"If any man hear my words, and believe not," said the Teacher of Nazareth, "I judge him not." [1 John 12:47] That declaration of our Lord was the direct antithesis of the teachings and the practices of his time. In his day, to teach any religion or worship of any god not recognized by the government of Rome was an offense punishable by banishment or by death, according to the social standing of the one so doing. Men must believe as the state directed, and worship as the state commanded, or suffer the severest penalties. To refuse such submission of the mind and conscience, would cause one to be arrested, condemned, and punished.

Against that condition of intolerance in that world empire, in all nations yet to be, in the hearts of unconverted men, and in the hearts of professed but intolerant Christians, Jesus Christ protested when he proclaimed the gospel of soul liberty——unwelcome in his day, and, throughout a large portion of Christendom, unwelcome in our day. [Remember, this was written in 1914!]

In such inhospitable soil that wonderful plant, religious liberty, first found lodgment, watered first by the blood of him who set it there, and then by the blood and tears of his faithful followers. That plant was rooted deeper than human hearts, and its branches towered higher than human hands could reach, else it must have been swept from the earth by the storms and fires of persecution that have raged for nearly two thousand [+] years. The sharpest cruelties of a Nero or a Decius could not entirely uproot it. Its indestructibility under such treatment proves is origin divine.

It was most difficult for the Romans to see the need of any system of religion other than that which they already possessed. Every detail of life was governed by some religious formula. They considered themselves of all people the most religious. In fact, the multiplicity of their gods and the number of their religious exercises might be considered in some measure as a palliation, if not an excuse, for some of the laws which they finally passed against the introduction of other religions and the worship of new and strange gods. Religion, instead of a solace, had become a burden. "The Roman ceremonial worship was very elaborate and minute, applying to every part of daily life. It consisted in sacrifices, prayers, festivals, and investigations by auguries* and haruspices* of the will of the gods and the course of future events...All pursuits must be conducted according to a system carefully laid down by the college of pontiffs...If a man went out to walk, there was a form to be recited; if he mounted his chariot, another." [Ten Great Religions, James Freeman Clarke, 1889, chap. 8, sec. 3, pages 331-335. * Editor's note: Auguries = Derived from a Latin word meaning "divination from omens or portents or from chance events (as the fall of lots}". Haruspices = Derived from a Latin word meaning "a diviner in ancient Rome basing his predictions on inspection of the entrails of sacrificial animals." Webster's New Collegiate Dictonary, 1976.]

While prohibiting the introduction of new religions and strange gods to add to the burden already resting upon the people in this regard, the Roman state demanded that the religion which had been legalized must be practised with due industry, and the gods that were admitted to the roster of the state religion must be worshiped with all diligence by every subject of the realm, and that, too, whether such worship was pleasing to him or obnoxious. If pleasing to him, the state smiled upon his acquiescence in its religious formulas; but be done it must, even if a man's whole nature revolted against it. One of the commands of that man-made religious system was: --- "Worship the gods in all respects according to the laws of your country, and compel all others to do the same. But hate and punish those who would introduce anything whatever alien to our customs in this particular." [Neander's "Church History," Vol. I, sec. I, div. 3, par. 2.]

The laws of the Romans also provided that: --- "Whoever introduces new religions, the tendency and character of which are unknown, whereby the minds of men may be disturbed, shall, if belonging to the higher rank, be banished; if to the lower, punished with death." [Ibid]

This was a remarkably clever stroke by him who is at once the enemy of God and man, the maligner of true religion, the creator of false gods, and the inventor of idolatry. He had filled the heathen nations with idols, galled the necks of the people with the yoke of counterfeit religions, and then planned to hid the true God from the eyes and hearts of the people, while the disciples of Jesus were estopped by the threat of death from making known to men the only religion that could lead them to a true knowledge of God and save their souls. To banish all Christians who were of the higher class, and to put to death all Christians who were of the lower class, would save that great stronghold of satanic power from the threatened invasion of the gospel---so thought the enemy of that gospel. But there is an element in the character of the true Christian which the great deceiver seems persistently to ignore; that is, love to God above everything earthly, even life itself; and obedience to God in spite of everything earthly, even death itself. That sent Christians to Rome or made converts in Rome, when they knew that their bodies might become food for the lions of the arena, or be used for torches to light up a night revel in honor of the gods of the heathen. The struggle went on in spite of Roman law and the most cruel punishments until the day dawned and the persecuted church found itself unshackled and free in the land of its enemies.

