|
Individuality in Religion by Alonzo T. Jones Introduction Religion is “the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it.” Liberty is “the state of being exempt from the domination of others, or from restricting circumstances. In ethics and philosophy, the power in any rational agent to make his choices and decide his conduct for himself, spontaneously and voluntarily, in accordance with reasons or motives.” Religious liberty, therefore, is man’s exemption from the domination of others, or from restricting circumstances; man’s freedom to make his choices and decide his conduct for himself, spontaneously and voluntarily: in his duty to his Creator, and in the manner of discharging that duty. Since God has created man, in the nature of things the first of all relationships is that to God; and the first of all duties could be nothing but duty to God. Suppose a time when there was only one intelligent creature in the universe. He was created: and his relationship to his Creator, his duty to his Creator, is the only one that could possibly be. That is the first of all relationships that can possibly be. Therefore it is written that “the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord: and Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” (Mark 12:29, 30) All there is of any soul is first due to God; because it all came from God. This, therefore, is the first of all commandments, not because it is the first one that was ever given by spoken word, or that was ever written out; but because it is the first that could possibly be. And this because it is the expression of the first principle of the existence of any intelligent creature. The principle was there, inherent in the existence of the first intelligent creature, in the first moment of his existence; and there the principle abides eternally, unmodified and unfading. Now, though that is the first of all possible relationships, and the first of all duties; though that relationship and duty are inherent in the very existence of intelligent creatures; yet even in that inherent obligation, God has created every intelligent creature free—free to recognize that obligation or not, free to discharge that duty or not, just as he chooses. Accordingly it is written: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.” (Joshua 24:15) “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Revelation 22:17) Thus it is absolutely true that in religion—in the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it—God has created man entirely “exempt from the domination of others and from restricting circumstances;” has made him free “to make his choice, and decide his conduct for himself, spontaneously and voluntarily.” Thus religious liberty is the gift of God, inherent in the gift of rational existence itself. Any service as to God that is not freely chosen by him who renders it is not service to God. There can be no virtue in it; there can be none of God in it. Any service rendered as to God that is not freely chosen on the part of him who renders it cannot be of God, because “God is love;” and love and compulsion, love and force, love and oppression, never can go together. Therefore any duty, any obligation, anything, offered or rendered as to God that is not of the individual’s own freely chosen choice, can neither be of God nor to God. Accordingly when the Lord created whatever creature—angel or man—in order that that creature should be happy in the service of God, and in order that there should be virtue in rendering service or worship to God, He created him free to choose to do so. And this is individuality, and the divine right of it. God created man free. When man by sin was separated and lost from that freedom, Christ came to restore him fully to it. The way of God and of Christ, therefore, is the way of liberty. And the work of God through Christ with mankind in the whole history of the world has been to make plain this way and to give to man the absolute assurance of this “soul liberty” which is the only true liberty. Whom the Son makes free is free indeed. In the Scriptures there are given distinctly and clearly six specific lessons on this subject of religious liberty—the liberty of the individual soul against the domination of man and combinations of men in the powers of the world. Each of these lessons deals with the subject upon a distinct and specific principle. And the six lessons, taken together, cover completely the whole ground upon every principle. We now purpose to take up for special study these six lessons separately and in succession as given in the Scriptures. The contest for religious liberty is not yet finished. Religious liberty complete is not yet recognized, even in principle, and much less in practice, even by the mass of Christians, as it is made perfectly plain in the Scriptures. Come, then, let us study and let us have, and let us study that we may have, religious liberty complete, in principle and in experience, as it is in the Scriptures of truth. Chapter
