislation possibly do anything to preserve the sacredness of the Sabbath.

A FRIEND of the SENTINEL advises us that we should be careful to say nothing against imperialism by name. But how can we talk against the thing so that people will know what we are talking about, and yet will not recognize the things by name? This requires a skill in which we confess to be lacking. And if people are not to recognize what you are talking about, what point will they see in what you say, and what use will there be in saying it?

THERE can be neither self-government nor religious freedom where the doctrine is denied that rightful government is by the consent of the governed.

IT is manifestly true that nothing can be forced upon the Lord; and therefore no individual can be brought to the Lord by force. When force is used upon an individual in religion, if he yields to it at all, he is always forced further away from God.

November 2, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 43 , p. 673.

IT doesn't hurt anybody to be hit hard by the truth.

GOD has all might, but he never makes might the arbiter of right.

A Sunday law cannot be separated from the idea of a religious monopoly.

IN the light of the Golden Rule you will be able to see further and clearer than in any other.

IT is hard to arouse conscience in even the best of men by an appeal based on nothing better than tradition.

THE workingman ought to rest on the Sabbath; that is what God says. But God also says that he should rest from a religious motive, and that "whatsoever is not a faith is sin."

THE civil power can at most furnish the church with no better support than a crutch; and the church in calling for and using civil power only proclaims herself a cripple. The divine plan is that the church, through faith shall be strengthened within herself so that she will be as strong as God himself to resist and overcome spiritual foes.

AMS AN evil principle is the deadly enemy of the man who holds to it, to attack such a principle is no evidence of an unfriendly feeling toward the man, or of lack of charity, but quite the reverse.

IF force can properly take the place of individual preference in religion, it can properly do the same in all secular affairs; since temporal affairs are of far less moment in any case than are those of eternity and of the soul. But arbitrary force in secular affairs is everywhere recognized as despotic and opposed to the rights of the people. To compel the conscience in any matter, therefore–as in the matter of Sabbath rest–is an act of despotism, and he who upholds it should be ready to apologize for or to justify despotism and all its other forms.

"Moral Reform Not Political" American Sentinel 14, 43 , pp. 673, 674.

IT IS a fact made plain in many ways at the present time that the churches of the land are aiming to secure moral reforms through politics. They think by this means to advance the cause of the kingdom of Christ, and have visions of an approaching millennium of righteousness and peace which these moral reforms are to usher in. But it ought to be plain from a brief survey of the situation and of the principles involved, that no such reform, by such means, is possible.

The political field is occupied by two leading parties. These parties hold the political power of the nation, and they are in the nature of things permanent parties. There are and have been many smaller parties, but these have been short-lived and have accomplished nothing beyond an occasional turning of the tide of success from one of the two leading parties to the other. They have made no impression at all in the direction of transferring the political power of the country to a new party. It is a foregone conclusion to-day, and has been for gen-

674

erations back, that the President, the members of Congress and of the State legislatures, the governors, the supreme court justices and other judges, etc., will be Republicans or Democrats. The exceptions to this fixed order of things have been so few as only to make it more conspicuous by their contrast.

The only channels, therefore, through which political reforms in the state and nation can come, are those which these parties present. But what hope is there that either of these is to so change its present character as to become the party of moral reforms? Who is to defy the Scripture query and bring a clean thing out of that which is unclean?

The following statement by Mayor Jones, of Toledo, who has become a prominent figure in Ohio politics, is to the point in this connection:–

"The great political parties in this country have been without a moral issue for the last quarter of a century. . . . They do not differ in their moral purposes. One is as bad as the other, and both are against the best interests of the greatest number. They are greedy for spoils and plunder. They do not care for social conditions. They do not seek to improve society. They foster nothing so much as place-getting. There is a constant evasion of real issues in the platforms and in the resolutions of public assemblages. No mention is made of the appalling condition of distress which exists among the masses in our cities. Not a word is said about the throngs of unemployed men and women, who are tramping the well-beaten road to beggary and crime. Everywhere in the public utterances of party leaders we hear a soothing and pleasant optimism that is wholly unsupported by the facts of our every-day life."

The two leading parties are friends of the liquor traffic. Over and over again has it been shown that no hope for temperance reform can rest with either of them. The prohibitionists and the W. C. T. U. have long since ceased looking to either for any help to the temperance cause. And what moral reform can be hoped for from a party which is so thoroughly immoral as to favor the traffic in strong drink?

Is it not perfectly plain that the most that can be hoped for in politics, as regards moral issues, is a compromise? But a compromise of this class is itself a surrender of moral principle. A compromise between right and wrong is always a defeat for the side of right. Christians cannot compromise with wrong; that is forbidden by Christianity. The devil can be satisfied with a compromise, always; the Lord, never. The Christian church can compromise with the world only by stepping down from the plane of Christianity.

And just this must be the result to the church if she persists to the end in her purpose to utilize the nation's political power for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. She herself will be dragged downward, the standard of moral truth and righteousness will be lowered, and the cause for which it stands, instead of being advanced, will suffer great defeat.

The power of God is the church's strength and safety; worldly power has always been to her a delusion and a snare.

"Two Distinct Realms" American Sentinel 14, 43 , pp. 674, 675.

THE new journal, Church and State, claims that the church and state are "one in the moral principles insisted upon, as far as law can regulate conduct."

In this respect this newest advocate of the union of church and state occupies the same old mistaken and fallacious ground that has always characterized, and which must always characterize, all advocacy of the union of church and state. That mistaken and fallacious ground is that the church and the state occupy the same field, but they are essentially one in their purposes.

Of course, if that were true there would be some reason in their joining themselves together. But nothing can be further from the truth than is that conception of things. The church and state occupy realms as distinct as our day and night.

The church is spiritual. The principles, the truths, and the work of the church are altogether spiritual. She makes her appeal to men wholly upon spiritual considerations; and appeals all together to the spiritual part of man.

On the other hand the state is only natural. It occupies only the realm of the natural. The men with whom it deals are natural men. The considerations upon which it proceeds, the principles which are followed by it, and the part of the man with which it deals, are all only natural and of this world only.

And in crossing the line of separation which, in the nature of things, exists between the church and the state, and mingling the spiritual and the natural–this is where the church always has made her great mistake, and has pleased herself with a most mischievous fallacy. And this is always only the consequence of the church's becoming herself more natural than spiritual.

Then having herself become more natural than spiritual, she seeks to influence men by natural considerations. This in itself is a fearful falling away. But the most mischievous part of the thing is that she seeks upon natural considerations and by natural would be means to influence men to spiritual things. This is utterly incongruous.

The church, claiming to be spiritual and being of right spiritual, has no right whatever to use any but spiritual means with which to influence men in spiritual things. And as the purposes and work of the church are of right only spiritual, it is certain that the church never can of right use any but spiritual means in accomplishing her purposes. To use temporal penalties to accomplish spiritual purposes, to use civil disabilities to secure recognition of moral obligation, is, so far as

675

the church is concerned, simply beating the air; but so far as the people are concerned it is cruel oppression and also absolutely vain.

The reason that ecclesiastical rulers in governments are always more oppressive and cruel than are merely civil rulers, is that the ecclesiastic, looking at all obligations of men in a moral and spiritual light, sees these things in a deeper and more intense sense than it is possible for one to see who views the obligations of men only in a natural and civil light. And the ecclesiastical rulers seeing things in a deeper and more intense sense, in enforcing upon natural men by natural means, these obligations as he sees them, he inevitably goes beyond all bounds of natural justice, outrages the sense of justice in men, and is a cruel oppressor who undermines public order.

For this reason no preacher has any right to sit in his study and exercise devotional functions, until he has attained a high plane of spiritual view, and discerns to an intense spiritual degree the viciousness of vice, and the enormity of sin, and then rush forth to brandish right and left the policeman's club over mayor and police as well as over those who are sunken in vice and laden without breaking sins. The gross inconsistency of such procedure is so apparent that it offends and repels the very ones who most need help, and would gladly receive help, if help were really offered.

Every preacher has the right, the divine right, it is indeed by his very profession his bounden duty, by diligent study and the exercise of every devotional function, to attain the highest possible plane of spiritual view and to discern to the most intense degree the enormity of vice and the deadly nature of sin. And when he has done all this then let him, in the depth of intense pity and the greatness and tenderness of divine love, go to the sin-laden and the lost with these SPIRITUAL WEAPONS ONLY. The perfect consistency of this course commends itself to everybody. It wins the confidence, if not the whole hearts, of those who need help, for it is genuine help that is offered. It commands the respect, the confidence, it and even the co-operation of mayor and police in a much easier way and to a far greater extent than it is possible to have in any other way.

Also on the other hand, on the side of the natural, the civil, all is then consistent. For, men who are merely civil rulers and who have no connection with the ecclesiastical or spiritual things, viewing things in the light of natural justice and civil order, when they enforce obligation or laws as they see it, are always within the bounds of natural justice and equity: the sober sense of justice and equity in the people approves it, and public order is conserved.

Therefore it is to the vital interest of every member of the state, in the interests of healthy public order, to see to it that no person who is of the church shall ever have anything to do with the affairs of the state. And it behooves every soul who is of the church to see to it that he himself shall hold themselves strictly within the realm of the spiritual, where he professes to belong.

Only thus can there be the true separation of church and state, which is according to Christianity. Otherwise there is a union of church and state, that inevitably involves untold evils which appear more and more as time may go on.
A. T. J.

"A Dreadful Harvest" American Sentinel 14, 43 , p. 679.

[Extract from an article entitled "The Harvest of Imperialism and Expansion," by Alonzo T. Jones, in the forthcoming "World's Harvest" edition of the Signs of the Times, dated November 29.]

TWO APOSTAMSIES

WHO does not know of the powerful and universal efforts that for years have been made, and are constantly being made, in the United States, even by the professed Protestant denominations, to secure here a firm union of church and state, to have the church power dominate the civil, and use it for her own ends? Who does not know of the dangerous progress that has been already made in this direction? Who does not know that all the branches of the national government–the legislated, the judicial, and the executive–have been officially committed to the union of religion and state in this nation? At the great biennial assembly of the Epworth League, held at Indianapolis last July, representative and official speakers with evident satisfaction recognized that there is even now a union of church and state in this nation.

Now, for professed Protestants anywhere to favor a union of church and state, or any recognition of religion by the state, is in itself a confession of apostasy. And for professed Protestants to do such a thing in the United States, where by every principle of its fundamental law the nation is pledged to the complete separation of religion, and particularly the Christian religion, and the state, is even double apostasy.

And what of the Republic itself? Is there not apostasy there also? Can the principles and the plain statements of the Declaration of Independence be repudiated and declared to be "falsehood palmed off by the devil upon a credulous world," as was publicly done in an imperialistic mass-meeting in Chicago, May 7, 1899,–can this be done without apostasy? Can the fundamental principles and precepts of a nation be disregarded and even repudiated by that nation, and those who steadfastly maintain those principles be denounced as traitors, without there being an apostasy of that nation? How could complete national apostasy be more plainly shown than in a nation's holding as traitors those who steadfastly maintain the fundamental principles of the nation? Yea, how could national apostasy be more plainly shown than in a nation's taking such a course that those who maintain the fundamental principles of the nation must, in so doing, "antagonize the Government" and incur the charge of treason?

Here, then, there is in this nation, as there was in the Roman nation, an apostasy in religion and church, and an apostasy from republicanism to imperialism in the state. And there is being steadily formed and fixed a union of these two apostasies, precisely as there was in the Roman nation. That union in the Roman nation made the Papacy; and this union in this American nation will make the image of the Papacy. And so history does repeat itself after every feature of that ancient great republic, and will so repeat itself unto the end.

"Thanksgiving and the Divine Guidance" American Sentinel 14, 43 , p. 682.

THE President has issued the customary annual Thanksgiving proclamation, setting apart November 30 as a day on which he advises that religious exercises "be conducted in the churches and meeting places of all denominations," and that "prayers may be offered to the Most High for a continuance of the divine guidance." He also recommends that "so far as may be found practicable, labor shall cease from its accustomed to oil, and charity abound for the sick, the needy, and the poor."

From this point of view, it is evident, all religions in the land that are represented by a congregation, no matter how they may conflict with one another, are considered equally good as a means of approaching the Most High. This impossible state of things must be assumed by the civil executive in order to avoid partiality and the arousing of religious controversy.

As regards the divine guidance to be sought, there is no doubt it is greatly needed. But a point which should be kept in mind in connection with this exercise, is that God has already given all men and nations directions for their guidance in his holy Word. It is useless to pray for guidance and not search the Word wherein are laid down the rules of all right conduct. To have exhorted the people to a study of the Scriptures would have been fully consistent with the rest of the proclamation.

The Word of God, however, would be searched in vain for any warrant for engaging in war; and if people are really anxious for divine guidance, they can find it abundantly on this point in the teachings of Christ and the apostles. But does the nation want to be guided that way?

November 9, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 44 , p. 689.

IN a very small and seemingly innocent act, one may indorse a very large and very evil principle.

WHEN the secular power puts forth its hand to mold and regulate that which is religious, must not the latter necessarily become more secularized than it was before?