It is one of the anomalies of history that after the fierce struggles of the early Christians during three hundred years, the half-converted pagan emperor Constantine gave voice to the principles in close harmony with the principles in close harmony with the principles of true soul liberty. In the year 303 Diocletian determined to uproot Christianity, and enacted laws to that end. "By these enactments all Christian assemblies were prohibited; all churches were to be demolished; all copies of the of the Scriptures to be burned; all Christians who held rank or office to be degraded; all of whatever rank to lose citizenship, and be liable, as slaves, to the torture; Christian slaves were to be incapable of receiving freedom; all bishops and clergy were to be thrown in prison and there compelled to sacrifice; and all Christians everywhere ordered publicly to worship to gods, under the usual penalty of torture and death." ["Church and State," A.T. Innes (T.&T. Clark, Edinburgh, Scotland, second edition), page 19.]

That regime was in operation during ten years. Then came the edict of toleration by Galerius. In the year 312 Constantine came to the throne, and one year later, in conference with Lincinius, emperor of the East, he issued the famous Edict of Milan. By that edict there was granted to all men the utmost freedom of worship. In that edict are two points worthy of note,---first, it disestablished the heathen religion; and second, it did not establish any another religion. It was a direct step from soul thraldom to soul liberty without stopping at the half-way house of toleration.

But Constantine seems to have been unable to realize of to carry out in their fulness the principles of his own edict; for only eight years later, in the year 321, we find him enacting a religious law, the prototype and forerunner of all Sunday laws from his time until now. Nevertheless, after Constantine had conquered Lincinius, and had made himself the head of the entire Roman world, we find him issuing his famous proclamation to the peoples of the East, emphasizing and enlarging upon the principles contained in the Edict of Milan. That the reader may see how closely this proclamation harmonizes with the true principles of religious liberty as taught by their divine Author, we quote a portion of that document:---

"I hasten, O God, to put my shoulder to the work of restoring thy most holy house, which profane and impious princes have marred by their violence. But I desire that my people should live at peace and in concord, and that for the common good of the world and the advantage of mankind. Let the followers of error enjoy the same peace and security with those who believe: this very restoration of common privileges will be powerful to lead them towards the road of truth. Let no one molest his neighbor. What the soul of each man counsels him, that let him do. Only let men of sound judgment be assured that those alone will live a life of holiness and purity whom thou callest to find rest in thy holy laws. But for the others, who keep apart from us, let them, if they please, retain the temples of falsehood. We have the resplendent house of thy truth given us as our inheritance. But this we pray for them also, that they may come to share the gladness of a common belief . . .Let all men henceforth enjoy the privilege placed within our reach, i.e., the blessing of peace; and let us keep our consciences far from what might hinder it. Whatever the truth a man has received and been persuaded of, let him not smite his neighbor with it. Rather, whatever he has himself seen and understood, let him help his neighbor with it, if that is possible; if it is not, let him desist from the attempt. For it is one thing to voluntarily undertake to wrestle for immortality; it is another to constrain others to it by fear." ["Church and State," A.T. Innes, page 30.]

