The Missouri Test Oath.—We had intended preparing a short article for the present number of the Quarterly on this bad law, which is now silencing the preaching of the gospel in one of the largest States in the Union. But on further thought we have concluded to let it pass with a few points herein made:
1. God never yet founded a government, and empowered it to enact a law which imposes restrictions on the preaching of the gospel. Consequently, where an existing government does this, either the government itself is not of God, or it has usurped and is exercising an authority which he has never conferred upon it. In the former case, Christians are not bound to respect the government; and in the latter case, they are not bound to respect its enactment. I hence conclude that no Christian man is bound to respect, as a law, the test oath of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Nay, more, I believe that all preachers of the gospel in said State, and all other Christians affected in their natural rights by the law, are bound, in justice to Christ and to their brethren, who in conscience can not take the oath, either to preach and perform their other duties in defiance of the law, and suffer the consequences as martyrs to the truth, or to leave the State. Certainly I would advise the latter course, and not the former. And yet be this qualification to the preceding position added, that no Christian may innocently disregard any law of the land, except where it interferes with his duty as a Christian. Whether he likes the law or not, or thinks it wise and good, is not the question. Only where it interferes with his duty as a Christian, can he disregard it.
2. But where some brethren can conscientiously take the oath, and others can not, this difference should not be made a test of fellowship among brethren, not be allowed to cool their love for one another. While the difference is a dangerous one, and one deeply to be regretted, yet it is no test in fact, and should be made none in practice. Brethren who can take the oath are not therefore to be rejected; those who can not are not therefore to be rejected. This I clearly think the rule in the case. [112]
[Volume III: October 1865]