The American Sentinel 15

January 25, 1900

“Front Page” American Sentinel 15, 4, p. 49.

ATJ

INTOLERANCE of man is never an attribute of Christianity. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.1

NO WEAPON of Christian warfare is made to coerce men into doing right. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.2

THE Sabbath was given to man without any law save the law God; and it needs no new support to-day. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.3

IF men do not keep the Sabbath, that does not hurt the Sabbath, but it injures those for whom the Sabbath was made. They, and not the Sabbath, need protection; but the protection they need is to be kept from the power of sin in their own hearts, and that protection only God can supply. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.4

AMS MORALITY is inseparable from religion, legislation cannot be based upon moral grounds without also resting on religious grounds, and thus becoming religious legislation. Proper legislation is not to preserve morals, but rights. The preservation of morality can be accomplished only by spiritual agencies. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.5

NO PERSON is authorized to define the meaning of the Word of God for another person, or for the Government; nor can this authority belong to any number of persons together. The Holy Spirit alone holds the office of making clear to the mind the meaning of the divine Word, to each and every mind individually. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.6

THE natural right of every man to be let alone by others, to enjoy himself in this life in whatever way he may feel inclined, is a self-evident truth,—one that all men recognize alike. It is the one ground that is common to all,—the one ground upon which all men have equality one with another. Hence it is the one proper ground of human legislation. Moral truths are not self-evident, and the authority for moral truths is not one which all men recognize, and to attempt to define and enforce moral truths would necessarily involve a despotism of one class over another. It is a part of each person’s business to preserve his freedom of thought and action (within the bounds of natural rights) unmolested; but it is no part of his business to molest others by imposing upon them his views of moral or religious duty. The right of liberty for one is the right of liberty for all. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.7

“The Same Now as Always Before” American Sentinel 15, 4, pp. 49-51.

ATJ

THERE are a whole lot of people who, through lack of careful attention in years past, as well as now, utterly fail to understand the position of the AMERICAN SENTINEL in relation to present issues. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.1

These folks think that the AMERICAN SENTINEL is opposed to national expansion, and to imperialism as to territory. This is altogether a mistake: an entire misapprehension of the SENTINEL’S position, its work, and its principals. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.2

As to expansion in itself, the United States might expand to the ends of the earth and the AMERICAN SENTINEL would never have a word to say against it. As for imperialism in territory the Uuited [sic.] States might extend its jurisdiction over the territory of a whole earth and the AMERICAN SENTINEL would never have any occasion to utter a word in opposition. AMS January 25, 1900, page 49.3

But when in her expansion and her imperial absorption of territory, the Declaration of Independence must be repudiated, and the Constitution abandoned; when in such a career the fundamental principles of the nation and of natural right, are utterly ignored and when not ignored are scouted; here only and for this cause alone, it is that the AMERICAN SENTINEL enters its protest. AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.1

If this nation would simply hold fast in unswerving allegiance, the Declaration of Independence and the National Constitution in letter and in spirit, and should expand to the ends of the earth, then her expansion would be an unmixed blessing to the whole world; as in her original little sphere, and her earlier expansion, and in spite of all other power, she has been a blessing to the whole world. If these vital principles of this nation were held by the nation in unquestioning faithfulness, and its imperialism were only in territory, even though it should embrace the territory of the whole world; that also would be a blessing to the world. And the AMERICAN SENTINEL would be glad of it all; because, to enlighten and bless the whole world with these principles is just what, and only what, this nation was planted for. AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.2

Therefore, neither with expansion nor with imperialism in territory, has the SENTINEL ever had anything to do, nor will ever have anything to do. But since it is the indisputable truth that this expansion and imperialism is, in every element and at every step carried on in open and entire repudiation of the Declaration of Independence and in disregard of the plain word as well as the whole spirit of the Constitution; since all the opportunities of expansion and imperialism, are made only occasions for the further abandonment of the vital principles of this nation, which were given for the enlightenment of the world; then it is, and this is why it is, that in the interests of mankind, and in behalf of blessing to the world, the AMERICAN SENTINEL opposes the principles of this expansion and this imperialism: the principles bear in mind—not the things, but the principles. AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.3