Concerning this proclamation Sanford H. Cobb says: "The terms of this proclamation leave nothing to be desired, and the reader of it is impressed alike with its breadth and the deep spiritual insight it declares. That the privilege of freedom would 'lead men toward the road of truth,' that 'to constrain by fear' is no proper means of conversion, and that conscience demands for all men what it demands for itself, are truths which speak to us out of the turmoil of the fourth century with startling accents, soon condemned to silence until fourteen hundred years should give them voice again." [Rise of Religious Liberty in America, Sanford H. Cobb, pages 27,28.]

Constantine, in this particular, was far ahead of his time, if the preparation of this document may be accredited to him alone. In 337 he died, leaving his throne to his two sons, who soon began to use the same instruments of oppression against heathenism that Nero and Decius had employed against Christianity. First came this decree: "Let superstition cease; let the madness of sacrifices be abolished." In 353 Constantius ordered that the heathen temples be closed. He also decreed that "all abstain from sacrifices; if any be found doing otherwise, let him be slain with the sword."

This was the beginning of that reaction against paganism which resulted in the establishment of the Christian religion as the religion of the empire, and made possible that terrible caricature of Christianity which enthralled the minds and consciences of men for more than twelve centuries. But the principles of religious liberty, though "condemned to silence," did not remain in the condition to which they were condemned during all that age of intellectual and spiritual darkness. They came to flower and fruitage again in various portions of Europe, breaking up through the crust of ecclesiastical oppression, now here and now there, in spite of the bitterest persecution from whatever religion happened to be the recognized religion of the state.

That the lessons of history may not be lost on us today, it is fitting at this point to institute a comparison between our times and the times of the early church. We are asked today by those who have forgotten---or have never known---the lessons of the past, to encourage the enactment of laws by the state which will deal with the religious affairs and the consciences of men. The state is importuned by the church to make certain religious requirements a part of the fundamental law of the nation. She asks that the God of the Bible be made the god of the republic by having his name engrossed upon the Constitution of the nation. Rome had its many national gods; America would then have its one. Rome legislated for the protection of its gods and the institutions sacred to them; America would then do the same. Rome banished and imprisoned and put to death men whose only offense was their religious belief and their mode of practising it. Will America follow to the logical result the career of the ancient republic? The answer to this question will be found in the events chronicled in this treatise.

The persecutions endured by the early church furnish one of the saddest spectacles in the history of the world, a spectacle the cruelty and bitterness of whose aspect can be exceeded only by the career of the power blinded church itself, when through the long midnight of its dominance, it well-nigh succeeded in sweeping the faithful followers of Christ off the face of the earth. But before condemning Rome pagan and Rome papal for their persistent, bitter, and bloody work against soul freedom and an untrammeled conscience, it is well for us to look into the principles upon which they operated, and see whether we may not be treading in the path that will lead us to the goal they reached, with the same ruinous results. If we find that we are, we should then either retrace our steps or cease our condemnation of them. [Editor's comment: With the fast moving train of end time prophecy fulfilling before our very eyes, it is unreasonable to think, as well as unlikely, that any retracing of our steps would profit, save those retracings which pertain to an individual only.]

The Roman state legislated upon religious things. It declared what gods might be worshiped; it appointed festivals in honor of these gods, and set apart days and seasons sacred to their worship; it drew up formulas to be repeated on stated occasions; it forbade any religious teachings or worship not licensed by the state; it prescribed penalties for the infraction of these laws, it fined, imprisoned, banished, and put to death men, women, and children who did not obey these religious laws. Had it the right to do these things?

If the Roman state had the right to adopt a religion for the nation, it had the right to say what that religion should be. If it had the right to adopt a religion, it had the right to enforce it upon the people; for it represented the people in choosing the religion. To grant legislators the right to choose a religion and then deny them the right to compel the nation to accept the choice, would be to unlaw the law; to declare a statute competent and incompetent in the same breath; to permit and refuse in the same decree. If Rome had the right to choose a religion, she had the right to enforce that religion upon her subjects; for to adopt a religion and have no one profess it would be too ridiculous a proposition for serious consideration. If she had the right to enforce it upon one, she had the right to enforce it upon all---and must enforce it upon all, or be guilty of discrimination among her subjects.

