The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 77

November 27, 1900

“The Third Angel’s Message. The Faith of Jesus” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 48, p. 760.

“LET this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who... emptied himself.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.1

He emptied himself so entirely that, in becoming the Saviour of the world, he did not set himself forth in a way to make himself prominent or to draw attention to himself. “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.... And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” Hebrews 5:1, 4-6. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.2

He emptied himself so entirely that, in coming to the world, he did not do it in a way to make himself conspicuous, or to draw attention to himself; but in a way in which he could say, truly: “I am not come of myself, but... He hath sent me.” John 7:28, 29. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.3

He emptied himself so entirely that, even when he came not of himself, but was sent, he came not in his own name; not to represent himself; not to manifest himself; but in his Father’s name, to represent his Father, to make manifest only his Father. John 5:43. This because “he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” John 7:18. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.4

He emptied himself so entirely that, when he had come, he could truly say of himself: “I can of mine of self do nothing.” John 5:30. To men he says: “Without me ye can do nothing.” John 15:5. And of himself he said: “I can of mine own self do nothing.” This shows that he so entirely emptied himself that, in this world, he was of himself just as helpless to do righteousness as is the man who is without God. And, accordingly, he could truly say: “The Son can do nothing of himself” (John 5:19); and, “I do nothing of myself.” John 8:28. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.5

He emptied himself so entirely that he could truly say: “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself.” John 14:10. “The word which ye hear is not mine.” John 14:24. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.6

He emptied himself so entirely that no influence went forth as from himself, that could draw anyone to himself; and, therefore, he could truly say: “No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me draw him.” John 6:44. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.7

He emptied himself so entirely that he could truly say that “no man [“no one,” literally] knoweth the Son, but the Father.” Matthew 11:27. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.8

This is “the faith of Jesus.” This is the way of Christ. This only is Christianity. Therefore “let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” Let this be your mind always, and only: that you are called of God; that you are sent of God; that you go not in your own name, but only in the name of him that sent you; that you seek not your own glory, but only his glory that sent you; that of your own self you can do nothing, not even to speak; that no influence shall go forth as from yourself that can draw anyone to yourself; that none can come to you, except the Father, who hath sent you, draw him; that none can know you but God, and that all that shall be known of you shall be of God. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.9

This is what it is to let the mind which is in Christ be in you. And this can be, only by letting the mind of Christ be in you. For it is not of the natural man, it is not of self, to do this. For the natural mind, the carnal mind, “is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Therefore whether in Christ or in you, it is only the mind that was in Christ that can empty self of self. Therefore, “let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who ... emptied himself.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.10

When Christ had thus emptied himself, he was immediately filled with God; so that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19); so that whereas of his own self he would do nothing, and did do nothing, yet God, who dwelt in him, did mighty works (John 14:10); so that, though he could not speak of himself, the words which he spoke were in very truth “the Father’s,” who sent him (John 14:24; 12:49, 50); so that, in a word, he in this world was God manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.11

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who ... emptied himself.” It will accomplish in you exactly what it did in him—it will empty yourself. And when thus you have emptied yourself, immediately you will be filled with God, even with all the fullness of God; so that while of yourself you can do nothing, God, who dwelleth in you, will work in you that which is well pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ (Hebrews 13:21; 2 Corinthians 6:16); so that God will be in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13); so that you will not speak your own words, but the words of him that sends you (1 Corinthians 2:12, 13; John 3:33, 34); so that, in a word, in you it shall still be God manifest in the flesh. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.12

Oh, “let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who ... emptied himself.” For this is the faith of Jesus. And “here are they that keep ... the faith of Jesus.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.13

“Editorial” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 48, pp. 760.

