At Worms assembled the Diet to which the place owes its fame, for it was there that Luther put to confusion the representatives of both Church and State; while, in Wartburg Castle the reformer subsequently found temporary asylum from his enemies.AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.2

“A real reformation,” says D’Aubigne, “prepared during many ages, is the work of the Spirit of God. Before the appointed hour, the greatest geniuses and even the most faithful of God’s servants cannot produce it; but when the reforming time is come, when it is God’s pleasure to renovate the affairs of the world, ... then if men are silent, the very stones will cry out.” ^{1“History of the Reformation,” Book XIII, chap. I.}AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.3

All was ready when Luther came upon the stage of action. “God who prepares his work through ages, accomplishes it by the weakest instruments when his time is come.” The reformer was only a poor monk, but “he came in the fullness of time,” writes Professor Harnack, “when the rule of the Roman Church, which had hitherto educated the peoples, had become a tyranny, when States and nations were beginning to throw off an ecclesiastical yoke and independently to organize themselves in accordance with their own laws.”AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.4

“He came in the fullness of time—when laymen were no longer satisfied with priest and sacrament, but were seeking God himself, and were feeling the personal responsibility of their own souls.”AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.5

The Reformation was not the work, however, of Luther and his co-laborers; they were only instruments in God’s hands. In the life of the true reformer we see only the reflected glory of the Creator working out his eternal purpose. “Luther was great only in the rediscovered knowledge of God in the gospels.” He himself said: “I put forward God’s word; ... this was all I did. And yet while I was asleep ... the word that I had preached overthrew popery, so that neither prince nor emperor has done it so much harm. And yet I did nothing: the word alone did all.” ^{2Id., Book IX., chap. VIII.}AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.6

“The Reformation was accomplished,” says the historian, “in the name of a spiritual principle.” It “rejected all worldly elements.” And only so long as this was true did it continue to be reformation. “Every revolution,” says D’Aubigne, “should be accomplished in the mind before it is carried out externally.” It was so with Luther; the Reformation began in his own heart. Seeking freedom from the bondage of sin and finding it not in external ordinances, but only in the promise of God: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” Luther began to minister to others the comfort wherewith he himself had been comforted. It was with no ambitious purpose that Luther assailed the doctrines of the Papacy; he desired only to give to his fellowmen the gospel which priestcraft had taken from them. His purpose was not the destruction of the Papacy, but the salvation of souls.AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.7

Realizing that individual responsibility to God necessarily meant freedom to obey, Luther denied the right alike of Church and State to trammel his conscience. And this denial was fraught with far-reaching consequences to both civil and ecclesiastical systems.AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.8

“An obscure individual, bearing in his hand the word of Life, had stood firm before the mighty ones of the world, and they had shaken before him. He had wielded this arm of the word of God, first against Tetzel and his numerous army; and those greedy merchants, after a brief struggle, had fled away: he next employed it against the Roman legate at Augsburg; and the legate in amazement had allowed the prey to escape him: somewhat later with its aid he contended against the champions of learning in the halls of Leipsic; and the astonished theologians had beheld their syllogistic weapons shivered in their hands; and, lastly, with this single arm, he had opposed the Pope, when the latter, disturbed in his slumbers, had risen on his throne to blast the unfortunate monk with his thunders; and this same word had paralyzed all the power of this head of Christendom. A final struggle remained to be undergone. The word was destined to triumph over the emperor of the West, over the kings and princes of the earth; and then, victorious over all the powers of the world, to uprise in the Church, and reign as the very word of God.” ^{3Id., Book VII, chap. I.}AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.9

The ordeal was severe, but the reformer stood, not in the strength of men, but in the power of God. To one who asked him, “How can you hope to succeed?” Luther answered, “I trust in God Almighty, whose word and commandment I have before me.” The forces of a mighty empire were arrayed against him, but he faltered not, and when in the presence of the assembled Diet, he was required to give a direct answer to the demand of the Emperor that he retract his writings, the reformer said:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.10

I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the Councils, because it is as clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless, therefore, I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning; unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me. Amen.AMS April 16, 1896, page 121.11

Never before had the old city of Worms been stirred by such words. The most important declaration of independence since that of the apostles: “We ought to obey God rather than men,” had been given to the world. The Protest of the Princes at Spires five years later was simply the response of German manhood to the reformer’s declaration of the individual’s duty to God and of his consequent right to pay his highest allegiance to him only.AMS April 16, 1896, page 122.1

Rome was baffled! She had demanded unqualified submission only to hear her authority boldly challenged. The power of conscience was declared to be above the civil magistrate, and the word of God above the visible church.AMS April 16, 1896, page 122.2