1 In the nature of things there is no rightful room for the domination of others in the life and affairs of the soul of the individual person. This is peculiarly and supremely the realm of God alone, who created man in His own image and for His own glory; and who created each person individually and personally responsible and answerable to Him alone. Yet man, sinful and unruly man, has never been willing to allow God to have His place in and with the soul of the individual man; but has always been ambitious and ready to claim that place for himself, and by every means and contrivance possible to make this claim effective. History itself, as it relates to general principles and not to details, is hardly anything else than a succession of attempts upon the grandest possible scale to make successful this arrogant claim of sinful and unruly man in the place of God to dominate the souls of men. And no grander demonstration that there is a divinity striving hard to shape the destiny of mankind could ever be asked or given than from the day of Abel until now is given in the perpetual heroic assertion and maintenance of this perfect liberty of the individual soul by the individual person against the subtlest pretensions and mightiest combinations of force and power that this world could possibly contrive. From Nimrod to Nebuchadnezzar and from Nebuchadnezzar until now the course and energy of empire have been bent and exerted to this one thing. And through all that time such splendid individuals as Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Daniel and his three brethren, Paul, Wyckliff, Huss, Militz, Matthias, Conrad, Jerome, Luther, Roger Williams, and multitudes unnamed, and over all Christ Jesus, by divine faith have sublimely stood alone with God, absolutely alone so far as man is concerned, for the individuality, and in that the liberty, of the soul of man; and for the sovereignty of God alone in and over the realm of the soul. The Empire of Babylon embraced the civilized world, as the world then was. Nebuchadnezzar was monarch and absolute ruler of the empire. “Thou, O king, art a king of kings; for the God of Heaven hath given thee a kingdom, and power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all.” (Daniel 2:37, 38) In His own providential purpose God had made all nations subject to the sway of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. (Jeremiah 27:1-13) In the form and system of government of Babylon the authority of the king was absolute. His word was the law. In this absolutism of sovereignty King Nebuchadnezzar assumed that he was sovereign of the souls, as well as the bodies, of the religious life as well as the civil conduct, of those who were subject to his power. And since he was ruler of the nations he would be ruler in the religion, and of the religion, of the nations. Accordingly he made a great image, all of gold, about ninety feet tall and nine feet broad, and “set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.” (Daniel 3:1) Then he summoned from the provinces all the officials of the empire to the dedication and the worship of the great golden image. All the officials came, and were assembled and stood before the image. “Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up; and whoso falleth not down and worshppeth, shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” And as the instruments of music sounded forth the grand signal for the worship “all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image.” (Daniel 3:4-6) But in the assembly there were three young Hebrews who had been carried captive from Jerusalem to Babylon, but who had been appointed by the king, officials “over the affairs of the province of Babylon.” These neither bowed nor worshipped, nor otherwise paid any particular attention to the proceedings. This was noticed, and excited accusation before the king. “There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” (Verse 12) Then the king “in his rage and fury” commanded that the three young men should be brought before him. This was done. The king himself now spoke to them personally and direct: “Is it of purpose, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?” The king himself then repeated the command that at the sound of the instruments of all kinds of music they fall down and worship, and if not, they were to be cast “the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” But the young men quietly answered: “O Nebuchad- nezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” (Verses 14-18) The issue was now clearly drawn. The sovereign of the world’s power had personally issued his command direct to the three individuals; and from them he had received answer as direct, that they would not conform. This was conduct, and these were words, such as the king in his absolutism of power had never met before. There was therefore a personal as well as an official resentment aroused in him; and he was so “full of fury” that “the form of his visage was changed against” the young men, and he commanded that the furnace should be heated seven times hotter than usual; and that “the most mighty men in his army” should bind the young men and cast them into the midst of the roaring furnace. It was done. And the three men, “in their coats, and their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments” fell down bound “into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.” But just then the king was more astonished than ever in his life before. He was fairly petrified—“astonied”—and “rose up in haste” and to his counselors cried out, “Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?” They assured him that this was true. But he exclaimed, “Lo, I see four men, loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” (Daniel 3:25) Then the king went near to the mouth of the furnace and called to the men by name and said, “Ye servants of the most high God, come forth and come hither.” And they “came forth of the midst of the fire. And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king’s