America: Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death Part 2
Going Back to Vomit
In the last article, we looked at two systems—the Papal system and the Republican system of the United States of America. Both of these systems are directly opposed to each other and can never be in harmony. However, the Bible testimony informs us that America, as a nation, will be in favor to the papacy, for it says in Revelation 13, that he causeth all the world to worship the first beast before him. The only way in which these two powers of the earth can ever be in harmony is by removal of the principle that causes their disunity, namely, the constitution of the United States. With this safeguard removed, there is nothing in the way of Satan, through his agents——the papacy and protestantism, to bring back upon the world the despotism which was acted out in the Old World.
In this article, we will look at the history of America, from its beginning with the mindset of the reformers who came to America in search of a new land where they can worship God to the dictates of their own conscience, and move down through time and see the USA slowly making her way back to her vomit.
Pro 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
There is a very important principle in the Bible that must be implemented to understand why points are raised in this article and conclusions that we will come to in this article. This principle is the Lord declaring the end from the beginning. This is a simple rule but must be used in Bible prophecy for the student of prophecy to understand the times to come, and be fitted to stand in those times.
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
We have this admonition from the Lord that we are to remember the former things of old. If this is not carried out in our religious experience, we will fail. However, even more than that, the Lord in these two verses sets forth that it is an attribute of divinity to remember the former things of old for the purpose of declaring the end from the beginning. That being said, that which the Lord reveals to us from history and teaches us from history the things that are to come, we are in actuality coming into contact with His divine nature. However, we must walk in that light and continue in His word to be an everlasting partaker of that divine nature.
Now, with this understood, we will apply this rule to the United States of America. Therefore, to understand the latter end of America, we must understand the beginning of America, for, the Lord declares the end from the beginning.
The key points of papal supremacy are the reasons why the pilgrims fled to make a government free from those ideas.
Points of Papal Supremacy:
Rule over the kings
Rule over the church
Churches have to be one
Enforcement of Doctrine
Bible locked up in an unknown tongue, and hidden away from the people
The Constitution of the United States is the only guard against the above points of Rome, and the most important amendment of the Constitution is the first amendment.
The Cornerstone of America
CORNER-STONE, noun The stone which lies at the corner of two walls, and unites them; the principal stone, and especially the stone which forms the corner of the foundation of an edifice.
A cornerstone is there to unite and hold up a building, it is corner of a foundation. Without this, pivotal structural piece, the whole structure would fall. So, it is with the constitution of the United States of America. If this “cornerstone” is taken away, the United States would fall.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens. — https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/constitution#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20is%20the%20supreme,land%20in%20the%20United%20States.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment is widely considered to be the most important part of the Bill of Rights. It protects the fundamental rights of conscience—the freedom to believe and express different ideas—in a variety of ways. Under the First Amendment, Americans have both the right to exercise their religion as well as to be free from government coercion to support religion. In addition, freedoms of speech, press, and petition make democratic self-government possible by promoting the open exchange of information and ideas. Unpopular ideas are especially protected by the First Amendment because popular ideas already have support among the people. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “freedom for the thought that we hate” is important to the discovery of truth, because sometimes viewpoints change. According to Holmes, the way to oppose thoughts with which we disagree is not to ban them, but to speak up for what we believe. In this way, truth has an opportunity to compete in the “marketplace of ideas.” — https://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/first-and-second-amendments/
On August 15, the House considered a version of the amendment that read: “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”18 Debate revealed differences of opinion on what such an amendment should accomplish, but some Members expressed concern that the amendment would unduly prohibit government support for religion—even by the states—and thereby abolish religion altogether.19 Two days later, the House considered the amendment providing that “no State shall infringe the equal rights of conscience,” along with other rights.20 Madison “conceived this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole list,” again arguing it was necessary to prevent both state and federal governments from infringing “these essential rights.”21 Ultimately, the version passed by the House on August 24 read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”22 The House also passed the amendment providing that “[n]o state shall infringe . . . the rights of conscience.”23 — https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-2-7/ALDE_00013274/
The leaders and people of America understand and realize that the constitution is the bulwark of America, and most of all, the first amendment. The seven principles in the first amendment are the very principles that will be discarded and repudiated in America. This is what should be the spirit of America always.
