The Reformation proclaimed Religious Liberty.
The Reformers cared more for Religious Liberty than they cared for life. To them Religious Liberty was the only life.
All the Religious Liberty known today either by individuals, or by States, or yet by the churches, is due to The Reformation.
Yet the real Reformation Religious Liberty is little understood.
Most of the denominations think that Religious Liberty is freedom of their religion or faith from prohibition or interference by the State.
Some denominations extend the thought to the point of insisting that Religious Liberty is the freedom of every individual from any interference or notice in things religious by the State.
But not one of the denominations thinks, or will allow, that Religious Liberty is the perfect freedom of the individual believer from prohibition, or interference, or jurisdiction, in the matter of religion or faith, by the church.
And so the denominations all exercise as churches the very power and jurisdiction that they deny to the State.
They deny to the individual as a member of the Church the very Religions Liberty which they advocate for him as a member of the State.
Thus they present the interesting situation that the Christian has more Religious Liberty as a member of the State than he can have as a member of the church.
For the individual as only a member of the State they demand as a natural right, a Religious Liberty that they will not allow to him as a member of the church under the grace of God!
And in this, by their own practice and even by their own arguments, the implication is that the State must be more Christian than should be the church!
That is, that kingdoms of this world must be more liberal, must recognize a larger and truer freedom--must be more Christian--than the kingdom of God. Does anybody but a confirmed denominationalist--a papist--need to be told that Reformation and Christian Religious Liberty is no such thing as that? that no Reformer was ever so blind and confused as that, in his thinking?
The Reformation had nothing to do with any such situation as now exists in the separation of Church and State, or of religion and the State. No such distinction was then existent even in idea. The Reformation had to create it.
When The Reformation was begun in the fourteenth century, and when it was revived in the sixteenth century, there was no such thing as the State proper, as now is so well understood by all.
Then all was the church only. Principalities, kingdoms, the empire, were all only the "secular arm" of the one allpervading church.
Princes, kings, and the emperor, with all their power, were the secular or lay "estate," while the clergy and monks were the spiritual or clerical "estate,"--the two estates of the one realm of the one church: just as today the "clergy" and the "laity" are the two estates of the one and same denomination.
Recall the words of Bryce: "The Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the same thing, seen from different sides"; and "The Holy Empire is but another name for the Visible Church."
The relation of the soul and body of the one man, is the favorite illustration used by the papacy to convey her idea of the relation of the secular and spiritual estate of the one church.
"It is under the emblem of soul and body that the relation of the papal and imperial power is presented to us throughout the Middle Ages.
"The Pope as God's vicar in matters spiritual, is to lead men to eternal life; the Emperor, as vicar in matters temporal, must so control them in their dealings with one another that they may be able to pursue undisturbed the spiritual life, and thereby attain the supreme and common end of everlasting happiness.
"In the view of this object his chief duty is to maintain peace in the world, while towards the church his position is that of Advocate or Patron: a title borrowed from the practice adopted by churches and monasteries of choosing some powerful baron to protect their lands and lead their tenants to war.
"The functions of Advocacy are two-fold: at home to make the Christian people obedient to the priesthood, and to execute priestly decrees upon heretics and sinners; abroad to propagate the faith among the heathen, not sparing to use carnal weapons. "Thus does the Emperor answer in every point to his antitype the Pope: his power being yet of a lower rank, created on the analogy of the papal as the papal had been modeled after the Elder Empire.
"The parallel holds good even in its details. For just as we have seen the churchman assuming the crown and robes of the secular prince, so now did he array the Emperor in his own ecclesiastical vestments, the stole and the dalmatic; gave him a clerical as well as a sacred character; removed his office from all narrowing associations of birth or country; inaugurated him by rites every one of which was meant to symbolize and enjoin duties in their essence religious.
"Thus the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the same thing, seen from different sides; and Catholicism, the principle of the universal Christian society, is also Romanism: that is, rests upon Rome as the origin and type of its universality; manifesting itself in a mystic dualism which corresponds to the two natures of its Founder.