counselors, being gathered together, saw these men upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed upon them. “Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god except their own God.” (Daniel 3:26-28) Here, then, is the situation: The Lord had brought all nations in subjection to the king of Babylon. By messages of His own prophet He had commanded His people, the Jews, and these three young men among them, to “serve the king of Babylon.” Yet these three had explicitly refused to serve the king of Babylon in this thing which he had personally and directly commanded them; and in this refusal the Lord himself had most signally stood by them and delivered them. Therefore it would be impossible more plainly to show that the Lord, in commanding the people to be subject to the king of Babylon and to serve him, had never either commanded or intended that they should be subject to him or serve him in the realm of religion. By this unmistakable approval of the course of the three men, and this signal deliverance of them, the Lord made perfectly plain to the king that his command in this matter was wrong: that he had demanded a service that he had no right to require: that in making him king of the nations the Lord had not made him king in the religion of the people: that in bringing him to be head of all the nations, peoples, and languages, God had not given him to be head of the religion of even a solitary individual: that while the Lord had brought all nations and peoples under the king’s yoke as to their political and bodily service, this same Lord had unmistakably shown to the king that he had given no power nor jurisdiction in any way whatever as to their soul’s service: that while in all things between nation and nation, and between man and man, all peoples, nations, and languages had been given to him to serve him, and God had made him ruler over them all; yet with the relations between each man and God the king could have nothing whatever to do: and that in the presence of the rights of the individual person, in conscience and in worship “the king’s word” must change, the king’s decree is naught: that in this the king even of the world is only nobody, for here only God is sovereign and all in all. And for the instruction of all kings and all people forever, all this was done that day, and it was written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come. Chapter
2 The world-power and empire of Babylon passed away forever; and another took its place—the power and empire of Medo-Persia. Here was another principle of government, and here there is given to the world another lesson in religious liberty. In the Medo-Persian empire the principle of government was different from that of Babylon. Babylon, as we have seen, was not only an absolute monarchy, but an autocracy—a one-man absolutism. The word of the king was the law, and the law was changeable as the will and word of the king might change. The king was the source of the law; his word was the law for all others; but as for himself there was no restriction of law. The Medo-Persian government was an absolute monarchy also. There, also, the word of the king was the law: but with this all-important difference from Babylon, that when once the word of the king had gone forth as the law, that law could not be changed nor reversed even by the king himself. The king himself was bound, even against himself, by his own word or decree that had once become the law. The government of Medo-Persia, therefore, was a government of law; its principle was the supremacy of THE LAW. At the head of the administration of the affairs of this empire there were three presidents, of whom Daniel was first. Because of Daniel’s knowledge, integrity, ability, and general worth in the administration, the king had it in mind “to set him over the whole realm.” This, becoming known, excited the jealousy of the other two presidents and of the princes; and they conspired to break him down. They sought, first, “to find occasion against Daniel” concerning his conduct of the affairs of the empire. But after long and diligent search, and the closest possible scrutiny, they were obliged to cease their endeavor and confess that “they could find none occasion nor fault,” because “he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.” “Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.” But they could not find any occasion against him concerning even the law of his God, until they themselves had first created a situation that would render inevitable the desired occasion. Their long and exacting endeavor to find some occasion or fault against him in the affairs of the empire had convinced them of his absolute devotion in loyalty to God. Through their investigation they knew by experience that he could not by any means be caused to swerve a hair’s-breadth from the straight line of absolute devotion to God. But this was wholly an individual matter, in which there was no interference with any man in any way whatever. And in his conduct in relation to others and to the State, their own consciously prejudiced investigation had demonstrated that it was actually beneficial. Thus there being no possible ground upon which they could find occasion against him even concerning the law of his God, as circumstances and conditions were; and they, therefore, being put to the necessity of actually creating such ground, Daniel’s unswerving devotion to God became the way over which they would proceed. They therefore