God or Cæsar by Charles W. Waddell

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Jun 3, 1908

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 34, No. 23.

God or Cæsar.

By Charles W. Waddell

WHEN the Pharisees of old desired a pretext that they might bring Christ our Saviour under the condemnation of the law, and being unable to find a single flaw in His spotless life, as a last resort they brought Him a penny and addressed Him thus: “Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth. . . . Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?” Matt. 22: 16, 17.

This plain declaration on their part reveals the hypocritical nature of these great leaders of thought. They dare not make a plain statement of their feelings to the masses of the people, so with a few well-chosen words of flattery, they sought to entangle our Christ, that they might be able to bring Him before the court as a lawbreaker. “Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Cæsar, or not?”

In answering this question, Christ plainly laid before us a great and grand principle, and established the fact that there were duties due to Cæsar with which He had no right to interfere. He said: “Why tempt ye Me? Show Me the tribute money. And they brought unto Him a penny. And He said unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto Him, Cæsar’s.” Then comes forth from His lips that remarkable answer, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Had He said, “No,” to their question, He would have been brought at once before the courts of Rome to answer to the charge of treason.

To-day our country is greatly wrought up over the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws. Some act as if they believed the entire future, and also the destiny of this government, depended upon the enforcement of very strict Sunday legislation.

Now, I would like to ask every reader this question, and I want him to answer it plainly, at least to the satisfaction of his own inner man, or conscience. In making and enforcing Sunday laws, are we not overstepping the realm of Cæsar, or the state power? Is not Sunday a religious institution, and with what right does Cæsar, or civil government, invade the domain of religion?

The trampling upon this great principle here laid down by our Saviour has cursed many nations in the past, and it will curse America. That period of time known in history as the Dark Ages was brought on by the civil power or Cæsar usurping the rights of God and legislating on matters pertaining to religion. Some of America’s greatest men have placed themselves on record as bitterly opposing every move that would, in any way, have a tendency to unite church and state in this country.

Again, let me ask you: Who is it generally that is foremost in working for the enactment of Sunday laws?—Not the man who is forced to labor on Sunday, as we might suppose, but it is the ministers of the Gospel. Finding themselves unable to persuade men to reverence the day, they seek the arm of civil law to force upon an unbelieving public a so-called religious institution.

In every nation where the state has had the power to legislate in matters pertaining to religion, this course has proved a disastrous failure. The state can punish crime, but it is absolutely impossible for the state to take the place of God and punish sin.

The Inquisition of the past is the legitimate fruits of attempting to render unto Cæsar the things that belong to God.

And generally the people go just far enough to make the Sunday laws a farce. The other day, in a certain city where I stopped over Sunday, a little boy was seen on the street with a small basket of groceries on his arm. Two big, blue-coated policemen accosted him, asking him what he had and where he got it, which nearly scared the little fellow to death. Much time was spent in that vicinity by the blue-coats, to locate, if possible, the grocer who had committed the gross outrage of selling a few groceries on Sunday.

I remember that same Sunday seeing several billiard- and pool-halls open, where many men had congregated, and I also noticed that liverymen and hack-drivers were working as hard as on any other day in the week.

Here is another question, and I am wholly unable to solve it, or to see any degree of fairness in it whatsoever. Why is it that the law goes after the grocer, the butcher, the cigar or news stand, or the Sunday theater with such a vengeance, and at the same time large corporations work men on Sunday, and railroad trains are running in and out of our cities by the dozen every Sunday, and are not molested at all?

Another thing: These same men who are so very much in favor of stringent Sunday laws, will deliberately ride on public conveyances where men and horses are absolutely obliged to work all day Sunday.

While many are spending valuable time trying to work up sentiment in favor of Sunday laws, they are neglecting to cry out against many other evils that are sadly demoralizing the rising generation.

How much better it would be, if, instead of trying to force our religion upon the public, we would do as Paul did and labor to persuade men, relying upon the Holy Spirit for convicting power. A little child can lead the horse to water, but a thousand men can not force him to drink.

It is plain that any nation, state, or city, which legislates on any religious institution, oversteps the realm of its jurisdiction. May God help us to see the breakers ahead of such legislation.

CHARLES W. WADDELL.