The People's Palace and the Religious World: or, thoughts on public agitation against the promised charter to the new Crystal Palace Company, and on "Sabbath desecration"Layman
Religion
The People's Palace and the Religious World: or, thoughts on public agitation against the promised charter to the new Crystal Palace Company, and on "Sabbath desecration"
Layman
Crystal Palace (Sydenham, London, England); Sunday legislation -- Great Britain
But it does so happen that many who are in bondage to this intolerant
principle, do, nevertheless, somehow or other, acknowledge the
transforming influence of Christian truth upon the individual heart, and
are at one, in their religious convictions, with the open adherents of
the voluntary principle. To this united body of what are usually
designated “Evangelical Christians,” the question may fairly be
put—whether they are pursuing that line of policy towards the world which
is best adapted to bring the world over to their views?
Their object, next to their own spiritual improvement—for that _seems_
the great aim of modern Christianity—is to commend the Gospel to those
who have it not—to win over to hearts of men to the authority of
Christ—to induce them to accept to the free offers of reconciliation with
God made through to Saviour, and evermore live in His likeness. They
will readily acknowledge that religion is founded upon love, and adapted
to call forth to willing homage of grateful souls; and that the
spontaneous, cheerful surrender of self to God, the preference of His
will to ours, the cordial reliance upon Him for “every good and every
perfect gift,” is the very essence of Christianity. Institutions, forms,
and ceremonies, are but the media for expressing this truth, and are
worse than useless without it. Sympathy between man and his Creator is
religion—to awaken that sympathy in others, will be the aim of all who
have felt it for themselves.
How, then, do Evangelical Christians commend this living truth to those
who do not profess allegiance to it? To a great extent they conceal its
benign character. They build a wall around it, and make it appear to be
an exclusive property. Oftentimes they refuse to acknowledge it in
others unless associated with certain forms, symbols, and institutions.
They overlay it with the claims of this and that interest, or make it
speak in the language of this or the other ism. They proclaim that the
Gospel is omnipotent to save—that Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual
kingdom, and His reign in the heart of man—but, alas! practice and belief
do not correspond. They are, to a great extent, afraid to trust
Christianity to its inherent power. For the propagation of the truth, or
the extinction of unbelief, they will often have recourse to means not in
harmony with their convictions. “The end sanctifies the means”—often,
unconsciously, forms their rule of conduct, and quiets their scruples in
trying to make men religious by irreligious means, in claiming the aid of
the magistrate’s sword in putting down error, in demanding that the
incitements to sin be removed by the strong arm of compulsion, yea,
sometimes, in attempting to _coerce_ the indifferent into the reception
of to truth. How greatly does this want of confidence in the power of
the Gospel contrast with that scriptural faith which is able “to remove
mountains!”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account