Untitled article by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · December 8, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 48

Christians Do Not Persecute.

By Editor

Two weeks ago we published the facts concerning the persecution of Methodists in Austria, and called attention to the fact that while Romanists are persecuting Methodists in Austria, Methodists are persecuting Adventists in Maryland and Tennessee. But while this is true, it is not true as stated by some that Christians are persecuting Christians. Christians do not persecute. This is plainly shown in the following admirable article from Present Truth, London:—

Everybody who reads the account of the systematic persecution of the Methodists in Vienna must feel sympathy for the oppressed, as well as indignation at such unjustifiable proceedings. Such a course can not be excused on any just grounds. We would have it understood by all who may feel unfriendly to Christianity, and who may cite such instances of persecution as evidence against it, that there is no Christianity in it. Men who professed to be Christians have often persecuted others, but Christianity never persecuted. Christianity is from Christ, the Lamb of God; and it is as impossible for true Christianity to persecute for any cause whatever, as it would be for a lamb to devour a wolf. In so saying, we are passing no sentence upon men who in time past have engaged in persecution. God alone knows the motives that prompted them. Many of the men were doubtless sincere. But if they thought that they were acting in accordance with the principles of Christianity, they were pitiably ignorant of those principles. We can simply say that persecution is not of Christ, but is of the devil. With those who have persecuted, we have nothing to do; they are in the hands of the just Judge.

It may further be said, that the evil of persecution is in no wise abated by the fact that those who are persecuted may actually hold erroneous views and practices. No man was ever persecuted who was not thought by his persecutor to be in error. To say that it is wrong to persecute those who hold the truth, but justifiable when people are in error, is to set one's self up as the judge of what is truth. That is popery. And so every one who persecutes, no matter in what degree, is to that degree a pope. It will be seen that popery has not always been and is not now confined to the Roman Catholic Church. We repeat, that it makes no difference what the religious opinions of men may be; they are not to be persecuted on any account. For his religious opinions and practices a man is answerable to God alone. No earthly tribunal, whether religious or secular, has any right to sit in judgment on people for their religion. In this matter majorities cut no figure. This question has nothing to do with the right of the majority to rule, for in matters of religion nobody has any right to rule another.

Scripture authority for these statements is not wanting. Jesus said, “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” John 12:47. “The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” Therefore since Christ himself declared that he did not judge any man who refused to believe his words, it is most certain that no man, nor any body of men, has that right. Whoever assumes it, thereby sets himself above the Lord. Again Jesus said to his disciples, “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” John 20:21. Now for what purpose did the Father send him? He himself tells: “For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.” John 3:17. Therefore he who presumes to judge another is doing that which Christ never sent anybody to do. Of course this does not refer to the sentence of the civil magistrate concerning crimes against person or property. So much for persecution in general.

When Peter, in his zeal for the Master, drew his sword and cut off the ear of one who was about to seize the Lord, Jesus rebuked him, saying, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” We may not conclude that all who perish with the sword have taken the sword, for many perish unjustly; but the Saviour's words do show that when men take the sword it is no more than might be expected that the same thing should be used on them. We are reminded of this by the fact that but a few weeks ago there was a mass-meeting held in the city of Chicago, where representative Methodist clergymen, among others, advocated the use of the boycott upon all who did not join with them in Sunday rest. It is needless to say that the boycott is one of the meanest forms of persecution. Now we do not say that this justifies the persecution of Methodists in Vienna or anywhere else; for we should

protest most earnestly against the persecution even of a Torquemada; but it suggests a few questions, which we will ask in the next paragraph.

We are certain that none will more roundly denounce the persecution in Vienna than our Methodist brethren themselves. The question is, Can they do so with good grace, in view of the position taken in Chicago? which circumstance, we are sorry to say, is not an isolated one. Is that which is wrong in Austria right in America? Or, to change the form, If persecution in any form whatever, is right in America, is it not all right in Austria? Or, Is it right for Methodists to persecute and wrong for Catholics? We express no opinion in the matter, but would like to know what our friends think of the thing. Another question that is suggested by the action at Chicago, and elsewhere in America, is this: If the Methodist body were recognized by the Austrian Government, and there should be a movement on foot among the Catholics of that country to enforce the observance of Sunday, as there is by both Catholics and Protestants in America, would the Methodists join in it and aid in oppressing even to extinction, a smaller sect that did not regard Sunday as a holy day, but as an ordinary working day? By their action in America, have not our Methodist friends cut themselves off from the right to protest against the wicked persecutions in Vienna? If this bitter experience should open their eyes to the evil of persecution in every degree, it would not have been suffered in vain.

The fatal error of the Methodists in Vienna was in petitioning for recognition by the State. Thereby they conceded the right of the Government to suppress them. Whatever the State grants it may take away. For any religious body to ask for recognition by the State, is to admit that without such recognition it has no right to exist; and that is, of course, to admit that the State is justified in suppressing it. The very worst thing that any State can do for religion is to “recognize” it. Christianity is in the world by the authority of the King of kings, and not by any earthly sufferance. It has nothing to ask from the State because the State has nothing to bestow upon it. It has something of inestimable value to bestow upon kings, and all in authority, as well as upon men in the humblest stations; but no man and no Government has anything that can be given to Christianity to better it. Man is less than God. “All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him as less than nothing, and vanity.” Isa. 40:17. Whoever, therefore, petitions the State for protection in the exercise of his religion, or even by any means admits the right of the State to have anything to do with religion, either in the way of protection or suppression, thereby shows, either that the religion which he professes has not the sanction of God; or else that he does not know the power of the God whom he serves; or else that he thinks the power and authority of men to be greater than that of God.

Although the Methodists are not recognized in Vienna, and as a religious body they are outlawed, yet they have as good a chance as the apostles did. Indeed, they are better off. Here is a statement of the relation which Christianity sustained to the Roman State: “All the ancient religions were national and State religions, and this was especially the case with the Romans, among whom the political point of view predominated in everything, not excepting religion. The public apostasy of citizens from the State religion, and the introduction of a foreign religion, or a new one not legalized by the State (religio illicita), appeared as an act of high treason. In this light was regarded the conversion of Roman citizens or subjects to Christianity. ‘Your religion is illegal’ (non licet esse vos), was the reproach commonly cast upon Christians, without referring to the contents of their religion; to this was added the striking difference between Christianity, and all that had hitherto been dominated religion.”—Neander's Memorials of Christian Life, chapter 3. Yet, in the face of this, the early Christians proceeded to preach the gospel, without apologizing to the State, or asking any favors of it. When forbidden to preach, the apostles said to the rulers, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” They were successful, too, in their preaching, and their success was due to their trust in God, and to their refusal to admit the right of the State to interfere in matters of religion.

“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God; which made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that therein is; which keepeth truth forever; which executeth judgment for the oppressed; which giveth food to the hungry.” Ps. 146:3–7.