We see in America now that these rights are being taken away slowly but surely. The 1980s was fraught with the threat of communism, “the red scare”, and all culminating in the year 1989, fought against American’s rights to freely speak and choose a system of government that they think is right was attacked. Now, we, in no shape or form, are advocating for or against any political party or system, but highlighting the breaking down of American system. In the year of the September 11th attacks and onward, Americans right to privacy were under attack with phone companies sending phone records to the NSA, also, the right to express views concerning the attacks, war, and everything connected to it was limited and repressed. In 2015, citizen’s rights to practice their religion according to the conscience was repressed when a bakery owner did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and in 2020, with the COVID pandemic the rights of American citizens were repressed again. Any speech relating to a disapproval of vaccines and mandates made by the state were demonized and ridiculed. Also, churches were shut down. Many people could not practice their faith according to the dictates of their conscience. These are all signs that the American system is going down, why? Because of a moving away from the supreme law of the land, the constitution of the United States of America.
Let us look at more of the history of America and see the two ideologies that were in the nation who recently left bondage under the rule of the Papal Rome.
The English Reformers, while renouncing the doctrines of Romanism, had retained many of its forms. Thus though the authority and the creed of Rome were rejected, not a few of her customs and ceremonies were incorporated into the worship of the Church of England. It was claimed that these things were not matters of conscience; that though they were not commanded in Scripture, and hence were nonessential, yet not being forbidden, they were not intrinsically evil. Their observance tended to narrow the gulf which separated the reformed churches from Rome, and it was urged that they would promote the acceptance of the Protestant faith by Romanists. {GC 289.1}
To the conservative and compromising, these arguments seemed conclusive. But there was another class that did not so judge. The fact that these customs “tended to bridge over the chasm between Rome and the Reformation” (Martyn, volume 5, page 22), was in their view a conclusive argument against retaining them. They looked upon them as badges of the slavery from which they had been delivered and to which they had no disposition to return. They reasoned that God has in His word established the regulations governing His worship, and that men are not at liberty to add to these or to detract from them. The very beginning of the great apostasy was in seeking to supplement the authority of God by that of the church. Rome began by enjoining what God had not forbidden, and she ended by forbidding what He had explicitly enjoined. {GC 289.2}
From the very outset of America, there were two ideologies, when they just so recently came out of slavery. So, it was with Israel when they came out of slavery with Egypt. One class holds to some of the “badges of slavery”, while others reject any vestige of it, realizing that, if any principle is retained, of their slavery, it would bring back the same system in which they fled from.
How the great apostasy began with Papal Rome was the church of Rome seeking to supplement the authority of God by that of the church and enjoining what God had not forbidden, meaning, directing and forcing something that God had not forbidden and ended by forbidden that which He had enjoined. They had broken the rule: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” They put asunder the rules of God and became a lawless tyrant. This is the same course in which the Protestant churches in America, and to force her dogmas, she must employ the state.
It was the desire for liberty of conscience that inspired the Pilgrims to brave the perils of the long journey across the sea, to endure the hardships and dangers of the wilderness, and with God’s blessing to lay, on the shores of America, the foundation of a mighty nation. Yet honest and God-fearing as they were, the Pilgrims did not yet comprehend the great principle of religious liberty. The freedom which they sacrificed so much to secure for themselves, they were not equally ready to grant to others. “Very few, even of the foremost thinkers and moralists of the seventeenth century, had any just conception of that grand principle, the outgrowth of the New Testament, which acknowledges God as the sole judge of human faith.”—Ibid. 5:297. The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy, is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors. While the Reformers rejected the creed of Rome, they were not entirely free from her spirit of intolerance. The dense darkness in which, through the long ages of her rule, popery had enveloped all Christendom, had not even yet been wholly dissipated. Said one of the leading ministers in the colony of Massachusetts Bay: “It was toleration that made the world antichristian; and the church never took harm by the punishment of heretics.”—Ibid., vol. 5, p. 335. The regulation was adopted by the colonists that only church members should have a voice in the civil government. A kind of state church was formed, all the people being required to contribute to the support of the clergy, and the magistrates being authorized to suppress heresy. Thus the secular power was in the hands of the church. It was not long before these measures led to the inevitable result—persecution. {GC 292.3}