concocted a scheme into which they drew all the officials of the empire, and went to the king and said:—“O king, live forever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counselors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask any petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into a den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.” (Daniel 6:6-8) The king allowed himself to be caught by this very flattering proposal of so large a number of the highest officials of the empire, and he signed the decree. Daniel knew that the decree had been framed, and that the writing had been signed by the king. He knew that such was now the law of the empire—a law that could neither be waived nor altered. Nevertheless he went to his house, and as his regular times of prayer recurred, three times a day, he “prayed and gave thanks before God, as he did aforetime.” (Daniel 6:10) And his windows happening to be open, the imperial law had not enough place in his mind or weight upon his attention to induce him to take the precaution even to close the windows. The plotters expecting nothing but just this on the part of Daniel, “assembled and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God.” Then at sight of this open disregard of the imperial law, they hastened to the king and very deferentially inquired. “Hast thou not signed a decree?” etc. The king answered, “The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.” Then the plotters reported, “that Daniel which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.” “Then the king, when he had heard these words, was sore displeased with himself,” because he had allowed himself to be so flattered as to be caught in such a trap as that. “And he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him.” (Daniel 6:11-14) But the plotters were ready with their plea of the supremacy and integrity of “the law”; and to urge arguments that it was “not a question of religion, but of the law;” that to countenance disregard and violation of “the law” was simply to undermine all the government and make an open bid for a reign of anarchy, and for the very dissolution of society itself: that they were exceedingly sorry that such an excellent man as Daniel should be thus involved, yet to allow such open disregard of “the law” by one of such high standing and reputation would be only all the worse; because this very fact of the high standing and wide reputation of the one who so openly disregarded “the law” would be only the more encouragement to all people to do the same, etc., etc. Yet the king “labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him.” But through all that time and at every turn, the king was met by the plotters with the plea, “The law; the law.” “Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, that no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.” The supremacy of the law bound the king himself: there was no escape: and, though with greatest reluctance, “the king commanded and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions.” (Daniel 6:16) The king passed the night in fasting and in sleeplessness. But very early in the morning he hurried to the den of lions and “cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel… O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?” Daniel answered, “O king, live forever. My God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before Him, innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.” (Daniel 6:20-22) And therein the demonstration is made in perfection forever that the person who disregards any law that touches service to God is innocent before God, and also does “no hurt” to the king, nor to the State, nor to society, nor to any principle of law or government. All of which in divine truth demonstrates again that no earthly government can ever have any right or jurisdiction in matters of religion: that is, in “the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it.” And in this case there is the additional demonstration that no government can ever of right incorporate in the law provisions touching religion, and then plead the supremacy and integrity of “the law:” that “it is not primarily a question of religion but only of the law:” that “we are not asking for religious observance, we ask only respect for law.” In the case of Daniel and the “supremacy of the law of the Medes and Persians,” the divine answer to all such pleas is that, nothing pertaining to religion can ever of right have any place in the law. The right of perfect individuality in religion is a divine, and therefore an absolutely inalienable, right. And to make religious observances or prohibitions a matter of law, does not affect the free exercise of this divine right. The fullness of the right, and the perfect liberty of its exercise, abide ever the same, even though religion be made a matter, and a part, of the law. And when religion or religious observance or prohibition is fixed in the law, even though the law be as supreme and inflexible as that of the Medes and Persians, the divine right and perfect liberty of individuality in religion then extends to the law that incorporates the religion, and such law is simply no law. The subterfuge of enforcing religious observances or prohibitions under cover of “the supremacy and integrity of the law,” instead of taking away or in any way limiting the divine right and perfect liberty of individuality in religion, simply reacts to the extent of actually sweeping away all