The American Sentinel 11
July 23, 1896
“Render to God the Things that Are God’s” American Sentinel 11, 29, pp. 226, 227.
FREQUENT appeal is made to the 13th chapter of Romans to sustain the assumption that unquestioning obedience to civil rulers is a moral duty; but that Scripture teaches us no such doctrine. We sometimes hear about harmonizing texts of sacred Scripture, but the expression should never be used. Where there is an apparent conflict man’s duty is, not to harmonize passages in God’s Word, but to discover the harmony which already exists. AMS July 23, 1896, page 226.1
The principle so plainly stated in Acts 5:29: “We ought to obey God rather than men,” is nowhere contradicted in the divine Word. On the contrary we find it to be the rule of action of the servants of God in all ages. It was fidelity to this principle that brought the three Hebrew worthies face to face with death in the burning fiery furnace, but which also on the same occasion brought them face to face with their Lord, whose form was “like the Son of God,” and who gloriously delivered them. It was likewise obedience to the same unwritten law, that caused Daniel to be cast alive into the den of lions, from which he also came forth alive, and gloriously vindicated, though he had violated a law of the realm and defied the authority of his earthly sovereign. AMS July 23, 1896, page 226.2
The key to the 13th of Romans is found in the words of our Lord recorded in Matthew 22:21: “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” The Jews were living under Cesar’s government and were therefore in duty bound to render to Cesar his due; but this did not release them from their obligation to render to God his due, even if to do so would bring them in conflict with Cesar, for it has ever been true that man’s first and highest allegiance is due to his Creator, hence he is to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind, more than he loves himself even; while he is to love his neighbor as himself. Matthew 22:37-39. AMS July 23, 1896, page 226.3
It should never be forgotten that God’s moral government and proper, legitimate, God-ordained civil government, occupy entirely different spheres, and in their respective spheres a man can be loyal to both. No man is better qualified to render honest, efficient service to his country than he who does it for conscience’ sake. AMS July 23, 1896, page 227.1
The whole subject under discussion in the 13th chapter of Romans is man’s duty to his fellows. This is evident from verses 8-10: “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” AMS July 23, 1896, page 227.2
This the divine law requires and it is more than the civil law can possibly exact. The Christian must not—yea he cannot, do wrong, but he can suffer and will suffer wrong, and that patiently. Said the Sviour: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” And again the apostle says: “What glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.” 1 Peter 2:20, 21. Even should the civil law strip the Christian of his earthly possessions, it would still be his duty to quietly submit, trusting his cause to God who judgeth righteously, and remembering that “all things work together for good to them that love God.” Non-resistance is the rule of the Christian’s life. AMS July 23, 1896, page 227.3
But while the Christian is to yield to man everything, yea and much more than the civil law requires, and this for conscience’ sake, he must not render to Cesar that which is God’s. The divine mandate is, “Render to God the things that are God’s. And neither the 13th chapter of Romans, nor any other Scripture, contradicts this in any degree. The whole subject matter of that chapter is concerning the Christian’s duty to render to Cesar (the civil authorities) the things that are due to civil authority, and nothing else. AMS July 23, 1896, page 227.4
“Facts vs. Ridicule” American Sentinel 11, 29, p. 228.
A GOOD deal of ridicule has, by the advocates of Sunday laws, been heaped upon all constitutional arguments against Sunday legislation; but why not answer the constitutional objections rather than ridicule them, if they can be answered? AMS July 23, 1896, page 228.1
It has been said that the various Supreme Court decisions touching this question are a sufficient answer. But are they? Of course such decisions show clearly the strength of religious sentiment and its influence even upon Supreme Courts; but they by no means prove that such legislation is constitutional in the sense of being in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Federal Constitution or of the State constitutions containing similar guarantees of freedom of conscience. AMS July 23, 1896, page 228.2
To understand the real purpose and intent of any constitution, we must, as Chief-Justice Waite remarked in 1878, go, not to recent decisions, but to the history of the times in which it was adopted, and give to the language of such constitution the meaning that it had at that time. By this rule we shall find that the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution was designed not only to make impossible the setting up of a State Church, but to forbid religious legislation, i. e., legislation upon religious questions. AMS July 23, 1896, page 228.3
The term “religion” is not defined in the Constitution, but the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776, furnishes us a definition as follows: “Religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction,” etc. This, then, is what the men who were largely instrumental in securing the adoption of the First Amendment to the National Constitution meant by “religion,” and in the light of this definition that amendment would mean just what it was intended to mean, if it read, “Congress shall make no law regarding the duty which we owe to our Creator, or the manner of discharging it.” AMS July 23, 1896, page 228.4
That this is the meaning of the First Amendment is evident also from the fact that the exact language of the Virginia Bill of Rights was used in the form of the amendment proposed by three of the six States which proposed an amendment on this subject, namely, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island; while New Hampshire used equally unmistakable language, namely, “Congress shall make no law touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” It was evidently that the purpose of the several States to utterly prohibit to Congress all legislation upon religious questions, and no number of decisions, even by the Supreme Court, can make it otherwise. This is not so much a question of law as of fact, to be tried by the jury of the people rather than by the Justices of our Supreme Courts. AMS July 23, 1896, page 228.5
That the First Amendment to the Constitution was designed not only to keep Church and State separate in the sense of preventing an ecclesiastical establishment, but in the sense also of separating religion from the State—making the Government absolutely secular, is evident not only from the facts cited, but also from other considerations. In fact, this seems to have been the universal opinion until in recent years degenerate sons of noble fathers have sought to subvert the grand charter which those sires gave to their posterity. AMS July 23, 1896, page 228.6
In 1797, Washington and his cabinet and the United States Senate declared in the Treaty with Tripoli: “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.” It is, perhaps, not saying too much to assert that President Washington and his advisers were in a position, at least as to the point of time, to understand the intent of the Constitution very much better than the Supreme Court of to-day. They knew what it meant, for they helped to make it, and were familiar with the reasons for its adoption and for the adoption of the First Amendment; and it is perfectly evident that they did not see in it much that the Supreme Court has professed to find there. AMS July 23, 1896, page 228.7