Eleven years after the planting of the first colony, Roger Williams came to the New World. Like the early Pilgrims he came to enjoy religious freedom; but, unlike them, he saw—what so few in his time had yet seen—that this freedom was the inalienable right of all, whatever might be their creed. He was an earnest seeker for truth, with Robinson holding it impossible that all the light from God’s word had yet been received. Williams “was the first person in modern Christendom to establish civil government on the doctrine of the liberty of conscience, the equality of opinions before the law.”—Bancroft, pt. 1, ch. 15, par. 16. He declared it to be the duty of the magistrate to restrain crime, but never to control the conscience. “The public or the magistrates may decide,” he said, “what is due from man to man; but when they attempt to prescribe a man’s duties to God, they are out of place, and there can be no safety; for it is clear that if the magistrate has the power, he may decree one set of opinions or beliefs today and another tomorrow; as has been done in England by different kings and queens, and by different popes and councils in the Roman Church; so that belief would become a heap of confusion.”—Martyn, vol. 5, p. 340. {GC 293.1}
Making his way at last, after months of change and wandering, to the shores of Narragansett Bay, he there laid the foundation of the first state of modern times that in the fullest sense recognized the right of religious freedom. The fundamental principle of Roger Williams’s colony was “that every man should have liberty to worship God according to the light of his own conscience.”—Ibid., vol. 5, p. 354. His little state, Rhode Island, became the asylum of the oppressed, and it increased and prospered until its foundation principles—civil and religious liberty—became the cornerstones of the American Republic. {GC 295.1}
In that grand old document which our forefathers set forth as their bill of rights—the Declaration of Independence—they declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And the Constitution guarantees, in the most explicit terms, the inviolability of conscience: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” {GC 295.2}
“The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man’s relation with his God is above human legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our own bosoms. It is this consciousness which, in defiance of human laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and flames. They felt that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn principle which nothing can eradicate.”—Congressional documents (U.S.A.), serial No. 200, document No. 271. {GC 295.3}
The regulation adopted by the early colonists, of permitting only members of the church to vote or to hold office in the civil government, led to most pernicious results. This measure had been accepted as a means of preserving the purity of the state, but it resulted in the corruption of the church. A profession of religion being the condition of suffrage and officeholding, many, actuated solely by motives of worldly policy, united with the church without a change of heart. Thus the churches came to consist, to a considerable extent, of unconverted persons; and even in the ministry were those who not only held errors of doctrine, but who were ignorant of the renewing power of the Holy Spirit. Thus again was demonstrated the evil results, so often witnessed in the history of the church from the days of Constantine to the present, of attempting to build up the church by the aid of the state, of appealing to the secular power in support of the gospel of Him who declared: “My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36. The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world. {GC 297.1}
There is a rule that must be understood by every Bible student, and it is, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done… Isa 46:10. This principle holds for all time. Therefore, when this rule is applied to America, when we look at the beginning of America, it will tell us the end of America. For, all the nations of the past, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Pagan and Papal Rome all fell in the way they were set up.
Spanish American War
And when thus stands her power and her influence at the very outset, in the very nature of things her power in these things will grow as these troubles grow upon the government, and when from it all there is developed the inevitable one-man power, there will she be close beside him, the same perpetual Papacy. This is not to say that the Papacy herself will be the one-man power. It is only to say that she will be the inspiration and the directing voice of that which, apart from her personally, will be the one-man power. OMP 12.2
The Papacy will be the inspiration, the guiding voice, the “puller of the strings”, but the one who will personally be the “face” and “actor in the show” are the Protestants, see SpM 1.4-2.1 from Ellen G. White. The protestants are the daughters of the Papacy, they came out from her rule and kept her doctrines — Sunday Sacredness and immortality of the soul. This is what makes them the Papacy’s daughter.
