p. 9 | BUT OUGHT IT TO BE?

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Dec 12, 1895

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 21, No. 49.

BUT OUGHT IT TO BE?

In the “Thanksgiving” number of the Christian Advocate (New York) is the following from the “Editor’s Greeting” to the young people:—

“Well, the first reason for congratulating you is that you live in a country where every man is free to enjoy the religion he prefers. Did you ever think what a terrible thing would happen to you if we had a king who should say no man shall have any religion but the Roman Catholic, and every man that professes any other religion shall be sent to prison, or out of the country, or if he speak his sentiments after being forbidden, shall be hanged? What would happen if we had such a king? What would become of you? of your parents? If you were cowards, you would profess to change your religion, and be Roman Catholics. If you were true to your principles, you, if you were old enough to know what you were doing, and your parents would be sent to prison, or suffer other penalties, and if you were not old enough your parents would be torn from you.”

“But it would be just as bad if the king were a Methodist, and had power to treat all the Roman Catholics in that way, because do you not see that if the Roman Catholics and the other denominations grew strong enough, they might rise up and destroy that king, and all the Methodists too.”

Now this is doubtless all true, at least we will accept Dr. Buckley’s word for it, last paragraph and all. But we can but wonder whether the learned editor stopped to think of the virtual admission or confession that he makes regarding Methodists. The admission is that Methodists stand on Roman Catholic ground. The principle of Roman Catholicism as regards church and state is that the church is supreme, and that the rulers and people of every nation are, or ought to be, subject to her authority, and therefore coercion is justifiable. But the Reformation of the sixteenth century was an emphatic protest against the interference of the civil magistrate with affairs of religion or conscience; the two must be absolutely and forever divorced. This is the doctrine of Christianity. “The head of every man is Christ.” To Christ alone is he responsible for belief or non-belief. Now if the Methodist king, with all power, would compel all to profess or pay homage to the Methodist creed, he in that very thing would stand on Roman Catholic and anti-christian ground. That ruler who was truly Christian would use no power save love and persuasion for the control of opposing religionists.

That the Christian Advocate is correct, however, is demonstrated by the parts which different denominations, Methodists included, are playing in endeavoring to compel all to observe or pay homage to the church Sunday sabbath. A true Christian, a genuine Protestant, whatever day he might observe as the Sabbath, or however absolute his power, would never compel or coerce those who might differ with him religiously. Whenever the time came that he did, he would leave Protestant and Christian ground for papal. Is this confessedly the position of the Methodist Church? It seems so from the above quotation. A true Christian ruler would be one who could bear the test of having power to enforce religious dogmas and yet steadfastly and consistently refuse to use such power, because it is contrary to the doctrine of Christ.