The Current History of Religious Liberty
There is a peculiar significance to the current history of religious liberty, when it is interpreted in the light of prophecy, and it is only from this standpoint that the present situation can be correctly understood. A few facts, briefly stated, will help to make this clear. When the efforts to establish this nation were brought to a successful issue by the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, an epoch of freedom of conscience was ushered in. In all the previous history of the world no nation had incorporated into its fundamental law the principle of the separation of church and state. But a change came with the founding of the American republic. In the words of the historian Bancroft:— Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely ordained of God in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several States, withheld from the federal government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity and power. This marked departure from the governmental policy which had been followed by the Old World powers for many centuries attracted universal attention. It was both a challenge and an inspiration. And the signal success of the new policy brought fresh courage and hope to the hearts of those who were fighting the battle for freedom in those countries where a few claimed the divine right to oppress the many, and exerted a sensible influence even over those rulers who had acted upon the basis that freedom of conscience was a menace to the stability of government. This influence over both rulers and people has increased with the passing decades, and the fruit of it appears in the most striking degree just at the time when the United States has reached the zenith of its power. The proof of this is found in some of the notable occurrences of the past year in other countries. They mark the climax of a century's struggle for religious freedom. Let Russia, France, England, and Italy testify to the result of America's example. Religious Liberty in Russia
Russia is well known as the land of oppression. For centuries there has not been even a semblance of religious liberty in that country. An apparent change in this long-continued program was inaugurated on April 30, 1905, when the czar issued an Easter ukase, proclaiming what has been declared to be complete religious liberty throughout the empire. All Christian sects are permitted freedom of worship, among these being a body of seventeen million known as adherents of the “old faith,” who were deprived of their freedom twenty years ago by the procurator-general of the holy synod. The ukase provides that converts from the orthodox faith to other Christian beliefs shall not be punished, but makes lawful changes in faith, for which in the past hundreds of thousands of families have been exiled to Siberia. It provides that the right to erect houses of worship without restriction as to place or situation shall be accorded to the old believers, to Lutherans, Jews, Roman Catholics, and all other faiths and sects. Dissenters are to be permitted to establish monasteries and schools, print and circulate religious works, and maintain missions. Heretofore Seventh-day Adventists in Russia have been compelled to meet in secret, and were liable to arrest and punishment for baptizing believers, for celebrating the ordinances of the Lord's house, or performing any other of the public duties connected with church membership. During his last visit to Russia, Elder L. R. Conradi was at liberty for the first time in his experience to hold public meetings without fear within the borders of the empire. The Concordat Abolished in France
For more than a century church and state have been united in France under4the provisions of the historic concordat entered into by Napoleon I and Pope Pius VII, in 1801. Under this, the consul named and the pope appointed bishops who were all required to swear allegiance to the republic. The history of a century, however, has shown that, while the bishops may have been bound to a formal fulfilment of their oaths, they have really carried forward an incessant intrigue against the very life of the republic. This has culminated in a demand for the abolition of the famous document which united church and state in France. A bill was accordingly introduced for this purpose, and was passed by the Chamber of Deputies on July 3, 1905, by a majority of 108; and in the early part of December, 1905, by the impressive majority of 79 in a total vote of 283, this bill was passed by the French Senate. Under its provisions, “the republic assures liberty of conscience, and guarantees the free exercise of religion, subject to restrictions of the public order. The republic does not recognize, pay stipends to, or subsidize any sect, but provides funds for college, hospital, and asylum chaplains. Otherwise, the public worship budget is abolished, and public establishments connected with religion are suppressed.” While the law is incomplete in some of its details, and is unsatisfactory alike to the Roman Catholic reactionaries and the socialistic freethinkers, yet it pleases the main body of the French people, who regard it as accomplishing the practical separation of church and state. What is known in England as the “passive resistance” movement, which is the protest of a large and influential body of dissenters against the education act, has been steadily gaining in strength. The general point at issue is the compulsory support by dissenters of teachers of religion in the public schools who indoctrinate the children in tenets which are contrary to the dissenter's creed. The struggle has been in progress for more than two and one-half years, and it is stated that nearly sixty-three thousand cases of court proceedings have occurred in London alone. Many of the passive resisters have been imprisoned, some of them four and five times, and exorbitant costs have been sometimes levied. There is no doubt that the wide-spread dissatisfaction growing out of the enforcement of this education act has contributed largely to the recent downfall of the Balfour ministry and the sweeping victory of the liberals in the recent general election throughout England. It is claimed that the bitter feeling of a multitude of non-conformists toward the Church of England, whose clergy are the chief supporters of the education act, can hardly be realized at this distance. Church and State in Canada
