The State as the Protector of Liberty.
By A. Hovey, D. D.
(From "Religion and the State," by A. Hovey, D. D.) In the great natural right to liberty of action is included that of public worship, provided the same is peaceful and orderly. This indeed is the highest exercise of true liberty. Without it freedom is only a name, or, rather, it is a misnomer. If men may not obey their religious convictions in the worship of God, if the highest mandates of conscience may not be expressed in action which does no violence to the rights of other men, it is useless to speak of liberty, for it does not exist. When, therefore, Christians of any name ask for protection in public worship, they seek for no especial favor or distinction, but only for that which the state owes to all, whether Protestant or Papist, Jew or heathen. For all men are entitled to pay their homage without annoyance, in public or in private, to whatever being they please. In fact, every assembly of the people, called together for a purpose not criminal or seditious, must be protected from disturbance. A company of atheists, whether scientific or philosophical, has, in the eye of civil authorities, the same right to meet and proclaim unbelief, as any body of Christians has to meet for the service of God. For the state is not charged with the duty of ascertaining the true faith and supporting it, but with the duty of asserting the equal freedom of all men to think and act for themselves in matters of religion while they pay due respect to the rights of one another. It is a sad confession of weakness for any body of Christians to seek aid from the civil authorities in maintaining religion. It is a reproach to the Saviour, and to the agencies provided by him, when men call for the sword to turn the crowd in his favor. Let the friends of Christ be protected like other men in their natural rights, and trust to his grace and truth for the rest! Then will they never be put to shame.439 Must, then, the idol worship of the Chinese, who swarm the Pacific Coast, be protected by all the power of the state? Undoubtedly it must, according to the view of civil government maintained in these pages; or, rather, the liberty of the Chinese to worship thus must be defended, unless their worship can be shown to violate the natural rights of other men. The language of Roger Williams is not too strong: "It is the will and command of God, that a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries." ("Bloudy Tenent," etc., p. 38. See Vol. iv. Publications of the Narragansett Club.) But does not the state indorse the action when it protects the actor? By no means; it simply performs its own duty in conserving the freedom of the people, leaving at the same time with every one of them the responsibility of his own conduct towards God. There is no better reason for holding the state to be implicated in the guilt of an idolator whose liberty it guards, than there is to believe it a sharer in the grace of a Christian, whose freedom to worship God it vindicates. Indeed, a course of argument that would make earthly rulers accountable for the abuse of the religious liberty which they assure to the people, would make the Creator and Redeemer of men responsible for the abuse of their moral freedom. A proper consideration of this fact would relieve the consciences of many who seem to have a sort of confused notion that "the powers that be" have some control over the religious belief and conduct of their subjects. But this is not all. The view of civil government as an ordinance of God for the protection of men in the exercise of their natural rights is the only one that will justify Christians in claiming protection from the state while they preach the gospel in heathen lands. For clearly it is absurd to ask the rulers of a heathen nation to concede to missionaries their rights to teach freely a religion which those rulers and their people believe to be false, while the magistrates of a Christian nation refuse the same liberty, as a right, to emissaries and teachers of idolatry. To say that the Christian religion is true, and idolatry false, is no reply to this; for if it belongs to the rulers of one nation to decide for the people what is the true religion, it belongs to the rulers of every other to do the same, and it is impossible to deny that, if they decide the matter at all, they must decide it honestly, that is, according to their belief. And so, acting by the light which he has, the emperor of China would proclaim Buddhism or Confucianism to be the true religion, and refuse protection to Christian teachers; the emperor of Russia would proclaim the orthodox faith of the Eastern Church, and deny protection to Methodist preachers; the king of Sweden would endorse the Lutheran creed and turn the power of the state against Baptists living in his cities; and all these rulers would perhaps adopt the words of John Cotton, in his letter to Richard Saltonstall, justifying the cruel punishment of Obadiah Holmes in Boston, saying that their "toleration" and "indulgence" could not be extended to any person acting "against the order and government of our churches, established (we know) by God's law and (he knoweth) by the laws of the country." It is cause for amazement that any thoughtful American can believe that the state, as such, ought to patronize Christianity in one place, if it may not do the same for Buddhism in another; or, in other language, that a Christian ruler is authorized to obey his conscience, while a heathen ruler is not. Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act accordingly, is the lesson of an apostle to the early Christians; and the same great teacher inculcates the duty of respect for even the scruples of a weak conscience. Either, then, Christians have no right to claim protection from the state in preaching the gospel to the heathen, or the duty of the state is simply to protect men in the exercise of their natural rights, without attempting to act for or against any form of religion. That the latter view is correct, the writer firmly believes; and believing it would insist upon religious freedom for all—in China, or Sweden, as well as in the United States. But though human government has no control over religious faith or worship, it is bound to conserve with sacred fidelity the liberties of the people against all persons or influences that would destroy them; and, therefore, if any religious sect were known to deprive certain members of their personal freedom, it would be the duty of the state to restore this to them. If there were religious houses in which persons who entered them freely, perhaps in early life, were believed, on good probable evidences, to be kept against their will, the state would be under obligation to make diligent search, ascertain if possible the facts of the case, and prevent the use of any physical restraint abridging liberty. By so doing it would simply accomplish the purpose of its existence; by refusing to do this it would, in a measure, forfeit its right to be. For, according to the view laid down in this investigation, the sphere of its action is well defined, including the protection of personal freedom, the limits of its service clearly established, and the probability of any collision with any proper spiritual authority infinitesimal. Indeed, the perfect distinctness with which, on this theory, the ends of civil government can be explained, and the ample scope which it leaves for the spiritual reign of Christ over the minds, consciences, and hearts of men, are strong reasons for believing it correct. When truth is discovered, it is commonly found to be simple and harmonious. When the various duties and relations of men are clearly apprehended they will be seen to be self-consistent and indubitable.