THERE is "manifest destiny" enough for the American Republic in Asia, amidst its gathering whirlwind of political and martial strife, if that is the kind of destiny the Republic wants. And since an evil destiny is so manifest for the Republic in such a place, it is strange that intelligent Americans should counsel such a step.

LAWS are not designed to enforce rights upon the people, but only to protect people from molestation in enjoying their rights according to their own tastes and inclinations. Because every individual has a right to one day's rest in seven, it does not follow that this right ought to be enforced upon anyone.

NO HUMAN authority can rightfully undertake to say how any question which involves religious truth is settled, or whether it is settled or not. Every individual has an unalienable right to decide for myself what is the revealed will of God; and this right amounts to nothing if he cannot act in harmony with his belief.

WE are told that men ought to rest one day in seven; and this is true enough. We are told that if one man rests while others do business, he will suffer financial loss; and we do not deny this. But there is something more than this involved in the question of Sabbath-keeping. There is always the additional fact that Sabbath-keeping is by command of God, and this question of what God has commanded is inseparable from the subject. It is of no use to settle the other questions while this one is left unsettled; and this one can be settled for each person only by his own conscience and the Word of God. And therefore, as no human authority can settle this question, and is all other questions in Sabbath-keeping hinge upon this one, it is clear that the whole matter of Sabbath-keeping is beyond the province of human authority, and must be left for each person to settle for himself.

"Two Laws and Their Operation" American Sentinel 14, 44 , pp. 689, 690.

THE apostle Paul, speaking as a Christian and for every Christian, to the Romans, said: "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

Paul was a transgressor–a law-breaker; insomuch that he spoke of himself as the "chief of sinners." This is what he was when this divine law took hold of him–the law of God against whom he had transgressed. And that law set him free. This is not the way human law deals with the transgressor.

Human law, when it takes hold of the transgressor, shuts him up. It takes away his freedom. It restrains him, curtails his power. It puts a veto upon him. It is simply an acting negative, and is not meant to be anything more.

But far otherwise with the law of God, under the provisions of the gospel. In Jesus Christ, the law of God is altogether a positive force, operating upon the

690

transgressor not to curtail his power, not to put him under bonds or behind bars, but in the opposite direction. It is a law of liberty.

Human law contents against crime, and operates by shutting up the criminal; the divine law contents against sin, und [sic.] operates by liberating the sinner.

And under the present order of things, and so long as Jesus Christ remains the Saviour of sinners, the law of God is designed to operate only in this way. When finally that law takes effect upon the transgressor, merely as a law of condemnation, it will put him forever out of existence.

Is it not evident, then, that these two laws are altogether different in nature–different in their aims, in their operation, and in the spheres to which they belong? Is it not evident that these two systems will not blend into one, and that no human power can operate them both?

This being evident, as it must be, what only could be the outcome of an effort to incorporate the Bible into the civil law of the land, and so place "all Christian institutions, usages, and customs on an undeniable legal basis" in that law? This is what the National Reform party and its numerous and powerful allies are now aiming to do, and hope to do by their proposed "Christian Amendment" to the Constitution. Can anything else than a complete miscarriage of justice result from the attempt to blend two systems of law so essentially different in character? and must not the same result ensue from any act which embodies the principle of this unnatural and really impossible union?

This is why the SENTINEL stands opposed to every scheme which would make religion or a religious institution a subject of civil legislation.

"Let the Lord Decide It" American Sentinel 14, 44 , p. 690.

IN the correspondence columns of The Defender, organ of the New England Sabbath Protective League, we note this from a friend of that journal:–

"My heart weeps in agony of spirit many, many times, and groans with anguish, it seems to me like is Jesus felt. The time is short and the work is great. O Lord! fight thou by thy mighty Spirit working in the hearts of the people. Make them to see, hear and understand the Word and then repent and obey, for thy name's sake and thine own honor and glory."

We are glad to find in The Defender that to which we can heartily say, Amen! as we do to this. Here is a word from someone who is genuinely and deeply distressed at the sight of the immorality and wickedness that is evident on all sides, which is a feeling that does him honor, no matter if some of it is caused by what he sees of the desecration of Sunday. He honestly believes Sunday to be a sacred day and its desecration a sin, and we have no fault to find with a man for being honest in anything. And he prays that God may counteract the abounding wickedness by his "mighty Spirit working in the hearts of the people." This is the right kind of prayer, an addressed to the right place. Friends, address your prayers to God and not to the legislatures. God is not dead. He has vastly more power than have the legislatures, and is much more likely hear than they are; indeed, he is certain to hear every prayer made according to his will. And his will is plainly stated in his Word.

Why not let the Sunday issue be decided by an appeal to God, to whom the Sabbath day belongs? Let him settle it by working through his Spirit upon the people. The SENTINEL is in full sympathy with every prayer addressed to him to this effect.

"Sabbath Keeping and Moral Courage" American Sentinel 14, 44 , p. 690.

"A DAY of rest and worship," says the Ram's Horn, "has always been conceded not as a privilege, but as a right, to be enjoyed by every individual. But the time has come when it takes moral courage to insist upon this right for one's self, and to secure it for others."

Yes; it does require moral courage to exercise the right to Sabbath rest these days; but it has always required moral courage to obey a command of the Lord, in the face of the opposition of the vast confederacy of evil that is against God. But God supplies every believer in his Word with moral courage–courage not only to keep the Sabbath, but to go to the stake, if need be. And this is why Sabbath keeping does not need to be made a matter of legislation. All anybody needs to enable him to secure his right to Sabbath observance–to his rest on the seventh day–is simple belief in the Word of the Lord; in other words, faith. No human law is needed in the matter, save such as will prevent his being molested in the enjoyment of his right. When Sabbath observance is made a subject of legislation, it is taken out of the domain of faith, of conscience and moral courage, where it belongs, and transferred to the domain of forced action, where it does not belong at all.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 44 , p. 704.

AMS BETWEEN Sunday work and Sunday idleness, is there any question as to which will be the more productive of crime?

THE man who cannot get to church because a Sunday newspaper is thrown in his direction, will certainly never get far in the direction of heaven until he becomes better fitted to overcome spiritual obstacles. But a Sunday law will not qualify him in this respect.

WAMSHINGTON warned the nation against foreign entanglements; Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal and have the same unalienable rights; Abraham Lincoln said that no man was good enough to govern another man without that other's consent, and that the doing of such a thing was despotism. It is not strange therefore that the advocates of foreign conquest, in their efforts to justify the same, never quote from these American authorities.

THE command to keep the Sabbath is a command to sanctify one day of the week, and cannot therefore be kept by sanctifying two days of the week. Conscience tells an individual that he should sanctify–or set apart–a certain day of the week, by resting from his work, and the law, perchance, says that he must rest on a different day. Either, then, he must disregard the Sabbath command by sanctifying two days of the week, or he must disregard his conscience by sanctifying a day he believes to be the wrong one, or must disregard the law of the land. Which shall he do?

AMS the SENTINEL has much to say against reform ideas of certain religious or semi-religious societies, large and small, which have now become quite numerous in the land, we wish to say also that its columns are open to representatives of these organizations for the presentation of their side of the questions discuss, and we shall be pleased if any of them will avail themselves of this offer, in the interests of truth, stipulating only that they be able to state their views clearly and concisely, and within the limits of space which the SENTINEL can afford to give. And we will be governed by the same rules in replying. We challenge no one, but we wish to be fair with all whose ideas we condemn, and to show that we are contending now for our own advantage, but for the truth.

WE are told that "a degradation of morals usually follows a profanation of the Sabbath day." One would get the idea from this that the profanation of the Sabbath is the cause of the degradation of morals, instead of being as it really is, an effect of that degradation. There must first be a degradation of morals before there can be an immoral act; and therefore the profanation of the Sabbath, which is an immoral act, is not the source of the evil; and to reach that source the reformer must go back of Sabbath desecration.

THE effect of religious legislation upon the sinner is to force him either to give up his own religion, or to practice two religions at once.

RELIGIOUS legislation and religious liberty may be likened to a lion and the lamb,–they cannot lie down together.

THE law of God operates upon the heart through love; the law man operates through fear.

November 16, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 45 , p. 705.

WHEN the voice of the church is heard in the halls of legislation, it is silent in the courts of heaven.

CHRISTIANITY makes good men; and good men are the greatest need in all countries, at all times.

A LAW enforcing a religious observance, though it be a "dead letter," is a seed from which may grow the tall tree of church-and-state union.

A RULE of "Christian citizenship" is that a man ought to vote as he prays: but earthly politics affords no chance for a vote that is up to the level of Christian prayer.

THE church will seek in vain for power to reform the world, outside of that "upper room" where the disciples are fitted to receive "power from on high." There is no such room in the halls of state.

A LEGISLATURE may pass laws to enforce a command of God, but only God can give an adequate reason for obedience, or provide the power necessary to keep his law. Without God's reason in God's power, there can be no true obedience to him; and with these there can be no need of any aid from human power or wisdom.

THE reason why the world speedily went to the bad after the fall, is clearly stated in the first chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, and no Christian can have any doubt that the causes there assigned are the true ones. But there is given no hint that legislation could have reformed society after its lapse from right doing, or could even have stayed the tide of moral degeneration.

GOD would rather an individual should do wrong, than be forced to do right. There can indeed be no such thing as forced righteousness, for all righteousness must be of faith. And therefore no human law can command righteousness, and obedience to any human command is not righteousness according to the divine standard. Force is proper only in securing respect for personal rights.

"Christians and Good Citizens" American Sentinel 14, 45 , pp. 705, 706.

IN Jersey City, on a recent Sunday, the pastor of the First Congregational Church preached on the subject "Why Some Christians Ignore Politics," and arrive at some remarkable conclusions, according to the published report.

"Many Christians," he said, "are poor citizens. They are forever talking about the kingdom of God, but they forget that it is to be on earth, and that good government in our cities tends mightily to promote it."

We greatly doubt this alleged forgetfulness on the part of "many Christians," because we doubt whether they ever learned the doctrines in question. Certainly they never learned them from the authoritative source of Christian knowledge–the Word of God.

From that Word we learn that the kingdom of God is even now on the earth, but that it is a spiritual kingdom, one that "cometh not with observation," as do

706

the political kingdoms of earth. An attempt to set up the kingdom of God by earthly agencies, like "good government," is an attempt to make the kingdom of God come with "observation," or outward show, like an earthly kingdom, contrary to this declaration of the Scripture.

"The kingdom of God is within you," said Jesus to his disciples. Luke 17:20, 21. The body of the believer is the temple of God; his heart is the throne of God. In him and through him is done the will of God, and only where the will of God is done–only where God reigns–does the kingdom of God exist. The kingdom of God is not yet a visible kingdom on the earth because no where on the earth, save in the lives of the scattered believers, is the will of God done. The visible separation between the few who do his will and the many who resist his will, is not yet made, and must be made before the kingdom of God can be manifested as a visible kingdom of power and glory, as it is finally to be in the earth.

Now how can an individual "promote" the kingdom of God by being a "good citizen"? In other words–for this is what is meant by "good citizen"–how can he promote the kingdom of God by taking an active part in politics? Is the kingdom of God to be set up on the earth by a vote? No person who affirms this can have read Scripture to any purpose.

No theme is more prominent in the sacred Word than that of the coming of Jesus Christ, as a king, visibly, with power and "great glory," attended by the angels of heaven, to the earth, in the sight of all the nations. This is to be the end of the world. And what have "good government" and the ballot to do with this?

In one of his parables–that of the sower–the Saviour describes the process by which the kingdom of God is to be truly promoted in the earth. He declares that the preaching of the Word is the sowing of the seed mentioned in the parable, some of which falls upon poor ground and is lost, while other falls upon good ground, where it springs up and bears fruit, which is for the kingdom of God. What have voting in politics to do with this? In another parable Jesus said that with the good seed that is sown, the enemy of all goodness sows "tares," which spring up and grow together with the wheat, until the harvest, of which he says, "The harvest is the end of the world." He says that when the harvest is come, "the Son man shall send forth his angels," and they "shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them that do iniquity," to burn them up.

This is the way God is appointed to purify society and set up his kingdom visibly in the earth, and in it there is no suggestion of any political agency. The work is done now by the sowing of the seed–the preaching of the Word–which springs up and bears fruit in the heart that is sanctified by faith; and finally, when all is ripe for the harvest, God himself will separate the tares from the wheat–the wicked from the just–by the agencies of heaven; and that separation will last forever. The wicked will be no more, and the meek will inherit the earth; but the man who has been looking to politics and "good government" to see the kingdom of God come forth and be set up in the earth, will find that he has looked in altogether the wrong direction. The greatest event of earthly history will take him by surprise, and he will fall before it.

To the Christian, the voice of duty calls to activity in sowing the good seed of the divine Word, from which is to come the grain from the heavenly garner. This, to the Christian, is all-important, and without it he would not be doing the best that he knows. And if this is incompatible with good citizenship, he must be content to be called a poor citizen. But the greatest need of the world to-day, as always, is the need of good men; and if "good citizens" are a different class from good men, the country's need of "good citizenship" has been vastly overstated. The Christian must first and before all things be a Christian; and if Christianity be true he is doing in this way the utmost that any man can do for the establishment of that good government for which the earth has groaned since time began.