“The sword of the Spirit which is the word of God” had been unsheathed against an apostate church, and though she might take the life of the warrior who thus wielded it, she could not destroy the weapon which had power in itself to continue the warfare; nor could she again fetter the human mind enlightened with divine wisdom. The word of God once locked in dead languages and chained to convent walls was not to be unfettered that it might accomplish in other minds and hearts the revolution it had wrought in Luther’s bosom. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.”AMS April 16, 1896, page 122.3

“He is a freeman, whom the truth makes free,
And all are slaves beside. There’s not a chain,
That hellish foes, confederate for his harm,
Can wind around him, but he casts it off
With as much ease as Sampson his green withes.” ^4Cowper.AMS April 16, 1896, page 122.4

The Wartburg

From Worms Luther went to the Wartburg, not indeed by his own volition, but nevertheless providentially. May 25, 1521, he was placed under the ban of the empire. But his safe conduct protected him. The next day he left Worms as though to return to Wittenburg. On his journey he was seized by his friends and was carried to the Wartburg, a castle near Eisenach, where he remained until March of the following year.AMS April 16, 1896, page 122.5

But the Reformer was not idle in his retirement. “Luther’s residence at the Wartburg,” remarks, Dr. Schaff, “marks the second period of his reformatory activity.” For a time his enemies thought him dead, but they were soon undeceived. It was in the Wartburg that Luther translated the New Testament into German, which more than anything else contributed to make the Reformation permanent. Here too he wrote those tracts which so stirred Germany, and which were like barbed arrows in the sides of the Papacy. It is because of the work done within its walls for soul-liberty that the Wartburg is to-day a household word, while many more pretentious and in their day more noted castles are forgotten.AMS April 16, 1896, page 122.6

The eternal years of God belong to truth, and he who would make an everlasting name must identify himself with the incarnate “Word which liveth and abideth for ever,” for He is the embodiment of truth.AMS April 16, 1896, page 122.7

“With our own strength we naught can do,
Destruction yawns on every side:
He fights for us, our champion true,
Elect of God to be our guide.
What is his name? The anointed One,
The God of armies he; Of earth and heaven the Lord alone—
With him, on field of battle won, Abideth victory.” ^5Luther.AMS April 16, 1896, page 122.8

“What Is Due to God, and What to Cesar?” American Sentinel 11, 16, pp. 124, 125.

ATJ

IN the words, “Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,” Christ has established a clear distinction between Cesar and God,—between that which is Cesar’s and that which is God’s; that is, between the civil and the religious power, and between what we owe to the civil power and what we owe to the religious power. That which is Cesar’s is to be rendered to Cesar; that which is God’s is to be rendered to God alone. With that which is God’s, Cesar can have nothing to do. To say that we are to render to Cesar that which is God’s, is to pervert the words of Christ, and make them meaningless. Such an interpretation would be but to entangle him in his talk,—the very thing that the Pharisees sought to do.AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.1

As the word “Cesar” refers to civil government, it is apparent at once thatAMS April 16, 1896, page 124.2

The Duties Which We Owe to Cesar Are Civil Duties

while the duties which we owe to God are wholly moral or religious duties. Webster’s definition of religion is:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.3

The recognition of God as an object of worship, love, and obedience.AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.4

Another definition, equally good, is: “Man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.”AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.5

Yet again, the American definition is: “The duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it.” ^{1From Madison’s Memorial to the Virginia Legislators, 1785.}AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.6

It is evident, therefore, that religion and religious duties pertain solely to God; and as that which is God’s is to be rendered to him and not to Cesar, it follows inevitably that, according to the words of Christ, civil government can never of right have anything to do with religion,—with a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.7

What Is Morality?

Another definition which may help in making the distinction between that which pertains to God and that which pertains to our fellow-men, is that of morality, as follows:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.8

Morality: The relation of conformity or non-conformity to the true moral standard or rule.... The conformity of an act to the divine law.AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.9

As morality, therefore, is the conformity of an act to the divine law, it is plain that in this, its true sense, morality also pertains solely to God, and so is outside the legitimate sphere of civil authority. This may appear at first sight to be an extreme position, if not a false one; but it is not. It is the correct position, as we think anyone can see who will give the subject a little careful thought. The first part of the definition already given, says that morality is “the relation of conformity or nonconformity to the true moral standard or rule,” and the latter part of the definition shows that this true moral standard is the divine law. Again, moral law is defined as:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.10

