The Principle and “the Principles”
We often hear about the principles of religious liberty and the principles of healthful living, and loyalty to “the principles” is often urged and commended. We have known of atheists and scoffers who were ardent in their support of “the principles” of religious liberty, and we have heard of Unitarians and theosophists who were very punctilious in carrying out “the principles” of vegetarianism. This has led us to inquire whether “the principles” of religious liberty had anything to do with religion, and whether “the principles” of health reform had anything to do with this third angel’s message. In advocating “the principles” of religious liberty do we stand on the same platform as the atheist and the scoffer? and in promulgating “the principles” of Christian health and temperance is there any distinction between us and the Unitarian, the theosophist, and the pantheist? Can4there be any such thing as religious liberty without religion? Can there be any such thing as Christian health and temperance without Christianity? This message includes “the principles” of religious liberty, but the atheist and the scoffer can not give this message. This message includes “the principles” of health and temperance, but the Unitarian and the theosophist and the pantheist can not give this message. There is one principle which must be the warp and the woof of “the principles” in order that they shall be an integral part of this message, and that principle is the fundamental truth of the gospel,—the doctrine of righteousness by faith, of salvation from sin through the merits and ministry of Jesus the Son of God. When we have “the principles” without this essential principle, we have simply the principles of self-exaltation and self-salvation. Some of these things have been viewed in a false light, and the vegetarian theosophist and pantheist of India have been extolled as being further advanced in “the principles” than the meat-eating Englishman and American. We neither advocate nor practise the eating of flesh as a diet, but we still prefer “the principles” of the Christian who has not yet seen the necessity of wholly abstaining from flesh-food to “the principles” of the Unitarian, the theosophist, or the pantheist, even though he may regard the taking of animal life as murder, and the eating of flesh as an unpardonable sin. In saying this we know that there is a possibility of our being misunderstood and our position misrepresented, but we must take that risk. We regard health reform as the right arm of this message, but not as the body. We have discarded flesh as an article of diet, not as a means of salvation, but because we believe that in this way the body can be kept in a better condition to reveal to the world the salvation which comes through faith in the merits and ministry of Jesus our Saviour. The difference between these two positions is the difference between righteousness by works and righteousness by faith. To deal justly and to love mercy are the essential requirements of true religion, and there is nothing else which can take the place of these fruits of the Spirit. To oppose Sunday laws or to abstain from eating flesh does not condone for the sin of dishonesty in word and deed. “Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts.” There is danger of degrading “the principles” to a mere shibboleth. There is danger of substituting a so-called physical righteousness for the gospel of righteousness by faith. It may be necessary to call to mind the words of Jesus: “Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.”