WHAT NEXT? by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Mar 20, 1893

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 19, No. 20.

WHAT NEXT?

By Editor

WE have before stated that there was a demand now being made by prominent men in the churches that there should be a limit placed upon free speech. A notable example of this is an article in the North American Review for January, by the "Right Rev. Leighton Coleman, S.T.D., LL.D., Bishop of Delaware." He begins by saying:—

There is a discussion styled religious that is not legitimate. It is such as calls into question the fundamental principles of religion. Any discussion which involves disrespect to them transcends its proper bounds.

The Italics are ours. By "legitimate" Dr. Leighton does not mean according to the laws of courtesy. For he then raises the query as to whether there is a "form of religion which may be called national, and which its adherents may on that account consider entitled, so far as its fundamental principles are concerned, to limitation of debate." What reply does he give to this? It is this: "Yes. From the very beginning of its colonization, this country has distinctly recognized Christianity as its religion." "The Federal Constitution, taken together with 'the laws in pursuance thereof,' may be said to be founded not only upon, but in, Christianity—the existence of which is throughout presupposed."

The result of this colonial recognition of Christianity by law was manifest in the burning of witches, hanging of Quakers, and banishment of Baptists.

Dr. Coleman then cites in proof of his proposition the appointment of chaplains in the army and navy, the quasi-papal decision of Chancellor Kent, and some of the utterances of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, while utterly ignoring the organic utterances of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the treaty with Tripoli, which positively declare to the contrary, and which we have presented many times in the past. The doctor then draws the following conclusion:—

So, then, I repeat that a discussion which would include within its limits an attack upon the fundamental principles of Christianity is, so far as that attack is concerned, distinctly illegitimate.

We recognize this dogma when applied to civil affairs. When a citizen essays to bring into disrepute the fundamental principles of that form of government under which he is living, he is accounted a traitor, and is liable to arrest and punishment. . . . Is it not much more treasonable to bring into contempt the institutions and tenets of Christianity? . . . A perpetual limit must be placed to the questioning or denial by way of discussion of such things as are essential to Christianity.

The writer names some of these essentials,—the personality of Christ, fundamental belief in him as both God and man, "the two great sacraments," "baptism and the supper of the Lord."

He thinks that "an assault" upon the divinity of Christ is beyond the pale of "legitimate discussion," and he questions whether Christians may not, "with good grace, insist upon some limitations in this respect."

Another essential to Christianity, which the bishop does not name, but which is demanded by prominent men everywhere, is the institution of Sunday. In fact, the establishment of Sunday by law is demanded with an ardor, an intensity, on the part of thousands which are shown concerning no other political or religious question. Sunday is already established as a Christian institution by law in most of our States and in the nation. How long will it be ere it will indeed be considered treason to speak against, or even to call into question, the Christianity or the scripturalness of these tenets, or so-called institutions of Christianity.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Christian institutions clearly taught in the word of God as gracious privileges as well as duties incumbent upon all believers in Jesus. But Sunday is not, never was, nor ever can be, a Christian institution. Against these views of Dr. Coleman and many others for whom he speaks, we wish to protest, for the following reasons:—

1. Some of the very institutions which are considered essential to Christianity are not only not Christian, but antichristian. This is especially true of the Sunday institution, as before mentioned. Sunday as a Sabbath or sacred day of any kind finds no warrant in the word of God. This is simply stating what many Sunday observers themselves admit. At its very best, standing alone, it is but will worship to observe the day. But it is worse than will worship; for it presents before the people as an institution of God and the Bible that concerning which the Lord has not spoken and which the Bible does not support. Thus it makes God a liar by declaring that God calls it Christian when he does not.

Further, God has given us a Sabbath in his word. That Sabbath is the seventh day. It is not only the Sabbath of God, but it is the Sabbath of our Lord Jesus Christ. God and Christ are one. God created the world through Christ. John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6. Christ created, and Christ therefore rested. The seventh-day Sabbath is therefore the Sabbath of Christ. Mark 2:28.