The will of God, as the supreme moral ruler, concerning the character and conduct of all responsible beings; the rule of action as obligatory on the conscience or moral nature. The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai.AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.11

These definitions are according to Scripture. The Scriptures show that the ten commandments are the law of God; that they express the will of God; that they pertain to the conscience, and take cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and that obedience to these commandments is the duty that man owes to God. Says the Scripture: “Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Ecclesiastes 12:13. And the Saviour says:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.12

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [“vain fellow,” margin], shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:21, 22.AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.13

The apostle John, referring to the same thing, says: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” 1 John 3:15. Again, the Saviour says:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.14

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:27, 28.AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.15

To hate, is murder; to covet, is idolatry; to think impurely of a woman, is adultery;—these are all violations of the moral law, but no civil government seeks to punish for them. A man may hate his neighbor all his life; he may covet every thing on earth; he may think impurely of every woman he sees,— he may keep it up all his days; but so long as these things are confined to his thought, the civil power cannot touch him. It would be difficult to conceive of a more immoral person than such a man would be; yet the State cannot punish him. It does not attempt to punish him. This demonstrates again that with morality or immorality the State can have nothing to do.AMS April 16, 1896, page 124.16

The State Punishes Incivility

But let us carry this further. Only let that man’s hatred lead him, either by word or sign, to attempt an injury to his neighbor, and the State will punish him; only let his covetousness lead him to lay hands on what is not his own, in an attempt to steal, and the State will punish him; only let his impure thought lead him to attempt violence to any woman, and the State will punish him. Yet bear in mind that even then the State does not punish him for his immorality, but for his incivility. The immorality lies in the heart, and can be measured by God only. The State punishes no man because he is immoral. If it did, it would have to punish as a murderer the man who hates another, because, according to the true standard of morality, hatred is murder. Therefore it is clear that in fact the State punishes no man because he is immoral, but because he is uncivil. It cannot punish immorality; it must punish incivility.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.1

This distinction is shown in the very term by which is designated State or national government; it is called civil government. No person ever thinks of calling it moral government. The government of God is the only moral government.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.2

God Is the Only Moral Governor

The law of God is the only moral law. To God alone pertains the punishment of immorality, which is the transgression of the moral law. Governors of men are civil governors, not moral. The laws of States and nations are civil laws, not moral. To the authorities of civil government pertains the punishment of incivility, that is, the transgression of civil law. It is not theirs to punish immorality. That pertains solely to the Author of the moral law and of the moral sense, who is the sole judge of man’s moral relation. All this must be manifest to every one who will think fairly upon the subject, and it is confirmed by the definition of the word “civil,” which is as follows:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.3

Civil: Pertaining to a city or State, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow-citizens, or to the State.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.4

By all these things it is made clear that we owe to Cesar (civil government) only that which is civil, and that we owe to God that which is moral or religious. Other definitions show the same thing. For instance, sin as defined by Webster is “any violation of God’s will;” and as defined by the Scriptures, “is the transgression of the law.” That the law here referred to is the moral law—the ten commandments—is shown by Romans 7:7:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.5

I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.6

Thus the Scriptures show that sin is the transgression of the law which says, “Thou shalt not covet,” and that is the moral law.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.7

But crime is an offense against the laws of the State. The definition is as follows:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.8

Crime is strictly a violation of law either human or divine; but in present usage the terms is commonly applied to actions contrary to the laws of the State.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.9

Thus civil statutes define crime, and deal with crime, but not with sin; while the divine statutes define sin, and deal with sin, but not with crime.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.10

As God is the only moral governor, as his is the only moral government, as his law is the only moral law, and as it pertains to him to punish immorality, so likewise the promotion of morality pertains to him alone. Morality is conformity to the law of God; it is obedience to God.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.11

But Obedience to God Must Spring from The Heart In Sincerity and Truth

This it must do, or it is not obedience; for, for, as we have proved by the Word of God, the law of God takes cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart. But “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” By transgression, all men have made themselves immoral. “Therefore by the deeds of the law [by obedience] there shall no flesh be justified [accounted righteous, or made moral] in his sight.” Romans 3:20. As all men have, by transgression of the law of God, made themselves immoral, therefore no man can, by obedience to the law, become moral, because it is that very law which declares him to be immoral.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.12

If ever men shall be made moral, it must be by the Author of all morality. And this is just the provision which God has made. For, “now the righteousness [the morality] of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness [the morality] of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference; for all have sinned [made themselves immoral], and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:21-23. It is by the morality of Christ alone that men can be made moral. And this morality of Christ is the morality of God, which is imputed to us for Christ’s sake; and we receive it by faith in him who is both the author and finisher of faith. Then by the Spirit of God the moral law is written anew in the heart and in the mind, sanctifying the soul unto obedience—unto morality. Thus, and thus alone, can men ever attain to morality; and that morality is the morality of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.13

