p. 228 | Reply to Mr. Johnston by N. J. Bowers

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Aug 14, 1889

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 29.

Reply to Mr. Johnston.

By N. J. Bowers

N. R. JOHNSTON—Respected Sir: In Number 27, current volume of THE AMERICAN SENTINEL, appears an open letter from you to me, calling my attention to what you think an error into which I have fallen relative “to the character of the Hebrew civil government, as well as in reference to what government should be now.”

Your criticism was called out by my article entitled “Nehemiah, the Tirshatha,” which appeared in Number 26 of the SENTINEL.

It appears that I am not alone in my error, but that it is wide spread; that not only a few here and there share it with me, but vast multitudes, even “millions of other Christians” also hold it.

You call our attention to sundry propositions which I suppose you deem sufficient to clear our minds of the fog with which they are beclouded. As I cannot speak for the millions aforesaid, I can say for one that I profess to be open to conviction, and that if wrong I want to know it, and that I am as willing to receive correction from your hands as from any one.

You declare in starting out that you are a National Reformer, but that you do not want your errors charged up to the account of your Reform brethren. I must say that I am generous enough to grant the request. They, without doubt, have enough of their own to answer for, and I do not wish to make their burden heavier. I wonder why you make the request. Is it because you are ashamed, or is it because you stand in suspicion, of sentiments emanating from National Reform sources? You Reformers being the mouthpieces of the Lord, and the especial links connecting Heaven and the United States, which you seem bent on reforming whether or no, you certainly ought to be able to harmonize with your brother National Reformers! If you do not, it’s high time you were beginning to see “eye to eye” and settle yourselves down into the “unity of the faith.” It will never do to have the Lord’s trumpeters give discordant blasts! But to the propositions, I shall give them attention, as you desire.

1. You ask if “the theocracy of the Hebrew commonwealth” was good in the past, “why would not a similar theocracy be good now?” Answer.—You have yourself in part furnished the reply to the question in that portion of your article numbered 5. It is because it “would be impracticable—an utter impossibility;” but the reason you assign why such would be the case is, I think, not the real one. The reason why a theocracy would not “be good now” is because that, as God has discontinued that kind of government, it would be made only by men; at the head of it would be a man in the place of God; and in the Papacy the world has had an illustration of what such a government would be. He who claims that a theocracy would be good now, justifies the Papacy with all that it has ever been. And that is why a theocracy would not be good now.

To the second question, I answer:

2. You contradict yourself when you admit a

theocracy in Israel and deny that there was a union of Church and State. This is like saying that a ten-cent piece is not a dime. A theocracy is a union of Church and State, and a union of Church and State is a theocracy. You can’t separate them. Don’t you see you put asunder that which is joined together?

You say the Church and the State co-operated simply, but there was no union. Webster defines co-operate “to work together.” That’s it exactly. The Church and the State always work together in a union. It cannot be otherwise. There can be no union of any kind without working together. The two blades of a pair of scissors are “independent” of each other, but they “co-operate”—work together because there is a union. In the Hebrew theocracy men were put to death for blasphemy and Sabbath-breaking. Lev. 24: 16. Ex. 31: 14, 15. Also for disobedience to parents, Deut. 21: 18–21; for adultery; for kidnapping; for being a medium, and in fact for violation of any commandment of the decalogue, even to the tenth.

It was an offense punishable with death to make and to use the anointing oil for common purposes. Ex. 30:34–38. Would you be willing to have in this Nation a similar theocracy if the people were “all of one mind or of one religion, as were the Hebrews”? Would you be willing to attach the death penalty to the using of the elements of the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper for common purposes? The matter of the anointing oil was nearly similar. In your “pure republican theocracy,” could you give your “vote” to establish such penalty for such offenses?

3. You see no union of Church and State in our Nation, yet people hold offices in the civil department or in the State and in the church at the same time. You argue that persons under the old theocracy held office in the church and were also civil rulers yet this did not make a union of Church and State then, any more than the same thing makes such a union in this country now. I reply, the cases are not parallel, and therefore your illustration goes wide of the mark. If religious profession were a requisite for holding office in this country, as you National Reformers are more than willing should be the case, then the examples cited would be pertinent, but this would be union of Church and State. I think you will agree with me that it would. Well that’s the way it was in the Israelitish theocracy. Every civil officer had to be a professor of religion—no “outsider” was eligible. The officer must be a religious person.

Proof. The rulers chosen by Moses were men who feared God, “men of truth, hating covetousness.” Ex. 18: 21–26. See, also, 2 Sam. 23: 1–3 and 2 Chron. 19: 5–10. The words of David “by the Spirit of the Lord,” and the “reform” work of Jehoshaphat, clearly show there was a national religion.

4. Your greatest error I conceive to be expressed in these words: “In the Hebrew commonwealth or theocracy, the officers were chosen by the people.” Nothing could be farther from the facts. God himself, and not the people, chose the officers. He, and not the people, chose Moses. Ex. 3: 10. He chose Moses’ successor, Joshua. Josh. 1: 1–3. He chose the tribe of Judah after the death of Joshua. Judges 1: 1, 2. He “gave” the people judges. Acts 13: 20. When the people wanted a king, the Lord gave them Saul. Verse 21. He told Samuel whom to anoint. 1 Sam. 9: 15, 16. The people did not elect him. The Lord selected David. 1 Sam. 16: 12, 13. The people did not elect him. Moses, at the direction of the Lord, selected seventy men of the elders of Israel for “officers” over the people. The people did not select. Num. 11: 16. These examples prove that you are mistaken.

Very respectfully,

N. J. BOWERS.

Fresno, Cal., July 22.