A state can enforce only through penalties. To deny it the right to penalize what it condemns is to make its most emphatic laws merely opinions and its legislators a jest. Admit Rome's right to adopt a religion for the nation, to choose a god or gods, to legislate upon religious things, and we must follow her to her conclusion---the penalizing of all religious belief and all religious practise not specially legalized in the national code. Admit the right of the United States of America to choose a national god by placing the name of God in the Constitution, to place religious rules and usages in the fundamental law of the nation, and otherwise legislate upon religious things, and we are sanctioning all Rome ever did, and, to be consistent, must follow in her footsteps, even to the penalizing of the most Christian practises and the persecution of godly men and women.

But governments have no such rights. Whenever they have adopted such a course, they have trampled upon the most sacred rights of individuals, entered a forbidden realm, and usurped the prerogatives of God. [Editor's note: Especially have they "usurped the prerogative of God" given to men; the prerogative of men to have free moral choice---free will.] The civil government which attempts to legislate upon religious things makes itself uncivil, and injures irreparably the cause it espouses. If the state can rightly enter the domain of the soul, and legislate upon what concerns the soul, then there never has been and there never can be any such thing as religious persecution, and Rome was right in drenching the earth with the blood of the martyrs for disobeying the laws of the state which forbade the religion that they professed. If the state had that right, then Jesus was the malefactor justly condemned. To grant to the state the right to dictate what the religion of the people shall be, is to make religion a matter to be regulated by majorities; and that would mean to drive all true religion from the earth; for, as all history attests, the majority has almost invariably been wrong in matters of faith and worship.

This is the lesson which history has left us. The principles adopted by Rome led to the climax which Christians have never ceased to deplore; and that fact should cause us to consider, with the utmost seriousness, whether we should recommend that our country adopt the same mischief-breeding principles. In opposition to all the teachings of his times stood the teachings and practises of Jesus and his followers. Said Jesus: " Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not." The soil of that time was an unpromising soil for the plant of religious liberty; but he planted it, watered it with his own blood, and left it to us.

Says Dr. George Jellinek, of the University of Heidelberg: "With the conviction that there existed a right of conscience independent of the state was found the starting-point for the determination of the inalienable rights of the individual." [Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens."]

But a church craving power has never fostered the idea of individual rights, especially individual religious rights. There is nothing conducive to the exaltation of the church in the doctrine that men may disagree with its dictates and go unpunished. Clothe the church with civil power, and it begins at once to make war upon conscience and hunt down heretics. The following graphically sets forth this fact:

"When the Christian church became the Roman Church, and the Roman Church, by the might of its unconquerable spirit and its indestructible faith, became the Roman Empire, . . . the church, instead of giving both hands to the Bible, gave one hand to the sword, and that not the left hand, and wickedly grasping a power under whose blows it had many times fallen prostrate and bleeding in the dust, the persecuted then became the persecutors, the sufferers became the avengers, only the victims were not their former enemies, but members of their own household of faith." ["Religious Liberty," Henry M. King (Preston & Rounds, Providence), pages 4, 5.]

The same conditions are further described by Mr. Innes:

"The wheel had now come almost full circle; for not only was Christianity now established, as paganism had been before, but the open exercise of the one religion was declared a crime against the state in the same way---and even in the same words---in which, in the previous century, the law had bent itself against the profession of the other." ["Church and State," page 38.]

The rider had changed steeds, but he was the same rider, and the hoofs that before had crushed the consciences and souls of men were just as cruel as of old. Join the best church in the world to be the best state in the world, and the combination is bound to prove a curse to the world---and to the church. The church that seeks such union unclasps her hand from that of her lawful Spouse, and reaches out for that of another, who will accomplish her downfall. In seeking earthly power, she renounces the only power that can keep her and make her a blessing to the world. 

From the Berean Library — #11