Counsel with the Herodians.
By William C. Gage
When a corrupt ecclesiastical power finds itself unable to repel the advance of truth, or successfully meet the arguments which are calculated to overthrow its strongholds, it naturally seeks to fortify itself by exterior aids. History has repeated itself on this point many times in the past, and unions of church and state, of greater or less effectiveness, have met and opposed the progressive march of truth in all ages of the world. This tendency of an apostate church to seek alliance with civil power has everywhere been an indication of moral and spiritual weakness; and although often a source of temporary power and influence, the advantage gained is only of a worldly nature. The very introduction of the gospel dispensation was marked by exhibitions of this spirit. The Jewish church had apostatized from God, and were walking in darkness. Their civil power was gone, their scepter had departed, and they were the subjects of a heathen government. It would seem that under such circumstances they might gladly receive the dawning light of a brighter day; but instead of this we read that the discomfited Pharisees, unable to cope with the humble Nazarene in argument, “took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.” The Herodians are said to have been a political party, in the interests of the king; and the Pharisees doubtless sought to secure their co-operation in the attempted destruction of Jesus by appealing to their jealous prejudices, and exciting their fears lest the king should be overthrown. Their course in the matter is noticeable as an illustrative case of religious bigotry, which has had its counterpart in many instances since. The politicians of the nineteenth century are not greatly unlike those of the first, and their co-operation may be secured by measures similar to those which influenced the Herodians. Hence we find that certain zealous defenders of an unscriptural Sabbath are seeking political influence in its behalf on the ground that the safety of the state depends upon its maintenance. All the arguments deductible from the sad results of Sabbath-breaking on the part of ancient Israel as a nation are made to do duty in behalf of Sunday, and the true basis of Sabbath reform is lost to the sight in the zeal to defend an institution that has no Scriptural support. It may not be uncharitable to say that such advocates, in their less malicious but equally mistaken zeal, are like the Pharisees of old, taking “counsel with the Herodians.” W. C. G.