"The Constitution, and Slavery in the Philippines" American Sentinel 14, 45 , pp. 706-708.

THE exposure of the provisions of the treaty made by the United States with the Sultan of the Sulus, by which polygamy and slavery both exist in places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, has called forth replies from responsible sources.

That there is considerable sensitiveness on the subject is evident from these replies. That the compromising situation into which the nation has been thrown by this arrangement, is plainly enough discerned is certain; and that it is felt to be indefensible is also plain from the limping and even self-contradictory defenses that are offered.

For a cabinet officers reported as having stated that–

"It is absolutely false that this Government has recognized slavery or contemplates giving such recognition. Slavery is distinctly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and cannot be permitted in any place under American jurisdiction. In the Southern Pine Islands and among the Sulus there is slavery; but as soon as peace is restored in Luzon, arrangements will be made for freeing the slaves and preventing such bondage in the future."

That is an interesting statement, under all the circumstances. First, it is declared to be "absolutely false" that the United States has recognized slavery in the Sulus. Yet, about the same time that this statement was made, President Schurman, of the Philippine Commission, not only admitted that slavery is recog-

707

nized by the United States under the bargain with the Sultan of the Sulus, but proceeded to give explanations as to what must be so. President Schurman being one of the agents through whom the arrangement was made, his words are conclusive that it is not "absolutely false," nor false at all.

Next the Constitution is quoted as proof that there is no slavery in the Sulus. That is, because the Constitution says that slavery shall not exist in a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the Sulus are subject to this jurisdiction, therefore there is no slavery in the Sulus! It is so merely because the Constitution says so.

Yet that it is not so is confessed in the very next sentence, saying, "In the Southern Pine Islands, and in the Sulus, there is slavery." Whether it is recognized or not, it is confessedly there. Therefore, confessedly, slavery does exist in places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: and this, confessedly, in spite of the Constitution which declares that it shall not so exist. And all this by a bargain made, and under the Administration, of men who take an oath to support the Constitution.

Another defense is that provision is made in the treaty by which the slaves can buy their freedom. But no one has offered any explanation of how a slave is to buy his freedom when he possesses nothing and never received anything of his own, when himself with all that he ever can have is absolutely his masters. If that is to be the surety against slavery under the jurisdiction of the United States, then it is quite certain that slavery will always exist there.

Another defense, this one put forth by the Chicago Times-Herald, proceeds upon President Schurman's explanation and confesses not only that there is slavery there, but that it must continue unmolested except by "the leaven of civilization." This may seem surprising, and it is; but that it is true, all may read for themselves. Here is the editorial from the Times-Herald, of November 2:–

"OUR POLICY TOWARD THE SULUS

"The possible continuance of slavery and polygamy in the Sulu Islands under our arrangement with the Sultan has provoked a storm of hostile criticism. Moreover, . . . a large part of it proceeds from non-political sources.

"It is undoubtedly abhorrent to the general sentiment of the country that either slavery or polygamy should be tolerated beneath the American flag. The great war which liberated the negro is held to have been a culminating sacrifice which should make human bondage inadmissible wherever our sovereignty is established, and the present vigorous campaign against the seating of Roberts, of Utah, in Congress, demonstrates the intense feeling against the custom of plural marriages, which is equally repugnant whether it is observed by Mohammedan or Mormon. No religious guise can change its essential immorality.

"The outcry over the Sulu agreement is, therefore, perfectly intelligible. But President Schurman, of the Philippines commission, meets it with a conclusive answer. First, he considers our actual legal rights, and says truly that we have none except such as were bequeathed to us by Spain. But Spain was bound by promises not to interfere with the religion or customs of the islands, and if we ignore those promises we shall have to acquire a new title by conquest. This, we may add, would be a 'war of aggression' with a vengeance. It would create an entirely new situation and class us unequivocally among land-grabbing nations.

"The dilemma forces us to review once more the proper scope of the colonial policy which can never be successful unless the most scrupulous regard is had for local beliefs, prejudices, traditions, and customs. If we are not disposed to acknowledge that such perplexities as they give rise to are inevitable and not to be overcome by an autocratic fiat, then we are not prepared for the mission that is plainly implied in the scheme of expansion. We might as well own to failure now.

"But are the circumstances of the case such as to drive us to this confession? Can we not adapt ourselves to new obligations as other countries have done? Surely that is impossible, if we have the practical genius and the common sense which we boast and with which we are generally credited.

"The error of the critics consists in their overlooking the responsibilities which are ours legitimately, and in their insisting upon a moral responsibility which does not of right belong to us. We have to accept the Sulu Islands as we find them. Their are bad customs are our inheritance, but not our fault. No other nation can charge us with them, and when we come to take up the problem of reform we should attempt its solution after the most promising methods. We must work slowly, and, as President Schurman says, through "the leaven of civilization."

"Gradually we may bring about the desired change, and the gain will be the island's gain, our own, and the world's. But arbitrary measures would lead to a long and fierce religious and race war, and the abandonment of the group would consign it to eternal anarchy and barbarism. Can there be any doubt as to which is the best of the three policies that are suggested?"

From this it is manifest also that it is understood and intended that a colonial policy can be followed by the United States, only by following the example of other countries. But in a double sense this cannot be done without abandoning the Constitution.

First, because other colonizing countries have not written constitutions. Precedent, that which they have done, being the only obligation upon them, they can easily enough and consistently adapt themselves to "local believes, prejudices, traditions and customs" in their colonies. And to say that the United States should or can follow their example, is at once to argue that this nation must abandon its written Constitution and proceed only on precedent, and that the precedent of other countries!

Secondly: It cannot be done without abandoning the Constitution; because a colonial policy after the ex-

708

ample of other countries can be followed only by the recognition of local customs and institutions which the Constitution expressly prohibits. And since the Constitution prohibits such local customs and institutions as slavery, which the colonial policy must recognize or else plunge the nation into a religious and race war of conquest, it is certain that if the colonial policy is followed the Constitution must go. And since it is settled by those who are the responsible ones, that the colonial policy must be followed, it is by them just as certainly settled that in all the colonial region the Constitution does not apply.

And all this is being steadily carried on before the eyes of all the people, and is really expected to be popular!

It is no wonder that the most of the "hostile criticism" of this polygamy and slavery embroglio comes from "non-political sources." Because these non-political sources of which the SENTINEL is one, not being cumbered with the demands of policy, treat the matter from the standpoint of principle only–the fundamental principle of free and enlightened government before the world.
A. T. J.

"The 'Essence' of Christian Citizenship" American Sentinel 14, 45 , p. 709.

THE editor of Church and State, are formerly the Christian Citizen, says that "to stand with the administration on this ground is, to our conception, the very essence of Christian Citizenship," and then states the "ground" to which he has reference by quoting this from The Outlook:–

"The responsibility for the protection of person and property in the Philippines having fallen in our hands, we could not rid ourselves of that responsibility by the resolve 'to pull out some dark night in escape from the great problem of the Orient as suddenly and as dramatically as we got into it.' It was not the duty of the Good Samaritan to leave his business and to devote his life to hunting for wounded travelers; but when the wounded traveler's cry came to his ears, it brought a duty of humanity with it. The events of the war laid both Cuba and the Philippines and our pathway; to pass by on the other side and leave them to their fate because it is not for our interest to set them on their feet would be only one degree less criminal than to participate in the original robbery. We are to ask ourselves, not what is our interest, but what is our duty, and the answer to that question is plain now, as it was plain six months ago: it is to protect life and liberty, preserve order, suppress violence, establish justice founded upon law; in short, to secure 'in both Cuba and the Philippines a substantial government.'"

Is this the Christian citizenship conception of the Good Samaritan–a conception which would make him attack the victim of the robbers, and wound him still further, before doing anything for his relief? What value would there have been in that terrible if the Good Samaritan had been pictured in that light, or had been described as making a deal with the robbers for the possession of what the victim happened to have left?

Christian Citizenship says, in this quotatation [sic.], that it is the duty of American Christians to "protect life and property in the Philippines–how?–By shooting people and burning up their towns! It is "to preserve order" and "suppress violence"–how?–By using violence upon the people, in the way best calculated to produce disorder! It is "to establish justice founded upon law"–how?–By denying justice, as defined in the Declaration of Independence and founded on the American Constitution! It is to secure there "substantial government" by erecting a military despotism!

We have seen it stated that killing people in battle is compatible with Christianity, and people professing Christianity go to battle excusing their action on the ground that Christianity does not absolutely forbid it. But it has remained for "Christian Citizenship" to justify the slaughter of military combats as being not only a civic but a Christian duty. For–to repeat–it "is the very essence of Christian Citizenship" to "stand with the Administration on this ground."

Surely, it is an extraordinary kind of Christian duty to which the worst criminals take more readily than do any other class–this "Christian" duty of killing people! If this belongs to the essence of "Christian Citizenship," then plainly "Christian Citizenship" is essentially anti-Christian.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 45 , p. 720.

THE idea that Christians should not engage in politics is to some good people quite horrifying. What! the best people in the land withdraw and let the country's politics be run by the very worst! Dreadful! What would become of the government! etc. The thought brings up in their minds pictures of anarchy, barbarism, and governmental chaos.

But, good friends, the truth is the government would not be affected at all by the withdrawal of Christians from politics; for the simple reason that real Christians in this country–or in any country–are too scarce to make any impression, politically, upon the government. Real Christian people have not been running the government at all; it is the bad people who have been running it all the time. Anybody who denies this must be prepared to prove that Christians in this country are in the majority, in defiance of all statistics and the commonest facts of observation.

THE important question is not, Shall there be an extension of American territory? but shall there be an extension of American principles of government? An extension of the former by conquest means a fearful narrowing of the latter.

November 23, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 46 , p. 721.

IT is not the name of the thing, but the principle it embodies, that determines its character.

WHEN a Protestant church goes into politics, it becomes papal in everything but its name.

TO "PUT God into the Constitution," is to try to harness a God of love to a government of force.

EVERY Sunday law, or other religious statute, represents an attempt of the legislature to be conscience for the people.

SOME good people look so steadfastly at the legal aspect of affairs that they lose sight altogether of their moral aspect.

THE man who assumes to be good enough to govern another man without the latter's consent, assumes to better than God.

THE representative of military power comes to the heathen as their master; the Christian comes to all people as their servant.

POLITICALLY, a man accounts for but one; but as a Christian, he counts for one, and God. And yet some church people think a Christian's vote represents his real and practical value in the community.

NECESSITY interfering with duty is like an irresistible force meeting and immovable obstacle. The one in whose experience this occurs is making some mistake in his calculations.

A SABBATH which rests on the authority God, has no need of support from the infinitely-lower authority of man; and when such authority is deemed necessary in support of the sabbath day, is it not plain evidence that the authority of God, as regards the day, has been repudiated?

"The Example of Pilate" American Sentinel 14, 46 , pp. 721, 722.

PEOPLE say they have to work on the Sabbath; they will lose their positions if they do not work that day, because their employers want them to work. So they are obliged (they say) to disobey the command of God.

It ought to be instructive to these persons to read the closing chapter or two in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and consider how Pontius Pilate was really obliged to crucify Jesus Christ. He had to do it or lose his position; and, of course, he had to keep his position, did not? If this is necessary now, why was it not so then? The Jews stood ready to accuse Pilate of being an enemy of Cesar and a traitor to the Roman government; so that Pilate was likely not only to lose his position, but his head as well! Surely, then, Pilate was justified in breaking the command of God, if ever such an act could be justified. He tried to persuade himself thus, and brought water and washed his hands before

722

the Jews, to clear himself in the matter. But did he clear himself?

Pilate was warned of God not to yield to his fears and commit the act which was urged upon him by considerations of his personal welfare. But he disregarded the warning, telling himself that he had to do it.

Friends, don't follow the example Pilate. Pilate in a terrible mistake.

"Christian Expansion" American Sentinel 14, 46 , p. 722.

WE are in favor of expansion. But we are Christians, and therefore the expansion of which we are in favor is Christian expansion.

What then is Christian expansion? To this the Text-Book of Christianity will give an answer.

Go back in thought through the centuries, to the year 33 A. D. Picture in your mind a scene described in the gospel narratives–the risen Saviour standing in the midst of a little group of his disciples, and saying to them, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature;" "and teach all nations. . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." From that small center the doctrines of Christianity were, in the purpose of God, to spread out and out and out into all the world, to every nation and people, teaching and establishing everywhere the divine principle of love toward God and all men. This is Christian expansion.

And this expansion is still going on in the world, in the final fulfillment of the great Christian commission. This is the expansion in which we believe; and in what other kind can any Christian believe consistently?

"Being Conscience for Others" American Sentinel 14, 46 , p. 722.

AN article by the Rev. Lyndon S. Crawford, on "Sunday Labor Under Government Authority," in The Independent, concludes with a statement:–

"We feel that, with no injustice to the immigrant, we can appeal to the Christian conscience of the American people to see that the faithful employees of the United States Government should no longer be denied that which is the right of every American citizen, and the divine right of every one of God's children–viz.: rest on God's day rest day."

