The American Sentinel 14
May 11, 1899
“Front Page” American Sentinel 14, 19, p. 287.
CHRISTIANITY does not “follow the flag;” it follows the cross. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.1
THE “civil Sabbath” represents an effort to secure rest without religion, recreation, or sleep. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.2
TRUE Sabbath rest is derived from the Sabbath itself, not from an enforced quiet and cessation of business. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.3
THE true Christian warfare is not where one nation overcomes another, but where an individual overcomes the world. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.4
ONLY the law of Christ can provide the religion of Christ. A Sunday law can provide only the religion of the State. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.5
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.6
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.7
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.8
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.9
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.10
“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:— AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.1
“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.’” AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.2
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 being a mere negation, might as well own up that he is a Roman Catholic and take his stand openly with that church. AMS May 11, 1899, page 287.3
Protestantism is either a lie, or it is truth. If it is truth, it is not a mere negation. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.1
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!” AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.2
Wycliffe’s prophecy came true. Truth—drawn from the Scripture—vanquished Rome, and that victory established Protestantism in the world. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.3
Truth is always a protest against error; but truth—religious truth—is at the same time the most positive thing in the world. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.4
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.5
“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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.6
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.7
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.8
“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? AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.1
“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:— AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.1
“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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.2
“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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.3
“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 American 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.” AMS May 11, 1899, page 288.4
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 289.1
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 289.2
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:— AMS May 11, 1899, page 289.3
“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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 289.4
“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.” AMS May 11, 1899, page 289.5
To all of which every true Christian will heartily say, Amen. AMS May 11, 1899, page 289.6
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 302.1
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 302.2
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 302.3
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. AMS May 11, 1899, page 302.4