Thus expansion and imperialism in territory might be extended by this nation to the ends of the earth and made to embrace the whole world; and if the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution were in faithfulness carried with it and through it all everywhere, nobody could rightfully have anything whatever to say against it because it would be only for the blessing of the world. Whereas on the other hand, even though expansion had never reached beyond the limits of the possessions of the original thirteen States, and even though imperialism in territory had never been either heard of or mentioned in this nation; yet if imperialism in principle and in governmental practise had been entertained now; and if the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution had been repudiated as they are now; then every Christian and everybody else who has any regard for self-evident truth and the natural rights of mankind, would, in integrity to principle, be required to say just what the AMERICAN SENTINEL is saying. Any such repudiation of principle by this nation can be but the calamity of the world. AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.4

In this misapprehension and misjudging of the SENTINEL by these folks, there is a point that is very strange; that is, how anybody who has ever read the AMERICAN SENTINEL to any extent, can think that its present position and views of the SENTINEL on this subject are in any sense now. In all this the SENTINEL stands precisely where it has always stood, and it says exactly what it has always said. The only thing that is new is the new phase of things that has developed in which are now applied the same things which we have always said. And even this new phase of things is but altogether new: it is in present procedure largely of actual fulfillment of that which long ago we said would certainly come of seed that was then being sown. AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.5

This could be proved to the length of pages from the files of the SENTINEL of years past. We shall not attempt to take the space for anything like all of it. In this week’s SENTINEL there is an instance in point: when in the subject of governing without the Constitution, as now being done, we quoted from the columns of the SENTINEL of May 7, 1891, what we then said would certainly come, and which has now actually come. And here is another instance: In the SENTINEL of June 11, 1891, under the heading of “There is Mischief in It,” we discussed certain issues that were then current. In that discussion we were obliged to consider and note the principle and development of a one-man power, and the despotism, in the Roman Republic; and the turning of it by the church power into a religious despotism. It was there and then remarked that by false principles and wrong practises among the people there was developed first that devil despotism which was at last turned into a religious despotism. And now we quote:— AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.6

“[Thus there was developed] more and more the despotism of the many, till it was merged in a despotism of three—the first triumvirate—which ended in the despotism of one, whom they murdered, which immediately again by a despotism of three—the second triumvirate—which ended again in the despotism of one—Cesar-Augustus—and the final establishment of the imperial despotism, the most horrible civil despotism that ever was, and which continued until Constantine and the political bishops turned it into the most horrible religious despotism that ever was. AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.7

“That was the end of that story then and there, and the perfect likeness to it will be the end of this story now and here. AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.8

“And this answers the query of one of our correspondents, as to what business has the SENTINEL, a religious paper, to touch this question which is political. We are persuaded that the SENTINEL has not missed its calling, nor spent its efforts in vain in this respect. The SENTINEL is a religious paper, that is true, and it exists for the sole purpose of exposing to the American people the movement for the establishment of a religious despotism here, after the model of the papacy. AMS January 25, 1900, page 50.9

“But no religious despotism can ever be established over a free people. It were literally impossible to establish a religious despotism over the royal freemen who made the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.1

“This gradual but steady perversion and subversion of the genuine principles of this Government as established by our forefathers, this steady inculcating of the principles of paternalism, is but sowing the seeds of a despotism—whether of the many, of the few, or of one, it matters not—which at the opportune moment will be joined by the political preachers, and out of the wicked alliance thus formed there will come the religious despotism in the perfect likeness of the one which was before, and against which the continuous efforts of the AMERCAN SENTINEL have ever been and ever shall be directed. AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.2

