The American Constitution and the Bible
In the year 1774, when patience could no longer withstand the tyrannical hand that was bearing down upon the American colonists, they began to devise ways and means to rid themselves of the yoke of oppression that was upon them. Right soon thereafter they set forth a declaration over in North Carolina in which the first announcement was made that finally burst forth throughout the realm of the colonies and culminated in that wonderful document known as the Declaration of Independence.
After that we entered into the mighty conflict with the mother country, and, as a result of several years’ fighting, in 1781, at old Yorktown, freedom from the yoke of England was gained. It had, indeed, been bought at a great price. The entire land was seemingly drenched and baptized in the precious blood of our sires.
Two years more rolled on until the Treaty of Peace was formally fixed and signed, and after that, upon their own responsibilities, these colonies set out to direct their own course of action. They had a system known as the Articles of Confederation, which was lacking in that it had no executive department of government. They could make whatsoever laws they wished and could pass upon their violation, but there was no “power behind the throne” to carry into effect the executive part thereof, and hence failure was the result.
In the year 1787 the people sent their respective delegates to a general convention, the object of which was to revise the Articles of Confederation and make them adequate to the demands of the colonies in general. After quite a deal of discussion, as is told in history, some very wise character made this splendid suggestion: that since these articles cannot be made adequate to our needs, let’s clean the slate, and, commencing at the foundation, adopt a Constitution for the United States of America.
Four months were spent in discussion, investigation, and deliberation. Naturally there were many different sentiments regarding the Constitution, but they gradually narrowed down until there were just two contending forces, arguing back and forth.
One idea of government was championed by Alexander Hamilton, and the other by Thomas Jefferson. The difference was after this fashion: Mr. Hamilton’s conception was that the States should sacrifice their powers and form a strong federal government. Mr. Jefferson said: “We have just fought, bled, and died in order to get rid of a monarchial form of government. Let the States retain their powers. Let the doctrine of States’ rights prevail, not yielding too much to the central government and not giving too much authority to the machinery at our capital city.”
These two ideas having been thoroughly discussed and various compromises suggested, finally, on the seventeenth day of September of that year, the Constitution was adopted. Then they started out to elect a President, a chief executive of the nation. It was unanimously conceded that Washington should be the President. John Adams was elected the Vice-President. Every one regarded the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. As soon as Mr. Washington was inaugurated, in 1789, he looked around to select the cabinet members, which at that time were four in number. Political enmity and party spirit had not yet developed into the intensity of modern times. At the head of the Treasury Department, Washington selected Alexander Hamilton, who was a Federalist of the deepest dye. As Secretary of Foreign Affairs, now called Secretary of State, he appointed Thomas Jefferson. So these two gigantic minds occupied prominent places. Mr. Henry Knox was made Secretary of War, and Mr. Edmund Randolph was made Attorney-General.
Thus the great ship of state was launched out upon the mighty sea before it. Soon after the machinery had been set in motion it was understood and generally known that the country was deeply and woefully in debt. Alexander Hamilton had a master mind along that line. He secured the passage in Congress of a bill assuming all the State debts and all the debts incurred by the war. It was his chief ambition to start the nation solvent and paying its way. He devised ways and means in harmony with the Constitution. He put a tariff (and this was the beginning of that much-discussed question) on foreign articles, on spirituous liquors, and things of that sort. By and by streams of revenue began to flow into the treasury; and, as Daniel Webster so eloquently said of him in after years: “He struck the rock of internal resources, and abundant streams of revenue gushed forth; he touched the dead corpse of public credit, and it sprang to its feet.” Thus the government was launched under the flag and under the policy of “Pay your debts and assume your obligations.”
Just after that step had been taken there was another matter that was by him proposed, and that was that the government go into the banking business. Hamilton insisted that the government establish a national bank, in which it should be the chief stockholder.
Just at that point Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, interposed objections, and the first great fight in the new government began, with these two champions on either side.
Now, I want you to get the arguments put forth by these great leaders. “Upon what ground, Mr. Jefferson, do you object to a national bank and to the government’s going into the banking business?” Well, it is plain and easy, as every schoolboy knows. Jefferson said that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; and while, indeed, it is not an infallible document, as is admitted by provision being made for its amendment, yet if we launch our ship of state on the Constitution we have adopted, we cannot establish a national bank, because there is no provision for it.
On the other hand, Mr. Hamilton said: “There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a national bank. The Constitution says not a single word about a national bank. There is not a line in it that says: ‘Thou shalt not have the government engage in the banking business’.”
These two ideas laid the foundation for the two great political parties, which were known as the Federalists and Antifederalists. But as time went on, other names characterized these parties. Mr. Hamilton’s party came to be known as “loose constructionists”—that is, to construe loosely the Constitution, on the ground that we are at liberty to do anything that it does not specifically prohibit. Jefferson’s party was known as “strict constructionists”—that is, they proposed to be governed strictly by what “was written,” and declared there was danger in “going beyond.”
