The Topeka Daily Capital, vol. 11
May 10, 1889
“At Forest Park. The Powers that Be and the Limitations Upon Them” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 111, p. 4.
MRS. E.G. WHITE ARRIVES AND TAKES PART IN THE GOOD WORK
The Morning Talks of Great Interest—A Large Attendance—Arrangement for SabbatSchool Exercises—The Lecture on Evils of Religious Legislation.
Special Correspondence of the CAPITAL.
FORREST PARK, OTTAWA, KAN., MAY. 9.—
(A.T. JONES SERMON)
Yesterday, at the morning hour, the subject discussed was civil government and religion—civil defined as man’s relation to a city or state, and religion as man’s recognition of a God, the Savior recognizing this distinction when He said: “Render unto Cesar (civil governments) the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Morality belongs to God, being conformity to the divine law, which men admit to be the Ten Commandments, the supreme rule; so morality is due to God the Author of the law. Hence civil government can have nothing to do with morality. It is necessary then that all should have a dear understanding of this distinction. A sense in which the courts, for instance, use the word, conveys a wrong impression. They speak of offenses of morality, meaning good manners, but that is a perverted sense, covering the ground of immorality. It would be better for the courts to adopt another term to express the idea they wish to convey. Uphold then always the correct definition, conformity to the divine law. All else is immorality. If courts would legislate on civility only and prohibit incivilities, leaving morality to God to whom it belongs, men would have a clearer idea of their obligations to God and government. All the confusion existing because of this misuse of the term comes from the papacy, the combinations of church and state (which will come into a succeeding evening lecture) by which a theocracy, a moral government of God upon the earth, was established with all its train of evils and horrors. All the errors come from this, and it is almost impossible to have the courts see this and take advance steps rising above it, confusing all distinctions, mixing divine and human things in almost inextricable confusion. Now, conformity to the divine law does not consist in action only, it lies in the mind “with which we serve the law of God.” Now the reformers propose to make the ten commandments the law of this country. Then they must compel all men to comply in thought with this law. How can they ascertain the thoughts? By confession only? How alone can they compel confession? By the inquisition. But, if they make the divine law the civil law of the land and go only as far as civil law can go, that is, taking cognizance of actions only, then they make the commandments supervises the actions only, and that the divine law is to be satisfied with outward observance only. Does this not bring it down to the condition of things in the days of Christ? Let us read Matthew 15:1-9, a nation of hypocrites outwardly moral but inwardly polluted—white sepulchers. If these reformers would use the gospel and convert men inwardly then the outward observance would be in conformity with God’s law. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.1
Men can never be made moral by law, but bigoted men never learn by experience, ambitious men will ever attempt to force others to conform to their ideas of propriety. Now it is a fact that all men are immoral; immorality is sin and sin is transgression of the law. “All men have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be accounted moral in his sight.” Hence by the law no man can be made moral. As immoral man cannot keep a moral law; it takes a moral man to do that. Now the morality of God is witnessed without the law, being made manifest through Jesus Christ, through whom alone men can be made moral. Otherwise there would have been no need of a Savior. What then can be accomplished by men, for morality, through law? Further, if men, having the moral law (the best one God could give them) become immoral, is it reasonable to argue that men can pass a finite law that will make men moral? There is then no morality in the world except through faith in Jesus Christ; so then we cannot separate morality from the religion of Christ, and as religion belongs alone to God, government having nothing to do with religion or morality, why it can have nothing to do with the morality of man. It requires divine power to secure morality. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to write the divine law in the heart and lay the foundation and principles of morality. Now the church is God’s means of presenting morality to man, but it is not the office of the church to enforce it or punish immorality. It is the office of the church to persuade men to come to Christ and obtain, through the Spirit, strength to keep the law. When one lapses from morality its office is not to punish, but “to restore such an one,” and persuade him to turn again to Christ. Here is where the papal church failed, attempting to punish for immorality, instead of turning the sinner again to Christ. Here is just where the church turned from the right path and landed in the papacy, and if the right of the church to take this step is admitted, then all the rest must logically follow, so that when men seek again to take this first step all the results that culminated in the papacy must logically follow. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.2
“At Forest Park. Sermon” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 111, p. 4.
