Law and Religion

There has always been tensions on the relationship between the law and religion. Should the state enact laws that are religious in nature. How about moral laws that regulate areas such as polygamy? Should the state be involved in that are. The following article tries to shed light on this difficult article and explains some pitfalls if this is taken to extremes.

Civil Laws and Religion.

THE question of the true relation of civil law to matters of religion is generally regarded as a most intricate one; and yet in this country it has, practically, been exceedingly simple, the rule generally adhered to being to legislate only upon matters relating to the manners and conduct of men as social beings, leaving purely religious questions, such as the recognition of God as an object of worship, and right feeling toward him, to be settled by the Judge of all the earth.

This is certainly the only safe and practicable rule possible among finite beings; for, to go farther than this, and at the same time do right in each case, would require infinite wisdom; or, at least, ability to read the thoughts and intents of the heart and properly weigh the motives of all men. This, God alone can do; and since he alone can determine the magnitude of an offense against himself, he alone should pass judgment and mete out punishment in all such cases.

It is absolutely necessary that there should be laws regulating the relations of man to man, and that these laws should be enforced at a time and in a manner that will give that protection to life and property which they are designed to afford; and God has himself recognized this fact by ordaining civil government among men; but we have not the slightest intimation in the Scriptures that it is proper for human governments to legislate upon religious questions. Of the powers of civil rulers the apostle Paul says:—

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God." " Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Rom. 13 :1, 5-7.

But it may be urged that in this the apostle condemns the action of Peter and John (Acts 4 :19, 20), who when commanded by the officers not to speak any more in the name of Jesus answered: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." This would indeed be in conflict "with the text before quoted if both were upon the same subject; but they are not; Paul is treating of obedience in civil affairs, and the utterances of Peter and John have to do entirely with matters of religion.

The law of which Paul was speaking was, as appears from Rom. 13 : 9, that part of the decalogue which defines our duty to our fellowmen; and to it he says that we "must needs be subject, not only for, wrath, but also for conscience' sake." This law, says the apostle, as said also the Saviour, " is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself;" and he adds, " Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." That is, he who loves his neighbor will deal justly with him in all things; while he who will not do this from love must do it through fear of magistrates.

And Peter and John were not alone in teaching that civil rulers have no proper jurisdiction in matters of religious duty, for Paul himself says: " Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Rom. 14 :10-12.

Thus does the apostle make a plain distinction between social or civil affairs and religious duties; and in this he only follows the example of Christ, who when asked, " Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" answered, " Shew me the tribute money." "And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith; unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then Saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Ceasar the things which are Caesar's; and unto; God the things that are God's."

The trouble with some people is that by making civil rulers the conservators of religion, they claim for Caesar the things that belong to God, and thus make their ordination confer upon them powers that neither Christ nor the apostles ever recognized, and which they most explicitly disavowed. But if it were true that God has clothed civil governments with authority to define, decree, and enforce religion, then it would also be true that all who oppose them in the exercise of his God-given power resist the ordinance of God, " and they that resist" the powers that are ordained of God, says the apostle, " shall receive to themselves damnation."

But for reasons already stated, wo know that this ordination must be confined to a just administration of civil affairs; for if we allow that it, extends to matters of religion, either of faith or practice, wo are led to such absurd and revolting conclusions as that all the so called martyrs, instead of being saints of God, unjustly condemned by wicked men, were in fact Criminals worthy of death; and that that which they suffered was only the wrath of God visited upon them by his divinely-appointed agents—the minions of the Inquisition !!

But this is not all. -If by any means it were made to appear that the State is divinely authorized to exact any recognition of God, or to require a single act of worship to him, then it would necessarily follow that it could in like manner prescribe not only the practice but also the faith of all its subjects. And if any government had divine authority to do this, all would have; hence while Protestantism in one or other of its forms might bo the God ordained religion of this country, Roman Catholicism would be the equally God-ordained religion of some of the countries of Europe. And worse yet, if possible, in countries having heathen rulers it would be the bound on duty of every citizen to be a worshiper of idols! Such are some of the absurdities which adhere naturally to the National Reform idea that civil rulers are ordained of God as establishers and conservators of religion.

C. P. BOMMAN.