Here as an appeal to the "Christian conscience of the American people," in behalf of a certain class of the American people, to secure for the latter "rest on God's rest day." What ought the American people to do in the matter?

Rest on God's rest day is a command of God, and every command of God is binding upon the conscience. The employes in question are therefore, in conscience bound to heed the command of God and take "rest on God's rest day," without regard to consequences. Should the appeal to conscience in this matter, therefore, not be made to them, rather than to "the American people" to be conscience for them? Can any good–can anything but harm–come from the attempt of one set of people to be conscience for another?

We do not want people to be forced to work when they need rest, or when they are in duty bound to rest (though it is to be noted there is no divine command for Sunday rest); but we would not have them think they are gaining what they need, by allowing other people to be conscience for them. No moral question can ever be settled in such a way; and the recipients of such fancied moral aid will only be left worse off, morally, than they were before.

"Not a Duty of Congress" American Sentinel 14, 46 , p. 722.

The Examiner, a leading Baptist organ, in looking forward to the coming session of Congress, is impressed with the idea that "One of the first duties of Congress, when it reassembles, is to provide an adequate number of chaplains for our increased army in the Philippines."

As the army in the Philippines is kept there not for spiritual ends, but to end all armed resistance to American authority, it is proper to inquire what interest Congress can have in the question of the adequate supply of chaplains.

What Congress wants of the army in the Philippines is that it shall fight well, and thus thoroughly and speedily overcome the "insurrection." Unless the chaplains will render the soldiers more efficient as fighters, of what else can they be in the line of that which alone the soldiers have been sent to the islands to do?

It is proper of course to feel an interest in the spiritual welfare of soldiers, as of other classes of men, and to provide for them those who will labor for their spiritual benefit. But this is not a matter that can come into the concern of Congress–a body appointed to represent the people merely in a civil capacity.

If chaplains are to be sent to the Philippines, let them be sent and maintained by the respective churches.

"Two Methods of Civilizing the Heathen" American Sentinel 14, 46 , pp. 725, 726.

IN the Philippine Islands, the military forces of the United States, are enforcing submission of the people to the authority of this Government, for the avowed purpose of uplifting the people from barbarism and conferring on them the blessings of civilization. In the process it has been found necessary to put down by force of arms a strong resistance by the natives to American domination, and the results up to date are that a large section of the principal island has been devastated by war, thousands of the natives have been killed or wounded, and the lives of hundreds of American soldiers have likewise been sacrificed. What the future may bring of further sacrifice of life in securing the enforcement of American authority there, no one can say; but it is certain that the bitter hatred of their conquerors engendered in the minds of the natives, is a result that will endure for years to come.

This is one method that is being employed to uplift and bless, in the name of Christian civilization, the heathen of the Pacific Isles. Happily, it is not the only one.

There is another and radically different method that is being employed in other islands of that region, and to call attention to this, in contrast with what is being done in the Philippines, is our purpose here. This other method and its results are described in the following by the Rev. Frances M. Price, on "Mission Work and Opportunities in the Pacific Islands," contributed by him to The Independent:–

"In 1852 the good ship 'Caroline' carried the first missionaries into the remote islands of Micronesia. Now, after 47 years, what do we find as a result of the missionary invasion of this island world?

"1. Sixty distinctively religious communities have been established. Each mission station was from the first, a center of evangelistic and educational work. The choicest young people were gathered into schools, and train for Christian service. They were also taught to cut and make clothes, to handle implements and tools and to build churches and dwelling houses. The spiritual life was made especially intense. Victory over ordinary temptations and besetting sins received merited approval. Young people, imbued with the spirit and purpose of the teachers, went forth to teach in other communities.

"Their success has been marvelous. Wars and fighting has ceased, the people now engaged in the quiet pursuits of peace and enact over again life and work of the Mission Station. They build churches, and make them the centers of their political, social and religious life; they flock to the schools and learn to read and write and other useful things; they settle disputes in council and unite in marriage according to law; they begin and close the day with public worship in the church, singing simple hymns and listening to the reading of the Word in prayer, and they maintain the family altar and make at the center of their home life.

"2. Christianity has wrought a striking change in the lives of the people. 'Old things are passed away; all things are become new. They cast off the heathen dress and ornaments, cut their hair, wash themselves and put on the dress of civilization. The latter is the badge of Christianity.

"The face, too, is changed. The weak, coarse, listless, and, in repose, hopeless look disappears when once the Master begins to write his name in their foreheads.

"The arts of civilization are coming in apace. Schooners which once carried tobacco, beads and trinkets for barter now take cargoes of prints, denims, sewing machines, useful implements and tools and sandal-wood boxes. Hats are manufactured, wooden floors put in houses, and stone churches are erected.

"3. Christianity has created a new public sentiment and new ideals. The popular man from being the most cruel and heartless has come to be the one who can best answer questions in the church services and lives the most consistent life.

"The last case of polygamy disappeared from one island two years ago because the parties could not resist the tide of popular opinion. Public sentiment believes in the Christian home and seeks to protect it. The chief men of a large island recently discussed in a council how they might best restrain offenders against the marriage vow and the rights of private property.

"Parents now want their children to be in school and take a pardonable pride in their attainments; pupils vie with each other in generous rivalry for the first place in their classes; and the brightest and most diligent boy in school is the favorite. Moreover Christian character is now the ideal character, and Christian virtues receive the highest praise. A few months ago word reached our people in Ruk that William, a faithful Ponape teacher, had been arrested, and that Henry Nanepei, a Christian chief, had stood by him during his trial at the risk of life and property, and secured his release. This deed of heroism was greatly admired; young men spoke enthusiastically the noble conduct of this Christian chief.

"Never had a man a sweeter face–a more gentle and lovable character–than Moses, a Ponape Christian. In Ruk, where he has been a teacher on one of the largest islands for twemty years, he is the confidential advisor chiefs, both heathen and Christian, and exerts a wide influence over all classes.

726

"No great intellectual achievements can yet be chronicled, and mental and moral weakness is the general characteristic. But the tide is rising–intellectually, morally and spiritually–and things once in the mire and slime are being lifted up and purified. With churches and schools, daily instruction in the Word of God and elementary branches of knowledge, the arts and customs of civilized life displacing the old heathenism, an increasingly wholesome public sentiment and Christian ideals of attainment and character, future progress is assured.

"They are a happy people now for their God is the Lord. The voice of singing is constantly heard in their dwellings, groups of young people are accustomed to sit on the beach during the long evenings and make music in hymns of praise to Jehovah, and the shout of battle and wailing of the slain are no longer heard. And more, the people are now ready to welcome good government. While the United States is calling for 100,000 men to subdue and garrison the Philippines, Germany is quietly taking possession of the Carolines without a soldier or the firing of a gun. Why? The latter people have been subdued under the blood-stained banner of the Son of God, and their islands garrisoned with Christian churches, schools and teachers. . . .

"We plead for these lost islanders. They respond so quickly to Christian teaching, they are so dull and wretched and can be made so bright and happy by the Gospel that every dictate of reason and humanity urges obedience to our Lord's last command. . . .

"The time is opportune. Every island in this remote sea should have a Christian teacher, and have him now."

And now, in the face of this, can anyone tell us why it is necessary to blast the Philippine Islands with war, to fill them with widows and orphans, to instil hatred and every evil passion in the hearts of the people–to say nothing of making widows and orphans in America–in order that those islands may receive the blessings of "Christian civilization?" Can anyone tell us why the facts set forth in this missionary report do not constitute a most fearful indictment against the method of civilizing that is being employed to produce civilization in the Philippines? And can anyone tell us why any Christian should for a moment give his sanction to the latter method?

The AMERICAN SENTINEL is always and unqualified plea in favor of that method of civilizing the island races, which brings with it no destruction of life and property, aims not at humiliating the people by the dominating arm of military power, stirs up no evil passions, but seeks only to develop what is good, to bless all in body and soul, to make all happy, prosperous, contented, and that has so wonderfully succeeded in all this in the darkest lands of heathendom. And who is not in favor of the same?

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 46 , p. 736.

TO invade an individual's rights in order to forestall others who might treat him worse, is only to do evil that good may come.

WHEN you ask an individual to surrender his natural rights, you ask God to give up his rights in relation to that individual.

HE who surrenders the right of self-government will contend in vain for the right to freedom to worship God. For, having made the surrender, the very foundation of all his rights is gone.

AMS a church where each individual is religiously free is a protest against popery, so a state where each one is politically free is a protest against kingeraft. The American Republic was in this sense a Protestant state. But now, like the Protestant church, it is ceasing to protest.

THE Sovereign of the universe will save in His kingdom everyone who freely consents to His sovereignty. All others will be destroyed, not because they will not let God rule over them, but because there is no way for them to escape the demands of justice in respect to their evil deeds.

GOD requires every individual of every race, nation, tribe, and color, to conform his conduct strictly to the rules of right embodied in his eternal law; in other words, to govern himself. And this is God's answer to the doctrine that only the white man is fit for or capable of self-government.

THE business of land-grabbing can go on among the "powers" without very much friction so long as there is land left that can be had merely by resting it from savage or semi-civilized people. But by and by, the powers will come into close contact with each other in making a final adjustment of things, and then will come for action that will mean worldwide war. And a dark day will that be for the nations.

THE assertion of inalienable rights for all men, made by the Declaration of Independence, is based on the recognition of God as the Creator; and to ask a person to surrender the idea that all men have the same natural rights, is to ask him to surrender his recognition of the Supreme Being. Hence it is a direct blow at liberty of conscience.

November 30, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 47 , p. 737.

TRUE reform starts in the heart not in the legislature.

THE God of injustice can never be recognized by an act of justice

THE Government is no more a human personality than "Uncle Sam" of cartoon fame, is a real being.

SUBTRACT for sum of individual accountability to God from national accountability, and there is nothing left.

THE person who says the Government ought to execute the will of God, always assumes to be the mouthpiece of God for the authority declaration of his will. It is folly to try to "recognize God" by putting into the Constitution that which would deny God-given rights. God would not recognize such a "recognition."

MORAL and religious accountability cannot exist apart from moral and religious freedom. No one can be held responsible for that in which he can exercise no choice.

POLITICALLY, Christians are but a drop in the bucket; but religiously, they are the "salt of the earth." The earth is preserved not by Christian votes, but by Christian lives.

NO GOVERNMENT can be for religion without at the same time being against religion; for no religion can be named that is not contrary to some other religion. The government ought to be against no religion; and it can be so only by being non-religious.

THE greatest foe of Sabbath observance is not the Sabbath newspaper, or the Sabbath excursion, or any other thing of human device or manufacture; but the carnal heart. While this holds the citadel, all efforts to make the individual a Sabbath keeper will be useless.

"Religious Representation in Government" American Sentinel 14, 47 , pp. 737, 738.

A MEMBER of Congress or of a State legislature, a judge, or any other official of civil government, is chosen to represent the people only in a purely civil capacity. And as that which is purely civil has no connection with religion, the legislator, judge, or other government official, can have anything to do, as an official, with religion. He can concern himself with religion only in his private individual capacity. In religion, he can represent only himself. As a representative of others, is nothing to do with religion.

"Then," says one, "according to this, as a representative of the people he can throw religion and morality to the winds, let any evil become rampant in society, and have no responsibility in the matter!" Can he?

No; that is not what we say. Yet the "National Reform" party and their allies persistently hold this up as the only alternative to their doctrine that the legislature or other civil official ought to guard the religious as well as the secular interests of the people.

738

Every representative of the people is bound, everywhere and always, by the laws of morality, and in morality and religion, must always represent himself, whether in public office or out of it. Public office does not in the least shield him from personal condemnation for wrongdoing. But he is not in public office to represent the moral or religious beliefs of the people. In such matters he is bound by his own belief, and by that only.

What is moral? and what is immoral? What religious beliefs are true? and what false? These are questions that are in dispute. The people are not in agreement concerning them. Some people say the theater is immoral; others say it is not. Some say the use of tobacco is immoral; others say it is not. Some say that doing secular work on Sunday is it immoral; others say it is not; and so on. The diversity in religious beliefs needs no illustration. These conflicting beliefs cannot be represented in the civil government; no person can at one and the same time, stand for beliefs that are in conflict with each other.

The legislator is a representative of the people. He is asked by certain ones to work for the enactment of a law for the observance of Sunday. But some of those whom he represents, and for whom he acts in his official capacity, do not believe in the sacredness of Sunday. Others whom he represents–who have chosen him to act for them–do not believe in the sacredness of any day. He cannot work for a Sunday law without misrepresenting some of those who have put him in office. Neither could he work for the passage of a law against Sunday observance, or for a law against religion. He must simply leave religion alone, taking no action for or against it. As a public official, he is neither religious nor irreligious, but non-religious.