"As divine and eternal, its head is the Pope, to whom souls have been entrusted; as human and temporal, the Emperor, commissioned to rule men's bodies and acts.
"In nature and compass the government of these two potentates is the same, differing only in the sphere of its working. And it matters little whether we call the Pope a spiritual Emperor, or the Emperor a secular Pope.
"As God in the midst of the celestial hierarchy, rules blessed spirits in Paradise, so the Pope, His vicar, raised above priests, bishops, metropolitans, reigns over the souls of mortal men below.
"But as God is Lord of earth as well as of heaven, so must He be represented by a second earthly viceroy, the Emperor, whose authority shall be of and for this present life.
"Both alike claimed obedience on the ground that Truth is One, and that where there is One faith there must be One government."
In the ceremony of the coronation of the Emperor in Rome, "the rites prescribed are rites of consecration to a religious office.
"The Emperor, besides the sword, globe, and sceptre of temporal power, receives a ring as the symbol of his faith, is ordained a sub-deacon, assists the Pope in celebrating mass, partakes as a clerical person of the communion in both kinds, is admitted a canon of St. Peter and St. John Lateran.
"The Emperor swears to cherish and defend the Holy Roman Church and her bishop.
"The Pope prays after the reading of the Gospel, "'Deus qui ad praedicandum aeterni regni evangelium Imperium Romanum praeparasti, praetendi famulo tuo Imperatori nostro arma coelestia'--God, who hast prepared the Roman Empire for the preaching of the gospel of the eternal kingdom, throw around thy servant, our Emperor, the armies of Heaven."
When The Reformation began, that practice had been held before the eyes of all Europe for more than five hundred years; and that theory had been diligently inculcated upon the minds of all in Europe, generation after generation, for more than a thousand years.
When these facts are considered, some idea may be obtained as to how utterly foreign to the world in that age was any conception of the State as now known. It can be seen how completely everything was only the church.
And in it all stands the evidence complete that the contention of the Reformers was against the church only, and the prerogative, jurisdiction, power, authority, in matters of religion, faith, and conscience which they denied was that of the church.
This for the simple reason that as things then stood, nothing but the church was interfering with the rights of men in these things; and there was nothing there but the church to do it.
However, the Reformers clearly saw the distinction and the separation that should be made between the ecclesiastical and the civil power, and between religion and the State. They clearly made and proclaimed this distinction and separation, and steadily maintained it as one of the essential principles of The Reformation.
And this is how it is that "the people of the United States," making this the fundamental principle of their government, were truest of all people to The Reformation and to Christianity, and so "changed the face of the world."
But this blessed result of The Reformation never can be made the ground of The Reformation.
Ecclesiastics can not be allowed to shift to the State as the point of issue, the Reformers' denial of the exercise of authority in the things of religion, faith, and conscience, which pertained solely to the church because there was nothing else than the church involved in the issue.
And that which was the sole point of issue then, is the primary and only true point of issue forever in The Reformation.
That point of issue is that The Reformation principle, The Reformation itself, denies all exercise of authority by the church--any church--in the things of religion, faith, and conscience. John Huss wrote a book on "The Church" embodying the splendid and Christian principles of the Bohemian Reformers as presented on pages 134-136 of this book. Yet it was charged that "he preached disrespect to the church and disregard to her power of punishing."
And in the Council of Constance, against that book on "The Church" it was charged that "through an endless multitude of arguments it attacked the papal authority and the plenitude of the papal power, as much as the Koran did the Catholic Faith."
What the Reformers did was to set the Word of God above the church, and require that in everything the church should be subject to that Word and follow it implicitly. Eph. 5:24.
Then they maintained the right of the private judgment of each individual, in the reading and following of that Word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
They therefore required that whenever and in all things whatsoever the church would correct them, she must do it by the plain Word of God and nothing else.
This at once stripped the church as of herself of all authority. It took her off the throne and set her in her native Christian place as subject to everybody's call in loving service and kindly helpfulness.