THE commander-in-chief of the armies in the Phillippines, in his annual report, says:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.1

The institution of municipal government under American auspices, of course, carried the idea of exclusive fidelity to the sovereign power of the United States. All the necessary moral obligations to that end were readily assumed by municipal bodies, and all outward forms of decorum and loyalty carefully preserved. The presidents and town officials acted openly in behalf of the Americans, and secretly in behalf of the insurgents, and, paradoxical as it may seem, with considerable apparent solicitude for the interests of both. In all matters touching the peace of the town, the regulation of markets, the primitive work possible on roads, streets, and bridges, and the institution of schools, their open activity was commendable; at the same time they were exacting and collecting contributions and supplies, and recruiting men for the Philippine forces, and sending all obtainable military information to the Filipino leaders. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.2

Wherever, throughout the archipelago, there is a group of the insurgent army, it is a fact beyond dispute that all contiguous towns contribute to the maintenance thereof. In other words, the towns, regardless of the fact of American occupation and town organization, are the actual bases for all insurgent military activities; and not only so in the sense of furnishing supplies for the so-called flying columns of guerrillas, but as affording secure places of refuge. These remarks apply with equal force to the entire archipelago, excepting only that part of Mindanao occupied by Morosa, and to the Jolo Group. There is every reason to believe that all the Moros are entirely satisfied with existing conditions, and are anxious to maintain them. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.3

The Jolo Group, whose people are entirely satisfied with existing conditions, and are anxious to maintain them, is the Sulu Group, whose sultan and datos practice polygamy and hold slaves, and who are paid ten thousand (Mexican) dollars a year by the United States. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.4

If the United States would pay the Filipinos ten thousand (Mexican) dollars a year, or at that rate, for maintaining an undisturbed republican government, as it pays the sultan and datos of Sulu for maintaining undisturbed a polygamous and slave government, does anybody suppose that there would be any further war even for a day? And if such a proposition had been made to them in the beginning, as the other arrangement was made with the sultan and datos of the Sulus, does anybody suppose that there would ever have been any Philippine war even for a day? ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.5

And when no such proposition was not only never made, but has been persistently repudiated and warred against, by the United States, while at the same time recognizing, and by cash payments maintaining, a polygamous and slave government in the same region, how would it be possible for the United States more plainly and forcibly to show that she absolutely repudiates the whole principle of republican government, and prefers rather a polygamous and slave government? ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.6

“Some Ancient and Modern History” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 48, pp. 760, 761.

THE New York Sun of November 7, under the heading of “Constitution Making in Cuba,” says:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.1

The unselfish position taken by the United States with regard to Cuba is not less majestic and magnanimous because it is not entirely without precedent in history. Repeatedly during the Persian and Peloponnesian wars was the triumph of the Athenian arms followed, not by the conquest of Greek cities, but by the liberation of them from alien or oligarchical oppression. Upon the final overthrow of Macedon the Roman victory proclaimed the restoration of the liberties of Hellas. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.2

The challenges are worth taking up, for the mere sake of the case, and much more for the sake of the far-reaching truth that is involved. The proclamation made by Flamininus at the time referred to by the Sun, runs as follows:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.3

The Senate and people of Rome and Titus Quintius the general, having overcome Philip and the Macedonians, set at liberty, from all garrisons and taxes and imposts, the Corinthians, the Loerians, the Phocians, the Eubœans, the Phtihot-Aeheans, the Magnesians, the Thessalians, and the Perrhebians, declare them free, and ordain that they shall be governed by their respective laws and usages. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.4

When that proclamation was made, the Greeks fairly went wild with joy “that there was a people in the world who, at their own expense and the hazard of their lives, engaged in a war for the liberty of other nations; and that not for their neighbors or people situated on the same continent; but who crossed seas and sailed to distant climes to destroy and extirpate unjust power from the earth, and to establish universally law, equity, and justice: that by a single word, and the voice of a herald, liberty had been restored to all the cities of Greece and Asia.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.5

Further, on this the Sun says:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.6

It will at the same time be acknowledged that none of the precedents just mentioned quite measures up to the standard of disinterestedness set by the United States in its relations to Cuba. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.7

Instead of this being true in the cited case of Rome and the Greek states, it is the reverse that is true. Rome, immediately upon her victory over Philip, published openly, to the Greeks and to all the world, that proclamation of liberty to the Greek states which we have here reprinted. More than two years have passed since the United States completed its victory over Spain, and no such proclamation, not anything akin to it, has yet been made, of the liberty of Cuba. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.8

The Sun says: “Not long did the Romans respect those liberties of Hellas which Flamininus proclaimed.” That is true. But it is also true that Rome did proclaim those liberties of Hellas, and that Hellas did enjoy those liberties, at least for a season. But no such thing has ever appeared on the part of the United States, toward Cuba: the United States has not proclaimed the liberty of the Cubans, even for a little while; the Cubans have not had one moment of the enjoyment of the liberty which, at the beginning, the United States declared “is, and of right ought to be,” hers. Rome did proclaim and respect the liberties of Hellas, though it was “not long;” the United States has not done any such thing at all, even for a moment, for Cuba. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 760.9