Suppose he is asked to vote for measure which he believes will work moral injury to the community,–as a law allowing the circulation of pernicious literature, or permitting immoral shows, or favoring the sale of intoxicants. Can he be morally free to vote for such measures, and justify it on the ground that as a representative of the people, he is not within the sphere of religion or morals?–No; certainly not. While he is not within the sphere of morals as a representative, he is always within that sphere as an individual, and can never escape individual accountability for his acts. He was refused to sanction, as a legislator, what he believes to be morally wrong, not because of the ideas of other people, but because of his own belief. He must refuse it, acting not for other people, but for myself; bound by a personal responsibility from which he can never become divested.

Suppose, however, that he has been chosen to office by people who want him to sanction a measure against which his conscience revolts. What then? In that case he is still bound by his own personal responsibility to do right. He must refuse to be the representative of such people. He cannot violate his conscience, but he can resign his office.

The common ground upon which all classes can stand in the affairs of government is this: "All men are created equal," and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." "To preserve these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." People have diverse beliefs, but no diversity of rights. In respect of their rights, they can choose a representative to act for them. And he, in his actions as representative, must consider and be guided by the question, What are the rights of the people? Questions of morals and of religious belief must be acted upon and settled in other ways than by the action of representatives of the people.

And even though there were no conflict of beliefs concerning morals and religion, so that there could be representation of the people in this respect, it would still be altogether wrong. For in religion and morals, one person cannot act for another. Moral responsibility cannot be delegated. Each one is morally responsible for his own account, and this is God's eternal plan for all. Each one being thus morally accountable before God, each one has an unalienable right to decide for himself questions of morality and religion. In a true sense, from the Christian point of view, there is no distinction between morality and religion; Christianity includes all morality. And every person has an undeniable right to decide for himself what Christianity is, and whether he will be bound by it or not. For a mistake or for wrong doing in this, he is accountable alone to God.

As soon as force is brought to bear on an individual for moral or religious reasons, there is an invasion of his unalienable right to conform his conduct morally and religiously to his own belief in what is right. And to invade man's right is to deny and set aside the right of Him who ordained rights on earth, to interfere with His purposes for mankind for this life and for a life beyond. If any person's belief respecting morality or religion leads him into acts which invade another person's rights, then he can properly be restrained by civil force; not upon moral or religious grounds, but because civil governments are instituted to preserve rights. This is American doctrine, and the only rule by which we can render to Cesar what is Cesar's, and to God that which is Gods' [sic.].

"The National W. C. T. U. on Record" American Sentinel 14, 47 , pp. 739, 740.

IN the late National W. C. T. U. convention, held at Seattle, Wash., the following resolution was introduced for adoption:–

"Resolved, That as a National Woman's Christian Temperance Union we protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of our work as shall give aid or comfort to those who, through ignorance, prejudice, or malice, would enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purpose of persecution, or to in any manner to interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance."

This was vigorously opposed by the national superintendent of Sunday observance, and several presidents of State unions; and finally the following substitute was offered "as involving all necessary points, and omitting the objectionable ones" in the original resolution:–

"Resolved, That we favor the amendment of all State Sunday laws which do not contain the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day."

The substitute was adopted by the convention. From the statement of the author of the substitute there are "objectionable points" in that original resolution. Now we ask every soul to look that resolution through carefully, word by word, weigh it, consider it in all its bearings from beginning to end, and mark any objectionable point that it is possible to find.

According to the situation as it stands, it is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of W. C. T. U. work as shall give aid and comfort to those who, through ignorance, prejudice, or malice, would enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purposes of persecution.

Accordingly, therefore, to the W. C. T. U., it is not an objectionable thing for any body through ignorance, prejudice, or malice so to use any lines of W. C. T. U. work as to enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purpose of persecution.

That is to say: It is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution. It is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution even by those who through prejudice or malice would persecute.

It is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of W. C. T. U. work as shall in any manner interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance.

Accordingly, therefore, it is not an objectionable thing for anybody so to use any lines of W. C. T. U. work as to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance.

It is not an objectionable thing to the National W. C. T. U. for anybody to use the machinery and material of the W. C. T. U. so as to interfere with liberty of conscience concerning days in a matter of their observance.

This is only to confirm the previous "point" that it is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution; it is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. even to protest against the use of their material and machinery, even by the prejudiced and malicious, in persecuting; it is not, to the National Union, an objectionable thing for anybody, even in prejudice in malice, to use the material and machinery of the National W. C. T. U. to persecute concerning days and the matter of their observance.

So the National W. C. T. U. has taken its position, has written itself down, and has published itself to the world. Assuredly, therefore, it was proper and most timely that a member should give notice, as was given, "that at the next annual convention I, or some one in my place, will offer the following amendment to the constitution:–

"ARTICLE VI.–PLANS OF WORK

"Nothing shall ever be incorporated into any plan of W. C. T. U. work, by department or otherwise, which must of necessity become the occasion of sectarian controversy, or which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience."

Now let it be understood that we do not say that the National W. C. T. U. consciously, intentionally, and of forethought, put themselves thus on record as not objecting to persecution or interference with liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance. We are perfectly satisfied and free to say that the women of the convention did what they did without any consideration at all of the real thing that they were doing. It is evident that they allowed their zeal for Sunday and Sunday laws so to blind them to all merits of the resolution before them, that all calmness of consideration was forgotten; and that in this "state of mind" they rushed it out of the way of whatever means possible. And in the doing of this, they committed themselves to the declaration that it is objectionable for anybody to ask them to protest against

740

the use of their material and machinery to persecute and to interfere with liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance.

In is a good thing that the National Union has a whole year before it, in which to consider and to look soberly at what they really did; and then in next annual convention correct the mistake in which they allowed themselves to be hurried.

And having considered the subject for a whole year, then, at the next annual convention, will they really correct their mistake? or will the confirm it?
A. T. J.

"A Great Difference" American Sentinel 14, 47 , p. 740.

THE following from the works of John Adams (second President of the United States), is quoted by the Christian Statesman, organ of the National Reform Association:–

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for the only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged, in conscience, to temperance and frugality and industry; to justice and charity toward his fellow-men, and to piety, love, and reverence for the Almighty. In this commonwealth no man would impair his health by gluttony, drunkenness, or lust; no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards or to any other trifling and mean amusement; no man would steal or lie, or in any way defraud his neighbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men; no man would blaspheme his Maker or profane his worship; but a rational, a manly, a sincere and unaffected piety and devotion would reign in all hearts. What a Utopia, what a Paradise with this region be!"–(Works of John Adams, Vol. II., pp. 6 and 7.)

"What is here pictured forth," adds a Statesman, "is what the National Reform movement seeks to make a reality in our nation."

Is that so? Let us see.

"Every member," says Adams, under the condition named, "would be obliged, in conscience, to temperance and frugality and industry; to justice and charity," etc. "Obliged in conscience," says Adams; "Obliged by law!" says the National Reform party. Only this difference; but it is a difference as wide as the world.

The AMERICAN SENTINEL, which has opposed the National Reform movement from the first, makes no objection at all to moral reforms which are to be enforced only by conscience.

"Note" American Sentinel 14, 47 , p. 740.

SINCE the Government speaks always with the voice of man, when it speaks in the domain of religion it puts man in the place of God. Every moral duty, to be binding on man, must be defined and commanded by the voice of infallibility.

"They Should Recognize This Also" American Sentinel 14, 47 , p. 740.

IN the recent national convention of the W. C. T. U., a report of work done the past year in promoting "Sabbath observance" was read, in which it was said:–

"The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, recognizing the necessity of a holy Sabbath for the highest development, both of the individual and the nation, has put the weight of its influence against everything that has a tendency to destroy the sanctity of the day."

"Recognizing the necessity of a holy Sabbath for the highest development, both of the individual and the nation," is very well; but why should not another thing be recognized, which is as plain as anything else in connection with the Sabbath–why should not the fact be recognized that there is a conflict of opinion respecting the Sabbath day? This is an obvious truth, and one which has an obvious bearing on the question of enforcing Sabbath observance. Nobody has a right to decide, for anyone but himself, which day is the Sabbath; and therefore, while the Sabbath is a necessity to the highest development of character, this affords no ground for the conclusion that the Sabbath ought to be maintained by force of law.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 47 , p. 752.

A CARDINAL principle of the movement to unite church and state in this nation, is that the Government does not derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. Notice the flat-footed statement of this principle made by a leading representative of this movement at a National Reform convention recently held in Boston. See p. 47.

That speaker spoke for the church. But the same time the state in this country is saying the same thing, by the act of extending its authority over foreign people against their will, and by the arguments put forth to justify the act. The church and the state are coming into harmony upon this point.

But in repudiating the doctrine of government by consent of the governed, in religion, what does the church repudiate? In religion, the doctrine of government by consent of the governed stands for the right of each individual to think and act for himself, independently of the authority of a pope. And this is what was affirmed in the "Protest of the Princes" at Spires. So that in repudiating this doctrine, the church repudiates the "Protest" of the Protestant princes, from which is derived the term "Protestantism."

What this great protest was, and is, in the religious world, the Declaration of Independence is in the political world. The church has repudiated the one, and the state is repudiating the other. And in this both are ready to join hands.

But Protestantism, in the church and in the state, still stands for the principle of government by consent of the governed.

WHEN the Government undertakes to execute the will of God, there must be some authority to say what the will of God is. And that authority must be human; for while the Bible states what is the will of God, the people are not in agreement concerning the meaning of Scripture statements, so that while the Bible, itself, is authority, there must be another authority to settle the question of what the Bible authority commands. And this new authority must be some man, or set of men. But just this authority is what is claimed by the pope of Rome. What then could the National Reform scheme result in but the establishment of another papacy? And the world does not need another papacy; it could very well dispense with the one it already has.

WE have already heard from the Secretary of the "All American Order," a religio-political organization of Brooklyn, who tells us: "No doubt you are aware that Rome is the cause of our churches being demoralized through the evils that exist in this city. . . I will say a few words, if you will advocate pure politics, church people attend primaries, but good men up for office and have only two parties, we can clean Rome of existence in one election."

Our friend is mistaken. We are not aware that "Rome is the cause of our churches being demoralized." If the churches are demoralized, the trouble is internal, not external. All Rome outside of a church will not demoralize that church so long as the principles of Rome are not allowed inside the church. But when the principles of Rome get into the church, there is demoralization speedily. The principles Rome are summed up in the combination of religion with politics.

And now we are asked advocate a union of the church with politics, or in other words, that "church people attend the primaries," etc., in order that Rome may be overthrown. Why, good friends, that is the very thing by which Rome was built up in the first place. If the Christian Church had kept out of politics, no papacy would ever have been. And while the church remains in politics, the essence of the papacy must ever be.

We are as anxious as anybody that Rome shall go out of existence; but we have no desire to work against any man, whether in politics or not. Our method of fighting Rome is to fight Rome's principles; and we are never more opposed to those principles than when they appear in measures proposed by professedly Protestant people.

CIVIL law is not ordained to enforce rights, but to preserve them. If a right could be enforced, it would cease to be a right.

THE idea that sovereignty over a people can be bought and sold is the essence of tyranny.

December 7, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 48 , p. 753.

THE Sabbath that depends upon human laws to insure it, will certainly be lost.

RELIGIOUS questions should be adjusted in the community by religious forces only.

"REGARDLESS of consequences" is a vastly better le of conduct than "regardless of conscience."

THE "Sunday-rest" associations appear to take less rest on Sunday than on any other day of the week.

IT is a far worse thing to violate justice in the name of law, than to violate laws in the name of justice.

NO PERSON ever became truly converted without having all desire to invoke the laws of man against any religion.

WHEN zealous church people take their religion into politics, the natural result is that politics get a religious coloring.

THE "Christian" sentiment of the community ought not to be distinguished from other sentiment by the civil law.

THE idea of many reforms that are being sought to-day is that of saving the individual from the sins of others. But God's idea is to save an individual from his own sins. That is real salvation and real reform.

AMS THE domain of morality cannot be separate from that of religion, the civil law can as properly require obedience on religious grounds as on moral grounds. Civil government is not qualified to preserve morality, but only to preserve rights.

"The Principle in the 'Robert's Case'" American Sentinel 14, 48 , pp. 753, 754.

The Outlook, in discussing the "Robert's case," says with reference to Mr. Roberts' lately-issued defense:–

"He declares that 'I do not go to Washington as a representative of polygamy.' Probably not; but if he goes to Washington, he will be a representative of polygamy."

An important truth is here stated, which is often lost sight of. Whether Mr. Roberts was chosen to Congress in pursuance of a plan to further polygamy in the nation or not, we do not know; but in any case, as a Mormon and believer in polygamy, he will, as The Outlook says, "be a representative of polygamy." He would favor polygamy in any manner in which as a Congressman he might have opportunity to act, because polygamy is a part of his religious belief. His religion, in short, cannot avoid being represented in his politics.

Now let the application of this truth be extended to all classes of religious people. What do they represent, in politics? If Mr. Roberts, going to Congress not as a representative of polygamy, will still represent polygamy, what will Methodists, Catholics, and others, in the like position, represent as regards their respective religious views? If the Catholic, or the Presbyterian,

754

can divest himself wholly of his religious identity, in politics, why should it not be admitted that Mr. Roberts can do the same?

Ah, it is easier to recognize a truth when it applies only to other people, than when it is unpalatable to ourselves.