Yet this power and influence which she has gained and will hold in connection with the strikes, combines, and complications is only a part of the true standing of the Papacy in connection with the United States Government of to-day. OMP 12.3
The opening of the Spanish-American War presented to the Papacy a grand opportunity, which she instantly seized, and which she has been working to the utmost at every stage of proceedings since. The entanglement of the question of the friars in the Philippines she so worked as to draw the national government one official communication with the papal government in Rome. She secured a commission from the United States Government to be sent to Rome to deal with the Papacy on her own ground in the Vatican. This commission consisted of three persons,—Governor Taft, of the Philippine Islands; Bishop O’Gorman, of the Catholic Church; and Attorney James F. Smith, a Roman Catholic and associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. That is to say, the United States Government and the Papacy are two parties to a controversy or negotiation. The United States Government sends a commission of three to represent the United States, and two of the three are themselves Papists. This, then, was nothing else than another instance in which the Papacy is professedly dealing for the United States Government simply deals with herself. For is there anybody in the world so obtuse as not to be able to dis- cern that the papal two-thirds of that commission sent to deal with the Papacy would inevitably work for the interests of the Papacy first of all? that they would represent the Papacy instead of the United State? OMP 13.1
This two-thirds papal commission went duly to Rome, and entered upon negotiations with the Papacy; with the result that the question in controversy was relegated to Manila as the place of the further consideration of it, and Governor Taft and the papal apostolic delegate, Mgr. Guido, as the persons to conduct the further negotiations, with “the Philippine Government expressly recognizing the official character of Mgr. Guido, and has pledged itself, over Mr. Taft’s signature, to treat with him as a duly-accredited representative of the Holy See.” And this is but the recognition of the papal government by the United States Government in her Philippine possessions and jurisdiction. OMP 14.1
In the negotiations Governor Taft proposed four articles as a basis of procedure and settlement. One of these articles proposed a tribunal of arbitration composed of five members, two to be appointed by the pope, two by the Philippine Government, and the fifth to be chosen by “an indifferent person, like the governor-general of India.” By the Papacy these four articles were expanded to twelve; and this particular one was so changed as to have that arbitration board composed thus: “Two shall be named by the Holy See, two by the Philippine Government, and the fifth by the common accord of the same four; and if such accord can not be reached, his holiness the pope and the President of the United States shall come to an understanding as to the choice of said fifth member.” Negotiations were at this point abruptly broken off, so that the matter went no further. But this one item shows plainly enough how ready is the Papacy to set traps by which she shall involve the United States Government in such a way that it shall be caused to work hand in hand with the Papacy in behalf of the Papacy. If that proposition had been accepted, can anybody believe that the four would ever have agreed upon the fifth members, when the alternative was that the pope and the President of the United States should work together in the matter, thus becoming a union of the United States and the Papacy. OMP 14.2
Here we see in the late 1890s, the United States working with the Papacy to deal in geopolitical issues. This is how it has been from the beginning of the USA. Religion has always had a part to play in the United States. From the outset of the establishment of this nation, when only church members should have a voice in civil government to the latter end of the 1800s where the papacy is working with the officials of America to decide the fate of a foreign nation. If we reason this from cause to effect, we can reason that the same steps and planning that the papacy and America did for foreign nations, will be used to plan for America itself to have America in the hands of the Papacy. That America will be employed for her own ends, as it was in the 1890s.
1888 Blair Bill
As was stated above, the Protestant churches have upon themselves the brand of “the daughters of Babylon”. Any sect, denomination, or group that hold to these two great errors — Sunday sacredness and immortality of the soul have taken upon themselves that brand. Many religions in the world hold to immortality of the soul. The pagans of Hawaii, the native Americans, and the Shintoists of Japan all hold to immortality of the soul. This alone does not make them a daughter of Babylon, for they do not regard Sunday, however, this does not put them in any better favor with the Lord, but the Protestant and Catholic churches alone hold to these two doctrines. Catholicism established it and Protestants will finish the work in which her mother has begun. Keeping Sunday as a holy day that has been, professedly, established by Jesus, is in actuality giving homage to an institution of the papacy.
Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience. {GC 588.1}
In the United States, from its inception, many, if not all people, were protestants, but as we have seen earlier that many of the protestants did not understand liberty of conscience as brought forth in the Scriptures. This same issue reemerged in the late 1880s when Senator Henry Blair of New Hampshire made a bill to institute Sunday Rest. This bill, A. T. Jones spoke up against, in defense of the Bible and the principles of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Here is the bill:
* To see clearly, please zoom in. Below is the whole bill transcribed. TO STOP WORK ON SUNDAY.
SENATOR BLAIR WANTS THE LORD'S DAY
STRICTLY OBSERVED.
WASHINGTON, May 21.-A bill entitled
" A bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord's day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship," was introduced by Senator Blair today. It provides that no person or corporation shall perform or authorize to be performed any secular work, labor, or business to the disturbance of others--works of necessity, mercy, and humanity excepted--nor shall any person engage in any play, game, amusement, or recreation to the disturbance of others, on the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord's day, in any place, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It is made unlawful for any person or corporation to receive pay for labor or service rendered in violation of this provision.
