Untitled article by M. E. STEWARD

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · June 23, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 25

Union or Not?

By M. E. STEWARD

In a lecture not long since, Rev. Joseph Cook wished it understood that he did not believe in the “union of Church and State.” The fact is, people, generally, seem to have learned enough about religious liberty to know that Church and State must be kept separate; but very few understand the real meaning of these terms.

Mr. Cook went on to say that Sunday ought to be kept more holy, and he wanted a law to compel people to keep it; others have desired the same. Now, do these people understand the meaning of “Church” and “State?” Since they believe the Bible, consistency requires that they accept all of it, as it is. What is the scriptural idea of this subject? Where does the Bible draw the line between the authority of God and of earthly governments and our allegiance to both? Christ said to the Jews (Matt. 22: 21;) “Render, therefore, unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Cæsar, standing at the head of the universal empire of Rome, was the representative of all earthly governments. He had a right to control many things, but Christ limited civil power when he commanded, “Render unto God the things that are God’s.” According to this plain direction, Cæsar is not to come between the people and their duty to God in anything. The Church, i. e. the people of God, are doing God’s work on the earth; so far as they do it and he accepts it they represent him, just as our ministers to foreign countries represent the United States Government which indorses the work of its foreign representatives as though done by itself.

Christ gave his Church definite directions about treating offenders. The extreme penalty of the law was not to be fines, imprisonment, etc.; for as the Church is spiritual, so is all its work. “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican,” “Whatsoever ye (the Church) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt. 18: 17, 18. Jesus did not give this power to the civil authority; on the contrary, Paul reproved his brethren for going to law before unbelievers. The people of God are appointed to control the things of God, entirely exclusive of Cæsar or any worldly power; and when civil authorities legislate regarding anything religious they unite their (State) power to the power of the Church, and there is a union of State and Church. Our Saviour, who is our example, refused to interfere with the authority that rightfully belongs to the courts of justice. Said he to one, regarding his earthly inheritance, “Who made me a judge or divider over you?” Thus did Christ draw the line sharply and unmistakably between the things of God and those of Cæsar.

To ascertain if any particular instance is a union of Church and State, we have but to inquire, Is it of a religious character?

Whether it is right or wrong makes no difference. If it is religious the law must not touch it. We may trust the Lord to take care of all that belongs to him.

What about keeping Sunday? We have only to decide whether the Sunday Sabbath is a religious institution, or merely a civil one, like the Fourth of July, or Decoration Day. It is evident that Mr. Cook does not want a civil Sabbath, since he is calling for a more holy (religious) observance of the day. A law to compel people to keep it holy, unites the two essential points of Church and State; and while Mr. Cook blindly asserts that he does not want them united, he is at the same time pleading for it.

M. E. STEWARD.