Untitled article by C. P. B.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · August 7, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 31

Civil Government and the Divine Law.

By C. P. B.

The National Reform theory is 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, they assert, is not the securing of human rights, but the suppression of wrong and promulgation of good. “Civil government,” says Rev. Foster, one of the National Reform secretaries, “is the keeper of both tables of the law.” We have often shown in these columns that the theory that the State, or civil government, is the keeper of the law of God or of any part of it, is most mischievous, for the reason that it makes men judges of that law, and destroys direct individual accountability to God. If God has made the State the custodian of his law, he has also made it the interpreter and expounder of his law, and it is the duty of the people to receive the law from the State. This is substantially the claim made by the Papal Church, a claim which Protestants hold to be blasphemous. But if it be blasphemy when made by a church, is it not even more so when made in behalf of the State?

But, perhaps, for the purpose of this article, the proposition that civil government is the keeper of the divine law will be best examined in the light of the more explicit statement made by Mr. Foster, namely, that “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 proposition be correct that the State is the keeper of the divine law, the conclusion that it is in duty bound to enforce that law cannot be avoided. But let us examine this a little and see how it would work.

Passing by all Chinamen as idolaters of the most gross sort, we will apply this rule to the Romanist. Mr. Foster, who is, we must not forget, a representative National Reformer, 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 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, 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 the law. There is no part of the law of God which can be enforced as such, by civil government. For instance, it is within the physical power, though not within the proper sphere of 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. That 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 on 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 example, 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. And 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 previously referred to, that to attempt to enforce the decalogue would be to constitute men judges of the divine law. God is 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 were the prerogative of civil government to decide this question, then, if the judge were a Protestant he would decide from a Protestant standpoint, and the Papist would be punished for the use of pictures and images. But suppose the judge himself were a Papist, he would then decide that such worship was 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 National Reform logic, the decision would be rendered by the duly authorized agent of the Almighty.

If indeed it were true that civil government is ordained of God, in the sense in which National Reformers claim 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 this maxim always prevailed, despotic governments never would have been known. The very idea of government which National Reformers advocate, 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 is as clear as the noonday sun 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.

C. P. B.