THE WICKEDNESS OF CHURCH AND STATE UNION.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IN the last number of the last volume of the Signs of the Times, in answer to a question, we showed how impossible it is that civil government should have anything to do with the moral law. The argument, in brief, was that the law is spiritual, and civil government cannot enforce spirituality, nor punish for the lack of this. In continuation of that line of thought, we wish to show the consequences that must necessarily result from carrying into practice the idea that it is the province of the civil government to enforce the divine law. We shall do this by making a few quotations. In the Senate document containing the hearing (December 13, 1888) before the Committee on Education and Labor, on the Sunday-Rest bill, we find on pages 65 and 66 certain statements made by Senator Blair, the chairman of the committee, and the author of the bill. He first asked Dr. Lewis the following questions:— "Suppose that human beings trying to live in accordance with the will of God, re-enact his law and write it in their statute-book; is it wrong for society to put in the public law the requirement of obedience to God and his law?" And then after a few words he proceeded to answer his own question in the following manner:— "The will of God exists. He requires the observance of the seventh day just as he prohibits murder; and as we re-enact his law, in making a law and enforcing it against murder, so all the States have enacted laws against the desecration of the Sabbath, going further or not so far, according to the various Legislatures." Let the reader give particular attention to the idea advanced by Senator Blair, that human beings may re-enact the law of God. The same idea was advanced by Mr. Crafts in the Christian Statesman of May 30, 1889. Said he:— "The laws of our statute-books that re-enact the seventh commandment are as distinctly biblical in their origin as the laws that re-enact a part of the fourth commandment." In what position does this place civil government? The only answer that can be given is that it puts it in the place of God, and makes it at least equal with God. Nay, more, in putting it in the place of God, it puts it above God; for if the State re-enacts and enforces the law of God, supposing such a thing to be possible, it takes the law out of his hands, leaving him nothing to do, and requires man to give supreme allegiance to the State. This will be more apparent when we quote another statement made by Senator Blair, in the connection before referred to. Said he:— "Now the question comes right to this point: God having ordained the Sabbath, as you concede with all religious organizations, here is the national government, which alone can make that law of God operative in this sphere of national action. Why shall not the civil government, then, re-enact that conceded law of the Almighty and make it effective?" Do we not say truly that the National Reform idea, as voiced here by Senator Blair, puts the State in the place of God? He ignores God and his Spirit entirely, in the statement that the national government alone can make the law of God effective. We say, with as much reverence as the subject will allow, that we cannot see what use those who hold such an idea can have for God. They have usurped his prerogative. In the second chapter of 2 Thessalonians the apostle Paul describes a certain power, known as the "man of sin," the result of the working of the "mystery of iniquity." This power is described as opposing and exalting itself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, and claiming really to be God. It has generally been considered that this language is a description of the Papacy, and we believe that that interpretation is correct; but surely it describes nothing more accurately than a government which should attempt to do just what Senator Blair says this government ought to do. Therefore, everyone who believes this language of Paul to refer to the Papacy must admit that a government according to the National Reform idea would be nothing more than an image to the Papacy. But there is another point to be noticed in this connection, and that is the inevitable result of putting such ideas into practice. If it were universally conceded that the civil government has the power and the right to re-enact and enforce the law of God, that would involve the conclusion that there is no more to the moral law than civil government can enforce. The result would be the universal prevalence of immorality, and immorality of the worst kind, inasmuch as the individuals would suppose themselves to be acting in harmony with divine law. For example, take Mr. Blair's statement to the effect that as we re-enact the law of God in making a law and enforcing it against murder, so all the States have enacted laws against the desecration of the Sabbath. Suppose the National Reform scheme has become triumphant, and it is understood that the government takes the place of God, and enforces the divine law against murder, the result would be that any individual who did not in his envy and hatred toward his fellows go to the extreme of depriving them of life, would consider himself a moral man, although he might be full of hatred, malice, and envy. Take Mr. Crafts' idea that the State re-enacts the seventh commandment. It needs no argument to show that the State cannot punish man for vicious thoughts, or evil desires, or for any grade of licentiousness short of the overt act of adultery. But ministers and law-makers teach that the State enforces the seventh commandment; therefore the conclusion which the libertine would be warranted in making would be that he is a moral man if he abstains from violence. And so, when this National Reform idea shall be carried into effect, we shall have the State actually teaching vice and immorality. Such a condition of things would be a union of Church and State in its fullest extent. The Dark Ages stand as the great example of the effects of the union of Church and State, yet all that was done then was the enforcement by civil government of what the church claimed was the law of God. We think that our friends can readily see from this that when the United States, or any other government, legislates concerning any one or the whole of the commandments, it effects just to that extent a union of Church and State; and the argument already given shows how dangerous to morality and pure religion is such a union. The state of morality will be just as much below the true morality as the power that presumes to enforce the law of God is below God. Are there any of our Christian readers who wish to see such a condition of things in the United States, or who will lend their influence to bring it about?