The lesson by Elder Jones for the afternoon was a continuation of yesterday’s, being further illustrations of the membership in Christ’s church. Let us consider Romans 14:13; we are not to judge one weak in the faith to find fault with him, judge or dispute about his weakness, but, as we shall see, to strengthen him. Bearing in mind our relation to Christ and to one another, Christ being the head, if any are injured He feels it the most, and therefore if we love Him we will not hurt one another. If we are cruel to one another we fail to appreciate the love of Christ. There are other things also we can not afford to do, lest we offend and hurt Christ. In 1 Corinthians 8:1, 4-13, is presented before the great field of knowledge as the Lord presents it, and we may think we understand a subject fully, yet continued study shows us our lack of knowledge. Everyone does not know fully that there is but one God, and their conscience being weak, is defiled, and does those things he should not, being still contaminated by old associations, yet the eating of meats and such things does not commend us to God, but beware how you act, lest others may be turned away from the truth, by the assertion of your rights, because of the knowledge you have. If by your assertion you cause a weak conscience to follow what he may think to be right he maybe lost. We should have a guardian care over one another, and not do aught that would cause a brother to stumble, but be tender and careful not to do anything that would cause your weaker brother to do wrong. In 1 Corinthians 10:23-33, Paul says, all thing are lawful for him, but all things are not expedient or do build him up. Go where you are called by duty, asking no questions, unless you are told by the one inviting you of the wrong, then refuse, not for your own sake, but for his sake who is weak and does not know the wrong he commits. If he knows that you make no distinction between right and wrong, from his standpoint, his opinion of the value of truth you present is weakened. Our brother’s good is what we are always to consider, even if all right in itself, that by yielding for his sake we may draw him to a full knowledge of the truth, and he becomes strong like you. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.3
Romans 14:15, speaks the same way. Am I going to be so careless of my relationship to that person if I love Christ, if Christ died for him? Will we not love every one whom Christ loves? Yes, and that love includes every person in the world. Verses 20, 21 show that we should do nothing to cause another to fall, and if we do ought doubting its propriety, it is sin, and our course may lead another to fall and be lost, another for whom Christ died. Now we are not here to judge one another, even Jesus came not to judge but to save men from their sin. In Matthew 7:2, he tells us not to judge another, and Luke 6:37, gives the same record. So then there is nothing of this kind for us to do in this world, until Christ comes, 1 Corinthians 4:5. Daniel 7:21, 22, gives us further particulars as to the time judgement will be given to the saints, so read 1 Corinthians 6:2-4. The reason of all this is that in the new life we shall see perfectly and be able to see the degree of the guilt of the individual, and this is shown in 2 Corinthians 10:5, 6, being able to judge only after our own obedience is fulfilled. When will this be? When every thought is in harmony with Christ? How many are there now in that condition? Then none have any right to judge anyone. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.4
In Luke 6:36 Christ pleads with us to be merciful. Now read James 2:13 with this, because we will be judged without mercy who judge without mercy. Now mercy is treating another better than he deserves; so then if we judge we will be treated as we deserve and not better than we deserve. If God had treated our first sin as it deserved we would not have lived to sin a second time. Or can we grow into the likeness of God if we do so, and in judging another we condemn ourselves. In judging the motives of another we put our own interpretation on his motives, and then condemn him for what we originate in our own hearts, so then in doing this he is guiltless but we condemn the sin of our hearts, hence condemn ourselves. Now see the Scriptures on this point—Romans 2:1. This is a truth and we can never escape it. But even if another does sin can another measure guilt? No; only God knows the law and the motives. When we attempt to judge we place ourself in the place of God, and make popes of our-selves. Now James 4:11, shows that in judging we place ourselves as judge in the place of God. So the be tender and careful not to do anything that would cause your weaker brother to do wrong. In 1 Corinthians 10:23-33, Paul says, all thing are lawful for him, but all things are not expedient or do build him up. Go where you are called by duty, asking no questions, unless you are told by the one inviting you of the wrong, then refuse, not for your own sake, but for his sake who is weak and does not know the wrong he commits. If he knows that you make no distinction between right and wrong, from his standpoint, his opinion of the value of truth you present is weakened. Our brother’s good is what we are always to consider, even if all right in itself, that by yielding for his sake we may draw him to a full knowledge of the truth, and he becomes strong like you. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.5