It was directly charged against Huss that he and his "party" "admitted no other authority than the sacred Scriptures, explained in their own sense and in contrariety with the doctrine of the church and of entire Christendom."
On the other hand it was held that those who stood for the church "were alone in possession of the truth, inasmuch as they agreed with the doctrine of the Roman church and of entire Christendom."
Therefore there was required of Huss "unconditional submission to the Roman Church."
This was carried to the point where, during the Council of Constance, it was actually said to Huss by a "doctor" of the Roman church:--
"If the Council declared that thou hadst but one eye, when thou hast two eyes, thou wouldst still be bound to submit to their decision."
Oct. 31, 1517, Luther nailed up his theses. In August, 1518, the Pope commissioned his legate to examine into this affair in Germany. The legate called Luther to appear before him at Augsburg. October 7 Luther arrived there.
But the only terms offered or allowed were, "Submit unreservedly to the church," "Retract." The legate's chief agent confidently assured Luther of the easy settlement of "the whole matter," saying:--
"The whole matter may be summed up in six letters: Revoca"-- Retract.
And when Luther stood before the legate himself the ultimatum laid down at the very first was the following:--
"First, You must retract your errors, propositions and discourses.
"Secondly, You must promise to abstain in future from circulating your opinions.
"Thirdly, you must engage to avoid everything that might grieve or upset the church."
Luther replied: "I protest solemnly against the course which is sought to be given to this affair, and against the strange pretension of constraining me to retract without having refuted me."
And in the Diet of Worms the word still was only, "Will you, or will you not, retract?"
Luther's Answer--The Reformation Answer--was not that he could not submit to the Emperor or the State because the State had no authority in religion; but that Answer then and forever is--
"I can not submit my faith either to the Pope or to Councils"--the church.
And "If I am not disproved by the very passages which I have quoted, and so bound in conscience to submit to the Word of God, I neither can nor will retract anything."
That is The Reformation. That is The Reformation Religious Liberty. It is subjection, it is submission, to the authority of the Word of God only
And this without any obtrusion, insinuation, administration, or dictation, of Pope or Councils: that is, of the church--any church.
Thus, for any one now to protest against the State having any jurisdiction in matters of religion and faith, while allowing and practicing the same thing in the church, is utterly wide of the mark and shows complete ignorance of what it is to be Protestant, and of what The Reformation ever meant.
And so says the Scripture in behalf of The Church, "Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand." 2 Cor. 1:24.
Not only is this stated in the Scripture, but in addition the full story of its actual working out is set down there for the instruction of all people forever.
The disciples and apostles in Jerusalem were all members of the church that had come down in direct descent from "the church in the wilderness." From the Lord they had learned truth which the officialdom of the church did not know.
Knowing this truth and the joy and power of it, these private members of the church spoke the truth which they knew.
Two of them were arrested by the church-officials, and they were brought before the church-council. There they were questioned "as to the power or authority by which men like them had done what they had."
Peter, "filled with the Holy Ghost," answered: "Leaders of the people and Counsellors, . . . let me tell you all and all the people of Israel, that it is by the authority of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom ye crucified and whom God raised from the dead."
The Council "commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus."
To this Peter, still filled with the Holy Ghost, replied: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."
The Council repeated the command with threats, and let them go. They went to the company of the rest of the disciples, and told all that the Council had said to them.
Not one of the whole company was willing for a moment to obey; nor to pause or parley as if there was a question involved. With them there was no question in the matter.
They simply all "with one accord" "lifted up their voice to God" and said, "Lord, thou art God"--this church-council is not God. "Thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is."
"And now Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy Word."
Lord, thou art God. This church-council is not God. And since they have put themselves in Thy place, we trust Thee to attend to them while we go straight on speaking Thy truth.
And the place where they were "was shaken," and "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and they spake the Word of God with boldness."
Next, they were all arrested and were put in prison to be kept over night and to be brought next day again before the Council to answer for their disregard of the authority of the church.
But, behold, "The angel of the Lord came by night and opened the prison doors and brought them forth and said: 'Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.' And they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught."