During the early part of 1905, considerable stir on the church and state question was created in Canada by the introduction into the Canadian Parliament of a bill for the autonomy of two new provinces in the Canadian Northwest. Loud complaints were made that the bill perpetuated, in favor of the Roman Catholics in the two provinces, a system of separate schools. So great was the outcry against this bill, that very considerable changes were made in it before it was enacted into a law. Just recently, however, the attention of the Canadian people is again called to the question of the proper relation between church and state by the action of the Lord's Day Alliance of Canada urging the enactment of a Sunday law by Parliament. This demand has been vigorously opposed by the official representatives of Seventh-day Adventists in Canada, and in an official visit to the premier, Sir Wilfred Laurier, and the minister of justice, a protest was lodged against the demand of the Alliance. Quite full reports of this matter appeared in the leading papers of Ottawa, and extracts from their articles were printed in the REVIEW AND HERALD of February 1. It may be well, in closing this review of the history of the rights of conscience during the past year in countries outside of America, to note the fact that in the latter part of June, Pope Pius X published a remarkable encyclical, which not only permitted, but even advised, Roman Catholic voters to take part in the Italian Parliamentary elections. This official document removed the restrictions imposed by Pope Pius IX in 1870, at the time of the loss of the last vestige of the pope's temporal power. This encyclical is regarded by some as marking a turning-point in the history of church and state in Italy. The Backward Movement in America
From this cursory review, it might appear to the superficial observer that the whole trend of current history was toward religious freedom. But there is another phase of this question which demands our serious consideration. The founders of this republic established a government upon the true Christian basis of entire separation of church and state. This unique experiment in civil government, the like of which had not hitherto been seen, has proved to all peoples that prosperity and happiness are the legitimate results of the practical application among men of the injunction of Jesus of Nazareth, who said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” The torch of liberty which was lighted on these shores enlightened the world. The example of America has had its influence in those nations where it was sincerely believed that the union of church and state was necessary to the welfare of both. In the recent history of America, however, there has come a marked change. An association of men has arisen who have seemed to feel that a solemn duty rested upon them to reverse the principles established by the makers of this republic, to repudiate the principles which have made the nation great, and instead of permitting the new order of things called for by the great seal of the nation to continue, they have sought to restore the old order by uniting church and state in this country. Much aid and comfort was given to the advocates of this backward movement by the dictum of the United States Supreme Court in 1892, that this is a Christian nation. They have been further encouraged by the action of Congress in granting appropriations to the World's Fair at St. Louis, and to the Lewis and Clark Exposition in the Northwest, on condition that the gates of both these expositions be closed on Sunday. There have been numerous attempts to enact Sunday laws in various State legislatures during the last one or two years, an evidently concerted effort to educate public sentiment in favor of the enforcement of laws already upon the statute-books, and a long and constantly growing list of cases of prosecution for the alleged infraction of laws for the protection of the first day of the week as a day of rest and worship. Space will not permit us to specify these cases further than to call attention to the fact that just as the best emperors of Rome, who were most devoted to the interests of the republic, persecuted the Christians the most mercilessly, so some of the men who are regarded as civic reformers are the most outspoken in favor of the enforcement of existing Sunday laws. As examples may be mentioned Governor Folk of Missouri, and Governor Pattison, the recently elected executive of Ohio. In his inaugural address Governor Pattison said:— While the disobeying of any law is demoralizing and degrading to a citizen or community, the disobeying of Sunday laws is doubly so. Hence the so-called Sunday laws should be obeyed and enforced, not only in the country and in the small villages, but in the large towns and cities as well. . . .
If America is to maintain her position as the nation peculiarly favored by God, and the one of all others that is to have a great destiny, we must forever maintain our respect and reverence for this holy day.