“And that is the reason, and the only reason, yet reason enough, why the AMERICAN SENTINEL, a religious paper, touches this otherwise political question.... AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.3

“It may be that our correspondents will not agree with us just now; but that matters nothing to us. Five years ago [1886] when the SENTINEL first called attention to the movement to establish a religious despotism, we were criticised and pooh-poohed for that more than we are now for calling attention to this surest forerunner of it. But the SENTINEL knew then just what it was doing; and it knows now what it is doing just as well is it did then. Those who objected then, know now that we were right then; and those who object now may know sometime that we were right now; and we shall have known it all the time.... AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.4

“And we are perfectly willing to trust to the event to demonstrate that the coming religious despotism will be established substantially in the manner here outlined.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.5

And now 1899 and 1900, this which in June, 1891, we said would come—a one-man power—is coming as fast as the days go by. That which in June, 1891, we were willing to trust to the event to demonstrate, is now January, 1900, being constantly demonstrated before the eyes of the whole world by the steady progress of events that the AMERICAN SENTINEL occupied, and speaks precisely the same things that it has always spoken, when it opposes the abandonment of the Constitution and the repudiation of the Declaration of Independence which are the acknowledged, and even the boasted, accompaniments of this expansion and imperialism of this nation. A. T. J.It is the same way with the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union and others who are working for religious legislation. They do not all intend to establish a religious despotism, they do not all intend to persecute, but a religious despotism with its attendant persecutions, is in the principle of the thing, and will all appear as surely as they secure what they demand, nor will either the wickedness or the cruelty of the thing be relieved by the fact that they did not intend it. AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.6

We say to all, have nothing to do with either the religious or the civil movement. In religion let your dependence be upon God, and not upon the Government. And in civil things, let your dependence be upon your own manly self and not upon a paternal, pampering, coddling, meddling government, which must needs tell you what you shall eat and drink and wear, how long you shall work, when you are tired, when you shall rest, and when you shall be religious. AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.7

“National Reform Notes” American Sentinel 15, 4, pp. 52-54.

ATJ

THE following items of interest pertaining to the progress of the National Reform movement, are gathered from the latest of the National Reform organ Christian Statesman:— AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.1

IN the annual report of the Postmaster-General recommendation is made to Congress in favor of “the modification of the eight-hour law, which shall provide for six days’ work of forty-eight hours, with as much additional hours on Sunday, not exceeding eight, as the exigencies of the service may demand.” This disregard of the claims made for Sunday as a sacred day called forth a “faithful rebuke” from the theocratic party and “Mr. Smith [the Postmaster-General] has assured the editor of the Statesman that no such recommendation will ever again find place in his report.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.2

“WITH the increasing prosperity of the times it now seems probable,” says the Statesman, “that this year’s receipts will be far in advance of those of any recent year.” And these will be used “to carry forward the many important lines of practical work now in hand.” “The present list of workers in the National Reform cause,” we read further, “is by far the largest during the entire history of the movement,” and “with such a corps of workers the year 1900 will be the inauguration of a new era in the cause of National Reform.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.3

THE proposed religious amendment to the Constitution, by which the Government is to be made “Christian,” will, we are told, “safeguard the religious liberty and equality of all citizens by providing toleration and ecclesiastical freedom, and by completely separating church and state.” This amazing assertion appears in the Christian Statesman as a part of an “admirable argument” prepared by Prof. J. McNaugher in support of a resolution passed at the late National Reform convention in this city. AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.1

