Rev. J. M. Foster on Religious Legislation.
By C. P. BOLLMAN
THE Midland, a United Presbyterian paper, published in Omaha, Nebraska, had an article by Rev. J. M. Foster, some weeks since, on “The Basis of Sabbath Legislation,” which contains some thoughts worthy of notice. Mr. Foster takes the position that civil government is not a voluntary association but a divine institution, and that it is clothed with authority and power that transcend all human institutions. Its design, he says, is the suppression of wrong and the promulgation of good. “Civil government is the keeper of both tables of the law.” He is correct in saying that civil government is ordained of God. Says the apostle, “The powers that be are ordained of God.” But it is nevertheless true, as asserted in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;” neither is there any conflict between the Scriptures and the Declaration of Independence. God has ordained that civil government should exist, that is, that it is right and proper that there should be civil government, but he has not ordained the particular form of government, nor that certain men or certain families shall rule over their fellow-men. To take any other view of the matter than this is to assert the divine right of kings; and to assert that right, is simply to place our own country outside of the pale of the ordinance of God. The position that “civil government is the keeper of both tables of the law,” will be best examined in the light of the further statement made by Mr. Foster, to wit, “the State is the keeper of the second commandment, and should prohibit idolatry either on the part of the Chinaman or Romanist.” Now, if the first position be correct, that the civil government is the keeper of both tables of the law, then the conclusion which Mr. Foster draws from it must also be correct. But passing by all Chinamen as idolaters of the most gross sort, we will apply this rule to the Romanist. Mr. Foster says that the State should prohibit idolatry on the part of the Romanist. But the Romanist denies that he is an idolater. He will admit that he bows to pictures and images, but will stoutly assert that they are simply symbols of the Unseen, to which his worship is in reality directed, and that the image or picture is only for the purpose of assisting his faith. It is true that, as Protestants, we call that idolatry and such it is; but covetousness is also idolatry (Col., 3:5), and is just as truly a transgression of the divine law as are the more gross forms of idolatry. Shall we then punish covetousness? But it may be said that the law can only take cognizance of the outward acts, and that while it may punish a man for bowing down before an image it cannot punish him for the thoughts and intents of the heart, because man cannot determine the thoughts of the heart. But if the “State is the keeper of both tables of the law,” and is to enforce the law as the law of God, where or how shall we draw the line? Is it not as certain that the man who shows by his every-day life that he is covetous is a violator of the divine law, as it is that the man who prays to a picture of the Virgin Mary is an idolater? It may even be the case, and it is often true, that such an one is in every way a better citizen, a better neighbor, and a better man, than the one who is covetous. Moreover, it is just as easy to demonstrate to the satisfaction of an impartial person that the one is an idolater as it is to show that the other is an idolater. The occasional act of the one shows that he is guilty of violating the second commandment, while the whole life of the other, his every business transaction, all his dealings with his neighbors,—all these show conclusively that he violates the same commandment. Shall the law lay its hand upon the one and spare the other?—Certainly not. Properly speaking, the State is not the keeper of either table of the law. There is no part of the law of God which can be enforced as such, by any human Government. It is within the physical power, though not within the proper sphere of the Government, to compel its citizens to refrain from ordinary labor upon Sunday or on any other day of the week that it may see fit, but it is not within the power of any Government to compel its citizens to obey the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy,” and simply resting from labor is by no means all that is required in that commandment. According to Isa. 58:13, true Sabbath-keeping is not only to refrain from labor upon the Sabbath, but to “call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable.” And this, civil government cannot compel; therefore, it is impossible for civil government to enforce the fourth commandment; neither can civil government enforce any other commandment as the law of God. Take, for instance, the sixth. The Saviour said that he that hateth his brother is a murderer. A man may manifest all the hatred of which he is capable, and may even express that hatred, and yet the civil law cannot lay hold upon him as a murderer. True, if he makes threats, that is, if he declares his intentions to use violence, the law can place him under bonds to keep the peace. It may be demonstrated as fully as human testimony can demonstrate anything, that his heart is full of hatred, and yet no one would say that the civil law ought to touch him. Still, in the sight of God the man is a murderer. The seventh commandment furnishes another illustration, which we need not dwell upon, as all are familiar with the teachings of the Saviour on that point. But this is sufficient to show that civil government cannot enforce the law of God. There is another feature of this matter which demands attention, namely, the fact that to attempt to enforce the decalogue would be to constitute men judges of the divine law. God should be the interpreter of his own law. Human beings differ in their interpretations of that law. Of this, the second commandment furnishes an illustration, as already shown. The Protestant says that bowing to an image or picture is idolatry; this the Romanist denies. Now who shall judge between them and decide which is right. If it is the prerogative of civil government to decide this question, then if the judge be a Protestant he will decide from a Protestant standpoint, and the Papist would be punished for the use of pictures and images. But suppose the judge himself be a Papist, he would then decide that such worship is not idolatry, and the accused would go free. Thus it appears that that which is idolatry to-day might be held to be perfectly right to-morrow, or that which would be decided to be idolatry in New York might be held to be perfectly innocent in New Jersey; and yet, in both instances, according to Mr. Foster’s logic, the decision is rendered by the duly authorized agent of the Almighty. If it indeed be true that civil government is ordained of God in the sense in which Mr. Foster claims that it is, then the Government of Spain in the days of the Inquisition was just as truly a Government of God as is the Government of England or the Government of the United States to-day. But it cannot be true that Governments are ordained of God in that sense, for if it were true, God would be the minister of sin. “Governments,” says the Declaration of Independence, “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” And had the maxim always prevailed despotic Governments never would have been known. The very idea of Government which Mr. Foster advocates is responsible for the barbarities and iniquities of all the despotic Governments in the world, and the only wonder is that citizens of the United States could for a moment entertain such a proposition. It only shows, however, that the National Reform theory is at variance with the principles of this Government, and to carry out the National Reform idea would be simply to overthrow republican institutions.