Baptists and Civil Liberty

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 4, 1910

Baptists and Civil Liberty

SPEAKING of the reasons Baptists have for a separate existence, J. W. Thomas, in the Baptist Standard of June 2, says this of the principles held by Baptists with respect to civil and religious liberty:—

Baptists have ever been the vanguards of civil and religious liberty. This, too, grows out of the voluntary principle in religion. Bancroft, the great American historian, says: “Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of the Baptists.” Dr. B. H. Carroll declares: “There was never a government in the world that allowed full liberty of conscience to all men until a Baptist established the colony of Rhode Island. For liberty of conscience, both for themselves and others, Baptists have sought in the ages that are passed; for this they have lived, and for this they have died.”

In the same number of this journal, the editor cites the refusal of Mayor Gaynor of New York City to permit a Methodist minister to preach on the streets in the Jewish quarter. The editor truly observes:—

There might be good reasons for not allowing street preaching, but the mayor’s conduct in this case was an unwarranted meddling with the rights of free speech in religion. It was not for him to say whether the Jews needed converting or not. It is altogether probable that he is a very poor judge of religious matters in general, and of doctrine in particular. But the point is, public officials are not elevated in America to pass on such subjects. Free preaching is a corollary of free religion. . . .

But let it be said again, that it was none of Mayor Gaynor’s business about the proselyting. His only business was with two points,—the right of every man to preach his religion, and the public peace. All the rest was pure meddling in things beyond his sphere, and too high for him, as his letter shows.

Will the Baptists be true to these principles which they have so nobly espoused in the past? The times in which we are living will afford abundant opportunity to test this. It is to be feared that already evil influences are at work in this strong denomination to divert them from some of their old-time principles. Subtle elements are seeking to commit the great religious bodies to a course of procedure which, in principle as well as in fact, will utterly repudiate the doctrines of liberty which some of these denominations have upheld in bygone days. Will the Baptists remember the past, refusing federation with some of these present-day movements? or will they repudiate the principles of religious liberty for which some of their fathers have suffered persecution for the cross of Christ?