Limitations of Civil Authority
By Willard Allen Colcord
By Willard Allen Colcord, Author of "The Rights of Man" Questioner.—Do you believe that civil government is ordained of God? Answer.—Yes; the genius of order and government is of God. Without government there could not be order, and the want or absence of order means confusion; and the Bible plainly says that “God is not the author of confusion.” God must therefore be the author of government. “Order,” Milton has said, “is heaven’s first law;” and Pope, completing the thought, as he did the couplet, added:
“This confessed,
Some are and must be greater than the rest.” Questioner.—Is it proper for Christians, then, to resist civil government? Answer.—Certainly not. Paul plainly says: “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.” Rom. 13: 1, 2. Questioner.—Does the Bible indicate the object for which civil government was ordained? Answer.—Yes. It says: “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.” Rom. 13: 3, 4. In harmony with Paul’s words just quoted, Peter likewise says: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF EVIL-DOERS, AND FOR THE PRAISE OF THEM THAT DO WELL.” 1 Peter 2: 13, 14. These scriptures show, in a general way, the object for which civil government was ordained. It was “for the punishment of evildoers,” and “the praise of them that do well.” Civil government was designed to be a deterrent to crime, and an encouragement to well-doing. Questioner.—Upon what ground, then, can you object to civil government favoring and supporting religion? Is not religion a good thing? Answer.—Religion is not within the purview of civil government. Religion has to do with one’s duty and relations to God. Religion is an individual matter, a thing of the heart. It involves the exercise of faith and love, and neither of these can be produced or properly directed or controlled by human laws, or by any government formed, administered, or presided over by man. Religion is good if it is good religion. And civil government is good when properly administered within its legitimate realm,—the civil,—and for the purpose for which it was ordained,—control in civil things; but God never intended that civil government should usurp His place within “the realm of conscience,—the citadel of the soul.” “God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” John 4: 24. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Rom. 10: 17; 14: 23. Speaking of the respective provinces of Church and State, and their duties, Macaulay, in his essay on “Gladstone on Church and State,” says: “Now here are two great objects: one is the protection of the persons and estates of citizens from injury; the other is the propagation of religious truth. No two objects more entirely distinct can well be imagined. The former belongs wholly to the visible and tangible world in which we live: the latter belongs to that higher world which is beyond the reach of our senses. The former belongs to this life; the latter to that which is to come. Men who are perfectly agreed as to the importance of the former object, and as to the way of obtaining it, differ as widely as possible respecting the latter object. We must therefore pause before we admit that the persons, be they who they may, who are entrusted with the power for the promotion of the former object, ought always to use that power for the promotion of the latter object.” Questioner.—Does not Christ teach that the concerns of religion are of more importance than are temporal affairs? Answer.—Yes; He tells us not to be overanxious about our temporal needs, but to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Matt. 6: 25-33. Questioner.—This being so, should not the fostering of religion and the promotion of religious truth be one of the principal ends of civil government? Answer.—Such a conclusion by no means follows. In this same essay on Gladstone, Mr. Macaulay points out the fallacy of such a view in the following lucid observation. He says: “We are desirous, before we enter on the discussion of this important question, to point out clearly a distinction which, tho very obvious, seems to be overlooked by many excellent people. In their opinion, to say that the ends of government are temporal and not spiritual is tantamount to saying that the temporal welfare of man is of more importance than his spiritual welfare. But this is an entire mistake. The question is not whether spiritual interests be or be not superior in importance to temporal interests; but whether the machinery which happens at any moment to be employed for the purpose of protecting certain temporal interests of a society be necessarily such a machinery as is fitted to promote the spiritual interests of that society. Without a division of labor the world would not go on. It is of very much more importance that men should have food rather than that they should have pianofortes. Yet it by no means follows that every pianoforte maker ought to add the business of a baker to his own; for, if he did so, we should have much worse music and much worse bread. It is of much more importance that a knowledge of religious truth should be wisely diffused than that the art of sculpture should flourish among us. Yet it by no means follows that the Royal Academy ought to unite with its present functions those of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, to distribute theological tracts, to send forth missionaries, to turn out Nollekens for being a Catholic, Bacon for being a Methodist, and Flaxman for being a Swedenborgian. For the effect of such folly would be that we should have the worst possible Academy of Arts, and the worst possible Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. The community, it is plain, would be thrown into universal confusion, if it were supposed to be the duty of every association which is formed for one good object to promote every other good object.” Questioner.—Do you find in Scripture any warrant for this distinction? Answer.—Yes; an abundance of it. Nebuchadnezzar, a civil ruler, sought to direct and control his subjects in matters of religion. For refusing to obey his decree respecting worship, he cast the three Hebrews into the fiery furnace. But God miraculously preserved and delivered them, and thus “changed the king’s word,” as Nebuchadnezzar himself was forced to admit. In doing this, God was giving an object-lesson to all the world, from the greatest nation then in existence in the world, one great purpose of which was to teach that civil government is not ordained to direct or control men in matters of religion, but that each individual is responsible to God alone in matters of faith and worship, and should be left free to worship or not to worship, according to the dictates of conscience. The story of Daniel in the lions’ den teaches the same great truth. This likewise was enacted in a most public manner under the greatest then ruling nation in the world, the Medo-Persian. Questioner.—In case of conflict between an individual’s views regarding a question of worship, and the requirements of a law of the State, should not the former give way to the latter? Answer.—The cases just cited teach quite the reverse. They show that God respects the conscientiousness and courage of an individual, and of an individual standing alone, in refusing to comply with the requirements of the strongest civil government on earth when it attempts to direct or control that individual in religious matters. And the statement made by the apostles when arrested by the Jewish Sanhedrin, and forbidden to preach Christ to the people, places this matter beyond all doubt. Narrating their decision and attitude, the record says: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN.” Acts 5: 29. They took the position that in any case of conflict between the laws of men and the law and Word of God, we are to obey the latter regardless of consequences. From all this it is evident that there is a limit to the proper and legitimate sphere of civil government. Its province is confined to the civil, to temporal and terrestrial matters entirely. It has no right whatever, therefore, to assume the place and position of God to mankind in matters of conscience, faith, worship, and religious conduct. The only semblance to the right of civil government to enter this realm, is when an individual, or a collection of individuals, under the cover of religion, commit crimes or invade the equal rights of others. But in this case it is only a semblance, for in doing so it is only exercising its proper functions within its own realm, and protecting men in their natural and inalienable rights.