Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    February 23, 1899

    “Front Page” American Sentinel 14, 8, p. 113.


    THE fragrance of Christianity is not disseminated by force.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.1

    WHEN Christianity is put into human law, all the love in it is left out.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.2

    FIRST be master of yourself; then you will not want to be master of anybody else.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.3

    EVERY man has the ability to govern himself, and no man has the ability to govern more than himself.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.4

    THERE is nothing about the true religion which would suggest a “blue law” even to an atheist.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.5

    THE true ambassador for God will seek to win men by the grace of God, not to command men by law.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.6

    SO LONG as God tolerates the devil, it will not look well for people taking the name of Christ to be intolerant of their brethren.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.7

    IF Christians will pay enough attention to the example of Christ, they will have no time or inclination to force others to pay attention to them.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.8

    IN the temple of liberty, the rights of the weak are represented at the top, not at the bottom.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.9

    THE more politics in the church, the more hypocrisy in legislation.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.10

    A NATION, like an individual, might often profit by having the grace to acknowledge itself in the wrong.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.11

    [Inset.] A TYPE OF STATESMAN DEVELOPED BY THE DEMAND FOR RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION. THE cry is made by the great religio-political organizations, that the country must have “Christian statesmen.” These great bodies aim, through their political power, to exclude from Congress and the legislatures men who do not conform to their ideas of Christianity. But when they pledge their power to the candidate who will vote for religious measures, many men will join hands with them with whom Christianity is a policy rather than a principle of the heart; and the legislative assemblies will be more than ever filled with men working for their own interests rather than the interests of the people.AMS February 23, 1899, page 113.12

    “Lexington, 1775; and Manila, 1899” American Sentinel 14, 8, pp. 114, 115.


    THE United States Government now stands definitely committed to a policy of foreign conquest. As the shot which rang out at Lexington in 1775—that shot which was heard around the world—committed the American colonies to a struggle with Great Britain for national independence, so the battle at Manila has committed the nation to the new and untried experiment of imperialism.AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.1

    The short fired at Lexington was aimed at imperialism in government, as represented by Great Britain. The shot fired at Manila reverses what was accomplished at Lexington, and unites America from Great Britain; the shot fired at Manila joins America again with the British government. In the former union with Great Britain there was involved a tax which the American people were unwilling to pay; in this new union with Great Britain there is likewise involved a tax upon the American people, which they will be most unwilling to pay, but which they cannot repudiate.AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.2

    The short fired at Manila has been heard around the world, and has been noted with the deepest interest by every nation of Europe. And would that the American people themselves appreciated its significance as fully as do those nations.AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.3

    The relation into which the United States has now brought itself with Great Britain may be understood from considering some facts to which allusion has recently been made by the press and by representative men both in this country and Great Britain.AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.4

    The English premier, Lord Salisbury, at the banquet of the Lord Mayor of London, said that the appearance of the United States as a factor in Asiatic politics was likely to conduce to the interests of Great Britain, though it might not conduce to the interests of peace.AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.5

    The London Saturday Review was more outspoken, and said this:—AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.6

    “The American commissioners in Paris are making their bargain—whether they realize it or not—under the protecting naval strength of England. And we shall expect, to be quite frank, a material quid pro quo for this assistance. We shall expect the States to deal generously with Canada in the matter of tariffs; we shall expect to be remembered when she comes into her kingdom in the Philippines; above all, we shall expect her future of China shall come up for settlement. [Italics ours.] For the young imperialist has entered upon a path where she will require a stout friend; and lasting friendship between nations is to be secured, not by the frothy sentimentality of public platforms, but by reciprocal advantages in their solid material interests.”AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.7

    Not long ago, Senator Foraker, speaking for the ratification of the treaty with Spain, said that the Government was not proceeding “with the idea and view of permanently holding them [the Philippines] and denying to the people there the right to have a government of their own;” but that the possession contemplated was but temporary. Of the effect of this language in Great Britain, the associated press dispatches said:—AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.8