In the comparison which the Outlook has challenged, and which the Sun has cited, “the standard of disinterestedness” is altogether on the side of Rome. As compared with Rome in the case cited, “the standard of disinterestedness set by the United States in its relations to Cuba” is a blank. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.1

For the sake of the truth in this comparison to which the Outlook and the Sun challenge the world, it is proper to state the case of the United States and Cuba from the beginning up to date. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.2

The United States declared war against Spain, April 18, 1898. That same day she also declared that “the people of the Island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.3

The war with Spain, ended Aug. 12, 1898, with the United States triumphant. A treaty of peace was arranged and ratified between the two powers—all this before a year had passed from the beginning of hostilities. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.4

In the declaration of war against Spain, April 18, 1898, it was also declared by the United States “that the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said islands, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.” And, though the war with Spain was ended Aug. 12, 1898, and the treaty of peace was ratified early in 1899, no further word was said on the subject by this nation until June 20, 1900, when in the convention of the national party, that party and the administration, in their platform, declared that “to Cuba independence and self-government were assured in the same voice by which war was declared, and to the letter this pledge shall be performed.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.5

About the same time a plan was announced to the country, and to Cuba, by the national administration, according to which, if Cuba should accept it, a new form of government would be established there. By that plan a constitutional convention was to be called, in Cuba; and if this convention should frame a constitution fully satisfactory to the United States, then the military government now in control would be withdrawn. But if this convention should not frame such a satisfactory constitution, then the military government now in control would remain until Cuba should present a constitutional that would be satisfactory to the United States. As to what would be satisfactory to the United States in the suggested arrangement, was made known in the following announced reservations:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.6

1. The foreign relations of Cuba to be managed through the American government at Washington. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.7

2. Cuba to have no power to declare war without the consent of the United States. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.8

3. The United States government to have a veto power over legislation increasing the Cuban debt beyond certain limits to be set forth in the new constitution. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.9

4. The United States to have a certain well-defined supervision over the Cuban territory. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.10

5. The United States to retain, for a period of years, if not indefinitely, control of the fortifications which command the port of Havana and other important cities of the republic. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.11

In accordance with tall this, it was announced, from Washington, July 20, that “Cuba is likely to become nominally an independent republic, with certain reservations that will virtually make the island a self-governing colony of the United States, within six or eight months from this date.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.12

Not long afterward an order was issued by the United States government, giving directions as to the Cuban constitutional convention. Delegates were to be elected, etc., and the convention was to “meet in the city of Havana, at twelve o’clock noon, on the first Monday of November, in the year 1900, to frame and adopt a constitution for the people of Cuba, and, as a part thereof, to provide for and agree with the government of the United States, upon the relations to exist between that government and the government of Cuba.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.13

That convention assembled, according to order, Monday, November 5, and is now in session. And according to that order it was opened by the United States Governor-General of Cuba, in the following words:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.14

As Military Governor of the Island of Cuba, and representing the President of the United States, I call this convention to order. It will be your duty first of all to frame and adopt a constitution for Cuba, and, when that has been done, to formulate what, in your opinion, ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United States. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.15

The constitution must be adequate to secure stable, orderly, and free government. When you have formulated the relations which, in your opinion, ought to exist between Cuba and the United States, the government of the United States will doubtless take such action on its part as shall lead to a final and authoritative agreement between the people of the two countries to the promotion of their common interests. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.16

All friends of Cuba will follow your deliberations with the deepest interest, earnestly desiring that you shall reach just conclusions; and that, by the dignity, individual self-restraint, and wise conservatism which shall characterize your proceedings, the capacity of the Cuban people for representative government may be signally illustrated. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.17

The fundamental distinction between true representative government and a dictatorship is that in the former every representative of the people, in whatever office, confines himself strictly within the limits of his defined powers. Without such restraint, there can not be free constitutional government. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.18

Under the order pursuant to which you have been elected and convened you have no duty and no authority to take part in the present government of the island. Your powers are strictly limited by the terms of the order. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.19