Yet they were again arrested and brought before the Council of "all the senate of the children of Israel." All the officialdom of the church was there.
The high priest demanded of them, "Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine!"
The disciples calmly replied, "We ought to obey God rather than men."
The Council caused them to be beaten with the "forty stripes save one," commanded that they should not "speak in the name of Jesus," and let them go. "And in the temple and in every house they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ."
That story was written and set at the very threshold of the entrance of Christianity into the world, to teach to all churches and church-councils forever that no church has any right or authority to decide what any member of the church shall or shall not teach or preach.
And when any church or church-council even of "all the senate" of the church assumes any such authority, it usurps the prerogative of God and puts itself in His place. And men, even churchmen, in the place of God never act like God.
The very existence of Christianity as a living religion in the world, turns upon the utter and careless disregard of the commands and "authority" of the official church-council of the day, by the original Christians: with God by miracles and angelic ministration and gifts of the Holy Ghost endorsing and encouraging the "recusancy."
God had done the same thing in sustaining the three young men in their refusal to recognize any authority in religion, of the autocracy of King Nebuchadnezzar; and in sustaining Daniel in his refusal to recognize any authority in the realm of religion, of the government of the supremacy of the law of Medo-Persia.
And in this double lesson at the very beginning of Christianity there is made plain to all people forever that no command or prohibition of church or church-council touching religion or faith, is of any more weight or authority than the command of Nebuchadnezzar or the law of the Medes and Persians. God put them all on the same level, and set them all aside as the proud and empty and vain things which they all alike are. Yet this essential truth of The Reformation and of Christianity, plain as it is from both, will be resented by the denominations today exactly as it was by the Jewish church at the beginning of Christianity, and as it was by the Roman church at the time of The Reformation and as it is always.
These today will cry out as did Rome, "That would destroy all ecclesiastical order and organization!" and all the rest of the list on page 214.
Thank the Lord it does destroy all of that kind of "ecclesiastical order and organization"--the human, the sinful, the papal, the antichristian. And it ought to be destroyed; for in truth it is nothing but disorder and disorganization, as to all that is the truly spiritual and divine.
That kind of "ecclesiastical order and organization"--only an outward, formal, and human, "unity" without the inward piety and purity of the divine life--is a curse to the world, and not a blessing. It has always proved itself so.
It is said that without that kind of "ecclesiastical order and organization," the churches, Christians, and even Christianity, itself, as to effectiveness in the world, would be only "a rope of sand."
The answer is that without Christ and the Holy Spirit dwelling supremely in the hearts of the church members and inhabiting the churches, they ought to be only a rope of sand.
God forbid that through denomination, federation, and confederation, they become a rope of Manila hemp or American steel, to bind and fetter liberty of thought and conscience after the same old example of ecclesiastical "order and organization" from which The Reformation freed us.
But in The Reformation order--the Christian and divine order--wherein the Holy Spirit and the living Christ and the loving Father dwell in the heart and rule the life of each individual believer and inhabit the churches of these individuals, by the divine fervor the separate particles of clean and sparkling sand are molten into a sea of glass mingled with fire upon which stand the ransomed of the Lord having the harps of God, singing the song of eternal redemption.
Beyond all question this Religious Liberty that is freedom from the exercise of any authority by the church in religion or faith, is the Religious Liberty of The Reformation.
Equally beyond question, it is the Religious Liberty of original Christianity.
It is also beyond question that it is the Religious Liberty that is in the very two words that express it. 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: 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 being exempt from the domination of others, and from restricting circumstances: man's freedom to make his choices and decide his conduct for himself, spontaneously and voluntarily, in accordance with reasons or motives: in the duty which he owes to the Creator, and in the manner of discharging that duty.
The Reformation and Christian principle of the total separation of religion and the State, established by "the people of the United States" as the fundamental principle of their supreme law, "changed the face of the world."
Let The Reformation and Christian principle of Religious Liberty be established by Christians as the fundamental principle of church order, and it will change the face of The Church as in the world.
And this, in turn, and from America will again and in infinitely grander measure change the face of the world.