To determine how much truth this assertion contains, we have only to note that under the State enforcement of Sunday observance, which the theocratic party aim by means of this amendment to make more rigid and more widespread, exactly the same results have followed that were seen under the religious persecutions of former times. This party want Sunday enforcement not only by authority of the States, but of the nation. This party want the Government to become “Christian” in order that Sunday enforcement may become more general and more rigid. And they say this would not bring religious persecution. It would not infringe religious liberty, but would safeguard it. But note: in various States of the Union, under the operation of existing Sunday laws, people who for conscience’ sake could not conform to such requirements, believing themselves bound by the law of God to honor the seventh day of the week and not the first day, have been arrested, fined, imprisoned, worked in the chain-gang, and treated just as “heretics” were treated under the religious persecutions of the Dark Ages, except that they have not yet suffered the death penalty. In the one case the system has not been carried quite as far as in the other, but it is the same in character, for it bears the same kind of fruit. If a system of government that is called for does not mean religious persecution, then religious persecution will not be possible under it. And where such persecution does appear, the system under which it appears is plainly stamped as an invasion of religious freedom, however strongly its defenders may assert its innocence. AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.2

“A joint resolution has been introduced into the Senate of the United States by Mr. Kyle, which proposes the following amendment as Article XVI. of the Constitution: ‘The Congress as the highest law-making power of a Christian nation, shall have exclusive power to regulate marriage and divorce in the several States, Territories, and the District of Columbia.’ This amendment, if adopted, would harmonize the action of the legislative department of the Government with the decision of the Supreme Court in which it is declared that ‘this is a Christian nation.’” AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.3

This would be an “amendment” of the Constitution, with a vengeance. It would sweep away the Constitution altogether. More than this: it would sweep away the Republic altogether, and in its place establish the worst form of monarchy. All this it would do in theory as soon as adopted by Congress; and actually, as soon as it should be carried into effect. AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.4

Marriage and divorce are regulated in each State by the State law. This is so by virtue of the principle of American Government which accords to each State the sovereignty over its own affairs. Should this power be taken from the State and given to Congress, this principle would be broken and the regulating power of the State over any other matter might with equal propriety be transferred in like manner. No logical ground would remain in support of the system of independent State government; and the complete absorption of State power by the national Government would follow as a natural result. AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.5

But this is not the worse feature of the proposed amendment. Congress, by its provisions, is to exercise this power “as the highest law-making power of a Christian nation.” Congress is to become Christian. None but Christians—and orthodox Christians they must be—can be sent to Congress. “We the people of the United States,” who ordain the Constitution, will be changed to “We the orthodox Christian people of the United States;” and all others can choose between being governed by the “orthodox Christians” or emigrating to some other land. Indeed, they have already been invited to emigrate by representatives of this “Christian” party. AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.6

And this, as the National Reform party correctly sees, “would harmonize the action of the legislative department of the Government with the decision of the Supreme Court in which it is declared that ‘this is a Christian nation.’” Such is the nature and meaning of that decision. AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.7

THE God-in-the-Constitution party are trying hard to make capital out of the action of Congress in the Roberts’ case. They want the Government to base its action against polygamy on religious grounds. At the annual business meeting of this association, the Committee on Resolutions was instructed to prepare “resolutions on the exclusion of Brigham H. Roberts, an avowed polygamist, from Congress, and on the securing of an amendment to the national Constitution excluding polygamists from all national offices on Christian grounds.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.8

This scheme is now being actively pushed by the “reform” forces at Washington. “Several Joint Resolutions have been introduced into the House of Representatives for an anti-polygamy amendment to the Constitution.” One of these reads thus: ‘Polygamy is hereby declared to be an offense against the United States, and forever prohibited within them or any place subject to their jurisdiction; and no person engaged in the practise therefore shall hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States or any State.” The theocratic party want to have inserted in this, after “polygamy,” the words “being condemned by the law of Christ governing the marriage relation.” The importance in this critical juncture,” says the Statesman, “of giving to an anti-polygamy amendment an distinctly Christian character, with an express acknowledgment embodied in it of the law of Christ as of supreme authority in the government of the marriage relation, cannot be overestimated.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 53.9

