The Religious Liberty Department

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · May 27, 1909

The Religious Liberty Department

Second Meeting

May 16, 8 A. M.

ELDER J. O. CORLISS gave a brief and lucid talk on the subject of “The Fundamental Principles of Religious Liberty.” After reading Mark 4:30, he stated that in the beginning man was made in the image of God, that his mind was in harmony with God’s mind, and that he was a true son and subject of God’s kingdom. But when man sinned, this earth was cut off from the kingdom of God. Sin brought in a separation between God and man. Had man never sinned, he would never have needed civil government. Since civil government became a necessity on account of sin, it is an anomaly, and altogether out of place, for civil government to attempt to uphold God’s government.

Confession will cleanse a man from all his transgressions of God’s law. But not so with civil government. To pardon a man under civil government upon mere confession would utterly destroy it. Civil government can not be operated upon the same principles which obtain in God’s government.

Following the remarks of Elder Corliss, Elder Healey said that the same law that gives us moral government, gives us civil government. Because man has a government which came into existence because of sin, therefore this government is not necessarily sinful.

Elder Allen Moon spoke in substance as follows: Civil government grew out of the necessity sin brought into the world. The kingdom which God gave to man in the beginning was usurped by Satan, and became his kingdom. The church is in the world to turn men from sin and to translate them into the kingdom of God. In this kingdom, one man has no right to rule over another. Christ has a kingdom and a dominion in this world.

Third Meeting

May 17, 8 A. M.

The subject discussed was “True and False Theocracy.” C. M. Snow led out in the discussion, presenting a very interesting and carefully prepared paper. Brethren C. H. Keslake and G. E. Langdon followed, each likewise reading thoughtful and well-prepared papers on the subject. The question was so well, so ably, and so clearly set forth in these three papers that there was at once a call for their publication, either in complete or abridged form. The thought was expressed that we were in need of literature upon this subject.

Both in the papers and in the discussion which followed, the question was raised as to when the theocracy of Israel came to an end, whether in the days of Samuel, when the people asked for a king; or in the days of Zedekiah, when the diadem was removed, and Israel went into captivity; or at the first advent, when the Jews rejected Christ as their king, and said, “We have no king but Caesar.” From various scriptures presented, as well as from a quotation from “Desire of Ages” (page 738), it seemed quite evident that it was not until the time last mentioned. Though the people kept departing from God, and from their proper relations to him as their rightful king, ruler, and lawgiver, under a pure and perfect theocracy, still God clung to them as his people and did the best he could for them, by them, and through them, under the circumstances, and they were not finally and fully cut off as a nation until they rejected Christ, their rightful King, and declared themselves openly, absolutely, and solely for another. Then the theocracy, so far as this present world is concerned, came to an end. Then their house was left unto them “desolate,” and the kingdom of God, in any national or world-wide sense, was to be no more “until he come whose right it is.”

Fourth Meeting

May 18, 8 A. M.

Again the religious liberty tent was crowded full, many being unable to find seats.

Prayer was offered by Elder J. C. Stevens.

The topic up for consideration during this meeting was the question of “Sunday Legislation and the Laboring Man.” Professor Griggs read a brief paper on the subject, supplementing this with somewhat extended remarks. A lively and very interesting discussion followed, in which the pros and cons of the question were considered. This was participated in by Brethren J. S. Washburn, A. Mitchell, J. O. Corliss, M. C. Wilcox, J. S. Wightman, E. T. Russell, C. F. McVagh, W. A. Colcord, A. O. Tait, F. C. Gilbert, D. A. Parsons, and C. N. Sanders.

There was, of course, little or no question as to whether Sunday legislation of any description is and must necessarily be religious legislation; but whether a law requiring employers to grant to their employees the right to rest one day in seven, without specifying the day, is and must necessarily be, in its final analysis, religious, was not so apparent to all at first thought. But before the discussion was over, the opinion seemed quite generally to prevail that one-day-in-seven rest-day legislation would be but the entering wedge for definite-day sabbath legislation; that the gospel message, with the Sabbath kept and observed as God ordained and gave it to man, is the only real, permanent, and satisfactory solution to the question; and that religion can not be dissociated from the Sabbath, and its benefits and blessings, even from a physical standpoint, retained.