Romans 14:15, speaks the same way. Am I going to be so careless of my relationship to that person if I love Christ, if Christ died for him? Will we not love every one whom Christ loves? Yes, and that love includes every person in the world. Verses 20 and 21 show that we should do nothing to cause another to fall, and if we do ought doubting its propriety, it is sin, and our course may lead another to fall and be lost, another for whom Christ died. Now we are not here to judge one another, even Jesus came not to judge but to save men from their sin. In Matthew 7:2, he tells us not to judge another, and Luke 6:37, gives the same record. So then there is nothing of this kind for us to do in this world, until Christ comes, 1 Corinthians 4:5. Daniel 7:21, 22, gives us further particulars as to the time judgement will be given to the saints, so read 1 Corinthians 6:2-4. The reason of all this is that in the new life we shall see perfectly and be able to see the degree of the guilt of the individual, and this is shown in 2 Corinthians 10:5, 6, being able to judge only after our own obedience is fulfilled. When will this be? When every thought is in harmony with Christ? How many are there now in that condition? Then none have any right to judge anyone. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.6
In Luke 6:36 Christ pleads with us to be merciful. Now read James 2:13 with this, because we will be judged without mercy who judge without mercy. Now mercy is treating another better than he deserves; so then if we judge we will be treated as we deserve and not better than we deserve. If God had treated our first sin as it deserved we would not have lived to sin a second time. Or can we grow into the likeness of God if we do so, and in judging another we condemn ourselves. In judging the motives of another we put our own interpretation on his motives, and then condemn him for what we originate in our own hearts, so then in doing this he is guiltless but we condemn the sin of our hearts, hence condemn ourselves. Now see the Scriptures on this point—Romans 2:1. This is a truth and we can never escape it. But even if another does sin can another measure guilt? No; only God knows the law and the motives. When we attempt to judge we place ourself in the place of God, and make popes of our-selves. Now James 4:11, shows that in judging we place ourselves as judge in the place of God. So the whole line of Scriptures speaks against the judgeful spirit. Brethren, let us quit it all. The Savior shows another effect of speaking evil—Matthew 5:25-26. What commandments are broken? “Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” In this way we pass judgement, and those to be judged are the ones that have passed judgement on another. These things are written for our guidance. Brethren, let us see that they are practiced. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.7
“At Forest Park. ‘The Evils of Religious Legislation’” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 111, p. 4.
The evening discourse by Elder A. T. Jones on “The Evils of Religious Legislation,” was opened by answering a few written questions, and then the speaker said: ‘The subject tonight is statues, enforcing the third commandment under statues prohibiting blasphemy. I read Judge Cooley quoting from Justice Storey, defining blasphemy: ‘Speaking evil of the Deity.’ What harm can that do to me? Wherein does that interfere with the rights of his neighbor—‘Speaking evil of the Deity with an evil purpose, to detract from his dignity.’ If men speak evil of an idol they rob him of his dignity, but the soul’s dignity cannot be lessoned by anything men can do. Such statues belong to heathendom but not to Christianity. ‘A bad blasphemy but implies something more than a denial of religion—a bad motive must exist.’ I heard a minister utter blasphemy from the pulpit but he could not be prosecuted because no bad motive existed. None are prosecuted really, under such laws, except to vent religious bigotry and spite upon someone disliked. ‘There must be a willful and malicious attempt to lesson men’s reverence for Deity or accepted religion.’ Here lies the vital point. Men can blasphemy against any other religion except the accepted religion and this religion is generally the wrong one. Christianity is never popular, or the accepted religion, or seeks to be enforced by civil power. ‘Words may be uttered that are blasphemous, but unless uttered with malice they are not actionable.’ So then the law has to search the intents of the heart and this the do ‘by the nature of the words themselves.’ Well then, in a trial by jury sitting in judgement, there are the words uttered—are they uttered maliciously? This is to be gathered from the words, so it is left to the jury to define blasphemy and as juries are made up of our neighbors, it is as Bancroft says it was in colonial times—‘The highest crime, or what twelve men decided it to be!’ Anyone has an absolute right to lesson men’s reverence for the accepted religion, if he thinks it is wrong. Did not the apostles want an accepted religion which men reverenced, and did they not have to lesson their respect for it? Did not the Savior send men forth to do this very work? Did not these men aim directly at this lessening of reverence to their duties? Are not the Chinese duties as sacred to them as ours is to us? Now if their reverence is not lessoned what foothold can Christianity ever obtain otherwise? So then have not men the right to do this work? Certainly. If now China banished every Christian missionary would it not be carrying out the principles enunciated by Justice Story and several states having such laws— all of which belong to ‘an established religion?’ ‘The laws against the Christian Sabbath are not so defenseable,’ says Bancroft, ‘but they belong with the laws against blasphemy.’” TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.8
The speaker reads from the laws of Pennsylvania to show the character of the law to prohibit blasphemy because of public necessity ‘to preserve the public tranquility.’ What else did Rome do in the days of the apostles? It killed them for doing this very thing. Very well, then, Rome was right in killing the Christians. Did not Luther do this very same thing and did not the papacy forbid it? Did not John Huss die for doing this? Was not then the government correct in punishing them? Are not all these laws, then, opposed to the gospel of Christ? Certainly they are. The speaker then read from the same authority to show how the above decisions came about—from a debate in a debating society, one of its members saying “the Scriptures were a fable and told lies.” He was fined $50 in order to convince him it was no fable and told no lies. How long would it take, on this line, to convince infidels of the truth of the Bible? He read a decision of Chief Justice Kent to the effect that to revile religion was a liberty against the freedom of free speech, and practically that the reason why blasphemy is punished is because it is an offence against the popular religion. The Christian religion is a denial of the popular religion, and Jesus was accused of blasphemy and would have died for it if they could have sustained it. He exposed and reviled the Pharisees, the exponents of the popular religion, and to them it was “malicious,” and they were carrying out the principles of these decisions. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.9
Quotations were then given from Kent to the same effect as Storey and Bancroft. The statues are not wrong because blasphemy is right, but because the state, is attempting to punish a wrong with which it has nothing to do. Mr. Kent admits the statues were only continuations of colonial laws which established the Sabbath observance, hanging for witchcraft, etc., and further these statues appeal to the English statues, which belong to a union of church and state, and not to a republic, where these are distinct. They belong, then, to just that superstitious theocracy of the colonial days, Bloody Mary and Europe. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.10
The speaker then read to this effect again from Kent, who goes to the pagan governments of antiquity and papal Europe to sustain his decision. Why did he not go to the Bible? Because the words of Christ would not have sustained him, although he was trying to base his decision on the principles of the Christian religion. Christ’s injunction to “love your enemies” would not support persecutions for blasphemy. These laws came into our country through the papal power, Henry VIII being called defender of the faith by the Pope, and after his rebellion put himself at the head of the Church of England, it being really a papacy, only with Henry VIII at its head instead of the Pope. So the English system is the papacy, only one step removed, and our colonies, being founded on the English laws, form a direct line of statues back to the papacy and behind all paganism out of which the papacy originated. Such laws should never find a place on the statue books of a free country. These laws, too, were enforced by men who supposed they were not interfering with the belief of any man, even though they prevented a man from saying anything against the accepted religion. What right has a nation to say to anyone, “We don’t propose to interfere with your belief,” unless they have the means at hand to ascertain what he believes? Does it not imply the inquisition? TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.11
“At Forest Park. The Morning Institute” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 111, p. 4.
