THE law of God is a law not only of prohibitions, but of power. It not only commands, Thou shalt not, but is an expression of the power of God for righteousness, to which power man has access through the gospel.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.1

In this the law of God is as superior to the law of man as heaven is superior to earth.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.2

To the Jews, speaking of the laying down of his life, Jesus said, “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” John 10:18. And all the commandments of God are expressions of his power.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.3

It is a common idea that the commandments of God are the expression or measure of our power toward God—that by exerting our utmost endeavors we will be able to comply with the law, and therefore God requires it of us. But this is as far as possible from the truth. The commandments are the measure of God’s power toward us, even in our sins. Hopeless indeed would the sinner’s case be but for this.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.4

The deeds of the law are infinitely beyond our human endeavors, but God has destined us for a station infinitely beyond that of fallen, erring humanity. Seen through the gospel, the law speaks to us of a power infinitely beyond our own, to lift us up from the plane of human frailty. “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift!”AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.5

And this is why it is that “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul,” and is seen in the motions of sun, moon, and stars, as described in the nineteenth Psalm; for in them all is the manifestation of his power.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.6

This is why the believer is “not under the law.” Having exercised faith in Jesus Christ, the law of God—the power of God—is within him. He is not under the law, nor is he above it: but it is within him as his life is with him; for it is the life of God that is the power of God. He is not the under the law, but “under grace.”AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.7

But not so of the law of man. That can only supply man with the knowledge of its requirements; but in the domain of morality, knowledge is not power.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.8

And thus it is only the worst foolishness for the legislatures of earth to think of reënacting the law of God, or of attaching penalties to the commands of that law.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.9

No law of man was ever perfect, or ever converted a soul. The law of man is effective only in giving men freedom in the exercise of their natural rights.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.10

“There Are Quiet Revolutions, As Well As Violent Ones” American Sentinel 13, 30, pp. 470, 471.

ATJ

UNDER the false impression that revolutions can be accomplished only by violence and visible upheaval, the American people are in great danger of passing through a revolution and of finding themselves in the clutches of a new and strange power before they realize that any such thing is going on at all.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.1

It should not be forgotten by any member of the American Republic that the Roman Republic passed through the despotism of two triumvirates, the second far worse than the first, each ending in the despotism of one man: and then passed into the “furious and crushing despotism” of the Roman monarchy; all in the name of the Republic. All this occurred inside of forty years, before the eyes of all the people, while they were pleasing themselves with the fancy and the name that they were still a republic.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.2

Even when Augustus had become emperor this fiction was played by him before the yes of the people; and the people were pleased with it. For, as Gibbon most pointedly remarks, “Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names: nor was he deceived in his expectation that the Senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom.” Upon this safe assumption he accordingly deceived “the people by an image of civil liberty, and the armies by an image of civil government.” He was eminently successful, and both people and armies congratulated themselves upon the greatness, and the new and wonderful career, of the Roman RepublicAMS August 4, 1898, page 470.3

With these facts in mind the following extract from the speech of Ex-Attorney-General Harmon, to the Ohio Bar Association at Put-in-Bay, Ohio, July 12, are intensely suggestive to citizens of the American Republic:—AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.4

“Mere expansion is not growth. It is only swelling. We may push across the seas, but we cannot grow there. Elephantiasis is not an unknown form of national malady, and has always proved fatal. There are still chapters of English history to be written.AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.5

“We should have to change both the name and the nature of our nation to admit any State out of America, especially if it be populated by alien races. Few, if any, are now bold enough to advocate this. To get dominion over strange peoples for the mere purpose of governing them, not admitting them as equals in a family of States, stretching into permanency for that purpose a power meant to be temporary and occasional only and for that reason left unrestricted, is rightly called an imperial policy. It would belie and discredit the Declaration of Independence, and convict us of hypocrisy. We cannot under our system govern any people without letting them help govern us. The reaction would be swift and sure. We should see what Patrick Henry meant when he said in his famous resolutions of 1765, that such government of the colonies by Great Britain ‘has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.’AMS August 4, 1898, page 470.6

“An imperial policy will as surely some day lead to an emperor. He may assume some softer name if our sensitiveness survive, as is often the case. But an imperial policy and a republic make a contradiction in terms. The policy must to or the emperor in some new form must come.AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.1

