THE CROSS AND THE SWORD.
By F. M. W.
The proper means for the extension of the Gospel of Christ is a question that has troubled other ages than our own. I say other ages than our own because none can deny from the trend of discussion at the present day that there is a tendency on the part of Christendom to employ the same measures in Christianizing the world as have been employed in past centuries. It is strange that in this enlightened age there still could be connected with the professed church of Christ those who consider the spirit of the Crusades the proper actuating spirit of the Gospel message to-day; and yet such is the fact. The old spirit that ruled in the Middle Ages of compelling allegiance to the cross is not yet obsolete. But when this spirit is analyzed and compared with the principles of the divine Gospel, it will be readily recognized as the spirit of the world and not the spirit of heaven, as the spirit of force and not love, of policy and not principle, the spirit born of self. For the personal independence and individuality of every one of his created intelligences, the Lord holds the highest respect. His service is wholly voluntary, and never of compulsion. Man is a free moral agent, and of his own free volition can he choose to serve God or not to serve Him. This exercise of choice is an inherent, God-given right, and only in this free exercise is the development of character possible. We can not conceive for a moment that it would be pleasing to the mind of God to be worshiped by machines, by those who from otherwise than voluntary choice offer Him praise and adoration. If there is one class above another that God despises, it is the man who professes that which he is not, or, in other words, a hypocrite. For any man to be compelled against his will to worship God, or to conform to the requirements of God, would be to make that man a hypocrite. When it is considered that religion is the personal relationship existing between God and each one of his creatures, and that it pertains not alone to the outward actions, but to the purposes and motives from which all actions spring, it will be readily seen that any enforced regard for outward form and ceremony can give to none the religion or the Gospel of Christ. Hence, to compel a man to pray, to receive the sacrament, to attend church, to observe the Sabbath, is to make that man a hypocritical impostor. And not alone that: it only serves to place within his heart an antipathy and spirit of rebellion against the religion and the God to whom he is compelled to bow. It is a true principle that the exercise of force will awaken the spirit of opposition. It is indeed true, according to the adage, that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. And if by law a man be compelled to observe the outward forms of religion, within his heart there is a spirit of opposition made still more rampant and vindictive by the force employed. And the employment of force in religious things is entirely contrary to the scheme of salvation and the spirit of the Gospel. The spirit of the Gospel of Christ is the spirit of love and not fear, of free choice and not force. The Spirit of God draws but never drives, woos and wins its way by gentle persuasion and not force. The language of the apostles is, “We exhort,” “We beseech,” “We entreat.” Christ Himself, in all the operations of His grace, never attempts to force the citadel of the soul. He knocks at the door of the heart before He attempts to enter, and when He enters, He takes possession only as the individual yields himself to the Spirit’s control. Rev. 3:20. All the history of the past shows that when political means and worldly policy and the power of the sword have been employed to augment the membership of the professed church of Christ, the augmentation has been secured at the sacrifice of true piety and consecration. For to employ flattery, or to buy or bribe men to the profession of Christianity, is as fatal in its result, and as far-reaching in its influence, as to force them to acquiescence. The corruption of the church in the third and fourth centuries was directly chargeable to these methods. And the worldliness and lack of piety observable in the professed church of Christ to-day are attributable to the same agencies. It may be asked if government has not a right to enact penalties for the violation of some religious requirements. For instance, has not the State a right to punish a man for the violation of the seventh commandment? Is not a man answerable to the law for the violation of the commandment that says, “Thou shalt not kill,” or, “Thou shalt not steal”? We answer that it is not in the province of the State to punish any individual for the violation of any commandment of God, as such, not even excepting the commandments just mentioned. It was the assumption of this right that led to the horrors of the Inquisition of past ages. The commandments of the Lord have to do not alone with overt actions, but with the purposes and motives of the heart. Thus, a man who lusts after a woman is in God’s sight an adulterer. Matt. 5:28. He who hates his brother is a murderer. I John 3:15. And the exercise of the thought of covetousness constitutes the coveter an idolater. Col. 3:5. Hence if the government has a right to enforce the law of God, and punish for the violation of the law, even within the scope of the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments, it has a right to deal not alone with the overt acts themselves, but with the purposes and motives prompting these actions. Proceeding upon this hypothesis, as we have already stated, the Inquisition was the natural consequence. How, then, it may be inquired, can the State, if it can not of right enter upon the domain of religion, determine with any consistency the bounds of society or regulate the relations between man and his fellows? We answer, By the exercise of the civil rights delegated to them by God in the establishment of earthly governments. If a man takes the life of a fellow-being, the State must deal with him wholly because he is uncivil, and not because he is irreligious. The Supreme Judge and Arbiter will call him to account for his irreligious principles at the last great day, but with this the State has nothing whatever to do. To the State belongs the authority to enforce upon every man a recognition of the rights of others. The relation that every man owes to his Maker is entirely outside the province of civil government. Whether a man serves God or does not serve Him, the government has no right to inquire or dictate; but only in the relations existing between man and man does its authority enter. In the second table of the law, or the last six commandments of the Decalogue, are the proper relations between man and his fellows defined. With certain of these relations only has the government to do, but, as stated above, even these the government has not the right to enforce as the law of God, but only as civil measures pertaining to the outward life and deportment. It could in nowise enforce the last of the six. When the government of Babylon, altho ordained of God (Jeremiah 25), ordered the three worthies to bow in adoration before the golden image (Daniel 3), God demonstrated in a signal manner that this government had overstepped the bounds of its authority, and that His servants were exonerated from censure in refusing obedience to its mandates. The same was true in the case of Daniel, who refused obedience to the law of the Medes and Persians. Daniel 5. And when Peter and the apostles were required by the civil magistrates to cease from the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, they refused with the declaration that their duty to God was paramount to their duty to man, thus showing in their case that the Jewish leaders were overstepping the bounds set for the exercise of their civil authority by the God of heaven. Acts 5:28, 29. In our own age there will be a repetition of past history, and religious zealots will again seek the enforcement of religious dogmas and doctrines. An illustration of this is seen in the attempted enforcement of the Sunday rest day in various parts of the world. The keeping of the Sabbath is a matter pertaining wholly to man’s relation to his Creator, and whether one observes every day or no day can not affect in any degree the relations to his fellow-men. Hence, with this question the State has no right to interfere. If it be urged that the violation of the Sunday rest is a crime against society and an uncivil act, then we answer, if it be not uncivil for a man to work upon Monday, it is no more uncivil to work upon Sunday. An act which does not disturb his fellows one day can not possibly disturb them any other day. If a man is uncivil upon Sunday, then he should be dealt with the same as tho he were uncivil upon any other day of the week. The enforcement of laws with respect to Sunday, or the application of law to a deed done upon Sunday, and not to the same deed done upon any other day of the week, is preference shown to that particular day. And as Sunday is held to be a religious institution, and enforcement of Sunday laws is on account of the religious character of the day and the religious prejudices of the people regarding that day, it can be nothing else but legislation upon a religious question. And this, as already shown, is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel of Christ, and out of the province of authority of the civil power. The church of God to-day needs not the power of the material sword, but the power of the sword of the Spirit, even the Word of God. And with that power at its command, it will have no need to invoke the aid of the civil authority to enforce upon the minds of men obedience to the right. The power of the Spirit will be stronger than the combined armies and navies of the world, and more drawing and effective than the spirit of flattery or the craft of men. The professed church of Christ to-day needs the baptism of that Spirit above every other acquisition. F. M. W.