The American Sentinel 14
September 28, 1899
“Front Page” American Sentinel 14, 38, p. 593.
RIGHT is mightier than might. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.1
IT is ideas, not armies, that rule the world. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.2
NO power but that of love can rightfully compel the conscience. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.3
WHEN religion becomes a religion of law, it ceases to be a religion of love. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.4
IF human law could benefit religion, the religion of the ancient Pharisees would have been the best on earth. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.5
WHEN religion is incorporated into civil enactments, it is lowered from the plane of the divine law to that of the human. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.6
PROTESTANTISM is a protest against the acceptance of human authority and human wisdom as a source religious obligation. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.7
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.8
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.9
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.10
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.11
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.12
“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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.1
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 communication 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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 593.2
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:— AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.1
“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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.2
“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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.3
“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.” AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.4
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.5
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.6
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? AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.7
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:— AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.8
“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.” AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.9
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.10
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.11
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 594.12
“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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.1
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.2
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.3
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.4
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.5
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.” AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.6
Self-preservation is the first law of nature; but self-sacrifice is the first law of grace. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.7
Self-protection is the only means of self-preservation; Self-surrender is the only means of self-sacrifice. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.8
Force is the only means of self-protection; love is the only means of self-surrender. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.9
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.10
Force is only of evil; love is only of the good. Force is of Satan; love is of God. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.11
God made all things “very good“: he made Lucifer good, and Lucifer made himself evil—Satan. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.12
God made man loving; Satan by seduction made him selfish. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.13
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?” AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.14
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 595.15
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 596.1
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 596.2
“Put not your trust in princes,” wrote the psalmist, “neither in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” Psalm 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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 596.3
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 596.4
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:— AMS September 28, 1899, page 596.5
“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.” AMS September 28, 1899, page 596.6
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 596.7
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 596.8
“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.” AMS September 28, 1899, page 608.1
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. AMS September 28, 1899, page 608.2