In the heated discussions that grew out of these great differences the question became: “Shall we be governed by what the Constitution and the law of the land says, or shall we be at liberty to provide any measure, inaugurate any system, or engage in any kind of business, just so the Constitution does not specifically forbid it?”
At first Mr. Hamilton’s idea prevailed; and when they came to the naming of the second President, John Adams, a Federalist, was elected. But Mr. Jefferson continued to preach the doctrine of respect for the Constitution and to hammer it into the people that we would not be correctly guided unless we regarded the supreme law of the land, unless we gave respect to our great Magna Charta, our Constitution. So when the election for the third President rolled around, Jefferson, an Antifederalist, was elected.
But I have talked about political matters long enough. I want to pass from that to this: I think what I have said is an honest, fair, unbiased, and unprejudiced discussion of a difference that exists between many of us with respect to the word of God. Jesus the Christ has legislated and announced to the world a great constitution—God’s word—and has given it unto mortal man. It, unlike the Constitution adopted by our fathers, is not subject to amendment. It, unlike the one by them accepted, is an infallible constitution-one that needs no general assembly, no convention, no conferences, no delegation of people to add thereunto or to say imperfection characterizes it. I believe this gets at the very vitals and gist of the matter, and that all of our differences have sprung from the attitudes we have assumed to God’s constitution.
What shall be my conception of the word of God Almighty? Do I look upon it as a law granting me the liberty to do anything not specifically forbidden therein? Or on the other hand, have I accepted God’s constitution and do I propose to be governed by what it says rather than by what it does not say? We have drifted into this kind of an idea, and it has generally come into popularity—namely, that the Bible is a book of broad, general principles that in the main ought to be respected just as a kind of general proposition and guide. But with reference to details—with reference to the establishment of the “banking business,” or the organization of any kind of a society or corporation not specifically forbidden—we are at liberty to be guided by our “sanctified common sense.”
Well, it is just a question as to how we shall construe God’s book and heaven’s constitution. How do I view the Bible? Does God want me to be a “loose constructionist,” or does God want me to be a “strict constructionist?” That will settle all of our petty and minor discussions. It was not a question with Hamilton and Jefferson as to whether there was anything wrong in a national bank or the establishment thereof. I presume Mr. Jefferson would have said there was no harm in it. That was not the issue. But the question was: Are we going to respect the Constitution or not? That was, and is, the issue. And all down the line of our political history, instead of our statesmen and politicians discussing the vital principles of government upon which rest the hopes of our republic, they have too often just skimmed the surface, without a thought of the principles back of it.
Just so in matters of religion. We have wandered away on far-off discussions of petty differences. What is the principle? Go back of all these, and it resolves itself in this: “Shall I construe God’s word strictly, shall I be governed by what God says, or shall I be privileged to do anything that God, in so many words, does not declare: Thou shalt not?’”
I wonder, in passing down the years of time, how God dealt with humanity under the patriarchial dispensation. The first pair born on the earth was commanded of God to offer an animal sacrifice unto the Lord—a bloody sacrifice. That was God’s command as given in Genesis 4 and referred to in Hebrews 11:4. Abel, by faith (and faith comes by hearing God’s word), brought unto God a sacrifice—one of the flock—and offered it unto Jehovah. Likewise, Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground. Unto the former God had respect, but unto the latter God had not respect. On what principle? Is there anything wrong in offering a sheaf of oats or wheat unto God? O, no! Well, what is wrong? Had God ever said: “Thou shalt not offer the fruit of the ground?” O, no! Well, what is wrong? Just this: It is the question back of it all: Which are we going to do? Are we going to do what God says and walk by faith, or do what seems good unto men and walk by sight?
When God told Noah to build the ark three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high, with a window and a door; to pitch the same inside and outside with pitch; to make it with first, second, and third stories, he meant that the ark should be made exactly that way. These were not general directions, but definite and exact specifications, and were so understood. “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.” (Genesis 6:22.)
But, overlooking numbers of illustrations, I pass rapidly to the time when God, by the hand of Moses, led that host of people out of Egypt and brought them to the foot of Mount Sinai. It was there that God gave unto them a constitution, a decalogue, a principle of government that was to last the next fifteen hundred years. And at the very beginning thereof he said: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it.” A frowning sentinel was placed on guard to uphold and maintain respect for God’s word.
Well, there were Federalists and Antifederalists in Moses’ day. It was not long until Nadab and Abihu took each his censer and offered strange fire unto God, which he had not ordained. They construed the constitution after this fashion—viz.: “Our hearts are right; we have the spirit of worship, and we want to worship the Lord; and we see no harm in what we have done.” But God sent out a fire, and they died as a warning to others that God’s constitution and heaven’s order must be respected.
When God told Saul to go down and utterly destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15), to kill men and women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass, Saul acted on the general broad-gauged idea, and thought surely he had interpreted and construed the constitution rightly, and that certainly if he obeyed the spirit of the command, all would be well. But God placed his condemnation upon the king because of the fact that he did not respect in the absolute the command of his word.