ground of claim for “the supremacy and integrity of the law”—in actually nullifying the specific law in the case. The civil law is rightly supreme in the realm of things civil, but in the realm of things religious it simply has no place at all. In the presence of the divine right of individuality in religion as relates to autocratic government, illustrated in King Nebuchadnezzar, the king’s word must change. In the presence of the divine right of individuality in religion as relates to the supremacy and inflexibility of the law, illustrated in the government of the Medes and Persians, any law that touches or contemplates religion is simply no law at all. The realm of religion is the realm of God. In that realm God alone is Sovereign, and His will is the only law. And in that realm the individual stands alone with God, and responsible to Him alone. Chapter
3 By most remarkable facts and unquestionable experiences, in the case of King Nebuchadnezzar and the three Hebrew young men, there was made plain forever the divine truth and principle that with the religion of the people no monarch can of right have anything to do; that in the presence of the right of individuality in religion, the king’s word must change. By corresponding facts and experiences in the case of the Medo-Persian government against Daniel there was made plain forever the divine will and truth and principle that with the religion of the people no law, nor any government by means of law, can of right have anything to do—that in the presence of the free exercise of individuality in religion, any law touching religion is nothing; and every individual in absolutely ignoring and disregarding such law is “innocent” before God, and also does “no hurt” to government, to law, or to society. These two examples and the principles which they illustrate cover every phase of earthly government as such: and so make plain the great and vital truth that religion, with its rites, institutions, and observances, is totally excluded, and is to be totally exempt, from the cognizance of earthly government of whatever phase or form: that religion, with all that is incident to it, pertains to the individual alone in his personal relations to God. But there is another means by which man has sought to dominate man in the realm of religion, that is by means of the Church through the State. People called out from the world and separated from the world unto God, are His church in the world. When God had called His people out of Egypt they were first “the church in the wilderness,” (Acts 7:38) and afterward in the land of Canaan they were the church there. Through their stiffness of neck, hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, they sadly missed God’s great purpose for them as His church. Yet in His goodness and mercy God “suffered their manners in the wilderness,” (Acts 13:18) and in the land from age to age. Thus through many vicissitudes that people had continued as the church till the time when Christ the Lord came to dwell on the earth: and through all that time this church was heir to most glorious promises of a widespread kingdom and dominion. At the time when Christ came to the earth as man, the dominion and power of Rome held the people of that church in stern and cruel temporal subjection, and they longed for the promised Deliverer to appear. This Deliverer had been abundantly promised, and at last He came. But the high ones of the church had allowed their worldly ambition to hide their eyes from the spirituality of the kingdom and dominion that had been promised; and they looked for, and had taught the people to expect, a political and temporal deliverer who should strike off the yoke of Rome, break her power, and exalt the church of the chosen people to a position of power and dominion over the nations, corresponding to that which for so long had been held by the nations over them. When Jesus first appeared in His public ministry, these high ones of the church went with the crowds that flocked to hear Him, listened with interest, and hoped that He would fulfil their expectations. But when they saw the interest and enthusiasm of the multitude reach the point where “they would come and take Him by force to make Him a king”; (John 6:15) and when they saw that Jesus, instead of accepting the honor or encouraging the project, “withdrew Himself from them”; in this they also saw that all their ambitious hopes of deliverance from the dominion of Rome, and of exaltation over the nations, were utterly vain so far as Jesus was concerned. But by this time the influence of Jesus with the people had become so widespread and so strong that the church-leaders saw that their power over the people was very rapidly vanishing. Instead of seeing fulfilled or sanctioned their ambitious plans and hopes for worldly power and dominion, they saw with dismay that what power and influence they did have with the people was most certainly undermined: and this by a man risen from the greatest obscurity, who came from a town of the meanest reputation, and who was at most only a private member of the church! Something must be done, and that very soon, to preserve their own place and dignity. It was manifestly too late to think of commanding Him not to preach or teach: by this time they knew full well that not only He but the multitudes themselves would pay no attention to any such prohibition. But there was a way out—a means by which to maintain their place and dignity, and to assert their power over Him and the people. In their