    “When the American correspondents succeeded in impressing upon the British minds that Senator Foraker, in his recent speech in the United States Senate, spoke only for himself when he suggested that the United States might eventually withdraw from the Philippine Islands, a distinct sigh of relief might have been read between the lines of the British newspapers.AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.9

    “Everyone here assumed that because the senator was from the President’s State he was speaking for the President, and the declaration made not only succeeded in giving British public officialdom an unpleasant shock, but it fell like a dash of cold water on the ardor of the British for an Anglo-American understanding. They began to question what was the profit of this friendship if America did not propose to back up Great Britain’s policy in the far East by retaining the most important base of operations in the event of war over China.”AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.10

    If this Government, then, retains the Philippines, it will be as the ally of the Great Britain in a struggle for dominion in the Orient. That is how Great Britain views it, and that is the view made necessary by the logic of circumstances. The naval power of Great Britain has already been of material service to the United States in the islands, and no one can tell how soon or how seriously its assistance may be needed again. And Great Britain, on the other hand, will expect and demand a “material quid pro quo” for her services, which will be nothing less than to “back up Great Britain’s policy in the far East.”AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.11

    This is what must be if America remains in the Philippines. And what has occurred at Manila renders it all but certain that America will remain. That greatest of barriers has been erected in the way of retreat—national pride. Spain retained her pride and lost her colonies; she clung to her “honor” in the face of the certainty that such loss would be the result. And in all nations, the dictates of national pride are the most imperative, the hardest to set aside.AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.12

    But what will be the cost of adhering to the sentiment that what has been taken in war must be retained, and that where the flag has been raised it must never be hauled down? What will be the cost of this new union with Great Britain, in which the United States “backs up” British policy in China? A war for dominion in the far East, in which Great Britain measures her strength against the powers of continental Europe, will be a struggle from participation in which the United States may well wish to be excused. As Senator Bacon said, “If that war comes it will not be confined to the Orient. If that war comes it will involve every leading nation of the world. If that war comes, not only will our young men lay their bones upon the distant soil of Asia, but our own country will have to stand its defense. When that war comes, there is not a seacoast city but what will be in danger of destruction from the allied navies of the world.”AMS February 23, 1899, page 114.13

    And for all this a tax must be put upon the American people—a heavy tax—far heavier than that which brought about the separation from Great Britain. But unlike that tax, it will be self imposed, and one that cannot be repudiated. If the American people are not willing to pay that tax, they must repudiate it now.AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.1

    “Human Rights” American Sentinel 14, 8, pp. 115, 116.


    THE principle that each person shall mind his own business (1 Thessalonians 4:11), and let other people’s business alone (Galatians 6:4); in other words, that each person shall give account of himself to God, and shall leave every other person absolutely free to give account of him self to God and to nobody else; is not only specifically stated in the Bible, but is emphasized by many illustrations.AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.1

    When Jesus was talking to his disciples just before he ascended to heaven, he asked Peter, three times, the question, “Lovest thou me?” Peter responded that he did, and Christ replied, “Feed my lambs; Feed my sheep.” And then as they were walking along,—Jesus, Peter, and John,—Peter turned to Christ and said, “What shall this man do?” Jesus replied, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.”AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.2

    The Scripture says that Peter turned and saw the other disciple following Jesus. That was what John was doing,—following Jesus. Peter too at first was following Jesus; but when he turned to see John, what then was he doing? If he was following him at all he must have been following him backwards. But backwards is not way to follow Jesus. Men must follow him with the face to him and the eyes upon him. The only way for Peter to have followed the Lord was to keep on the way he was going. But he was so concerned with the other disciple’s welfare as to whether he was following the Lord just right or not, that he himself must turn from following the Lord to behold the other who was following the Lord, and to inquire, Well, Lord, I am to do so and so; but what about this man? Jesus simply said in other words, That is none of your business. What that man does is nothing whatever to you. Follow thou me.AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.3