It is indeed a matter of great importance whether the Government legislates against polygamy and debars polygamists from office because of the law of Christ, or whether it is done upon purely secular grounds. For if the Government is to enforce one thing because it is demanded by the law of Christ, how can it refuse to enforce any other thing demanded by that law? The Government would be logically bound to attempt to enforce the law—or will—of Christ in all things, and thus to make itself a theocracy, executing the dictates of the church and calling back the dark days of religious persecution. It is to this ignoble point that the National Reform “God-in-the-Constitution” theocratic party are with untiring zeal striving to lead this nation. AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.1

IN behalf of the “religious amendment to the Constitution” demanded by the theocratic party, it is argued that “The conducting of civil government requires continually the determination of national moral problems.” And “this necessity proves the nation itself to be a moral agent, and that it needs an infallible standard for its guidance, such as only the moral law of the Christian religion affords.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.2

It is true that a being having moral responsibility needs to be guided by an infallible standard to be used by the Government? The theocratic “reformers” insist that the Government shall enforce the observance of Sunday. They say this is a duty commanded by the Decalogue. That is their view—their opinion—of it. But is their opinion infallible? And when they insist that the Government enforce their opinion of the meaning of the moral law, will the Government then be guided by an infallible standard? Certainly it will not. No man is infallible; no assemblage or organization of men is infallible. And no man or organization of men can give an infallible application of the moral law. No infallible directions can be given to the Government by any man or men with reference to moral duty. The Government, if it permits any such moral guidance, will be infallibly led astray. AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.3

The infallible standard afforded by the Word of God is of practicable value only through the agencies of instruction which God himself bas [sic.] provided. God has given, to the believer, his Holy Spirit, as an infallible guide into all truth. This cannot possibly be dispensed with. The infallible voice must be the voice of God, never the voice of man. AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.4

And as each individual of the human family is required to have faith, and to seek to the Lord for wisdom, so is the guidance of the Holy Spirit for each individual, independently of all others. The infallible standard of morality can be seen in its application to human affairs only by each individual for himself, and only within the limits of his own moral responsibilities. When one person attempts to apply God’s infallible moral standard within the sphere of another person’s responsibilities, he puts himself in the place of God, and can only lead others into darkness instead of light. AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.5

There is already in the world, and has been for centuries, a religious organization, which professes to do just what these reformers have in mind to do: it professes to apply the infallible moral standard to the affairs of governments as well as of individuals, and is ready to point out certain requirements as being morally binding upon governments. That organization is the papacy; and it became the papacy only by holding to the doctrine that civil governments are bound by the moral law, and assuming, just as the theocratic party does now, to point out to the civil power the moral duties binding upon it. That organization is as good a one as can be devised for that purpose. The National Reform party and its allies are forming another organization which can at best only be exactly like the first one, and not in any way better. AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.6

But even it these “reformers” or any body of men on the earth could speak with an infallible voice in applying the moral law to human affairs, the Government would still be debarred from attempting to conform to its requirements, for the reason that a government can not possess moral responsibility. Civil government is a creature of man, and the creature is reponsible [sic.] only to its creator. Civil government exists not to obey law, but to execute it; and the only law that civil government can know is the will of the people who create it. Civil government exists to prevent anarchy in human society, and it has no other purpose whatever. And when it does this, it reaches the limit of its responsibility and its usefulness. It has no other business than to prevent anarchy because there is no other necessity than to prevent anarchy because there is no other necessity for it. It prevents anarchy when it protects the individuals of society in the enjoyment of their natural rights; and it does this by enforcing the laws which have been devised for this purpose. Civil government is a means of serving moral beings, and not a moral being itself. Moral beings, so far as this world is concerned, and human beings, always. At the first, the only moral beings on the earth were Adam and Eve, and all other moral beings since their time are only such as have descended from them. God alone can create a being having moral responsibility. AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.7

BE intolerant as you please of sin in your own heart, but remember that you cannot look into the hearts of others. AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.8

“Position of the N. W. C. T. U. Regarding Sunday Laws” American Sentinel 15, 4, pp. 51, 52.

