Untitled article by I. J. Hankins

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · December 1, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 47

Religious or Political—Which?

By I. J. Hankins

If straws show which way the wind blows, we are drifting toward a strange combination in South Africa. A strange combination, because with the experience of our forefathers fresh in our minds, it seems passing strange that any intelligent person should cherish sentiments contrary to the principles of religious liberty.

Is it not a sad acknowledgment of the Church’s weakness when she finds it necessary to appeal to the Government to maintain her existing institutions? Have the churches of Cape Town and Cape Colony so far lost their spiritual power as to call upon the civil law to enforce what they deem to be the duty of our citizens? It will be a sorry day for South Africa when the Government enforces the usages of the Church. Does the Church hope to make Christians by act of Parliament? To be a Christian is to be Christ-like; nature must be changed. As well might men expect to change the leopard’s spots or the Ethiopian’s skin by some compulsory act, as to make a man a Christian by compelling him to observe Christian institutions.

No man who has the true principles of the gospel at heart, will for a moment entertain such an idea. The sacrifice of Christ was a voluntary sacrifice; so the service of the Christian must be a voluntary service. “Whosoever will, let him come” is the gospel plan. It is too slow to meet the minds of modern theologians, and so they practically revise it thus: Whosoever won’t, compel him by civil law.

Who sought the aid of civil law in the early church? Was it Christ and the apostles? Nay, verily. They were the parties who suffered the penalties of civil law. The men who enforced religious rites, and who infringed upon the religious convictions of others, were the apostate Jews, who loved tradition more than the word of truth as taught by Christ and the apostles. They had departed from the true faith, and so had lost the power of the gospel, and knew no other way to carry out their ends than by appeal to the Government. They obtained power, which they were evidently seeking for,— power to put to death the Son of God and his chosen apostles, but what was the result? Let the condition of the Jews to-day answer the question.

It was when the Church had departed from the truth, and had lost its purity and power, that it began to clamour for the support of the Government. When we hear professed Christians to-day talking about petitioning the Government in aid of Christianity, we must conclude that it is for the same reasons.

That there is a growing sentiment in favor of legislation on religious questions is becoming very apparent. Only a short time ago, a meeting of the Evangelical Alliance was called, in Cape Town, to consider what could be done to promote a better observance of the “Lord’s day.” One speaker said that the Christians were responsible for this Sunday desecration, and that they could not be guiltless and allow it to continue. The Sunday excursions, picnics, recreations, etc., on Sunday must be stopped. Those men who voted against the Kimberley Exhibition being closed on Sunday, should not be returned to Parliament next year. The people should be educated, and such a petition sent into Parliament as will meet its approval, so that a law shall be made to compel the observance of the Sunday. As the majority of the people are in favor of Sunday-keeping (Jews and Sabbatarians being a small minority, who of course are opposed to its enforcement), therefore it ought to be made compulsory.

These are some of the sentiments which were expressed at this Alliance. Now the Sabbath is a divine institution, and its observance is a duty that man owes to his Creator, and not to the Government. It is not in the province of human government, therefore, to dictate to man what shall be his duty in this respect. Besides, in the Colony the Mohammedans keep Friday, the Jews and Sabbatarians, Saturday, and the majority of Christians keep Sunday; therefore no one of these days could be enforced without infringing upon the rights of the two other classes.

Is the question of Sabbath observance a religious or a political question? A religious question, to be sure. Well then, why not deal with it in a legitimate manner? It is the privilege of the different denominations, which observe the Sunday, to preach from their pulpits, to teach in their Sunday-schools, and to instruct the people privately in reference to the observance of the day.

Who can say that it is not the privilege of the Jews and Sabbatarians to do the same in their churches in reference to the seventh day, which they believe should be observed as the Sabbath?

Again, who can say that it is not the privilege of the keepers of Friday to advocate their views with the same freedom? If they can convince Christians or Jews that they are right, and that all ought to observe Friday, who can deny the Jew or Christian the right of changing his practice in that respect?

To be sure the Bible is the rule for all, or should be, and yet no man has a right to compel another to believe the Bible (if it could be done), or to serve God contrary to his own convictions. It is not in the province of human government to legislate on man’s duty to his Creator, inasmuch as man is not to answer to the government but to God alone for his religious belief and practice. Government has no right to enact laws which will infringe upon the conscience of the humblest of its subjects, so long as the individual in following his convictions does not violate the rights and privileges of his neighbor. The Bible represents our duties religiously, and to the Author of the Bible are we responsible for any failure on our part to comply with its requirements. It is man’s privilege and duty to preach, to teach, to invite, to persuade others to become Christians; but to compel them, never,—no, never.—I. J. Hankins, in Present Truth, London.