CHRISTIANITY REPUDIATES FORCE.
[The following is an extract from a tract (Sentinel Library No. 47) entitled, “Should Sabbath Observance Be Enforced by Civil Law?” Price, 3 cents. For sale by Pacific Press Publishing Co., Oakland, Cal.; 43 Bond Street, New York City; 18 W. Fifth Street, Kansas City, Mo.] THE realm of religion is the soul. The manifestation of religion is worship, and worship is voluntary homage. Man's nature, constituted in accordance with the divine plan of salvation, the basis of which is love, revolts from the use of force in the observance of religious institutions; for force destroys the essential element of all worship and relegates the coerced victim's vow to the realm of hypocritical mummery, and that is spiritual and eternal death. God repudiates all force, and sums up his conception of human duty in that criterion of all religion—the moral law—the sum of which is perfect love to God and man. The great Expounder of that law, when on earth, would not ally his cause with the civil power. Resisting attempted force, he says: "My kingdom is not of this world." "Who made me a judge to rule over you?" "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword." Nor does the true disciple seek to light his temple with such unhallowed fire; for it is to be illumined by other and holier lights. Yet some professed Christians seem to think Christ's religion of love best inculcated by force. We have proven the Sabbath a purely religious institution. It must be admitted that Christianity repudiates all force in the observance of its institutions. Then it inevitably follows that Christianity repudiates the use of force in the observance of the Sabbath. Yet, in defiance of the fundamental ideas and plainest precepts of Christianity, some of its professors advocate the use of force. Crying out in alarm at the desecration of the day they deem sacred, they seek for the penalties of law in the hope of aid, well knowing that were the hearts right there would be no profanation. But the heart is made right only by the boundless grace, which they trample underfoot when turning from it to court the favor of secular law. Bishop Vincent says: "The church makes a great mistake when it seeks to influence temporal power. All the church wants is spiritual power, and this goes out when temporal power is invoked." The Christian rightly claims protection in the exercise of his religion, but protection does not mean support, patronage, or regulation of religion in any way. Christian, Jew, and pagan have a right to the protection of the law, but none of them to its support. No one has the right to force on others the observance of the institutions of his religion, nor punish others for the profanation of a day he deems sacred. Every true Christian repudiates the doctrine of force, as foreign to the Christian religion. But the advocates of coercive religion say that "without the coercion of law, the Sabbath would soon be generally desecrated." This we deny. It contradicts facts, history, and experience. The true Christian observes his Sabbath, be it the first or seventh day, because he is a Christian, not because it is enjoined by civil law. In localities without such laws or having them as nullities, the Lord's day is generally observed. California has no Sabbath laws. I read from Rev. Crafts' "Sabbath for Man," a San Francisco pastor gives as answer to the question, "Where have you seen the best Sabbath observance?"—"Among the Christian people of California; the characteristics of their Sabbath observance are reverence, tempered with love; joyousness and rare fidelity in Christian service; Christlike ministration to those in trouble, want, and sorrow." And in another place Mr. Crafts himself says, "A better public sentiment is the only sure defense," thus proving that the observance of the Sabbath does not depend on civil law. Public worship is fully protected by laws against disturbing church and religious meetings; against uproars, riots, and quarrels. Yet these are not Sabbath laws, according to the American Bar Association. It is public opinion, and not law, that makes the Sabbath respected. Without this opinion the proposed law could not be enforced; with it no law is needed. For, since all institutions, whether legalized or not, are enforced only as public opinion sanctions such enforcement, it is to the people true Christianity makes its appeal, and not to the law. Philosophy teaches us to deal with causes, and not with effects. A civil law enforcing Sabbath observance deals with effects alone; and since it neither aims at, nor is able to reach, the cause, it is useless. Sabbath desecration is the effect of a wayward heart. Christianity says: "The grace of God will cleanse your heart; come to the Fount of love." Advocates of civil enforcement say: "Make men bow. As hypocrites or worshipers, let them bow or suffer." History tells that men cannot be racked nor bound into, nor out of, Christianity. Much less can they be fined or imprisoned into it. The motive power of Christianity is love, and where force begins, love ends. The only strength Christianity ever had, or ever can have, is in the strength of Jesus Christ, and that is never made manifest politically. To enforce Sabbath observance where the heart rebels is to offer to God the essence of hypocrisy. The most scathing denunciation that ever fell from the lips of Christ was his condemnation of this contemptible sin. Two great evils must follow such an attempt:—
First, the world will not believe there is such a thing as the power of the Holy Spirit, since the church fails to use or value it.
Second, both world and church will be plunged more deeply into sin; because, for help against an evil, the church appeals to the very source of that evil. The world cannot purify the world, nor a worldly church become sanctified by the aid of the world. Therefore, "let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus;" and go with the Bible instead of the civil mace in your hand—that Bible which says, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." Speed on the work of the Master with half the power expended on the Sabbath-law work, and the world would stand aghast at the revival of the church. Therefore, as the use of force is in direct opposition to the method and teaching of Christ and the fundamental precepts of Christianity, Christianity repudiates the use of force in the observance of its institutions. Such enforcement is religious persecution. The institutions of a religion are part of that religion, and to enforce a religious institution is to enforce part of a religion. But such enforcement involves a prior decision of the courts as to what religion is true and what false; and if law enforce what it deems the true religion, it must, as violation of law, suppress what it deems false religion. It would thus declare itself infallible, and its edicts would be the manifestos of an inquisition. To enforce the observance of the sabbath is to place a religious dogma in the statute law, and to discriminate against certain sects by establishing a tenet held by an opposing religion. To enforce the observance of a religious institution on a man whose conscience rebels, is religious persecution, and no sophistry can evade it.