The Cross and the Flag
By L. A. S.
THE question whether a man may properly hold himself amenable to any higher authority than that of the government under which he lives, or in other words, whether a person may be justified in following the dictates of his conscience contrary to the law of the land, is receiving much attention in connection with the discussion of the eligibility of the Mormon “apostle,” Reed Smoot, to a seat in the United States Senate. The Independent, which views the subject in a clearer light than some others who have spoken on the matter, answers the question in the affirmative. It points out that Mormons are not the only ones in this country who profess allegiance to another sovereignty, regarded by them as a higher one than that of the United States, and says:— It would be the easiest thing in the world to collect a catena of claims by distinguished Catholic theologians, and even from the last papal syllabus, asserting the authority of that church over the state, and its right to impose its laws on the state, and these utterances accepted by Catholics in this country. But for this reason do we refuse to allow a Catholic to be a senator?—Not at all.
Further than this, we express our conviction of old, that the cross can properly be hoisted over the flag. We believe, as did Seward, in the higher law. We hold that the church has the right, speaking for the conscience of its members7to denounce and disobey laws of the state which it disapproves. . . . It makes no difference in principle that we are right, and that the Mormons are, we think, wrong—their own conscience must be obeyed; and it is right for them to declare, in their own way—even Orson Pratt—that the church ought to be supreme. A multitude of Catholics believe the same. This is a matter of interest to Seventh-day Adventists; for they refuse to obey certain laws of the States designed to secure homage to a religious institution—the Sunday sabbath—in which institution they see a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord—the seventh day. Will it be admitted by their religious opponents that they have a right to disobey and denounce such laws, because of their allegiance to the “higher law” which speaks to conscience? This question recent history has partly answered, and time will soon answer it much more fully. But for the recognition of, and the allegiance to, this higher law, by individuals who have had the courage to stand alone against bitter and overwhelming opposition, this world would be a far worse place of abode than it is to-day. Reformations are not produced by allegiance to the law of the land, but by allegiance to the higher call and claims of God. Disobedience to the law of the state is, however, justified only where that law is clearly contrary to the law of God. Not conscience, but the Word of God, is the ultimate authority in religion. Conscience must be guided and educated by the written Word. The statements of the Word, and not conscience merely, must be set up in defense of such an action. When conscience becomes so perverted that it leads to or justifies acts which invade the rights of others, it can not properly be pleaded in justification of disregard of human enactments.