MRS. WHITE ARRIVES
Night before last Mrs. E. G. White arrived and occupied the special tent provided for her. Early the next morning she appeared in the social meeting and spoke feelingly to the people. She urged all to lay down their burden of sin, by confession, at the feet of Jesus, and go free in the freedom which Christ gives. She pleaded with them to believe the promises of Jesus to give all weary ones rest who would come unto dim. She asked all who had confessions to make to do so early in the meetings that they might enjoy abundantly of God’s blessing. She felt very thankful to God that He had permitted her to meet the Kansas brethren again, and hoped that this meeting would be the most blessed one ever held among them. Arrangements have been made for a daily discourse by this lady which will be at 5 o’clock in the afternoon, beginning today. The evening lecture in the tabernacle was well attended. The storm of the day before had laid the dust, the wind was not uncomfortable and many citizens attended, more particularly because thirty-three young ladies and gentle men from the camp visited the homes of people, and explaining the nature of the sermons and lectures, inviting them to attend. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.12
THE MORNING INSTITUT
(A. T. Jones speaking)
The morning institute continued the investigation of true religious liberty, as given in yesterday’s issue. Speaking of the enforcement of morality, the speaker said that there was something the church did enforce, and that was discipline, but not morality. If it had the right to enforce morality, it would have the right to punish immorality. The Lord uses the church to promote and secure morality in the world. If the church independently attempts to do it, the church takes the place of the Lord. The latter works through the Spirit, by which, using the church as a medium, the work is done. “We in Christ’s stead pray ye tote rid to God.” Those things that are bound or loosed anew are so bound or loosed in heaven, only after all has been done in accordance with the Scripture instruction on that point, else it is not the word of God at all. When the word is followed strictly it is the work of God and not otherwise. This, however, will come in more subsequent sermon. Bear in mind that the line between the truth and the strongest objection to it is very fine, and to discriminate we must be very close thinkers, yet the Lord has thought them out before us, and given us illustrations in His book to guide us. He, then, has given us the beast and his image to study, and if we realize what the beast really is, we will be able to detect its image. Keep the distinction clear, then, between morality and civility, the first referring to our thoughts, emotions and passions; civility, taking cognizance of outward actions simply, and also to remember the distinction in those things civil that refer to our connection with men and our allegiance to God. If men aggregate together for protection they must respect the property, for instance, of their neighbors. The state forbids stealing, not from a religious standpoint, but a civil sense. If a man worships an idol he is immoral, yet the state cannot class it as such, but as uncivil. If a man steals that is not immorality. Immorality began before. He was immoral before stealing, and when he stole he became uncivil. Immorality demonstrated outwardly becomes incivility. Nothing under the first table of the decalogue can become uncivil unless expressed outwardly. A man having other gods is simply immoral and harms no one, hence it is not incivility, and can not be unless an act is committed that affects another. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.13
The speaker then read from Schaff’s Church and stated an argument to show that to speak against the popular religion was to speak against the law, but the trouble is that a state has no right to have a religion, no earthly government having the right to punish offences against religion or to enforce the observance. The quotation was the following: “To say religion is a cheat is to dissolve all obligations by which civil societies are preserved; and that Christianity is part of the law of England, and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the laws.” In reference to speaking against a religion dissolving the civil obligations of individuals the speaker showed that the obligation remained unimpaired no matter what change occurred in the religious sentiment. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.14
“At Forest Park. Church Government” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 111, p. 4.
The afternoon sermon by Elder A. T. Jones was a continuation of the sermons on “Church Government.” TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.15
In beginning the speaker said: “In Matthew 25:14-15, especially the latter, shows us that God gives to each one of us according to his ability. Now the church is the body of Christ and our membership in it is a membership in Christ’s body, and members of one another, the church being as the human body, with Christ being as the head of each member, the head directing each member and His will the will of all, each and all being subject to Christ, and never the will of one controlling the other, which would be putting a human will in the place of Christ. Further the members so controlled would be molded by the human will and not according to the will of Christ. If Christ gave all the ability all would have to come to Him as to a fountain, but to each one He gave according to his individual ability to use the gift. Now then this one who made two talents out of his two, is as much a success as the one who doubled his five talents. And also Christ has given to every man, no one is an exception. Therefore let none be like the one who had but one talent and thought he was of no particular talent and made no effort. This parable means us. There is something peculiar to each that no one else has. That is what is meant by “His several ability,” and