Note those first two paragraphs. The first one tells them that it is their duty to frame and adopt a constitution for Cuba, and also to formulate what, in their opinion, ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United States. The second one tells them that when they shall have done these two things—then what? that then the freedom and independence of Cuba shall be proclaimed, according to the original declaration of the Congress of the United States? Is that what would follow? Is that what is intended to follow? Surely, if it were to do so, this, of all places and times in the world, was the occasion to say it. But, no. Instead of continuing that sentence to its proper, logical, and only legitimate conclusion, it suddenly breaks off in the middle, and drops to the dismal plane of shuffling and concealment. Read it again, as it actually stands:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.20

When you have formulated the relations which, in your opinion, ought to exist between Cuba and the United States, the government of the United States will [not proclaim the liberty and independence of Cuba, but only “will”] doubtless take such action on its part as shall lead to a final and authoritative AGREEMENT between the people of the two countries to the promotion of their common interests. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.21

Read also again the last two paragraphs of the Governor-General’s speech. Read them attentively, and not their ominous meaning to that constitutional convention,—how they are told that their powers are strictly limited, how they must confine themselves strictly within those limits; and how plainly they are told that they have neither any duty nor any authority to take part in the present government of the island. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.22

That is the latest word on the subject, and there can be no kind of question whatever that in the comparison which the Sun has made, the advantage and the way of honor stand pre-eminently in favor of Rome. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.23

And now, from this fact of Rome’s advantage in the comparison, there is a very important conclusion which history itself has drawn, and which stands before us and all people almost as the handwriting on the way; that is, that Rome did not long respect the liberty of Greece which she had proclaimed. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.24

On this, ancient history itself has recorded that shortly “the Romans rendered themselves the sovereign arbiters of those whom they had restored to liberty, and whom they now considered, in some measure, as their freedmen. They used to depute commissioners to them, to inquire into their complaints, to weight and examine the reasons on both sides, and to decide their quarrels; but when the articles were of such a nature that there was no possibility of reconciling them on the spot, they invited them to send their deputies to Rome. Afterward they used, with plenary authority, to summon those who refused to come to an agreement, obliged them to plead their cause before the Senate, and even to appear in person there. From arbiters and mediators, being become supreme judges, they soon assumed a magisterial tone, looked upon their decrees as irrevocable decisions, were greatly offended when the most implicit obedience was not paid to them, and gave the name of rebellion to a second resistance.... ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.25

“We shall hear one of the chief magistrates in the republic of the Achens inveigh strongly in a public assembly against this unjust usurpation, and ask by what title the Romans were empowered to assume so haughty an ascendant over them; whether their republic was not as free and independent as that of Rome; by what right the latter pretended to force the Achens to account for their conduct; whether they would be pleased, should the Achens, in their turn, officiously pretend to inquire into their affairs; and whether matters ought not to be on the same footing on both sides. All these reflections were very reasonable, just, and unanswerable; and the Romans had no advantage in the question but force.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.26

And when that was the outcome of Rome’s open proclamation of the liberties of the Greek states, what may be expected to be the outcome of the dealings of the United States with Cuba, in which there has been no proclamation of a single liberty of Cuba? ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.27

The prophecy declared, long ago, that “an Image to the Beast” was to come up sometime, somewhere. When is it, and where is it, to be? ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.28

“The New Order of Government. For the United States” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 48, pp. 761, 762.

A SHORT time ago, in New York City, a professional National Reformer said:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.1

Congress should be the interpreter of God’s law in the same sense that Congress interprets the Constitution. Nor would this result in a state church. What we desire is the union of religion and the state. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.2

Then, in noting the objection “that Congress could not interpret the law of God so as to please members of all denominations,” he answered that “it would come a little hard at first, but in the end it would work satisfactorily.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.3

Upon all this the Outlook says:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.4

We agree, as we have repeatedly said, with the position that conformity to divine law is the basis of a just government, but not with the Puritan deduction, maintained by Dr. Foster, that Congress should attempt to administer a theocracy. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.5

Yes, that is true. The Outlook does agree, and for a long time has agreed, with the position that “conformity to divine law is the basis of a just government.” Oct. 6, 1900, the Outlook said:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.6