Section 2 reads:
“No mails shall hereafter be transported in time of peace over any land postal route, nor shall any mail matter be collected, assorted, handled, or delivered during the first day of the week; provided that whenever any letter shall relate to a work of necessity or mercy, or shall concern the health, life, or decease of any person, and that the fact shall be plainly stated upon the face of the envelope, the Postmaster-General shall provide for the transportation of such letters in packages separate from other mail matter, and shall make regulations for the delivery thereof, the same having been received at its place of destination before the first day of the week, during such limited section of the day as shall best suit the public convenience and least interfere with the due observance of the day as one of worship and rest, and provided further, that when there shall have been an interruption in the due and regular transmission of the mails it shall be lawful to so far examine the same when delivered as to ascertain it there be such matter therein for lawful delivery on the first day of the week."
Section 3 declares to be unlawful the prosecution of commerce between the States and Indian tribes on Sunday, and provides that all persons violating the provision shall be liable to a fine of from $10 to $1,000.
Section 4 prohibits all military and naval drills and parades in time of peace, except assemblies for religious worship of persons in the military service of the United States on the Lord's day. An additional section provides that labor or service rendered on the first day of the week in consequence of accident, disaster, or unavoidable delays in making the regular communication upon postal and transportation routes, the preservation of perishable or exposed property, and the regular and necessary transportation and delivery of articles of food in condition for healthy use, and such transportation for short distances from one State into another as by local laws shall be declared to be necessary for the public good shall not be deemed violations of the act, but shall be construed so far as possible to secure to the whole people rest from toil during the first day of the week. Senator Blair said that numerous petitions asking legislation of this character had been received, and that he introduced the bill in order to form a basis for any action which it might be desired to take.
The New York Times
Published: May 22, 1888
Copyright © The New York Times
The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error. {Lt 211, 1903, par. 2}
The bill from Senator Blair resembles many correct principles from Bible in reference to the Sabbath of the Lord, however, this bill is the speaking of the dragon. It comes from a mouth “speaking great things” thinking to “change times and laws”. The Bible lets us know that we are not to marvel for Satan and his agents will be transformed into angels of light, wolves in sheep’s clothing. As we have read previously, anytime the church has the state to promote its dogmas, the inevitable result will be persecution, and herein this bill, persecution is already presented, by the means of fining. Jesus Christ has always set before the world the separation of church and state. The things that be of Caesar, are rightfully his and the things that are God’s are rightfully His, and these are never to be transposed or misconstrued.
Below are some quotes of the meeting that A.T. Jones and Senator Henry Blair had, upon the Sunday-rest bill issue. If you want to read this discourse in its entirety, go to the reference “NSLRLL” on the EGW writings website or the EGW2 app.
Mr. Jones.—But the people, I care not how many there are, have no right to invade your relationship to God, nor mine. That rests between the individual and God, through faith in Jesus Christ; and as the Saviour has made this distinction between that which pertains to Cesar and that which is God’s, when Cesar exacts of men that which pertains to God, then Cesar is out of his place, and in so far as Cesar is obeyed there, God is denied. When Cesar—civil government—exacts of men that which is God’s, he demands what does not belong to him; in so doing Cesar usurps the place and the prerogative of God, and every man who regards God or his own rights before God, will disregard all such interference on the part of Cesar. NSLRLL 16.4
This argument is confirmed by the apostle’s commentary upon Christ’s words. In Romans 13:1-9, is written:— NSLRLL 16.5
“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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 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. 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.” NSLRLL 16.6
It is easy to see that this scripture is but an exposition of Christ’s words, “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar ‘s.” In the Saviour’s command to render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar ‘s, there is plainly a recognition of the rightfulness of civil government, and that civil government has claims upon us which we are in duty bound to recognize, and that there are things which duty requires us to render to the civil government. This scripture in Romans 13 simply states the same thing in other words: “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.” NSLRLL 17.1
Again: the Saviour’s words were in answer to a question concerning tribute. They said to him, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not?” Romans 13:6 refers to the same thing, saying, “For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” In answer to the question of the Pharisees about the tribute, Christ said, “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar ‘s.” Romans 13:7, taking up the same thought, says, “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” These references make positive that which we have stated,—that this portion of Scripture (Romans 13:1-9) is a divine commentary upon the words of Christ in Matthew 22:17-21. NSLRLL 17.2