ATJ

BY indisputable facts and records, we have shown to some extent the character of “the usual exemption” with respect to Sunday laws, “for those who keep the Sabbath day,” which by resolution and otherwise is favored by the N. W. C. T. U. AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.1

Now it must be remembered that this resolution favoring that “usual exemption” was adopted by the Union at the late national convention at Seattle as a substitute for a resolution that was already before the convention; and “as involving all necessary points, and omitting the objectionable ones,” in the original resolution. AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.2

Understanding the real character and effect of “the usual exemption,” which they favor, and that this “covers all necessary points,” and avoids all “objectionable ones,” in the original resolution, it is of especial interest to study the original resolution that was before the convention, to know what are the objectionable points in it. AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.3

And here is that original resolution:— AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.4

“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 pursecution [sic.] or to in any manner interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.5

Now we ask every soul to look carefully through that resolution, word by word and clause by clause. Please consider it in all its bearings from beginning to end. And when you have thoroughly weighed and considered it, then reflect, and weigh also the fact, that the N. W. C. T. U., in convention assembled, found in that resolution objectionable points to such an extent that it was actually set aside for a substitute involving such points who keep the Sabbath day.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.6

According to the situation as it stands, the W. C. T. U. has taken the position that it is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the N. 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 or 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. AMS January 25, 1900, page 51.7

Accordingly, therefore, to the W. C. T. U. it is not an objectionable thing for anybody, 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. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.1

It is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the N. 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. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.2

Accordingly, therefore, it is not an objectionable thing for anybody to use any lines of W. C. T. U. work so as to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.3

It is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the N. W. C. T. U. to protest against the use of their material and machinery, even by the prejudiced and malicious, in persecuting. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.4

It is not, to the national Union, an objectionable thing for anybody, even in prejudice and malice, to use the material and machinery of the N. W. C. T. U. to persecute concerning days and the manner of their observance. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.5

So the N. 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. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.6

“ARTICLE VI.—PLANS OF WORK

“Nothing shall ever be incorporated into any plan of N. 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.” AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.7

Now let it be understood that we do not say that the N. 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 fears for Sunday and Sunday laws to become so aroused that they utterly lost sight of all merits of the resolution before them; that all calmness of consideration was forgotten; and that in this “state of mind” they rushed the resolution out of the way by whatever means possible. And in the doing of this, they committed themselves to the position that it is objectionable for anybody to ask them to protest against the use of their material and machinery to persecute and to interfere with liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.8

It is a good thing that the national Union has the whole year before it, in which to consider and to look soberly at what they really did, and then have an opportunity in the next annual convention to correct the mistake into which they allowed themselves to be hurried. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.9

And having considered the subject for a whole year, then, at the next annual convention, will they really correct their mistake? or will they confirm their declaration to the effect that it is an objectionable thing for them to be asked to protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of W. C. T. U. work as can be made to serve the purposes of persecution, or to interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance? These are proper and interesting questions. AMS January 25, 1900, page 52.10

A. T. J.

“National Reform Notes” American Sentinel 15, 4, pp. 52-54.

ATJ

BE intolerant as you please of sin in your own heart, but remember that you cannot look into the hearts of others. AMS January 25, 1900, page 54.8

“Back Page” American Sentinel 15, 4, p. 64.

ATJ

THE Scriptures constitute a valuable text-book on the subject of “manifest destiny.” The destiny of men and of nations is there made very manifest indeed, and one needs only to believe what he reads in order to know all about the subject. “The soul that sinneth it shall die,” may be cited as an illustration. That is manifest destiny for one class of people. On the other hand, “he that believeth and is baptized [thus having his sins removed] shall be saved;” and this is manifest destiny for another class of people. The governments and kingdoms of earth are spoken of in Psalm 2 and Daniel 2 as being finally broken in pieces to make way for the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of God (see also Revelation 13, last half); and this is manifest destiny for the governments. And that this is so, no Christian can consistently deny. AMS January 25, 1900, page 64.1