it is this personality that Christ uses to accomplish His work here in this world. He puts His Spirit upon that personality and uses it to advance His cause. It is not true then, as some say, that anyone has no influence. All exert more or less influence upon those around them, and often an influence for wrong, so that what we should do is to see that our influence is always for good. So then Christ can accomplish with your talent what He cannot do with anyone else. He uses our talents to influence others into investigating the truth. This is illustrated in the preaching of Paul and Apollos, and Peter, one influencing one and another, the next, but God over all, Christ in it all. 1 Corinthians 3:4-8; 1:11-13. All were ministers of Christ, and each one ministers according to his several ability, and the brethren should have given God the praise. It was the duty of each to make the strongest possible expression for Christ, and each one of us should do the same, because Christ can make an impression by each one that he cannot through any other. So then Christ wants us to be ourselves and no one else. These are those who want us to be ourselves and them also, and others want to be themselves and some one else too. Such destroy their personality and separate themselves from Christ. Scholars and others often unconsciously copy from others. The speaker used Melanchthon. Luther, Lorenzo Dow, and others, to illustrate how characteristics are used by Christ to certain work that has to be done, and to show that no one should copy after another but all to copy after Jesus, otherwise we catch a human influence and not a divine. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.16
In Christ is the fullness of all divine influence and if we copy from a human being our work will have a human mold and not the divine. It is necessary then that each one should learn of Christ alone else we will spread a human influence instead of a heavenly. Never then copy after another or adopt another’s style or peculiarities. If each is left to be impressed by the Spirit of God, all the work will have the divine impress, and be well done. It may not be, and probably will not be done my way but your way, which is the only way you can do it; nor does this mean that you are not to learn better methods, but when you have a better way, the only way you can apply it is in your own way. The Savior said in Matthew 23:8, that there is but one Master, and we are all brethren. Don’t ever forget this. James in chapter 3:1, tells us not to strive for mastership. If you do work that does not suit my ideas is it my place to condemn it? If I do, whose place do I assume? Are you responsible to me or Christ? He is your head and not I, and his will is your will. Romans 14:4. I have no right to dictate to another man’s servant how his work shall be done. It does not follow that because it is not done as I would do it, that it will not please God. The point is to find out what is the will of God and then perform it to the best of our ability. Christ is the master, His work is to be done according to your ability—sanctifying it unto himself, and therefore I have no right to make you do things according to my methods, because in this I make myself master. Brethren, let us quit it. “Be not many masters.” This principle is the correct one and the true one of independence, but it can be carried to extremes and become willfulness. He wants us independent in our originality, but dependent on His will and guidance which will check willfulness and separation. Let there be independence of action, but unity of purpose, all directed by one will and workers together “laborers together with God.” When this unity prevails the work of Christ will prosper as it never has done before. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.17
“At Forest Park. The Evening Lecture” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 111, p. 4.
THE EVENING LECTURE
(by A. T. Jones)
Whomsoever the Son makes free is free indeed the Savior said, and in setting them free religiously He set them free in all respects. Slaves were Christ’s free men, and masters became Christ’s servants. Without religious freedom there can be no such thing as civil freedom. Without liberty in one there can be none in the other. In setting men free the Savior bound them to Him and to God in an allegiance that can not be broken, nor can anything separate from Him. And the disciples were sent into the world to teach this to all the world. But the Roman government filled all the world and its laws said that no man should have any god except those recognized by Rome. The God of the Christians was not admitted by it, and therefore God was a strange one to the government. Another law forbid the introduction of a new religion, under penalty of banishment or death, and Christians in preaching Christianity set themselves in opposition to the established laws which were on the statue books long before there was a Christian. The law was not enacted because of them, and hence they had no chance to call it persecution when they were punished. So that to claim a right to preach Christ was in the eyes of the Romans rebellion against the government. Neander says that, “the idea of the state was the highest idea of ethics known to the Romans,” and therefore to a Roman what the law said was right. This included all actual realization of the highest idea of good—the highest good a man could accomplish. But to a Christian, in Christianity there was a far superior good that put the Roman government in a secondary place. Now, for anyone to ask Rome to take a subordinate position was treason. The genius of Rome was the supreme deity. The government of Rome derived no dignity or honor from her gods, but from the state itself. Whatever the Roman law said was good could be worshipped, and no other. In conquering all nations and gods, the idea was fixed that the state was supreme, extending even to the Jewish nation and their God. So, when the Christian preached a superior God, it was treason and he became a traitor. The Romans were very jealous about their gods. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.18