The passage refers first to civil government, the higher powers,—the powers that be. Next it speaks of rulers, as bearing the sword and attending upon matters of tribute. Then it commands to render tribute to whom tribute is due, and says, “Owe no man any thing; but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” Then he refers to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments, and says, “It there by any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” NSLRLL 18.1
There are other commandments of this same law to which Paul refers. There are the four commandments of the first table of the law,—the commandments which say, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me;” “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or nay likeness of any thing;” “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;” “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Then there is the other commandment in which are briefly comprehended all these, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” NSLRLL 18.2
Paul knew full well these commandments. Why, then, did he say, “If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”?—Because he was writing concerning the principles set forth by the Saviour, which relate to our duties to civil government. NSLRLL 18.3
Our duties under civil government pertain solely to the government and to our fellowmen, because the powers of civil government pertain solely to men in their relations one to another, and to the government. But the Saviour’s words in the same connection entirely separated that which pertains to God from that which pertains to civil government. The things which pertain to God are not to be rendered to civil government—to the powers that be; therefore Paul, although knowing full well that there were other commandments, said, “If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;” that is, if there be any other commandment which comes into the relation between man and civil government, it is comprehended in this saying, that he shall love his neighbor as himself; thus showing conclusively that the powers that be, though ordained of God, are so ordained simply in things pertaining to the relation of man with his fellow-men, and in those things alone. NSLRLL 19.1
Further: as in this divine record of the duties that men owe to the powers that be, there is no reference whatever to the first table of the law, it therefore follows that the powers that be, although ordained of God, have nothing whatever to do with the relations which men bear toward God. NSLRLL 19.2
As the ten commandments contain the whole duty of man, and as in the enumeration here given of the duties that men owe to the powers that be, there is no mention of any of the things contained in the first table of the law, it follows that none of the duties enjoined in the first table of the law of God, do men owe to the powers that be; that is to say, again, that the powers that be, although ordained of God, are not ordained of God in anything pertaining to a single duty enjoined in any one of the first four of the ten commandments. These are duties that men owe to God, and with those the powers that be can of right have nothing to do, because Christ has commanded to render unto God—not to Cesar, nor by Cesar—that which is God’s. Therefore, as in his comment upon the principle which Christ established, Paul has left out of the account the first four commandments, so we deny, forever, the right of any civil government to legislate in anything that pertains to men’s duty to God under the first four commandments. This Sunday bill does propose to legislate in regard to the Lord’s day. If it is the Lord’s day, we are to render it to the Lord, not to Cesar. When Cesar exacts it of us, he is exacting what does not belong to him, and is demanding of us that with which he should have nothing to do. NSLRLL 19.3
Senator Blair.—Would it answer your objection in that regard, if, instead of saying “the Lord’s day”, we should say, “Sunday”? {NSLS18 20.1}
Mr. Jones.—No, sir, Because the underlying principle, the sole basis, of Sunday, is ecclesiastical, and legislation in regard to it is ecclesiastical legislation. I shall come more fully to the question you ask, presently. {NSLS18 20.2}
Now do not misunderstand us on this point. We are Seventh-day Adventists; but if this bill were in favor of enforcing the observance of the seventh day as the Lord’s day, we would oppose it just as much as we oppose it as it is now, for the reason that civil government has nothing to do with what we owe to God, or whether we owe anything or not, or whether we pay it or not. {NSLS18 20.3}
Allow me again to refer to the words of Christ to emphasize this point. At that time the question was upon the subject of tribute, whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not. In answering the question, Christ established this principle: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” That tribute money was Caesar’s; it bore his image and superscription; it was to be rendered to him. Now, it is a question of rendering Sabbath observance, and it is a perfectly legitimate and indeed a necessary question to ask right here: Is it lawful to render Lord’s day observance to Caesar? The reply may be in His own words: Show me the Lord’s day; whose image and superscription does it bear?—The Lord’s, to be sure. This very bill which is under discussion here to-day declares it to be the Lord’s day. Then the words of Christ apply to this. Bearing the image and superscription of the Lord, Render therefore to the Lord the things that are the Lord’s, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. It does not bear the image and superscription of Caesar; it does not belong to him; it is not to be rendered to him. {NSLS18 20.4}