    This illustrates the principle which the Lord Jesus established for the guidance of his disciples, and which he has drawn out in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Romans.AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.4

    Therefore it is written, “Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way.” That is the point we are to watch. I am to watch myself that I do not put in your way an occasion for you to fall; and the only way I can do that is by keeping my eyes upon Jesus, and him only.AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.5

    Yet at this many will query, “Why, are we not our brother’s keeper?” Yes. And it must not be forgotten that the man who first asked the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was brought to the point where he asked that question by his disregard of the very principle which we are studying. If Cain had regarded the principle which is here before us, of following the Lord for himself, and letting Abel follow the Lord for him self, rendering allegiance to his own Master in everything which he did, he would never have been brought to the place where he said, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” for the question would never have been asked him—“Where is thy brother?”AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.6

    It was only when Cain had failed to follow the Lord that he turned his attention to his brother; and because his brother’s ways did not please him, he began to sit in judgment upon him and to find fault with him. And at last Cain decided that his brother’s ways were so seriously wrong that he was not fit to be on the earth; and therefore the only reasonable and legitimate thing for him to do was to put Abel out of the way; and so he killed him. Why was not Abel fit to live? O, because his ways did not please Cain, who set himself up to judge and correct Abel, and say what he should do, and how he should do it.AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.7

    This incident is placed at the very beginning of the Bible (Genesis 4:8, 9), and is repeated to the end of the Bible (1 John 3:12; Jude 11), as a warning to all people to regard the living principle that we are to honor God ourselves, and follow him ourselves, and let other people do the same.AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.8

    There is a secret in this which people do not realize. When an individual is following the Lord, and him only,—with his eyes upon the Lord, his whole heart devoted to the Lord—an influence goes forth from him that is ten thousand times more helpful to the man who is the farthest away from God, than can possibly be all the superintending that man can do when he takes his eyes away from Christ. People forget that it takes the power of God to convince a man of truth; and because a man does not go in the way which they think the Lord would have him go, or because he does not go steadily enough to please them, or does not shape his ways satisfactorily to them, they grow impatient, and put forth their hands to undertake to steady the ark. And there the mischief comes in.AMS February 23, 1899, page 115.9

    There is no power but of God. “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this, that power belongeth unto God.” Psalm 62:11. We pray every day “Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory.” Fellow Christians, Christians must depend on God’s power alone to influence people to do right.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.1

    Listen! “Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savor of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.” 2 Corinthians 2:14, 15. The power is the Lord’s, so also the influence is his. The fragrance which goes forth from you and me must be the same that Christ carried, or we cannot influence anybody for good. Of all things this must be so, of those who profess to know Christ, who are “set on an hill” and therefore “cannot be hid.” The Lord not only tells us not to judge other people, not to set them at naught because they do not follow exactly as we say, or observe exactly as we observe; but he tells us the secret of why we should not do so,—it is because all power and influence is his.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.2

    It is influence which draws. God himself,—we say it with all reverence—cannot drive people to himself. Jesus said, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” It is only by having an influence which draws that we can do any soul any good; and the only influence that can draw is that of Christ.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.3

    There is another notable instance in illustration of this great principle. Everything that is recorded in the life of Jesus, is a living lesson to us.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.4