Even Moses, unto whom God said in the wilderness of Zin: “Speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water,” called unto the people and said: “Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?” And he smote it, thus violating God’s decree, doing that which had not been ordained; and, as a result, this grand old man of one hundred and twenty summers was never privileged to enter into the land that flowed with milk and honey. God at last took Moses to Mount Nebo’s height and from its summit permitted him to take a view of the promised land. I have often tried to think of the splendor and grandeur of that attractive scene. I doubt not but that he could see far to the north the hoary heights of old Hermon, on which the Savior was transfigured. He could look beyond the river Jordan westward and see the smiling plains, the beautiful valleys, and the silvery streams. But Moses’ work was ended and his crossing of the Jordan denied because of the fact that he had disobeyed God’s voice and God’s word. Jehovah dug his grave, and there buried Moses, with none, save perhaps an angel, to drop a tear of sorrow and of grief upon the sacred mound.
Not only that, but I recall the fact that a man on the Sabbath day started out to pick up sticks—quite an unusual thing for a man to do; but he reasoned about it and said: “I have no disposition to disobey God, and there is no harm in picking up sticks.” And if I had been there, I would have said: “My dear sir, I see no harm in picking up sticks on the Sabbath day.” But we must remember God’s law. Because this man simply undertook to pick up sticks on the Sabbath day God Almighty had him put in prison that night and commanded the people to lay aside their robes and stone him to death. Why? Because he had not respected Heaven’s constitution. Well, does God’s law state that you must not pick up sticks? O, no! And I presume that he could have taken Moses’ own law and asked him to show where God said, “Thou shalt not pick up sticks,” and Moses could not have shown it, because it was not there, which is evidence of the fact that we are to be governed by what he says and not privileged to do that which he does not say. “You shall not, as heretofore,” said Moses, “do every man that which is right in his own eyes.”
But I come down to the New Testament just a moment. In Hebrews 2:1-3 Paul said: “We ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?” I think the principle of our lesson is shown clearly in the temptation of the Savior and in his escape and victory. When the devil came and said, “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread,” I want to ask you, what is wrong in the suggestion therein made? Sometimes I have heard preachers say that the wrong would have been in listening to the voice of the devil. I think that is not true; for if the devil can make a good suggestion, I want it, and it is not wrong just simply because he said it. “Lord, are you hungry?” “Indeed so.” “Are the pangs of hunger gnawing at the very vitals of your being?” “Yes, sir.” “Do you see anything wrong in bread?” “O, no!” “Has God ever said: ‘Thou shalt not turn stones into bread?’” “No.” “Will you not soon convert water into wine?” “Yes, sir.” “Well, didn’t you have bread back in your home?” “Yes, sir.” “Has God ever prohibited it?” “No, sir.” Then my friends, the devil made the argument and asked: “Why not do it?” God does not prohibit it. Mark you, if there is no harm in it, if you like it and it strikes your fancy, then what? Are you at liberty to do it just because God has not specifically forbidden it?
Christ lays down the principle. He says: “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” That is to say this: “I am not my own. Not my will, but thine, be done. I am in the custody, under the guidance, of God Almighty; and if God wants stones turned to bread, he will say so; and when he so announces, that will be time enough. In the absence, therefore, of such commands and of such authority, I still endure the pangs of hunger, because I propose to be governed by what God’s word says rather than by my own personal preference and peculiar fancy.”
I submit to you this fact: that back under the Mosaic reign the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night was the sole guide. If the cloud moved, the people likewise moved; but when the cloud stood for two days or two weeks or two months, the host of Israel broke not their camp. They were governed by what the cloud did. Where it moved, they moved; and where it stood, they stood.
God’s word is the guide and the cloud unto the people of to-day. It is time enough when he says do a thing for us to act. “Where it speaks, we speak; where it is silent, we are silent.”
Let us not, therefore, be wise above that which is written. Possibly this will help us to understand 2 John 1:9, which says: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine [or teaching] of Christ, hath not God.” God forbid that I should be led by my own lusts, my own appetites, and my own pleasures to transgress, or go beyond, the authority of the book of God.
My obligation, therefore, toward the Bible is the obligation that Mr. Jefferson felt toward the Constitution—viz., it is the supreme law of the land; I must do what the Constitution says, and not presume to go beyond it. The only safe course in life for you and for me is this—viz., take God at his word, believe what he says, become and be just what God requires; and then, his word still our guide, let us live as he directs, worship according to his decree, and practice those things, and those only, for which there is authority in his word. If we do so, I feel certain that when the storms of life are all over, when we shuffle off this mortality, we will be privileged to march home to glory, into the paradise of God for evermore.
~
N. B. Hardeman (1874-1965) began preaching in 1898. In 1890 he moved to Henderson, TN, to attend West Tennessee Christian College. In 1905, Hardeman began the task of building a new school and encouraged A. G. Freed to return to Henderson and assist in this work. In 1919, this new school became Freed-Hardeman College (now University). N. B. Hardeman was a well-known speaker, debater, and lecturer. It has been said he was among the five best orators of the 20th century.