Just government rests neither upon the edict of a few strong men nor upon the consent of the many; it rests upon the law of God. No government is just which does not conform to the law of God. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.7

Just governments rest on conformity with the laws of God. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.8

At the same time it also said:— ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.9

Human governments are, or ought to be, attempts to ascertain what these laws are, and to adapt the life of the community to them. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.10

A righteous democracy is simply one way of ascertaining what are the laws of God, and of conforming the life of the community to them. In democracy a large proportion of the community—in America about one in ten—participate in this endeavor. The other nine tenths are under the government of this one tenth. This method has two great advantages over all other forms of government. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.11

Now, since, according to the Outlook’s theory and model of just government, only “about one in ten” have really to do with the conforming of the life of the community to the laws of God, wherein does it differ, in principle, from that of Dr. Foster? The difference is not in any sense one of principle. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 761.12

Nor is it a difference even of operation. For Dr. Foster finds in Congress the representative body of the whole “righteous democracy,” through which this “righteous democracy” expresses its will be “attempts to ascertain what these laws” of God are, “and to adapt the life of the community to them;” while the Outlook’s method of operation is, not the whole body of the “righteous democracy,” but only “about one in ten.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.1

Thus, as actually stated by the Outlook, in the words before us, between the Outlook’s theory of just government and that of Dr. Foster, which it criticizes, there is no difference either in principle or in operation, but solely of degree, and even that very slight. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.2

Where can there be any real or practical difference between “one in ten” of a “righteous democracy” attempting “to administer a theocracy;” and one in ten thousand or ten hundred thousand, in a body called Congress, doing the same thing? The thing that is done is the same in both cases: the thing that is attempted to be done is the same in both cases: the theory of government from which springs the thing that is done, or the thing that is attempt to be done, is the same in both cases. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.3

Therefore it is as plain as A B C that the Outlook believes in and advocates, both theoretically and practically, the identical form of government that Dr. Foster the National Reformer does. And the only possible ground of dissent from Dr. Foster’s order of government that the editor of the Outlook really has, lies in the mere incident that the editor of the Outlook does not belong to the same church, or sub-order in the “righteous democracy,” that Dr. Foster does. In other words, the editor of the Outlook could not allow that it would be exactly just government for Dr. Foster to conform the editor’s life to the laws of God, nor for Congress to conform the editor’s life to Dr. Foster’s views of the laws of God. And there are tens of thousands of the people in Dr. Abbott’s “about one in ten” in the “righteous democracy” who would likewise, and with equal reason, decidedly object to the others of that “one in ten” in the “righteous democracy” conforming their lives to the laws of God. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.4

However, it is not necessary to follow that phase of the case any further at present. From the Outlook’s own words the facts plainly appear that the Outlook believes in identically the same sort of government that Dr. Foster the National Reformer does; and that the Outlook recognizes that that form of government is definitely a “theocracy.” ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.5

And from this it is perfectly plain that the Outlook, in repudiating the American principle of civil government,—“the consent of the governed,“—in repudiating the republican principle of the Declaration and the Constitution, does so solely in the interests of a man-made theocracy, precisely as the confessed National Reformers have always done. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.6

And this again reveals the mighty fact that the repudiation of the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution, by this nation, from Aug. 12, 1898, to date, in which the Outlook has been a leading factor, is clearly in the interests of a man-made theocracy, and will as certainly be followed by that form of government as night follows day. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.7

And that makes plain the truth that this national repudiation of the principles of the Declaration of the Constitution—the principle of government by the “consent of the governed”—is the mightiest stride that has been taken since 1892 in the making of the Image of the Beast. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.8

“Editorial Note” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 48, p. 762.

THE New York Tribune is the leading administration paper. Its editor and proprietor was one of the commissioners who arranged the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain. Since that treaty was arranged, his speeches, his articles, and his paper, by some singular or other coincidence, have marked out exactly the course taken by the national administration. And now the Tribune has announced the result of the late election as “an overwhelming victory for imperialism.” If the course of the national administration shall coincide as closely, for the next four years, with this forecast of the Tribune, as for the last two years it has coincided with the other forecasts of that paper, then by the time the four years shall be ended, the results will be so positive and decisive as to convince the most determined skeptic. ARSH November 27, 1900, page 762.1