But more: The power that created the worlds is the power that re-creates man in the image of God, and sanctifies him by the truth. See Col. 1:14-19; Eph. 2:10, et al. The Sabbath of the Lord is therefore not only a memorial of Christ's creative power (Ps. 111:4; Ex. 20:8-11), but is also a sign to his people of his redeeming and sanctifying power (Eze. 20:12). Therefore to set forth Sunday as a Christian Sabbath is to set it against the only Sabbath or weekly holy day for which the Scriptures of truth give any warrant.

2. To put a limitation upon religious discussion is antichristian. Granting that the institutions named are Christian, the State has no right to meddle with them. The things of Christ cannot be enforced by civil law. Only in the Spirit of Christ, by the motive of faith and love, can the institutions of Christ be observed or his commandments obeyed. No outward observance honors Christ or his law, and any professed enforcement of the institutions or laws of God is not the enforcement of God's institutions and laws, but their counterfeit. God has made no man or set of men his vicegerent to execute judgment or enforce law. Jesus himself said, "I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:17. To Peter, who drew his sword in his Master's defense, Jesus says, "Put up thy sword." Of those who should persecute and revile his disciples and thus revile him (Matt. 25:40), Jesus says: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Matt. 5:44. He said unto Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." The work of God is to be carried forward, the laws of God are to be obeyed, the institutions of Christianity are to be observed, not by means of any human law, not by the aid of any human law, but by the power of the gospel of Christ and the spirit of love. Therefore to attempt to enforce the religion of Christ, to compel by law outward regard for its institutions, is a perversion of Christianity; in fact, it is antichristian. It may be said to those who advocate such measures as Dr. Coleman outlines, just as Jesus said to his two rash disciples, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." Certainly it is not the Spirit of Christ. And this would be just as true of a government as of a man; just as true now as it was then.

3. Civil government has no right to place any limits upon religious discussion or debate any more than to limit debate upon any social or educational question. Just as soon as such a law is passed, it involves a decision as to what are the fundamentals of religion, as to what speaking disrespectfully of them is, penalties for infractions of the law, rewards for information concerning the transgressor. Man would become suspicious of his neighbor; principles would yield to expediency and policy; inquisition would be instituted against those of other religious views; hypocrisy would be developed by putting a premium upon it, and the most honest, most outspoken people would suffer most. It has always been thus; it would be no different now. There are those who believe that Jesus was both divine and human, the very Son of the eternal God; but who would not admit that in all things he was the equal of the Father? Yet these, for quoting the very words of Jesus, might, under the limitations marked out by Dr. Coleman, be the very ones brought under the law and condemned as criminals, though the most sincere worshippers of Christ. He who did not believe in the Sunday institution and called it just what it is, unscriptural, papal, and pagan, let him be the most faithful Christian, would be condemned for bringing into disrespect the fundamentals of this counterfeit Christianity.

But the enemies of Christianity have a right to speak, and no man has a right to forbid them. They may transgress God's laws, blaspheme his name, malign and ridicule Christ, and much more, God can vindicate his own cause and make the wrath of man to praise him. As long as God is merciful, it becomes us to be. When the time comes, every man "shall give account of himself [not his neighbor] to God [not his nation]." Rom. 14:12. It is doubtless well intended, but the demand made by Dr. Coleman is founded in the very principles of the mystery of iniquity.

He admits that there is no fear that Christianity will suffer; it is to do good to the men who speak against what he holds to be its fundamental principles, that he asks laws to compel respect for him and his creed. He feels deeply concerned for the welfare of those who attack "Christianity, and so, to free them from danger," he "earnestly demands that a limit should be set," or, in other words, that their mouth must be stopped by civil gag law.

And this is just what we may expect. The Supreme Court of the United States has swept away the clauses in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of the press and declare that Congress shall not establish a religion. The court establishes the Christian religion and makes Congress the censor of the press. Freedom of speech yet remains, but a restraint of that liberty, a limitation of that right, is demanded; and will not the religiously blinded court yield to this demand? May God help every patriot to see how rapidly his liberties are slipping away; and may he help every Christian to see that all is not Christianity which is so called, and thus be led to seek it as it is in Jesus.