p. 9 | The Science of True Government by J. O. CORLISS

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 5, 1908

The Science of True Government

By J. O. CORLISS

J. O. CORLISS

In its original form, and in its true sense, government is the divine system of organization. Just as the feet move, and the hands perform, by the hidden impulse of the brain, and without the use of physical force, so divine government controls men through an unseen connection which influences their highest obedience to heavenly requirements. If, perchance, disease enters a human organism, and paralyzes a hand or a foot, so that it does not respond to brain suggestion, a disturbed organization obtains, yet all other parts of the system perform their functions as before, without the co-operation of the diseased member.

When the disease of sin paralyzed parts of heaven’s organized body, so that these no longer felt the touch of divine impulse, their condition did not prevent others from responding fully to the promptings of superhuman instinct. But the result was two distinct forms of government, one regulated through the secret springs of heavenly influence, the other controlled by outward restraint from earthly sources. The two systems thus formed have no common origin. The first is of God, and therefore heavenly; the second is of man, and consequently earthly. The first provides a plan by which individual members of the lower system may be adopted into the family of the higher, without any interposition whatever of any earthly government.

In fact, earthly governments, having obtained their brief and problematical authority because man seceded from God’s government in Eden, can by right have nothing whatever to do with matters relating to heaven’s rule over men. To undertake anything of the kind would be to move in the dark, not being acquainted with the inner workings of the higher guidance. Besides, an earthly government is not in position to say to an erring one, Come, confess your crime, and I will elevate you to a place in the family of heaven.

Nay, more. It can not restore a transgressor to dignity among his fellow men, for the reason that the laws of a

nation, in order to maintain the integrity of that nation, must be held inexorable. Therefore no law can permit pardon to be proclaimed for the transgression of its requirements, without annulling itself. It may provide in certain cases for compensation, where injury has been inflicted, but to provide absolute pardon for the transgression of its own precepts, is not in the nature of law.

The reason for this is that national law is higher than a single individual, and is therefore necessary to the nation’s existence. But penalties are necessary to the existence of law, therefore no penalty of the law can be permitted to lapse without endangering the safety and happiness of the nation.

There are only two conditions under which pardon may be safely granted to a transgressor. These are, first, the restoration of the transgressor and of those affected by his influence; or, second, with the restoration of the transgressor, a compensation which will counterwork, and eventually remove, the derangement of the system. But this last can not be accomplished by the distracted subject, because it is not within his province, so must proceed from a source outside of and above the disturbed element. A good act of the present can not possibly compensate for a bad one of the past. The performance of present duty can not purchase pardon for the past, nor indulgence for the future, because one’s knowledge of good made its performance an ever-present duty of the past.

So then, earthly government being but the administration of human power, and the deranged human subject having no power to recover and restore himself, it follows that earthly government can not provide, without compensation of some sort, the power to restore the transgressor of its laws to a place among its loyal subjects. It therefore knows no method of government but that of force. No mercy is revealed in the law of its administration. If a culpable member of any community is restored to his former place, it must be by intercession of others, and not because the law provides for such a pardon.

Moral law is just as inexorable as civil law, but through unselfish love of the moral Governor (an attribute unknown in civil government), the Son of the Most High was permitted to take on himself the nature of those who had transgressed heaven’s law, and while among them to suffer, the just for the unjust, that thus he might bring them to obey the divine law. To become a partaker of heaven’s benefits thus rendered, one must voluntarily accept this gift of love. He must believe in the power of Christ to pardon and restore him to favor. He must receive the divine impulse, the secret inner working of the Spirit, too, in order to the completion of the divine purpose.

Such is the operation of divine government,—no outward force driving one to obey the mandates of the law, but a still, gentle voice within, saying, ‘This is the way, walk ye in it.’ Confess your sins, and I will be faithful and just to forgive your sins, and to cleanse you from all unrighteousness. Civil government can not act thus, lest it destroy its own authority. It must deal justly against crime, without any mixture of mercy, because its organization was not formed to deal in mercy, but in stern justice. Knowing nothing of the heavenly element, it is therefore disqualified to deal with matters pertaining to heavenly rule.

To be explicit, civil government, being only the expressed will of human minds, can not possibly measure and define the personal requirements of divine rule, which is the expression of heaven’s King. The reason for this is that God is a Spirit. His kingdom is within men, and so deals with the inner, or spiritual, man through the operation of his Spirit. But the natural, or unspiritual, man can not receive the teachings of the Spirit of God, because they are folly to him. More than this; he can not even understand them, because ‘they are spiritually discerned,’ or comprehended. 1 Cor. 2:14.

This being true, how can legislators in a civil government enact laws touching religious duties? Being men of the world, what can they know of spiritual things in behalf of others? In other words, being servants of the civil government, why should they make laws by which to judge the servants of God’s spiritual government? Or to sum up, why should civil legislators undertake to regulate the laws of heaven? Do they think that the King of heaven has become impotent, and incapable of administering his own government, and therefore needs a civil guardian?

If not, then why make laws to punish for the non-observance of a weekly rest day, since God does not visit offenders with instant wrath? There can be no civil obligation requiring one day’s rest in seven, or even one day’s rest in a year. Independence day stands for more in an American patriot’s breast than any other holiday in the year. Yet, revered as it is as the memorial of national freedom, no law obliging men absolutely to cease labor on that day, would be thought just. Then why should a law be enacted requiring men to rest one day in seven? It can not be because of any national significance in the day, nor is it to commemorate any human achievement. Why then ask for it?

The whole question rests on a religio-selfish demand. This is it. Certain men leave business and rest on one day of the week to show their regard for religious requirements, and desire to have every other person do the same. If others do not look at the matter just as they do, a law is demanded to compel them to yield their stubbornness. But is this zeal in behalf of God’s honor? —No; for those who contend most strongly for such laws, deny that they are for religious ends. Why plead for them then? When pressed to answer, they say that it is not fair to let some work seven days in the week, and so get the major part of the business, while they themselves are obliged, for the sake of their religious convictions, to rest one day in every seven.

This, then, is the secret: because some think they ought to recognize a weekly rest in honor of their chosen religion, they feel determined to make others do the same, that they themselves may not be handicapped in the race for this world’s goods, while professing to give up all for Christ. Is it possible that men can so deceive themselves as to believe that the kingdom of God is within them, while acting from such selfish motives? The exhortation of the apostle is to the point in this connection: ‘Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?’

* Mountain View, Cal.