p. 5 | Intolerant to the End of Days by F. D. Starr

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Nov 2, 1911

“Intolerant to the End of Days”

By F. D. Starr

F. D. STARR

In a work entitled “Spiritual Pepper and Salt for Catholics and Non-Catholics,” by Wm. Stang, published by Benziger Brothers, New York, the following paragraphs appear on pages 119-122:—

“The Catholic Church is intolerant.” We admit the truth of this charge. The Catholic Church is naturally intolerant in matters of religion. She is conscious of being the only true church of Christ, and of holding the eternal destinies of the human race; she considers herself to be alone in the possession of the truth, and all other creeds to be more or less in error. It is her duty to resist and to refute all such creeds, and thereby to cause the true doctrine to prevail. Truth is intolerant; wherefore the church, being the divine depository of truth, is and must be intolerant. She abhors error and all offenses against the truth, especially apostasy and heresy. . . .

“But this religious intolerance of the church does not condemn and persecute persons in error, only false principles. People may be in error of faith, and yet be saved. We have no right to impute guilt to those who are in error; we should show to all the duties of brotherly love expressly enjoined by the church, and let them live in peace.

“But has not the Catholic Church in the past persecuted and punished heretics and those who differed from her doctrines?—Yes, when heresy was a political crime and operated against the civil law, and when religion was so bound into the frame-work of society that to disturb religion was to shake the foundation of government. Even the Justinian Code says: ‘What is done against the divine religion is an injury to all.’ Heresy was considered a graver crime than high treason: ‘Far more grievous is it to offend the heavenly than the earthly king.’ It may be difficult for us to realize this state of public sentiment when in our days we hear blasphemies against the majesty of God vomited forth in public, and his holy name profaned on all sides, and the government officials take no notice of such crimes which were formerly capital offenses. When Europe was Catholic, and the temporal order was united with the religious, sins against religion were sins against the social order, and heretics were rebels against society, and had to be punished on the principle that no man was allowed to teach and spread falsehood. But in our day, when society is no longer professedly Catholic, religious toleration has become almost universal, not because people have become more charitable or more enlightened, but through sheer social necessity. In her doctrine, however, and form of worship the Catholic Church will remain intolerant to the end of days.”

This is a very clear statement concerning the attitude of the Catholic Church toward dissenters. The reason for the present manifestation of toleration is not because of a greater degree of charity or enlightenment, but from sheer necessity. When Europe was Catholic, no toleration was shown to heretics, and of course it is the opinion of that church that Europe and America and every other country should now be Catholic; that the head of the church should possess the civil as well as the ecclesiastical sword. When that condition, to which the church aspires, shall be reached, where will toleration be found? It will be a thing of the past.

There is certainly an important lesson here for Protestant agitators to consider, who are determined to get religion “bound into the framework of society,” just as it was in medieval times. Then, as formerly, “to disturb religion” will be “to shake the foundation of government,” and heresy will be “considered a greater crime than high treason.” Why pave the way for religious intolerance, and thus walk blindly into the very pitfall that the founders of our government saw so plainly would be the result of a union of church and state?

The position is logical that as long as the government makes no laws regulating religious matters, the person in “error,” or the non-conformist, or one of different opinion from the majority, should be allowed to live in peace; but as soon as the state declares in favor of certain religious requirements, then intolerance and persecution must unavoidably follow. Which condition is preferable? Shall we accept the Christian-state idea, and thus open the way for the restoration of the Inquisition and religious persecution? or do we prefer to live in peace, and as far as those are concerned who differ with us, continue to “let them live in peace,” and thus follow the Master? Was he intolerant? Listen to his declaration on this subject: “And 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. He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Is truth intolerant? Did Paul advocate intolerance? Here are his words on that point: “The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” 2 Tim. 2:24, 25. The so-called orthodox Protestants sometimes draw unfavorable comparisons between themselves and other bodies of more recent denominational origin. The comparison drawn in the volume under consideration (pages 22, 23) concerning the antiquity of the

Catholic Church and the modern origin of other churches, might be interesting to notice in this connection:—

“There never was a Protestant or Lutheran Church before Martin Luther, in the sixteenth century; there never was an Episcopalian or Anglican Church before Henry VIII; there never was a Presbyterian Church before John Knox; there never was a Methodist Church before John Wesley; there never were Quakers before George Fox; there never was an Anabaptist or Baptist Church before Nicolas Stork; there never was a ‘Christian’ Church before Alexander Campbell.”

Our inquiry need not be concerning the antiquity of a church or a belief, but concerning its truthfulness and Scriptural foundation.

Forest, Idaho.