WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Mar 19, 1896

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 22, No. 12.

WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT.

Nearly nineteen hundred years ago Jesus Christ announced the doctrine of religious liberty in the following utterances:—

“All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Matt. 7:12.

“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.

These utterances need no extended comment. Applied to the subject of religious faith and practice, or freedom of conscience, they grant the fullest liberty to believe or not to believe. If the Christian desires that the “heathen Chinese” should grant him the privilege of teaching, preaching, or practicing the religion of Christ, it is the duty of the Christian to grant the Chinese the privilege of teaching, preaching, or practicing the religion of Joss or Buddha. And as the Christian conscience would revolt at the idea of paying reverence or regard to the idolatrous forms of worship of the Chinese, and would feel that it was oppression or persecution were he required so to do, so he has no right, according to the teaching of Christ, to compel, or seek to compel, the heathen to pay reverence or regard for Christian ceremonies or observances. And this is true respecting all classes of religionists. The teaching of Christ makes it incumbent upon the Christian to act toward the devotees of all religions as they would that the devotees of these religions should act toward them.

The second scripture quoted above puts non-acquiescence in religious faith on the basis, not of privilege, but, so far as man is concerned, of right—the right to differ, the right to believe or not to believe, the right to worship or not to worship. And the positive declaration of Him who could read all hearts was that He would not judge or condemn the unbeliever. Have his erring followers the right to go beyond this? He said that all judgment, all condemnation, was to be left “to the last day.” Have his followers the right to judge now?

Not Institutions but Men.—One of the objects of the Christian Citizenship movement, the American Sabbath Union, the National Reform Association, etc., is to protect, or to promote, or both, certain religious institutions, among which is the so-called “American Sunday,” or “American Sabbath,” tho what there is about it exclusively or particularly American no one has ever told us. In other words, it is the church Sunday. But herein these organizations are opposed to true Americanism and genuine liberty; for the true province of civil government is to protect, not institutions, but men—to protect men in their equal rights. As Thomas Jefferson expresses it, “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” This is the true principle of liberty in government.

To the Individual.—The government which regards the rights of its subjects, will not exalt institutions above men, but men above institutions. The institution may be honored if men will, but its observance will never be compulsory. Not only this, but a true government will not subject the individual man to the arbitrary demands of the many. Man surrenders no inalienable right to society or government. If the government be a true government, it conserves and guards the rights of each one and each one in his rights. And when each person is protected in his rights, all are protected in their rights. And as long as each man is protected in his rights, so long can no person or class suffer from the infringement of their rights. The thing to be exalted, therefore, in a just and permanent government is the individual man and his inalienable rights, whether he be Jew or Christian, infidel or believer; for in this only are the rights of all conserved.

Class Legislation.—It is a deadly poison, which these reform organizations are injecting into our government and body politic. It is deranging and perverting every just principle of liberty and humanity. It is sacrificing man to institutions, principles of right to popular prejudices, right or wrong. That government which exalts in its laws institutions at the expense of human rights will always and forever be guilty of class legislation and subject to class prejudices, traditions, bickerings, strifes, jealousies. For instance, the so-called “American Sunday” is a class institution, and nothing else. It is a religious class institution. People may observe it who will, but they have neither human nor divine right to say he shall observe or honor it who elects otherwise. Nay, more, they have no right to say that he must honor it who elects so to do. The honor or observance is elective; the right of choice is universal, vested in the individual, and dominant over all civil authority whatsoever. The observance or non-observance of the institution is a matter of conscience between the individual and the being he may call God, but it is not a matter with which the state has any right to interfere, except to guard the equal rights of all her citizens and subjects.

“The Survival of the Fittest.”—Laws for the protection of human rights are necessary, but class institutions, among which are all religious days and dogmas, must depend for their existence and promotion on the loyalty, devotion, and zeal of their adherents. If they are worthy to live, if they are of benefit to the human race, if there is back of them real intrinsic worth, their value will be recognized, and they will be perpetuated in the hearts and lives of their constant and multiplying constituency. But if these institutions can not be thus maintained by their inherent worth, they deserve to die. And, above all other classes, Christians should recognize this fact and indorse this sentiment. Jesus Christ declares, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” Matt. 15:13. Men may bolster up Sunday by tradition and false teaching, they may put behind it all the combined power of civil government, but if it is not of God, it will surely perish, and will include in its destruction all those who have identified themselves with it. But if it be of God, let its religious friends look to him with the calm faith of an Elijah. The Rock, and all builded upon it, will endure. All the storms of infidelity may break upon it, but the waves and winds will prove to be but spray, which will whiten, harden, and polish the Rock. We leave these queries with those of our readers who hold to the Sunday institution: Is not their appeal to civil law a tacit confession that they know that the Sunday is not of Christ, that it is not of God’s planting? Or if they believe it to be of God, does not their appeal to civil law show that they have lost faith in the “all power” of the Gospel?