Again: take the institution under the word Sabbath: Is it lawful to render Sabbath observance to Caesar or not? Show us the Sabbath; whose image and superscription does it bear? The commandment of God says, it “is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” It bears his image and superscription, and his only; it belongs wholly to him; Caesar can have nothing to do with it. It does not belong to Caesar; its observance cannot be rendered to Caesar, but only to God; for the commandment is, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” If it is not kept holy, it is not kept at all. Therefore, belonging to God, bearing his superscription, and not that of Caesar, according to Christ’s commandment, it is to be rendered only to God; because we are to render to God that which is God’s, and the Sabbath is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Sabbath observance, therefore, or Lord’s day observance, whichever you may choose to call it, never can be rendered to Caesar. And Caesar never can demand it without demanding that which belongs to God, or without putting himself in the place of God, and usurping the prerogative of God. {NSLS18 21.1}
Therefore, we say that if this bill were framed in behalf of the real Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, the day which we observe; if this bill proposed to promote its observance, or to compel men to do no work upon that day we would oppose it just as strongly as we oppose it now, and I would stand here at this table and argue precisely as I am arguing against this, and upon the same principle,—the principle established by Jesus Christ,—that with that which is God’s the civil government never can of right have anything to do. That duty rests solely between man and God; and if any man does not render it to God, he is responsible only to God, and not to any man, nor to any assembly or organization of men, for his failure or refusal to render it to God; and any power that undertakes to punish that man for his failure or refusal to render to God what is God’s, puts itself in the place of God. Any government which attempts it, sets itself against the word of Christ, and is therefore antichristian. This Sunday bill proposes to have this Government do just that thing, and therefore I say, without any reflection upon the author of the bill, this national Sunday bill which is under discussion here to-day is antichristian. But in saying this I am not singling out this contemplated law as worse than all other Sunday laws in the world. There never was a Sunday law that was not antichristian. and there never can be one that will not be antichristian. {NSLS18 22.1}
Brother Jones makes it clear that any law pertaining to the duties of man to His God are not in the realm of the civil government, therefore, they cannot, without impunity, frame any piece of legislation in favor of any religion. This history is fraught with many lessons that the student of prophecy must heed, for, this very bill will be reproduced in our day. “Old controversies will be revived”. We will see the repeat of this very law, adapted to our day, when the civil Sunday law will be passed nationally in the United States of America.
Nebuchadnezzar, in Daniel 3, went about doing the very same as Senator Blair did in 1888, but with prompting the true Sabbath of the Lord, however, it was just as pernicious in its effect, for the principle was the same.
Dan 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
Dan 3:29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.
Dan 3:30 Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the province of Babylon.
The experiences of that day led Nebuchadnezzar to issue a decree, “that every people, nation, and language, which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill.” “There is no other god,” he urged as the reason for the decree, “that can deliver after this sort.” {PK 510.2}
In these and like words the king of Babylon endeavored to spread abroad before all the peoples of earth his conviction that the power and authority of the God of the Hebrews was worthy of supreme adoration. And God was pleased with the effort of the king to show Him reverence, and to make the royal confession of allegiance as widespread as was the Babylonian realm. {PK 510.3}
It was right for the king to make public confession, and to seek to exalt the God of heaven above all other gods; but in endeavoring to force his subjects to make a similar confession of faith and to show similar reverence, Nebuchadnezzar was exceeding his right as a temporal sovereign. He had no more right, either civil or moral, to threaten men with death for not worshiping God, than he had to make the decree consigning to the flames all who refused to worship the golden image. God never compels the obedience of man. He leaves all free to choose whom they will serve. {PK 510.4}
It is always right to make a public confession of Jesus Christ but to compel men is not the order of God.
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
With this principle in mind, and EGW telling us, that “Old controversies will be revived. New controversies will arise.” We can know for certainty, that the principles of the Blair Bill will be revived in the USA. Also, the same scheming by the Papal power to secure men who are advocates of her and her principles in the government, so that her ends can be meant, to the detriment of all mankind. Lastly, the same spirit that actuated statesmen in the 1700s to frame laws where only those who are of a certain faith can hold office. All these principles undermine the republic of the United States, and they are not dead at all, but rather strengthening for the last great struggle, the national Sunday law.