    The Pharisees were always trying to entrap him in every way they could. At one time they found a woman who was taken in the very act of adultery, and they brought her to the Lord, thinking they had a fatal trap ready this time. After explaining the circumstances of the case, they said, “Now Moses said that all such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” They did not care how Christ answered that question. If he said, Go ahead; that is the right thing to do; stone her; they would have gone straight to the Roman authorities and said: “This man sets himself up to be the king of the Jews, and is usurping Roman authority.” If he had said, You cannot stone such any more; that comes to an end now; Moses is to be set aside; they would have spread it everywhere that he would not observe the teachings of Moses, and was therefore an impostor. They intended to accuse him whichever way he might answer. But he disappointed them. He answered their question in the way of Christ; not in the way of the Pharisees, nor in the way of the Romans. He said, “Let him that is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her,” and stooped down and wrote on the ground. When he rose up, about half of the people were gone. Saying nothing he stooped down again and wrote with his finger on the ground, and when he rose up again all were gone but the woman and himself.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.5

    Now he had said to them before he began to write on the ground, “Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone.” But none of them threw any stones. Why? he opened the way freely. Ah! none of them could, because none of them was without sin. The only thing they could do to escape the condemnation of their own consciences was to go away. So there was none left but himself and the woman, and he was without sin, and HE DID NOT STONE HER. Yet he said, “Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone” at her. None of them could because they were not without sin; and he was without sin, but didn’t. And this teaches the great Christian truth that he who is not without sin cannot throw stones; and he who is without sin WILL NOT throw stones. And all this teaches the mighty Christian truth, that with Christians there is NEVER any throwing of stones.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.6

    Then Christ turned to the woman, and said, “Woman, hath no man condemned thee?” She said, “No man, Lord.” Did he reply, “Well, I do. You must get out of here. It is not fit that I should be seen in the company of such persons as you are. Go away; you will bring reproach on the cause?”—No; thank the Lord! This is what he said: “Woman, hath no man condemned thee?” “No man, Lord.” “Neither do I condemn thee. Go, and sin no more.” Those who have sinned cannot condemn others who have; and those who have NOT sinned, WILL not condemn those who have.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.7

    That one sentence of Jesus, “Neither do I condemn thee. GO, and sin no more,” had more influence and power to hold back from sin that poor sin-laden woman, than all the condemnation of all the Pharisees of Jerusalem, Palestine and America put together.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.8

    There is where the power lies. The power of the Christian lies in the influence of Jesus Christ which goes forth from him as fragrance from a rose, as he stands with a heaven sent reverence in the presence of even the worst sinner.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.9

    The Christianity of Jesus Christ in the true believer looks reverently upon the conscience of the worst sinner; holds himself back from anything that would seem like condemnation or judgment; and lets God reach that soul by the fragrance of the influence of Jesus which goes forth from him.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.10

    “Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savor of his knowledge by us in every place.” That is Christianity; that is divine regard for human right; because only he who is altogether divine can rightly estimate a human right. And He has estimated it, defined it, and respected it. And He calls upon every soul to recognize that human right which, in his Word, He who is altogether divine, has set up above all things and all people to be respected.AMS February 23, 1899, page 116.11

    A. T. J.

    “Strange Synonyms” American Sentinel 14, 8, pp. 119, 120.


    AT the beginning of the war with Spain it was declared by President McKinley that “forcible annexation cannot be thought of,” in the case of Cuba, because such a thing would be “criminal aggression.” And Congress, in harmony with the same sentiment, declared before the world that “the people of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent.”AMS February 23, 1899, page 119.1

    Now, less than a year later, Congress has declared of the people of the Philippine Islands—a people as capable as are the Cubans—that they are not, and of right ought not to be, free and independent; and what was declared to be “criminal aggression,” has now been decreed and justified by the President under the name “benevolent assimilation.” There are strange synonyms being brought to light these days, and there is much about them that calls for explanation.AMS February 23, 1899, page 119.2

    “Back Page” American Sentinel 14, 8, p. 128.


    IN these days, the principle of government by the consent of the governed appears to be construed as meaning that governments derive their just powers from “the sensible consent of the whipped.”AMS February 23, 1899, page 128.1

    WE are now having “higher criticism” of the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; and like the “higher criticism” of Scripture its effect is to take away the real meaning and life of the language to which it is applied.AMS February 23, 1899, page 128.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font