There is a wide demand to-day that church people should more actively engage in politics; but this, we are told, would not give politics any religious coloring,–not at all. That would be very undesirable, all admit. People may, and should, it is said, "take their religion into their politics," yet should not be in politics what they are in the church. But if Mr. Roberts cannot be in politics without representing polygamy, which is his religious belief and practice, how can other church people be in politics without also representing to the same extent their own religious belief and practice?

Except in those cases where religion is held only formally, as a mere cloak of respectability, religious people cannot go into politics without giving politics a religious coloring, and making politics, wherever possible, a means to religious in ends. Because, the man in whom religion is a controlling force, the mainspring of his deepest emotions and most earnest endeavors, is a religionist before everything else, in every place. Such people do not go into politics to make politics first, but to make politics the servant of religion. This is true of the priests and prelates of Rome; it is equally true of every zealous religionists, Catholic or Protestant.

The loud call that is heard for the church people to engage more earnestly in politics, is not put forth upon the basis of a need of increased vigilance to preserve the rights of the people–which is the only legitimate purpose of political effort. Little is heard in connection with this movement about the necessity of preserving unalienable rights. What it has in view is to guard the public morality–to suppress things that are considered immoral, prominent among which things is the desecration of Sunday. The domain of morality cannot be separated from that of religion; and when the church forces become active in politics for the purpose of improving the public morals, religious controversies will of necessity be fought over in the political arena, and there will be others beside that of which day of the week is the Sabbath. And thus will be fulfilled a prophecy uttered years ago, regarding the outcome of the increasing church activity in politics, that "old [religious] controversies will be revived and new ones will be added; new and old will commingle; and this will take place right early."

The proper place for the church forces, both for the interests of religion and of the state, is to be out of politics.

THE base metal of human nature cannot be transmuted into the pure gold of the divine nature by any human wisdom.

"'Christian Sentiment' and Civil Law" American Sentinel 14, 48 , p. 754.

A NEW ENGLAND journal states that the town of Sangus, Mass., "has become tired of Sunday golf, and the violators of law feel aggrieved." The inference to be drawn is that the town has taken some action to suppress the gulf. "The question is," it is stated further, "whether it is better to permit a few young men to break the laws of the State and outrage the Christian sentiment of the community, or to check lawlessness and protect the vital interests of good citizenship and Christian morality."

The first and most important question with respect to the law of the State, is whether the law is just. It is a worse thing to violate justice by law than for individuals to violate the law. Justice is a law; and an unjust measure on the statute books involves the whole State in the guilt of law breaking. Ought the State to take sides in a religious controversy by decreeing that Sunday shall be observed as the Christian Sabbath, or Lord's day? Is the law a just one?

And further, it is proper to ask why the "Christian sentiment" of the community is to be distinguished from the sentiment of non-Christians or of Christian dissenters from the prevailing religious sentiment, as something to be guarded by law. Non-Christians stand on an equality with Christians before the law, and the sentiments of the one class are to be respected by the law equally with those of the other class. Some "Christians" have their sentiments outraged by Sunday golf. Other people have their sentiments outraged by a law depriving them of this Sunday recreation, passed in the interests of a religious institution in which they do not believe. Which class is to be favored by the law? Evidently, the law, to be impartial must leave religious questions alone, and let the sentiment of the community be adjusted to religious questions by religious forces only–by conviction and not by compulsion.

"Note" American Sentinel 14, 48 , p. 755.

"SUNDAY politics," says The Defender, "will eventually hang itself if rope enough be given it." We hope so. The Defender refers to political electioneering on Sunday; but we refer to the far more prominent form of "Sunday politics" which seeks so persistently to bring Sunday up for consideration in Congress and the State legislatures.

"Apologists for Slavery and Polygamy" American Sentinel 14, 48 , pp. 757, 758.

THE apologies that are being put forth in this country in behalf of slavery and polygamy, now that these institutions are known to exist in lands subject to the jurisdiction of United States, would be amusing if they did not relate to a serious matter. Here, for example, are some statements from an article contributed to The Independent, on "Slavery and Polygamy in the Sulu Archipelago," by E. M. Andre, Belgian consul at Manila:–

"The slavery which exists on the islands is so different from that which Americans were accustomed to in the South before the war of the rebellion, that it deserves another term to define it. A Moro chief who owns slaves is more like a master who has hired a dozen or two mechanics or laborers by the year to work his place. He has no rights over them, except to see that they work for him, for which he in turn must give them proper food, clothing, shelter, and protection. He has no right to sell them as a man would his cattle, nor are there any slave markets such as were found in this country half a century ago." (Italics hours.)

It is confessed in this that the Sulu slave owner has a "right," "to see that they [his slaves] work for him." In other words, he has a "right" to force certain other people of the island to work for him. But the Constitution says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Italics ours.)

That it is a different slavery in some respects from that formerly practised in America, may be true enough; but that is not the point. The point is, that it is directly contrary to the Constitution; and that an institution which is in violation of this fundamental law, and of natural rights, and that has been made doubly odious by the most terrible of civil wars, is not tolerated by the Government, and apologized for in the public press, of this country.

Mr. Andre goes on to show that it would be practically impossible to abolish this Sulu slavery; a law prohibiting it "would not change matters materially," etc. But this if it is so, constitutes no reason for setting aside the Constitution of the United States.

Of polygamy in this new American possession the writer speaks thus:–

"Polygamy is not as active an institution as some are led to believe. Among the poor it is rarely practised, and the chief incentive among the chiefs is for perpetuating their rule and authority. If the children are born by the first wife, the chief takes another in order that the authority will stay in his family. He does not put away his first wife, but frequently recognizes her only as his lawful wife. Again, it is the one who bears him children which he practically acknowledges. There are no harems such as you find in Turkey and other

758

Oriental countries. The wives of all the freedom to come and go, and are merely required to show due respect to their husband and his family."

Would not this be acceptable to the American people as a basis upon which to allow polygamy in Utah? If not, why say anything in its defense?

The fact that it is of most significance in connection with all this, is that such efforts should be made to cast a favorable light upon institutions which in principle are altogether bad. When a thing is bad in principle, the safe and only wise course is to consider its possibilities for evil rather than to paint it in colors which will make it less repulsive.

To this defense of the system of slavery and polygamy in Sulu, it is quite fitting that the writer should join the statement that "It would be the means of exciting the enmity of the priests, and in the end it would precipitate one of their bloody 'holy wars.' But great good can be accomplished by endeavoring to raise their morals."

From first to last in this movement to extend the national jurisdiction over an alien people wedded to un-American institutions, nothing has been said to encourage gospel missionary effort among that people, but much is being said to discourage it. If it is a movement which does not combine with true gospel work; and that is for the simple reason that it does not harmonize with gospel principles.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 48 , p. 768.

THE Filipino "Rebellion" appears to have been at last fully overcome by vigorous efforts that have of late been made by the American forces in Luzon, and this is pointed to by certain papers as a fact which throws ridicule upon the idea that the conquest of the island is not just and right. Such writers plainly show their interest to the principle that "might makes right;" and the establishment of this principle in a nation marks the beginning of that nation's end.

"WITHOUT a civil Sabbath, a religious Sabbath is impossible," says the Ram's Horn. Then the "civil Sabbath must have something to do with religion, and the object of preserving the one must be to save the other.

But the Sabbath commandment says nothing about a "civil" Sabbath, and the Author of that commandment and of the Sabbath says that a religious Sabbath, for any person, depends only upon whether he will turn his own foot away from the Sabbath and will cease doing his own pleasure on "My holy day." Isa. 58:13, 14. And is not that the truth?

PROTECTING a divine institution by means of a human law, is much like protecting a granite mountain by surrounding it with a wooden fence.

December 14, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 49 , p. 769.

THE right to rest is not more sacred than the right to labor.

YOU may ignore truth and justice; but be assured truth and justice will not ignore you.

WE can ask no more of the civil government than that it protect our liberty to enjoy our natural rights.

THE preservation of one person's rights does not demand the sacrifice of rights by another. Rights do not conflict.

THE worst "quack" medicines ever palmed off upon people are those that men have invented for the cure of a morally sick community.

IT is man's business to remedy crime, and God's business to remedy sin. God's remedy which he has provided for sin, is the gospel; and no man has any business to use any other.

EVERY individual has a right to rest on the Sabbath day, and there is no law in this country that denies or restricts it. Every person can exercise this right, if he will. But some people want a law to compel them to improve their privileges.

THE law of God–"six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God"–provides for a religious Sabbath and six working days in the week. That is God's mind concerning the alleged necessity of a "civil" Sabbath.

SINCE God has ordained six working days for the week, there can be only one legitimate Sabbath Day; and the whole question of Sabbath observance depends upon the question of which day of the week is the Sabbath. But who has a right to settle this question? Thus one person accept the decision of another, or of several others? or has each person the right to settle the question for a self?

"Another Supreme Court Decision" American Sentinel 14, 49 , pp. 769, 770.

THE Supreme Court of the nation, two of whose nine members are Roman Catholics, has, it is announced, decided that it is all right for the Government of the United States to give money to the Catholic Church. The announcement reads:–

"WAMSHINGTON, Dec. 4.–The United States Supreme Court in an opinion affirmed the right of the Government of the United States to appropriate money for an institution conducted by the Catholic Church.

"The case was that of Joseph Redfield, of the District of Columbia, against United States Treasurer Roberts and was brought to restrain the treasurer from paying the money appropriated to meet the terms of an agreement made by the commissioners of the district with the management of Providence Hospital in this city, because it is conducted by the Sisters of Charity of the Catholic Church."

The importance of this decision can be appreciated only by keeping in mind certain facts:–

1. That the Government some years ago was induced to begin paying out public funds for the support

770

of Roman Catholic institutions, notably Catholic Indian schools, and paid out more and more each succeeding year until the yearly appropriations reached nearly a million dollars.

2. That the Protestant bodies, becoming alarmed at the Catholic inroads upon the public treasury, started a movement against it, and succeeded in getting Congress to reverse the Government's attitude in this matter, upon the constitutional ground that such appropriations were contrary to the principles of republican government.

3. That Cardinal Gibbons, not for a long since, in behalf of the Catholic Church, asked Congress to reconsider the whole matter of sectarian appropriations, and has been hoping and working for this result with the forces at his command, ever since.

4. That a little over a year ago it was announced by the Baltimore Daily American that the Administration had decided, as a result of "numerous conferences with Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland" on the subject, that money would be advanced by the Government for the "temporary" support of Catholic worship in Cuba.

5. That by the acquisition of Porto Rico, the Philippines, and other Catholic lands an enormous field has been opened for a demand for Government funds to support Catholic institutions.

And now that the highest court in the nation has decided that such appropriation of public funds by the Government is all right, what is to hinder the appropriation of the national funds in response to any and all other demands for support that may be made by the Catholic Church, both at home and in the "colonies?" If there is no constitutional support for the principle of separation between church and state in this matter, how is that principle to stand? And that it has no constitutional support, is what this decision means.

And this being so, it marks another step–and an important one–added to those already taken for the formation of a national union of church and state.

"An English Statesman on Church and State" American Sentinel 14, 49 , p. 770.

THE status of the church under an alliance with the state is thus described by Mr. Justin McCarthy, M. P., who is a leading figure in English politics. He speaks of the Established Church of England; but any church that receives and accepts state aid puts herself in a position of obligation and subordination to the state differing only in degree from that to which he refers:–

"The plain fact is that if you have a state church, a church established, privileged, and endowed by the state, all those who make a living and an income out of the church, who enjoy the privileges and aspire to the dignities the state church affords, must obviously be bound to submit to the conditions on which alone a state church can be maintained. The Established Church in England is the creation of the state. It is, as John Stuart Mill put it, a branch of the civil service. It is maintained by the Crown and by Parliament, and so long as it continues to be a state church it must submit to whatever conditions Parliament and the Crown may be please to impose. The religion of the state church is decreed and dictated by the Imperial Parliament; that is the long and the short of it. The real authority of the Parliament rests with the majority of the House of Commons. Therefore the religion of the state church is decreed by the majority in the House of Commons. There is no way out of the dilemma. You cannot have a state church and at the same time absolute liberty of religious worship."

"The National Reform Convention" American Sentinel 14, 49 , pp. 770-774.

"We sometimes think the Pilgrim Fathers were too severe in their legislation against immorality. There was a law in the colonial statutes of New England that for a flagrant violation of the Sabbath the offender should be hung. We may say this was wrong; but let me ask, Were they nearer or further from the moral law as interpreted by the Mosaic legislation than we are? Under the Mosaic law a man guilty of idolatry and Sabbath-breaking was to be executed; and I apprehend that we ought to return to that order of things to-day, and execute the penalty for the violation of moral law. A man who openly and violently blasphemes the name of God has forfeited his right to live under the God whose law he is broken."

Thus spoke the Rev. J. M. Foster, a prominent exponent of National Reform principles, at this convention; and the utterance was received without a word or sign of dissent. There was a burst of applause from Mr. Foster's address at its conclusion.

