GOD AND CÆSAR by Elder W. A. Colcord

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jun 4, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 30.

GOD AND CÆSAR.

By Elder W. A. Colcord

TRUTH never becomes less such by repetition, and repetition is often necessary before a truth makes a due impression upon the minds of men. Referring to an experience in the life of Luther illustrating this fact, D'Aubigne observes that "it is frequently necessary that a truth should be repeatedly presented to our minds, in order to produce its due effect." It is for this reason that we present again and again thoughts upon the important subject of the province and limitations of civil government and man's relationship thereto, in connection with his responsibility and allegiance to God, his Maker.

Much confusion, suffering, and sin have resulted from a lack of a proper understanding of this question. But he who spake as never man spake laid down a rule which is so simple and plain that none need err in determining where to draw the line between what is duty to God and what to earthly governments. A test question was once put to Christ by those who sought to entangle him in his talk and find whereof they might accuse him. The Jews were then unwillingly under tribute to Cæsar. Coming to Christ they asked, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?" Had he said yes, they would doubtless have seized upon this as an occasion for taking offense, for, as already stated, they were unwillingly paying taxes to Cæsar. Had he said no, they would likewise have had grounds upon which to prefer charges against him before the Roman Government. Whichever way he answered it, it would seem, would involve him in difficulty. To the Jews it no doubt appeared that they had propounded to him a question which he could not answer without putting an argument into their hands which they could use against him. But he answered them so wisely, and in a way that appealed so strongly to their reason and common sense, that they marveled, and left him, and went their way. Perceiving their wicked intent, he said: "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Thus did Christ silence the Jews, and answer what in their estimation would be to him a most puzzling question. And herein is couched a principle by which if applied no one need ever be at a loss to know what he ought to render to God and what to civil government. The first and only thing necessary to ascertain is that of ownership. The only question to be settled is, Whose is it, God's or Cæsar's? Let this once be determined, and the duty to obey or not to obey is at once apparent.

To illustrate: Suppose a government should attempt to enforce upon its citizens the ordinance of baptism. While no one would deny that baptism is a Christian ordinance, commanded in the Scriptures, and that its practice is perfectly proper on the part of those who believe in Christ, the enforcement of it on the part of the government would be condemned as quite out of place. And why so?—Simply because baptism is an institution which does not belong to civil government. Baptism pertains to God. Men are baptized for the remission of sins; but sin is a violation of God's law, and can therefore be remitted only by God.

Suppose again that the government should attempt to compel men to celebrate the ordinance known as the Lord's Supper, this would likewise be regarded as an unwarranted assumption of power, because, as the name of the sacrament itself shows, it belongs to the Lord and not to the government.

Likewise with the enforcement of Sabbath observance. The Sabbath is the Lord's, and its observance is to be rendered to the Lord. "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." Therefore, for the government to attempt to enforce the observance of the sabbath, or any other religious institution, or for any ecclesiastical power or organization, through the government, to attempt to do so, is for it to seek to compel men to render to themselves that which belongs to God. It is usurpation and robbery, and an attempt to compel men to commit idolatry. And any man who observes any such institutions because of such requirements has no more discharged his duties to God than the man who owes his neighbor a certain amount has canceled the debt by paying the specified sum to another.

It is evident, therefore, that the question of ownership at once determines to whom obedience in any particular case is to be rendered, whether to God or to the government. And if there is a distinction to be made here, it must also be evident that the realms or jurisdictions of God and Cæsar are entirely separate and distinct. While the subjects are the same, the nature of the two governments are entirely distinct. One is civil, the other religious. One is temporal, the other eternal. One pertains solely to this present world, the other to the world to come. One takes cognizance of acts only as they affect the rights of others, the other scrutinizes the acts themselves and the prompting motives behind them. The only obligations resting upon men with which civil governments have anything to do are those which exist between man and man. With the duties which men owe to God Cæsar has nothing to do. The founders of the United States Government gave utterance to a fundamental truth when they said:—

"Religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience."

While we have seen that civil governments have no right to attempt to enforce upon mankind that even which God himself has commanded them to observe and do as religious obligations, another important fact remains to be stated, and that is that when governments not only enter the realm of religion, and assume to legislate upon men's duties to God, but enact laws directly contrary to the express will and commands of God, men are under no obligation to obey such laws. Why this is so is evident. We are God's first. He created us, and, therefore, he has first claims upon us.

Madison, in his noble remonstrance against a roundabout attempt to establish religion in Virginia by law, thus well stated the case:—

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society. Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the universe; and if a member of civil society who enters any subordinate association must do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority, much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular civil society do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain, therefore, that in matters of religion no man's right is abridged by the institution of civil society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."

Another writer has truly said:—

"When the laws of men conflict with the word and law of God, we are to obey the latter, whatever the consequences may be."

This is not anarchy. It is loyalty to God, loyalty of the highest type. "We ought to obey God rather than men," is the verdict of Scripture.

President Fairchild, in his "Moral Philosophy," rightly observes that—

"Obedience is to be rendered to all human governments in subordination to the will of God. . . . It is too obvious to need discussion that the law of God, the great principle of benevolence, is supreme, and that we 'ought to obey God rather than men' in any case of conflict between human law and the divine. There are cases so clear that no one can question the duty to refuse obedience. In all times and in all lands such cases have arisen."

Yes, even in America, the boasted land of civil and religious liberty, and in this nineteenth century, such cases have arisen. The law of God says: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." But

in nearly every State in the Union there are laws requiring men to observe, not the seventh, but the first day as the Sabbath; and in the year 1892 the ecclesiastical leaders of apostate Protestantism succeeded in securing from the general government a law to this effect, so that the government is now pledged to first-day observance. Here, then, is a conflict between human law and the divine, and, as Mr. Fairchild, in the language of inspiration, rightly says, "we ought to obey God rather than men." Here is a case "so clear that no one [after becoming intelligent upon the subject] can question the duty to refuse obedience." And right here, let it be observed, upon this very point, is coming the test of loyalty to God for this generation, as the world-wide agitation of the question of enforced Sunday observance plainly shows.

But the question is sometimes asked, Ought we not to obey the powers that be? In the words of another, we answer: "Yes, when they are in harmony with the higher powers that be. God made his law for all the universe. He created man; he gives the bounteous provisions of nature, holds our breath and life in his hand. He is to be recognized, his law honored, before all the great men and the highest earthly powers." Let everyone, therefore, who desires to stand clear from idolatry, and to prove himself loyal to God, see to it that he renders to Cæsar only that which is Cæsar's, and to God that which is his.