RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 275, 9 August 1918, Page 7

RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE

Sir,—Mr. Porter says he cannot tell mo whether in the case of S'hadrach and his two Hebrew companions, Nebuchadnezzar exceeded tho lawful limits of civil government in consigning them-to the furnace for refusing to worship his golden image._ Auy intelligent schoolboy would tell me, however, that civil government did hero got out of its jurisdiction, and did wrong in attempting to force conscience. Nebuchadnezzar held, seemingly, the. very sumo views as Mr. Porter concerning the authority of t'ho State; •but he was rudely disillusioned; Though nbsoluto monarch of a world-empire, lie had to learn the Divine lesson that there <ire Heavenly Watchers; that cruelty and oppression (the worst form of oppression is oppression of conscience) are not unobserved; that there is a limit to State authority; and that "the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and that He anpointcth over jt whomsoever Ho: will." (Daniel v, 21.) Mr. Porter again, fails in his ridiculous attempt to fit in bigamy with New Testament principles. And here let me kindly but firmly protest against his putting my words into his own phraseology and using quotation marks, when ho is really stating my position in a very distorted and inaccurate form, as he does my remarks, re. Matt, xix, 4-9. Christ may not have condemned bigamy in so many words. He did not attempt to overthrow arbitrarily and suddenly the established order of society, and He consequently did not condemn outright many wrong things; hut Ho sought toplant right principles in men's hearts. Ho never evon condemned slavery, then Tampant in the Roman Empire; hut His principles strike at the very foundation of slavery, just as they do of bigamy. Following Christ's principles, we could not commit bigamy, which, with our greater light, would be sin to us—l am, etc, ' . • A. L. KING. •August 8. [This correspondence is now closed.l