We do not, of course, and impute this bloodthirsty sentiment to all advocates of the doctrines of National Reform; yet it expresses only what is contained in the movement for which they stand. It is good National Reform logic. For if the nation is a moral being, bound by the law of God, as they assert, it must keep that law; and as the government gives expression to its will only through its laws, it follows plainly enough that if its will is to obey the law of God, it must enforce that law by legislation, and execute the penalty for its violation; which penalty as fixed by God himself, is death.

Just here is a great mistake of the National Reform theory. The nation is not a moral being; the civil government is not bound to legislate in the domain of morality. It is bound not to legislate in that domain. For when it enters the moral domain, and takes cognizance of man's duty to God, it begins to deal with sin; but God himself has restricted the civil government to the domain of crime.

The civil government exists to seize and punish the offender at once, and without mercy. Therefore it is

771

to deal with sin, it must execute at once upon the sinner, without mercy, the penalty of sin. But God instituted the gospel, and gave his Son to die upon the cross, expressly to prevent the immediate and unmerciful execution of the penalty for sin upon the sinner. The whole object of the gospel would be defeated if this were done. And therefore this National Reform doctrine that the civil government ought to punish violations of the law of God, is altogether against God, and those who adhere to it are only fighting, though it may be unwittingly against him. God himself will finally execute the penalty of his law upon the wicked, but that will not be until the gospel shall have done its work, and the period of probation upon which man has been placed shall have reached its end.

The purpose of civil government, as the Declaration of Independence affirms, is to preserve the natural, unalienable rights given to all men by the Creator; and to this end the Government must take measures to restrain those who would disregard these rights, and must execute the penalty of the law upon the offender; and it must do this at once and without mercy. Otherwise civil government would degenerate into a farce, and anarchy would take the place of law and order in human society.

One idea that was emphasized by several speakers at the convention, was that of the immutability of the law of God; and this was presented with particular reference to the Sabbath commandment. As one speaker tersely stated it, "You can't punch holes in the Decalogue." And yet these very men have punched a hole in the fourth commandment, where it says, "the seventh day is the Sabbath," and have tried to patch it up by putting in words to make it read, "the first day is the Sabbath."

Another idea that was made prominent was that one person could not enjoy his right to rest on Sunday without having a law compelling all to rest. As it was stated, "The right of Sabbath rest for one man depends on a law of Sabbath rest for all." But suppose we turn it the other way, and stated from the standpoint of the right of men to work. Men have right to work on Sunday as well as to rest. Suppose then that those who do not care to rest on Sunday should say, "The right of one man to work on Sunday depends on a law of work for all." Would not this be as fair a rule as the other? Is the right to rest the more sacred than the right to labor? "It's a poor rule that will work both ways."

With very much that was said at this convention, the SENTINEL is in full accord. These men see that great evils are rampant in society; and so do we. They deplore these things and long to see them remedied. So do we. The difference is that they want to apply remedies of human manufacture, which can only make the matter worse, while we say that the remedies applied must be God's remedies; not human enactments enforced by the power of man, but the law of God enforced by the power of the gospel; not a repressing force working from without, but a quickening power working within, upon the heart.

With this introduction we proceed to a condensed report of what was said by the leading speakers, so far as concerns those subjects which are closely related to the National Reform movement for a union of church and state.

Dr. D. B. Wilson, speaking of the nation's duty to its new possessions, said:–

"We must aim to make our new possessions Christian States. There has been in those places a union of church and state, and this has been most harmful to both the church of the state. This union of church and state must be broken up. Men of the highest Christian character must be placed in control in those countries. We must have rulers who will not be covetous. They must be a different class from the politicians."

Rev. W. I. Wishart dwelt upon the necessity of a quickening of the public conscience. He said that though the picture of the present is a little dark, the prospects for the future are bright. "This nation will yet look upon Him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one who is in bitterness for his first-born. This country, our nation, will yet do honor to her Lord and King, and will yet kiss the Son lest he be angry, and we perish from the way."

Rev. R. C. Wiley spoke upon "The Christian Principles of National Fundamental law." He said that Christian principles are political as well as Christian. "All the reforms we seek in the political sphere, and require the action of the state. There are certain Christian principles, fundamental to all these reforms, and these principles are also political. There are three sources from which these principles may be learned: First, the constitutional history of the country; second, authors on political science; third, the Scriptures. Our constitutional history began long before the framing of the Constitution, away back when the colonies were planted. The first Colonial Charter, issued by James I., expressed the Christian character and purpose of the colonies, and all these early colonial charters like this one declared the relation of the civil government to God. The same relation is declared in our State Constitutions, and also in several decisions of the Supreme Court, notably the 'Christian nation' decision. It is also declared in the papers and messages of all the Presidents." Special reference was made to the last Thanksgiving Proclamation issued by President Cleveland, in which he used the expression, "Through the mediation of Him who has taught us to pray." "There is a relationship between Jesus Christ in the nation, and between the Scriptures and the nation." The speaker quoted from all authors on political science to show that states

772

are moral persons amenable to the rules of Scripture. He said that the Bible taught that nations are created by God, and referred to the promise of God to Abraham. "I will make of thee a great nation," etc. He referred also to the prophecy of Daniel, that all the nations shall serve the Lord. "The divine will is supreme in civil affairs. This may be learned from the second Psalm. The 'bands and chords' there mentioned are the rules laid down by God to the nation.

"What use ought we to make of these fundamental principles? They are lying about in a loose manner, and hence have not the force and legal value they should have. It is well enough to have them expressed in documents, messages, and court decisions. It is well to have them in the State constitutions, but all these expressions of them do not rise to the dignity of a national acknowledgement of God. They must be put into the fundamental law and recognized in the national Constitution. This great document ought to be in this respect like these other documents.

"There are a number of reasons why we ought to have this constitutional recognition of these principles.

"1. Because these Christian principles are both fundamental and political.

"2. Because such recognition is in line with our national history.

"3. Because the written constitution should be in harmony with the unwritten constitution, which holds to the kingship of Jesus Christ. It is a popular sentiment to-day that Jesus is king of the nation as well as of the individual.

"4. The Constitution is the proper place for the people to recognize God. 'We the people' in our political capacity should have the privilege of acknowledging God.

"5. Because of its educational value in counteracting the secular theory of government.

"6. It would take a dangerous weapon out of the hands of secularists.

"7. It would furnish a much needed basis for state laws on moral issues.

"8. It would furnish a basis for righteous decisions by the courts.

"9. It would give support to all Christian usages in the Government.

"10. It would furnish a basis for excluding immoral men from Congress.

"11. It would guard against a union of church and state. It has been charged against us that we wanted a union of church and state. We never wanted any such union, and we say, this is the only way whereby such a union can be effectually prevented.

"12. It would honor God."

Rev. D. J. Burrell spoke to the question: "Shall Our Nation Lose Its Sabbath?" He said that the Sabbath in this country is vanishing, and inquired, If this goes on, what are we coming to?

"It bodes ill for the American home, for this and the American Sabbath are inseparably linked together. It bodes ill for our industrial institutions because it affects the men who stand for American power and influence. We are a great and powerful nation because we have the best workmen on the face of the earth.

"It is a scientific fact that the physical system requires one seventh of the time for rest. In the last twenty-five or thirty years we have developed two new maladies–insomnia and nervous debility, and I believe Sabbath desecration is largely responsible for both. God never meant a man should sleep at night who will not rest on the Sabbath.

"Another evil that is bound to follow is disaster to our civil freedom, for what is freedom but the franchise of personal or individual rights? I have a right to rest on Sunday and no one has a right to interfere with my rest."

At this point the speaker mentioned the conversation he had recently with an old lady, and which she had spoken of the time when a chain was stretched across Broadway above and below the church on Sundays.

"The right of Sabbath rest for one man," Dr. Burrell continued, "depends on a law of Sabbath rest for all. Workingmen are beginning to find out that they cannot rest on Sunday unless all rest. We insist that the law of Sunday rest shall be applied faithfully to the whole community on the principle of liberty to rest for all.

"The seal of God's covenant with America as a chosen nation is the Sabbath. We may call it the American Sabbath, but it is God's Sabbath always, and if we do not keep it the doom of ancient Israel will fall on us.

"We are a Christian people, and we must not try to found reform on anything but the Christian religion. It must be Christian reform because we are a Christian nation. I wish God's name was in the Constitution. That is what we all wish. But the next best thing is to see that His name and His love and His law are in the hearts of the people."

Rev. J. M. Foster continued the discussion of the same question. He said a distinction was to be made between the nation and the government, and between the civil and the ecclesiastical Sabbath.

"The state is God's moral ordinance. The nation is a moral being, responsible to God for its character and conduct. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of this moral basis on which the nation rests.

"You can have no Christian morality without the Christian Sabbath, and without the Christian Sabbath you cannot long have a free government.

"We ought to have a national Sabbath law. First, because we need a law that will protect each person in his God-given right to Sabbath rest. But Sabbath rest does not mean a Sabbath holiday. A holiday Sunday is always followed by a blue Monday.

"Secondly, the nation ought to enforce Sabbath rest in the interest of self-preservation. We are upon the down-grade, and making the toboggan descent into the awful gulf of national ruin.

"Thirdly, a national Sabbath law is necessary to protect Sabbath legislation in the different States.

"But would you compel this great nation to honor a law for Sabbath rest? some one may ask. Why, certainly we would."

The speaker proceeded to show that there is no

773

business necessity for the running of freight trains on Sunday, nor of passenger trains, nor of street cars, nor for the opening of the Post Office, nor for the publishing of Sunday papers.

"We must have a Sabbath rest to provide a stimulating and elevating of conscience. In cities without Sabbath rests the public conscience is at a low ebb, and large bodies of policeman and soldiers are required to preserve peace and order. Where the people will worship on Sunday God himself will perform the police duty.

"The early colonists in America had rather severe laws for Sabbath observance, and for church attendance. In one New England colony there was a law fining all people one shilling for absence from the second Sunday service, and if they were absent from both services on Sunday, they were fined one pound; and for being absent a whole month the fine was twenty pounds. If we had a similar law in force to-day we would soon have the coffers of the churches filled.

"O for a reproduction of the character of the Pilgrim fathers to-day, in every State of the Union."

(Then followed the remarkable language with which this report of this Convention is introduced.)

Concluding the speaker said: "We must have a stern application of God's moral law if we are to preserve our Christian conscience; and the key of this law is the Sabbath day."

The closing session of the convention was devoted to discussion and condemnation of the Sunday newspapers. This was considered to be one of the chief, if not the very chief, of the enemies of Sabbath observance.

The Rev. H. H. George said the Sunday newspaper is an insidious foe of the family, the church, and the state, and that it is the imperative duty of Christian citizens to destroy it. "The Sunday paper is strongly influential in decreasing attendance from Sunday worship." He quoted approvingly from several letters written by clergymen of various denominations denouncing the Sunday paper as an abomination, and expressing the sentiment that "we must refuse to buy any paper during the week that publishes a Sunday edition." Also "we should refuse to trade with people who advertise in Sunday papers."

"The question before us," said Dr. George, "is, Are we to have in this country a Christian Sabbath or a continental Sunday? There are ten million evangelical Christians in this country, and 25,000,000 people who are church adherents. These will all vote for the Christian Sabbath. On the other side are atheists, skeptics, socialists, anarchist, and law-breakers generally, and among these we must class the Sunday newspaper.

"The Sunday paper runs a plowshare through the essential element of the Sabbath, which is its rest. It is true that employes on many Sunday papers get one day in the week for rest, but getting a day off each week in this way is not Sabbath rest. There is no Sabbath rest for workers on the Sunday newspaper.

"It cuts directly through the sacredness of the day. It keeps old and young away from the church.

"It is a law-breaker in a seven-fold degree. It violates the expressly written law of the Decalogue. It breaks the law of Christ. It breaks the law of the Apostles who met for worship on the eighth day. It breaks the law of the state.

"It consistently stands by other Sabbath-breakers, and leads in the direction of endless law-breaking.

"We hear it said of the Sunday paper, 'it has come to stay.' The people who say this have no backbone. It hasn't come to stay, I say. When Christian people wake up, the Sunday newspaper and the saloon will go after slavery.

"We should refuse to read a paper that publishes a Sunday issue. This is not a boycott. It is only self-defense."

Dr. M. B. Kneeland, of the New England Sabbath Protective League, followed Dr. George. He said the Sunday newspaper brings a danger to us from several sides.

"First, from the socially-degenerating tone which Sunday journalism represents.

"Second, from seven-day labor, which is supposed to the command of God and to the demand for rest in our nature."

He affirmed that 200,000 newsboys in the United States would be freed from Sunday toil by the discontinuance of the Sunday paper.

"Third, it tends to anarchy and to the destruction of national freedom.

"Steps should be taken at once to make seven-day journalism impossible–impossible because unpopular, and impossible because unprofitable. It should be made so repugnant that it will be forbidden and considered a crime to advertise in it.

"Seven-day journalism in the United States can be suppressed. How can it be done? There must be an uplifting of public opinion, and an awakening of the social conscience."

Dr. Kneeland proposed three anti-Sunday-journalism pledges: an individual pledge, not to buy or read or cause others to read any Sunday paper; an advertiser's pledge, not to advertise in any paper printing a Sunday edition; and a publisher's pledge not to print or cause or permit to be printed any Sunday newspaper in his establishment.