This appeal, based upon the favor of heaven, is one which will be used with the greatest effect in the time near at hand when the visible marks of the displeasure5of God will be cited as the divine call to protect the false sabbath. Perhaps the event of the past year which is most significant in itself and fraught with the most far-reaching consequences is the church conference on federation which was held in New York City last November. Thirty-two denominations were represented by delegates in this meeting, and some of the most distinguished clergymen and orators in this country were assigned to prominent places on the program. Besides a letter of indorsement from President Roosevelt, Justices Harlan and Brewer of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Grosscup of the United States Circuit Court of Illinois, and the Lieutenant Governor of New York gave stirring addresses. The keynote of this great gathering seemed to be the establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth. One speaker is reported as crystallizing the general sentiment into this form: “When the great Christian church awakes and fulfils her duty, religion will permeate every fiber of the nation, and the saying, ‘The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ,’ will be fulfilled.” One who attended the conference, and who discerns the meaning of this movement, draws the following parallel: “In the fourth century the churches tried the same plan, and instead of establishing the kingdom of Christ, they ushered in a kingdom of tyranny, which ended in the papacy. This, while ostensibly for the purpose of bringing the kingdom, will end in tyranny, and the perfect image of the papacy.” The indications are not wanting that when church federation is an accomplished fact, the power of these united churches will be exerted in favor of religious legislation. Such combinations are almost invariably the beginnings of tyranny. A union of such groups of churches as seem to be more or less closely allied in their beliefs appears to be sought on all sides. It is now proposed to unite the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational Churches of Canada into what is to be known as the “United Church of Canada,” and the Unitarians and Universalists and other liberal bodies, which were excluded from the New York conference, are reported as planning to hold an inter-church conference of their own for the discussion of topics of common interest. These movements have a prominent place among the signs of the times. Developments in Washington
But we must now consider another and a most important phase of this whole subject. The different instances of Sunday law agitation and the local outbreaks of zeal for religion by law in the various States are but side currents and local eddies. We believe that we are to look to national legislation as the main current. In this is found the peculiar significance of the removal of our denominational headquarters to Washington. Here is the center of influence, and the time has come when a truly Protestant voice should be heard at the nation's capital. A brief survey of the record for the past year or more ought to make this very plain. In the fifty-eighth Congress two Sunday bills, one of which passed the House, were introduced. Some earnest work was done in circulating literature and in presenting petitions against these measures, and they both died in committees. Early in the present Congress two Sunday bills were introduced into the House of Representatives. One of them was brought forward the second day of the session, and is entitled “A Bill to Prevent Sunday Banking in Post-offices in the Handling of Money-orders and Registered Letters.” The other was introduced January 5, and is entitled “A Bill to Further Protect the First Day of the Week as a Day of Rest in the District of Columbia.” Thus another door of opportunity has been opened for presenting to men in high positions the Christian principles of civil government and the Bible truth concerning that most important issue, the Sabbath question. In addition to these developments in Congress there has been a most interesting local campaign in the city of Washington over the question of religious instruction in the public schools. This began with a conference of representative clergymen and laymen on Feb. 20, 1905, at which the plan was presented and discussed. A committee of fifteen, to whom the matter was referred, held three meetings for the consideration of the subject, and reported favorably to the original conference on March 15. Their report was adopted, and a petition was prepared for the Board of Education. The principles involved were then fully discussed in public meetings and through the columns of the daily papers. Hearings were held by the Board of Education, and at a meeting on the evening of May 10, they unanimously decided against the demand for the introduction of religious instruction into the schools under their charge. It fell to the lot of the Seventh-day Adventists to lead the opposition against this encroachment upon religious liberty, although others joined heartily with them, and the truths advocated by this people were thus brought prominently to the attention of the public. These experiences have emphasized two things: the evident desire to gain a victory at the nation's capital in behalf of the movement to unite religion and civil government, with a view to the influence it would have throughout the country; and the wisdom of the counsel which directed this people to make Washington their headquarters. We are here for a purpose, and that purpose is plain. The final contest is at hand, and this is the strategic point. We must respond faithfully to the demand upon us. The record of the rise of this nation, and the course which it would finally pursue in relation to the question of religious liberty, is clearly set forth in the prophecy. It is all comprehended in these few verses:— And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like unto a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the authority of the first beast in his sight. And he maketh the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose death-stroke was healed. And he doeth great signs, that he should even make fire to come down out of heaven upon the earth in the sight of men. And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by reason of the signs which it was given him to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast who hath the stroke of the sword and lived. And it was given unto him to give breath to it, even to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as should not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, even the name of the beast or the number of his name.
When this country was weak in material resources and the youngest among the nations, but adhered to right principles, the power of these principles exemplified in its history influenced the other nations in the direction of liberty of conscience. The marvelous development of the country, the prosperity of the people, and the lack of that constant discontent which has been felt so strongly among the oppressed of other countries, together with the large degree of both civil and religious liberty enjoyed by all classes have had a telling influence upon the course of history during the past century. Now the United States has assumed the place of a great world power. It is a partner in the diplomatic intrigues of the Old World politics. Its present tendency to repudiate the principles upon which it was established—Protestantism and Republicanism—will exert a mighty influence in the direction of tyranny. When the government of this country unites with the papacy in its program of6the union of church and state with the church in control, its downfall will be assured, and its lease of life will be short. And it will lead all the nations to the same ruin. This is the great significance of the prophecy concerning the course of the United States in the immediate future.