THE GOSPEL AND THIS GOVERNMENT.
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 to or show regard for Christian ceremonies or observances. And this is true respecting all classes of religionists. The teaching of Christ makes it incumbent upon Christians 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? Furthermore, Jesus Christ laid down a principle which draws a distinct line between the duty which we owe to civil government and the duty which we owe to God. When asked whether it was lawful or not to pay tribute to Cæsar, he said:— "Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he said unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's." (See Matt. 22:16-22.) Here is divine guidance for all concerning all requirements. What stamp—whose image and superscription—have they? Is it a state or municipal tax?—It is paid with money coined by the government for that purpose. Is it the observance of the Lord's Supper, baptism, or the Sabbath?—Each and all of these bear the stamp of God in their origin and law; and therefore civil government has no right to interfere, or in any way to enforce their observance. The observance of religious requirements, ordinances, institutions, does not come within the purview or jurisdiction of the state, and whenever the state interferes as to their observance, the Christian and the church have the right, nay, it is duty, to emphatically protest, and to bid the state to remain within its own sphere, even as the state has the right to bid the church to keep to its own sphere. It was on this broad and divinely just principle that the little apostolic church began its career. It was vouchsafed all the power of God (Matt. 28:18-20); upon it was poured out the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8; 2:1-12); its weapons were not carnal, but spiritual, and yet mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds (2 Cor. 10:4, 5). That early church never appealed to the state for support. The apostles never asked the civil power for state aid to establish, promote, or preserve any Christian dogma or institution. They had so much faith in the simple truth of God that they boldly declared, "We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth" (2 Cor. 13:8); and that even the persecutions waged against the Gospel had "fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the Gospel" (Phil. 1:12). They died, but truth lived and conquered, Idol shrines melted before truth's glowing love, heathen temples crumbled before truth's own intrinsic power, and darkened hearts became the light bearers of the Sun of Righteousness. It was not until the church departed from her Lord that her mighty works ceased. It was not until she lost his power that she appealed to the state. The persecution of a Nero or Decius was better for the church, suffer though she did, than the "conversion" of a Constantine. Following the union of the church and state through him, the apostasy rapidly developed, the fullness of which is seen in the persecutions of the Dark Ages, not because men were naturally worse, but because they were led by wrong and wicked principles, which transformed them into demons, while at the same time they thought themselves God's ministers. The Dark Ages were but the development of the first seed sowing in the days of Constantine, and previous. In fact, it began in the days of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:7), when Christ was excluded from the hearts of disciples, and unconverted men began to control the church. Some of the Reformers started out in theory on the true Gospel principle of absolute separation from church and state, but this principle did not long control. It was not until 1776 that a place was found among the civilized governments of earth where church and state both stood where God designed they should stand, each in its own sphere.3This was in the Federal Government of the United States. That glorious principle of liberty was emblazoned on the very front of the crest of the republic, in the immortal Declaration of Independence, and in the first Amendment to the Constitution. On the reverse side of the great seal of the United States was placed this inscription, "Novus Ordo Seculorum," meaning This new order was especially manifest in these two ideas: Government is of the people; and government is, if right, absolutely separate from religion. George Bancroft, the great historian, remarks as follows on these guarantees of religious liberty:— The Constitution establishes nothing that interferes with equality or individuality. It knows nothing of differences by descent, or opinions, of favored classes, or legalized religion, or the political power of property. It leaves the individual alongside the individual. . . . Religion was become avowedly the attribute of man and not of a corporation. . . . Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely ordained in Judæa. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several states, withheld from the Federal Government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and, not from indifference, but that the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity and power.—History of the Constitution, Book V, chapter 1. Under these guarantees of equity and liberty, during the succeeding century, both government and genuine religion prospered as under no other government. And this was expected. Said James Madison at that time:— Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.—Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822. On this the compiler of "American State Papers" well remarks:— How different is this from the constant opposition of so many Christians to-day against every application of the doctrine. . . . If state chaplains are not hired, the early destruction of the state is predicted; if Sunday laws are not enforced, anathemas are pronounced against the whole nation;—and all this, too, when religion in America has prospered better, far better, under the secular principles of government than ever it did in any nation with all its religious teaching by the state. The words of General Grant should ever be remembered by the American people, "Keep church and state forever separate."—American State Papers, p. 77. But at the present time the "new order of things" is being reversed. Religious questions are constantly pressed for decision upon our Legislatures and courts. Contrary to the important truths of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, and that governments among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, men are now declaring, as did Rev. W. D. Gray, at the "Sabbath Reform Convention," held in Sedalia, Mo., in the summer of 1889, under the auspices of the American Sabbath Union:— To appeal to divine authority in our legislation would be to fundamentally change the law of our land, or the principle adopted by our fathers when they said that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. I for one do not believe in that as a political maxim. I do not believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and so the object of this [Sunday-law] movement is an effort to CHANGE THAT FEATURE IN OUR FUNDAMENTAL LAW. The convention showed their appreciation of Mr. Gray's sentiments by electing him secretary of the permanent state organization. Col. Elliott F. Shepard, late president of the American Sabbath Union, said at Chautauqua the same year:— Governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. February 29, 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States declared this to be a "Christian nation." In July of the same year the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government placed themselves in the same line, establishing by law, in response to the demand of religious bodies, what is called a Christian institution. Since that time agitation upon religio-political subjects has grown apace. Preachers are in politics as never before since the foundation of the republic. "Institutes of applied Christianity" are in operation all over the land, according to which Christianity is to be applied through civil law. "Christian citizenship" is put forth as the only citizenship worthy of name or existence; sabbath (or Sunday) laws in various shapes and forms are urged or enforced in various parts of our land. Men are lying in jails or working in chain-gangs for conscience' sake, under the flag. All these things are leading thoughtful men to ask: "What will be the outcome? Where will these things end?" Is it not time that every patriot be warned? Is it not time that every Christian awake? The test will come so close that every soul must take one side. Will it be the side of tyranny and destruction or liberty and life? A prophecy of all this is found in Rev. 13: 11-17; 14: 9-14.