To God Alone Pertains the Promotion of Morality

God, then, being the sole promoter of morality, through what instrumentality does he work to promote morality in the world? What body has he made the teacher of morality in the world? the Church, or the civil power; which?—The Church, and the Church alone. It is “the Church of the living God.” It is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” It was to the Church that he said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;” “and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” It is by the church, through the preaching of Jesus Christ, that the gospel is “made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” There is no obedience but the obedience of faith; there is no morality but the morality of faith. Therefore it is proved that to the Church, and not to the State, is committed the conservation of morality in the world. This at once settles the question as to whether the State shall teach morality, or religion. The State cannot teach morality or religion. It has not the credentials for it. The Spirit of God and the gospel of Christ are both essential to the teaching of morality, and neither of these is committed to the State, but both to the Church.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.14

But though this work be committed to the church, even then there is not committed to the church the prerogative either to reward morality or to punish immorality. She beseeches, she entreats, she persuades men to be reconciled to God; she trains them in the principles and the practice of morality. It is hers by moral suasion or spiritual censures to preserve the purity and discipline of her membership. But to reward morality or to punish immorality pertains to God alone, because whether it be morality or immorality, it springs from the secret counsels of the heart; and as God alone knows the heart, he alone can measure either the merit or the guilt involved in any question of morals.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.15

The Inquisition Is In It

By this it is demonstrated that to no man, to no assembly or organization of men, does there belong any right whatever to punish immorality. Whoever attempts it, usurps the prerogative of God. The Inquisition is the inevitable logic of any claim of any assembly of men to punish immorality, because to punish immorality, it is necessary in some way to get at the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Papacy, asserting the right to compel men to be moral, and to punish them for immorality, had the cruel courage to carry the evil principle to its logical consequence. In carrying out the principle, it was found to be essential to get at the secrets of men’s hearts; and it was found that the diligent application of torture would wring from men, in many cases, a full confession of the most secret counsels of their hearts. Hence the was established as the means best adapted to secure the desired end. So long as men grant the proposition that it is within the province of civil government to enforce morality, it is to very little purpose that they condemn the Inquisition; for that tribunal is only the logical result of the proposition.AMS April 16, 1896, page 125.16

“Back Page” American Sentinel 11, 16, p. 128.

ATJ

AMS sophistical a National Reform argument (though not so designed), as we have seen recently, runs thus:—AMS April 16, 1896, page 128.1

When we speak of “the State” without qualification expressed or implied, we do not refer to any particular State or form of government, but to earthly government, as distinct from the government of God. Neither do we mean law-makers and rulers alone, since they would be nothing without people under them. And since all the world is under some form or other of human government, the term, “the State,” is really synonymous with “the world.”AMS April 16, 1896, page 128.2

The conclusion reached is that the relation of Christ and his Church to the State is identical with Christ’s relation to the world, namely, “one of salvation;” and then follow such texts as John 6:51; 2 Corinthians 5:19; etc. The absurdity of the “argument” becomes apparent at once upon reading these texts, merely substituting the word “State” for “world,” which is perfectly proper if the mean the same thing. Thus John 6:51 would read: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the State”! The new rendering of 2 Corinthians 5:19 makes it equally absurd; thus: “God was in Christ, reconciling the State unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them [States, of course]; and hath committed unto us the ministry of reconciliation.” In like manner John 3:17 would read: “For God sent not his Son into the State to condemn the State; but that the State through him might be saved.”AMS April 16, 1896, page 128.3

It is thus that consistent “National Reform” would distort the Scriptures in the interests of its Church and State propaganda, and thus would it justify its efforts to save the State by constitutional amendments, religious statutes, Christian citizenship leagues, etc.AMS April 16, 1896, page 128.4

“CAN a government be so framed and administered as not to infringe on somebody’s rights of conscience?” asks the Christian Statesman, of February 22, last. The implication is that it cannot; and this idea seems to be held by quite a large number of religious people in this country. If these people would remember that both civil government and the rights of conscience are ordained of God, it might help them to arrive at a correct conclusion. God never instituted two things which were out of harmony with each other. He never instituted anything out of harmony with himself. Therefore he never ordained any form of civil government which conflicts with the rights of conscience.AMS April 16, 1896, page 128.5

April 9, 1896

April 23, 1896