Dr. Kneeland was followed by Anthony Comstock, who opposed the Sunday paper from the standpoint of its immoral and vicious influence.

Rev. I. W. Hathaway said that without the sacred Sabbath, private and public morality cannot be maintained, and that the Sabbath is swept out of existence by the Sunday paper.

He referred to the Sabbath as being placed in the center of the eternal law of God, and therefore an institution that must abide. It is not done away. "You can't punch holes in the Decalogue; it must stand or fall together."

Dr. David McAllister, editor of the Christian Statesman, said that even the clean Sunday papers, of which

774

there were some, were to be condemned as violating the law of the Sabbath.

"What may be perfectly decent on Monday, or Tuesday, becomes unlawful on the Lord's day. I charge upon all Sunday journals that they demoralize the community.

"We must hold up a moral standard and let everything be conformed to that standard. This is the principle to be followed in dealing with this question.

"The foundation of all reform and salvation is the fear of God; and the fear of God is to be secured through his Word and his day, which he has given us for its study. The Sunday paper more largely perhaps than any other agency banishes the fear God.

"If this evil is not suppressed the country will be dragged down to overwhelming ruin."

He proposed to remedy the writing of thousands upon thousands of letters to obtain the sentiment of Christians and Christian bodies regarding the Sunday paper; the circulation of pledges against it; the organizing of committees for aggressive work in all cities where Sunday papers are published; and the issuing of tracts for the education of public sentiment throughout the country against this form of Sunday desecration.

In adopting the customary resolutions, the association made note of the American conquest of the Philippine Islands, and gave its approval to the undertaking.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 49 , p. 784.

ON another page we print an article showing why the example of Nehemiah as an enforcer of Sabbath observance is not to be followed by the nations of the world to-day. There is a vast difference between the theocratic government under which Nehemiah lived, and the "powers that be" at the present time. The claim is made by some who want a theocracy set up to-day, that "the preachers are the successors of the prophets," and ought therefore to define and enforce what is right as Nehemiah and others did in ancient times. But a man-made theocracy, with self-appointed rulers in the place of the prophets anciently appointed by the Lord, is not what this or any other country needs to promote its welfare to-day.

December 21, 1899

"Front Page" American Sentinel 14, 50 , p. 770.

A "SECULAR" government is simply one that does not interfere with any man's religion.

NO RELIGION ever becomes so bad by itself as any religion when it is forced upon people by law.

THE "divine will in civil affairs" is that we should not render to Cesar the things that belong to God.

NO MAN can save the Sabbath while he is lost himself; and no man while he is saved can lose the Sabbath.

THE rights of men are preserved by the laws of men; but a higher law is necessary to preserve the rights of God.

THE civil law is not designed to supplement the will-power of any person, or to supply a moral deficiency in the makeup of his character.

THE representatives of the people that are chosen in civil government, are not chosen to represent the people in religion.

GOD has promised to write his name upon men, and his law in their hearts; but he has never promised to write either of these in the Constitution or any other document of state. Men may write God's name there; but it will be a forgery unless written by God himself.

THAT which is human can be upheld by that which is divine; but human things cannot serve as a foundation for things divine, nor do the latter need the support of the human arm.

IT is useless for the legislature to say, "Let there be goodness in the place of evil in this community," by enacting "moral" laws. Fiat morality is a far worse humbug than fiat money. There is One who alone has power to say, "Let there be righteousness in the place of iniquity;" and that One is He who by His word created light in the place of darkness.

"N. R. Convention Notes and Comment" American Sentinel 14, 50 , pp. 785-787.

IN our report of the National Reform convention given last week, some things were merely recorded which should not be passed over without comment. So we give this week the following additional notes, which will outline more fully the nature and scope of this "reform" movement, as revealed on this occasion:–

"We must aim to make our new possessions Christian states. There has been in those places a union of church and state, and this has been most harmful to both the church and state."–Rev. D. D. Willson [sic.].

Yes; "our new possessions" have had in them a union of church and state, which has been "most harmful," as such unions always are. And under this union they have been Catholic "Christian states." Is this therefore a reason why "we" should make them some other kind of "Christian states?" Which religion would you rather the state would enforce? Is not one religion, when it is forced upon people by law, just as bad as another?

786

"ALL the reforms we seek are in the political sphere, and require the action of the state."–Rev. R. C. Wiley.

But religious reforms do not require the action of the state; and when the state does undertake a religious reform there is of necessity a union of church and state; which is what the National Reform movement will certainly bring.

ANOTHER strange thing the Rev. Mr. Wylie said was that a constitutional recognition of God and of Christianity "would guard against a union of church and state." The National Reformers, he said, had been charged with seeking a union of church and state; but they had never wanted any such thing. So he proceeded to show how, as he had stated, the National Reform movement really sought to guard against the union of church and state, and provided the only effective way of preventing it. If the state remained secular, he said, as the church and religion grew more prominent, the time would come when a bargain would be made between the church and the secular state, and that would be a union of church and state, and very harmful. (They were all agreed that a union of church and state is a bad thing.) But if the state would acknowledge God and make his law the basis of civil legislation, and set a standard of morality and have national and state legislation, and court decisions, conform to it,–if in short the nation should enforce by its laws the moral standard which is maintained by the church and enforced by church discipline,–that would not be a union of church and state. Do you see the point? We don't.

"IT is a scientific fact that the physical system requires one seventh of the time for rest."–Rev. D. J. Burrell.

Advocates of Sunday laws are very fond of making this assertion, but they never spend any time in demonstrating that it is a scientific fact, or quote scientific authority in its support. If it is a scientific fact, it ought to be susceptible of conclusive proof.

But they claim still more than this; for not only does the physical system demand rest one day in seven, but that particular day must be Sunday! They have no use for this "scientific fact" only so far as it will support a Sunday law.

"The nation is a moral being, responsible to God for its character and conduct."–Rev. J. M. Foster.

This idea is fundamental in the National Reform conception of government. And it is altogether false and misleading. "But," some one may ask, "does not the Bible say, 'The nation and kingdom that will not serve Thee [God] shall perish'? And how can the nation be responsible for serving the Lord, if it is not a moral being?"

We answer, The nation is accountable to God, only in the sense of all the people composing the nation are individually, and each for himself, accountable to God. As a political personality, exercising authority over all individuals within it and having relations with other political powers, the nation is not a moral being, for the simple plain reason that, as such, it must act through representatives of the people, and one person cannot represent others in religion. Moral responsibility cannot be delegated. The official of the civil government, so far as accountability to God is concerned, represents only himself. To their representatives the people delegate their power to enforce respect for their rights. They cannot delegate their accountability to the moral law. In religion, we have one Representative; we can have only one and we need but one; and that one is the "one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

"The first Colonial Charter, issued by James I., expressed the Christian character and purpose of the colony; it declared the relation of the civil government to God."–Rev. R. C. Wiley.

And that is precisely the reason why Baptists were whipped and Quakers hung, under those Colonial Charters, by law. We want no charters or constitutions now under which it will be legal to follow the example set by the early Puritans.

"I WISH God's name was in the Constitution. That is what we all wish. But the next best thing is to see that his name and his love and his law are in the hearts of the people." (Italics ours).–Rev. D. J. Burrell.

This hardly needs any comment. The idea that to have God's name in the Constitution would be better than to have his name, his law, and is love in the hearts of the people, is one that speaks volumes against the movement for which Mr. Burrell was speaking.

"IN one New England colony there was a law fining all people one shilling for absence from the services on Sunday, and if they were absent from both services on Sunday, they were fined one pound; and for being absent a whole month the fine was twenty pounds. If we had a similar law in force to-day we would soon have the coffers of the church is filled."–Rev. J. M. Foster.

No doubt; but we say the churches must fill their coffers some other way.

"THE Sunday paper is strongly influential in decreasing attendance from Sunday worship."–Rev. H. H. George.

This may be true; but if so, is it the fault of the Sunday paper, or of the Sunday sermon–which is deliver-

787

ered in the fashionable church of to-day? Is it not a fact that the "progressive" church of this day tries to compete with worldly institutions in providing attractions for world-loving people? And has such a church any right to complain if in the competition it is beaten by the Sunday paper, or by any other of its rivals? Has the church any right to demand Sunday laws to shut off competition?

"THE divine will is supreme in civil affairs."–Rev. R. C. Wiley.

Very well; the divine will, as expressed by Jesus Christ, is, "Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

"WE must refuse to buy any paper during the week that publishes a Sunday edition, and we should refuse to trade with people who advertise in Sunday papers."–Rev. H. H. George.

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of is name." Rev. 13:16, 17.

"THE written Constitution should be in harmony with the unwritten constitution, which holds to the kingship of Jesus Christ."–Rev. R. C. Wiley.

There is no "unwritten constitution" in the American Government. Congress–the nation–can take no action not warranted by the written Constitution. This is a plain fact of American Constitutional law.

IF the national constitution contains a recognition of the kingship of Jesus Christ, said the Rev. Mr. Wiley, "it would furnish a basis for righteous decisions by the courts," and would also "furnish a basis for excluding immoral men from Congress."

Undoubtedly it would furnish a basis for decisions of the courts, and we would have religious court decisions. And that would make this a religious instead of a civil government. And so to excluding immoral man from Congress, this proposed change in the Constitution would exclude all dissenters not only from Congress, but from any place in the Government. "We, the people of the United States," would not include them at all.

"WE must hold up a moral standard and let everything be conformed to that standard."–Rev. D. J. McAllister.

What moral standard must be held up,–man standard? or God's standard? We say God's moral standard is the only right moral standard, and that this standard is not to be interpreted by one man for another, or for the people by the legislatures or the courts; but for each individual, by the Word and Spirit of God.

"IF the Sunday newspaper were discontinued, 200,000 newsboys in the United States would be freed from Sunday toil."–Rev. M. B. Kneeland.

The newsboys do not have to sell papers on Sunday unless they want to. If we are not much mistaken, the average newsboy is glad of the opportunity to earn something by selling papers on that day.

"Salvation by Sunday Laws" American Sentinel 14, 50 , p. 790.

IN a sermon delivered by the pastor of a Portland, Me., church, recently, against some people of the city who observe the seventh day, the speaker said:–

"We should co-operate with the Sabbath Protective League of Boston, which has done much. I am only waiting for them to get a hand into Maine for them to stop some things; for example, the electrics which run regularly, the drug stores in full blast, restaurants, etc. On the streets we see men at work on Sunday. We are drifting, drifting. The time is coming when no Sunday man will be sure of his rest.

"If the Christian Sabbath goes down then the church goes; and when the church goes civilization goes. We better hold on to the Sabbath."

But how does this clergyman propose to stop all this? Oh, he will invoke the arm of the civil power; he will have the laws enforced; shutting up the drug stores and restaurants, stopping the electric cars, etc. This will save the Sabbath; and the Sabbath in turn will save the church, and the church will save civilization.

All then that saves the church, or that saves civilization, according to this clergyman's conception, is the law of the State for the observance of Sunday. Is not this the conclusion that must be drawn from his affirmations?

But what Sabbath will be saved by the Sunday laws? and what church will be saved by the saving of the sabbath? What sabbath and what church will be saved by this man-made instrument of salvation? Will it not necessarily be a man-made sabbath and a man-made church? Certainly it cannot be the Sabbath of God's eternal law; for if that Sabbath should be lost the fourth commandment would be lost, a great breach would be made in the Decalogue, and Christ would be a false witness for declaring that not a jot or a tittle of the law should ever fail. Nor can it be the Christian Church that would be lost; for that church is declared to be the "body of Christ;" and surely the body of Christ is not joined to the Head by the state laws.

The true Sabbath and the Christian Church are essential to the highest civilization; but as the former are independent of Sunday laws, so likewise is the latter. Nowhere in history is this contradicted by the testimony of events.

"Back Page" American Sentinel 14, 50 , p. 800.

THE state is not a personality bound by the moral law, and cannot be, for the reason that the state is bound to execute the law. We, as moral beings, are bound to keep the moral law, but to execute it–never! Yet the state, if it should attempt to keep that law would necessarily attempt to execute it; since to execute the law is the special purpose for which the state exists, and the only way in which the state can deal with law at all. Individual keeping of the moral law and state keeping of that law, are two vastly different things.

"NOT by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts." This is what the AMERICAN SENTINEL has been saying to the people who have been and are yet calling for legislation to reform society. In this week we print an article showing what we mean by quoting the Scripture texts, and that we are not talking impracticable theories. It is the SENTINEL'S design not only to talk this text, but to illustrate it; and the article in this issue is only the first of many which it hopes to publish to that end the coming year.

THE command to observe the Sabbath was not spoken to government, but to individuals. National Sabbath-keeping depends wholly upon individual Sabbath-keeping.

"HE that regardeth the day [the Sabbath], regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." So wrote the Apostle Paul. In either case, the responsibility is to God and not to the man.

¹ Schaff, "History of the Christian Church," Vol. III. 2, par. 15.

² See Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church," Vol. II., sec. 3, part 2, div. 3.