“But what are we to do with countries we take? If where our flag is carried in battle it must remain as the emblem of permanent authority, victory will become more perilous than defeat. There is no dishonor in bringing home our victorious banners, as we did from the walls of Mexico. There is dishonor, and danger, too, in pulling down the landmarks of the union. No obligation, legal or moral, prevents our leaving such countries as we find them, or giving their people control of their own affairs if we think best. Desire only, not duty, suggests the assumption of authority over them.AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.2

“If we must provide fuel for our ships, we want coal-bins, not provinces nor colonies. We can hold them as property. We need not broaden them into domain. If they must be fortified and guarded so we may fight our way to and from them, let us keep them as England does Gibraltar. She does not have to rule Spain. If we must have purely national property abroad, we can at least keep our politics at home where we can have a close eye on them.AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.3

“Congress was authorized merely ‘to regulate commerce.’ Our ancestors knew commerce can be captured and kept, only by better goods and lower prices. Yet it is more than hinted that it would be a proper exercise of this power to conquer foreign nations in order to make them trade with us. Conquest is even suggested as a means of spreading the gospel....AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.4

“But who is authorized to abandon the ocean ramparts with which God has surrounded us, because the inventions of men have made them somewhat less effectual. They will always be our chief defences while the earth revolves. Our country can be no further from danger than its nearest part. Where is the right found to expose our national honor, pride and welfare in dominions beyond the seas, when they may abide in safety forever in the home which the kindness of nature and the wisdom of our fathers have provided for them.AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.5

“It is not pleasant to play Cassandra. It is easier to join in the shouting and the dancing of those who seem to think the past is dead and the future assured. But one’s duty to his countrymen is to give warning of evil when he believes he detects its approach.”AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.6

A. T. J.

“A Suggestive Incident” American Sentinel 13, 30, pp. 471, 472.

ATJ

IN the Boys’ High School of Reading, Pa., about June 27, 1898, a lad named Deeter was the valedictorian of the graduating essay in which, says Harper’s Weekly, he “commented unfavorably on the practice very much in favor now in American schools of attempting to instil [sic.] patriotic sentiments into school children by drilling them in singing patriotic songs, and by causing them to repeat, somewhat parrot-like, high sounding sentiments which few of them can be expected to understand.”AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.1

This, the principal of the school, one “Dr. Shribner,” decided to be “unpatriotic:” and for it, he punished the boy by refusing to sign his diploma. However the “Dr.” (with the foreign name) would let the boy have his diploma if he would “take it unsigned.”AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.2

That boy is highly honored by being so “punished” for such an “offense.” A diploma without that man’s name to it would be a far greater honor than with it. We hope the boy eagerly accepted the diploma without that name signed to it.AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.3

Harper’s truly says, “The expediency of this feature of public school education seems fairly open to discussion: and attempts to choke of reasonable and decorous criticism of its methods are likely to have an effect the opposite of that desired. The sort of patriotism that is so boisterous about ‘Old Glory’ that it discountenances free speech should try to get its bearings, and make sure it is not off its course.”AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.4

But the trouble is that these “Dr’s.” with foreign ideas as well as foreign names, have not yet got their bearings as to either free speech or patriotism. And they think they must enforce in American schools and upon American children, their foreign and despotic ideas and make them count and be accepted for patriotism. Such persons are not fit to be in any American school—except as pupils to be taught American ideas.AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.5

The other great trouble in this connection is that there are too many people who profess to be Americans and patriotic and loyal to American ideas, who will not only employ these fellows with foreign ideas and names, but will support them in their un-American and despotic conduct toward American boys who advocate sound American principles.AMS August 4, 1898, page 471.6

And thousands of other school teachers, principals, etc., who profess to be Americans and patriotic and loyal to American ideas, to free speech, etc., think themselves exceptionally patriotic in endorsing the foreign and despotic principles, and in aping the tyrannical conduct of these men of foreign ideas as well as foreign names.AMS August 4, 1898, page 472.1

The people of Reading, Pa., should without delay see to it that there is placed at the head of their boys’ high school a man who knows the American principles of both patriotism and free speech; and who will not make himself a despot in the interests of “patriotism.”AMS August 4, 1898, page 472.2

And there are just now many other places in the United States where the people should attend to the same thing.AMS August 4, 1898, page 472.3

A. T. J.

August 4, 1898

August 18, 1898