He called attention to a fallacious pagan idea or maxim. “The voice of the people is the voice of God.” Such a thing can never be. The standard of Rome carried out this idea. The senate and the people of Rome were the voice of God. In quoting from “Civil Government,” the speaker read, “The more exalted a Roman became the less freedom he had... The whole duty of man was to keep his house in order and be an humble, devoted citizen of the state.” So, then, the religion of the Christian was directly opposed to Roman laws and Christians were necessarily guilty of high treason. Rome could not stand this, and so the Roman empire enforced the law and punished them. Now, if religious subjects are proper matter for legislation, then Rome never persecuted the Christians—she simply enforced the law. So England, and our own country with the Quakers, etc. Enforcement of law is right and cannot be called persecution. If the law was right, killing the Christians was right. But men in this country need not talk against the Romans so long as they seek to make laws for the “Lord’s day” and to enforce the observance of it. The papacy, going on the same principle, enforced the laws simply. All that was done to Huss, when he was burned, was to enforce the law. What we must do is what the Christians did, and that is say that the Roman’s law was wrong and they had no right to have such laws. Now did the Roman emperors proceed [sic.] the Christians? Now really did they? He set Rome on fire and laid the blame on the Christians burning them and tormenting them. No pretense of enforcing the laws was made in this case. Domitian banished John to the isle of Patmos, but it was not persecution. John happened to incur suspicion, with many others, and was banished instead of being killed; but it had nothing to do with his Christianity. Domitian’s successor undid all that Domitian had done, and, among others, recalled John. The four best emperors Rome ever had—Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius—were the ones who persecuted Christians, and it has always been a mystery to scholars. These enforced the laws because they respected them, but the tyrants cared nothing for the laws, hence Christians were left in peace. So, when the laws were broken under good emperors the laws were enforced, but not so under the tyrants. So then the wickedness was not in the men but in the laws which were not such as any nation had a right to have on their statue books. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.19
The speaker then read from Gibbon’s History on Rome to show how these emperors enforced the laws and others paid no attention to them, and the letters of Pliny to Trajan asking what to do, and Trajan’s reply telling him not to seek after the Christians, but if informed against, the law was to be enforced if they would not obey it. A government has no alternative but to enforce the laws or abdicate. The government did not seek out the Christians but the populace would get up a riot, if any calamity occurred, and it would be blamed to Christians and they would be thrown to wild beasts or otherwise killed. Finally Hadrian issued a decree that no Christian should be accused and all rioters should be held in place of the Christians, against whom nothing should be done except in regular course of law. Antonius Pius did not issue any edict against the Christians but he allowed riots to occur and that brought back the persecution of Christians. But Marcus Aurelius, the best emperor the government ever had, issued a decree to hunt up and destroy the Christians because of his respect for the law. Now these are the only persecutions committed to the time of Decius. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.20
The speaker then read from the same authority in reference to Commodus Caracallas and other tyrants of Rome, to show that none of them persecuted Christians or enforced the law, although filling Rome with the blood of their enemies, Caracalla causing the death of over 20,000 such, and was called “the common enemy of mankind.” “It may be Christians suffered with others, but not because they were Christians. Then, so far as the emperors of Rome were concerned, there was no persecution of Christians. It all came from among the neighbors, who informed against them, and the law had to be enforced. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.21
The speaker read from his work, “Civil Government,” quotations to this effect from various authors to show how impossible it was for a Christian to attend any public gathering, or even witness the marriage of his own daughter, or the funeral of his own relatives, because all ceremonies were in honor of their gods and he could not take part in them, because of such refusals they incurred the hatred of their neighbors so that a Christian was never safe, day or night, being liable to public vengeance at any moment. The iniquity of the thing was in the laws, which gave the people opportunities to complain of, and persecute Christians. When arrested the magistrates would try to save them, ask them to simply sprinkle some incense on the altar, then they would be forgiven and obtain their certificate. Yet upon their refusal the magistrate would become angry at their “stubbornness” and would punish them to the full extent of the law, practically being put to death for their stubbornness and not for the bribing the law. Some would offer to sell certificates to the Christians which would protect them, and if refused, he would kill them in self protection, that they could not inform against him. But because these men, women and children thus declared their right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, you and I are able to be here tonight to assert our right to religious freedom, a right which men are attempting to deprive us of, and will revive the same spirit of persecution as existed in ancient Rome. TDC May 10, 1889, page 4.22