Who Shall Assume to Speak for God?
In the Christian Statesman for April, the organ of the immanent International Christian Citizenship movement, there is a "special article" on "Theories Vanish, Principles Remain." Here are two sentences: "To say that the divine will is the supreme law for nations and for citizens is fact, not theory. But to say that either the pope or the king ruling by divine right is the sole interpreter of that law is theory of the most dangerous kind." But to what tribunal would the Christian Statesman appeal? If the divine will was expressed in the law of nations as the Christian Statesman would have it, who would interpret it? Would it be the legislative and judicial departments of the government? Would the Supreme Court be the final arbitrator? But now at the head of that august body is a Roman Catholic. Were he to frame the decision, conscientiously he would write it after his religious education and convictions. He would hold that the divine will was expressed in the Christian church, and that the only true Christian church was the Roman Catholic. How could he do otherwise? If the court of last resort in a nation were composed of Mohammedans, they would of course decide that the divine will was expressed in the Koran, and woe be to the subject who refused to acquiesce, howsoever good a Christian he might be. But why develop the thought further? The simple fact is that no man nor body of men, either pope or National Reform Council, has been given authority to speak for God and interpret and enforce His will to men respecting their duty to Him. As soon as a human tribunal assumes this responsibility, it puts itself in the place of God, and the history of the past is a sad and forceful witness of the dire effects in the persecution and oppression of conscientious souls who dared differ with men, but not with God.