STANDING ON PRINCIPLE by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Sep 11, 1893

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 19, No. 44.

STANDING ON PRINCIPLE.

By Editor

NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the Baptist Church, in the main, is drifting with the current that is leading on to religious legislation, and consequently to religious persecution, in this country, there is one prominent Baptist clergyman in this city who stands by the old Baptist principle of religious liberty for all. He has sufficient foresight to see in compulsory Sunday observance, or in the compulsory observance of any religious rite, the sure forerunner of persecution for conscience' sake. Some time ago he preached a strong sermon to his people on this subject, taking for illustration the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists in Tennessee. And recently he gave his young people a talk in which he is reported to have spoken very strongly against any legislation that would compel a man to observe any set day as a day of rest. We refer to Rev. C. H. Hobart, of the First Baptist Church.

The point in this reference which we would forcibly emphasize is that he takes his stand on the time-honored Baptist principle, from which, we are sorry to say, the mass of Baptists are fast receding, for the evident reason that the popular wave is set that way. He is deserving of credit for his manly stand, and his forethought in warning his young people of the tendency of the times and its certain results. Young people growing up and taking position in the religious, political, and business world are apt to be unconsciously swayed by that which is popular in their surroundings.

It is proper, and the true gospel minister will not fail, to inculcate that pillar of gospel injunction, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." There is not, in all the teachings of the Master, a single intimation that men are to be compelled to observe any precept or ceremony of the gospel. And the apostle Paul, who received his credentials direct from the Lord, says, "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." We have not a single Scripture example of an appeal to civil law to enforce the requirements of the gospel. Every idea of compulsion that ever came into the church was the outgrowth of apostasy. As the Spirit of God was grieved away, the spirit of intolerance came in.

Nor has any truly scriptural doctrine ever been enforced by those who have resorted to compulsion. In all the history of compulsory religion (if we except the days of the theocracy), it cannot be shown that civil law or physical force of any kind has been invoked in aid of anything but false doctrine or mere human dogma. Neither Rome nor the Covenanters nor the Puritans ever compelled the observance of a true doctrine. That which was commanded under human penalty was either perverted Scripture requirement, or out-and-out human invention. And so it is to-day; every attempt at religious legislation is in behalf of that which is unscriptural and of human origin. The fact that civil law or physical force is called in aid of any religious move or dogma is prima facie evidence that the principle or institution to be thus aided is not sustained by the word of God. For no man ever asks the State or the world to enforce by law or sustain by material means that which he knows is upheld by the power of God's word.

W. N. G.