Untitled article by J. O. Corliss

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · August 7, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 31

The State Cannot Be Religious.

By J. O. Corliss

It is affirmed by those who demand religious legislation, that God requires from all nations, an acknowledgment of his supreme authority, in recognition of his prospering care over them, on the ground that they are the creatures of God, and therefore stand in the same relation to him morally, as human beings. But, if nations ought to acknowledge God's authority over them, solely on account of being his creatures, then all created beings should certainly be required to do the same. Such a rule, however, presents one very formidable objection, which briefly stated is this: Any outward acknowledgment of Deity, is a form of worship rendered in recognition of moral responsibility; and any form of worship is a devotional, or religious act. But every religious act must, of necessity, spring from some preconceived opinion regarding religious doctrine, which requires a certain degree of intelligence.

It does not follow, then, that because some existing thing is a creature of God, it is therefore charged with moral responsibility. Not only does this require intelligence, but a high order of intelligence. It is true that any person, who has mental power enough to entertain distinct ideas of a Supreme Being, may recognize his moral obligations to that extent that he will reverently worship God; but it will readily be conceded, that there are those, such as idiots and insane persons, who are not capable of exercising this high privilege, and yet no one will deny that they are God's creatures. There is still a larger class of God's creatures—beasts, birds, and reptiles—that have no visible form of worship in recognition of the source of their being, because they are not possessed of that order of intelligence by which alone, the Creator is recognized as an object of worship, love, and obedience.

The recognition of God, therefore, and of accountability to him, require not only a distinct intellectual faculty, but that of a high order. Where, in a government, shall this faculty, this intelligence, be found? In order that there may be a governmental recognition of God, it is necessary that what is thus held to be the government, shall be a distinct entity, a personality, possessing an intelligence of as high an order, and as real, as that which is found in each individual soul. Where, then, we ask again, is there in a government any such intelligent personality as is thus shown to be essential? There is no such thing; there never was any such thing, and there never can be any such thing.

While it may be freely admitted that God asks human intelligences to individually acknowledge him as the source of their existence and happiness, the foregoing clearly shows that there is no ground for the assertion that a nation is a moral being, simply because it is one of God's creatures. We do not, however, admit the proposition that nations are, properly speaking, creatures of God; but could it be positively shown that nations are the direct creatures of God, it would in no wise follow that they, as such, are therefore capable of recognizing moral obligation, which requires special intelligence of, and full belief in, a personal Supreme Being. Nations being only political bodies of men, a portion of whom are in doubt upon the question of a personal God, it cannot be truly said that any whole nation entertains such a belief. It may be contended that, because a majority of those in a nation do believe in a personal God, that is, therefore, the faith of the nation. But such a claim does not change the facts of the case. Since the majority in a nation cannot bear moral responsibility for the minority, they cannot represent their religious belief or moral standing. Then, just in proportion as the individuals who constitute the nation personally fail to truly recognize God, the nation itself is lacking in that particular, and no majority representation can make it otherwise.

The truth of the matter is, that while each person in the world is a living and conscious moral unit, no collection of such units, however large, or in whatever manner related to each other, can possibly transfer their personal, moral obligations to the political body, and thus make it a moral person. This idea holds even in the Church of God. There, the standing of one member in no way represents the standing of another. One member cannot worship for any one else, neither does the fact that he is enrolled as a member with others who have genuine faith in the tenets of the Church, ensure him salvation with the others, except he has a personal, living faith for himself. Then, if the Church, which was instituted for purely moral purposes, cannot unite into one, the moral units of its organization, how much less can a nation do it which is established on an entirely different basis, and for a wholly different purpose.

Every one in a nation may have as much personal faith in God, as the members

of a church, but that does not, therefore, constitute the nation a moral being. Only the personal units are, or can be so held, and these, only because they are individually accountable to God's moral law. Thus, we read: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom. 3:19.

The words of the prophet are often referred to, in vindication of the idea that nations are moral persons: “The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish.” But this text proves nothing of the kind. We read in 2 Kings, 9:8, also, that: “The whole house of Ahab shall perish;” but that certainly does not show that the house of Ahab was a personality composing a moral being, distinct from the individuals who formed the household. It could mean nothing more than that the persons who composed Ahab's household were to perish because they were all guilty of wrong. But God never punishes any one for the sins of another, even though he may be connected with a guilty party, by family or national ties. The assurance of this, is found in the words, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” So, if only one of a nation's representatives were found righteous, while all the others were guilty, the one righteous person would be preserved, because of his individual integrity, while the others would be made to suffer for their individual sins only.

The apostle has positively stated that “every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Rom. 14:12. This being true, it follows that no one can do more than to answer for his own conduct, at the bar of God. In other words, since every one answers for himself, no one will be required to answer for him. It is therefore plain that the only moral accountability which God recognizes, is that of individuals. Then, when men act in the capacity of statesmen, and administer the affairs of government, the incumbent of one department, cannot be held responsible for the wrongs which he does not sanction, and which may be done in another department with which he has had no connection. On the same principle, no government, as a whole, can be held morally responsible for the actions of even a majority of its representatives. It matters not, therefore, with what body a man may be connected, that body is not responsible for his individual acts. It therefore follows, that if nations are not morally holden, as such, they can have no conscience, and of course, no religion, and have, therefore, no right to meddle with matters of religion.

J. O. CORLISS.