opinion of themselves and their position it was a very easy thing to make their place and dignity identical not only with the position but with the very existence of the church and even the nation itself. Accordingly they concluded, “If we let Him thus alone all men will believe on Him and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.” And “from that day forth they took counsel together for to put Him to death.” (John 11:47, 53) But subject as they were to the Roman authority, it was not lawful for them to put any man to death. Therefore, to effect their purpose they must get control of the governmental or civic authority. It mattered not that this authority was Roman; and it mattered not that this Roman authority they hated above all other earthly things, and could not by any possibility willingly recognize: all this must be forgotten in the presence of the awful alternative of seeing vanish their place and dignity and power in the church. In the church the Pharisees and the Herodians stood at opposite poles. The Herodians were so called because they were the party and partisans of Herod. They were the apologists of Herod in his position of king of Judea. But as Herod was king only by the direct appointment of Rome, and was seated and maintained as king by the power of Rome, for any one to be a partisan and an apologist of Herod was to be even more a partisan and an apologist of Rome. The Pharisees were the exclusively righteous ones of the church. They were the extreme church party. As such they were the conservators of the purity of the church, the representatives of the truest loyalty to God and the ancient dignity of the chosen people. As such they were the extreme and most uncompromising dissidents from Rome, and from all that was of Rome or that was in any way connected with Rome. But the Pharisees, as the exclusively righteous ones and the chiefest in dignity, were the most fixedly set against Christ, and took the lead in the counsels and plans to destroy Him. And to accomplish their purpose to put Him to death, they must have the co-operation of the secular power, which was Roman only. Therefore to accomplish their purpose against Jesus, they would gloze their hatred of Rome, and would use for their purpose against Jesus that very power of Rome of which they were by profession the extreme disputers and opposers. The means by which at one stride they would both cross this gulf to Rome and make sure of the secular power, was to pool issues with the Herodians. The Herodians, as being only less opposed to Jesus than were the Pharisees, were ready for the alliance. By this alliance the political party would be at one with the Pharisees, and the political influence and power of that party would be at the command of the church leaders. This would make sure to them the use of the soldiery, which they must have if they would be really secure in their open movements against Jesus. The alliance was entered into, and the conspiracy was formed: “And the Pharisees went forth and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him.” (Mark 3:6) “Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, ” “spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of His words, that so they might deliver Him unto the power and authority of the governor.” (Matthew 22:15, 16; Luke 20:20) And that governor was Pilate the Roman. And when finally the time came, at that awful midnight hour when Judas, “having received” a band of men and a captain and officers, “with swords,” came upon Him in Gethsemane, it was “the band and the captain, and the officers,” (John 18:12) who, at the direction of “the chief priests and Pharisees,” (John 18:3) took Him and bound Him. And having so taken Him they led Him to Annas first. Annas sent Him to Caiaphas, and Caiaphas sent Him to Pilate, the governor, the Roman. Pilate sent Him to Herod, who “with his men of war” set Him at naught and mocked Him and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him again to Pilate. (Luke 23:11) And when Pilate would have let Him go, they rung their final political note and plea of loyalty to Caesar and Rome, even above the loyalty of Pilate the Roman himself, “If thou let this man go thou art not Caesar’s friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.” (John 19:12) Pilate made his last appeal, “Shall I crucify your King?” only to be answered with the words expressive of their final abandonment of God, and of their completest unity with Rome, “We have no king but Caesar.” (John 19:15) “Crucify Him.” (Luke 23:21) “And they were instant with loud voices… And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.” (Luke 23:23) Thus the mightiest crime and the loudest crying sin in all the history of the universe was committed, and was made possible as it was committed, only by the union of church and State—only by the church in control of the civil power, using that power to make effective her wicked will and purpose. And that awful fact alone is all-sufficient to blast with perpetual and infinite condemnation, and to consign to eternal infamy, all such connection anywhere forever. And with such a record in the very first instance of the thing, it is not at all strange that this same thing of union of church and State—the church in control of the secular power—should have proved and must ever prove, the chiefest curse to men and nations wherever found in all after times. So true it is, and so completely demonstrated, that “secular power has proved a Satanic gift to the church.”
|