LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DDDDli73fl732 *^o< A°^ -ov^^ 'o . » 4:? ^ .4; 0^ ^^. *^ • i />« I*" >. .i** ^^^ .^ • ^.^"^ ^. PEOM THE CHHISTIAN TIMES. SPEECH OF DR. GOODWL\, 1: '1 - \ 2. IN REPLY TO DE. HAWKS, DE. MAHAN, AND OTHERS. I>elivered in. Convetition, Oct. 14, 1862. N E W - Y R K : John A. GaAV, Pkistf.r and Btkreotypkr, 16 and 18 Jacod ^t, 1862. \.' S P E ]^] C H Mr. President : — It must be manifest to every member of this House that the wliole argument of the Reverend gentleman who has just taken his seat (Dr. Hawks), proceeds upon t\vo cardinal, and, I may say, monstrous assumj)tions — assump- tions without whic'li his entire rhetorical fabric must fall to the ground. The first assumption is, that the disruption of the Union is a fixed, per- manent, and admitted fact; that the Southern Confederacy is an independent nation in fact and of right, and so to be considered and acknowl- edged in all the doingsof this Convention. Hence he proposes so to modify the resolutions of the Committee, that we shall offer our prayers, not for " the restoration of the Union," but for " the restoration of national — i. e., of international— peace and harmony." The second assumption is, that the separation of the Southern Dioceses from this Church is legitimate, permanent, and irreversible ; that we must accommodate ourselves to it ; that the Southern Church exists by the side of us with rights in every respect equal to our own, rights which we are bound to recognize, unless we would place ourselves in a scliismatical position. Hence he proposes, not a rebuke to Soutbei'o Church- men for their rash and hasty separation, but " a concordat " for our future inter-communion. Now this is carrying loyalty a little fiirther than I, for one, am disposed to go. Not content with professing to be loyal to the Government of the IJnited States, it is equally loyal to the govern- ment of the so-called Confederate States. I trust there are few, if any, on the floor of this House, who are ready to adopt the Reverend gentle- man's two assumptions, or to shape their course and the course of this House in open and profess- ed accordance with them. I shall therefore dis- miss the gentleman's arguments and appeals with- out attempting any further refutation or reply. And here, Mr. President, I wish my position to be distinctly understood in relation to the Special Committee and their report. I say only what is well known to all the members of this House, when I say that that Committee was tak- en, and intentionally taken, almost, if not quite exclusively, from one side of the House ; seven of the nine members having already on the floor of this House declared themselves decidedly and strong- ly (q)posed to any discussion or action in relation to the subjects now under consideration. Yet I wish to say that I freely and cordially recognize the members of that Committee as most respect- able and honorable men — none more so in this House ; and I am fully ready to believe that they have endeavored to perform their duty fairly and impartially, and with a good conscience, in the siffht of God and man. I honor them for what they have done. I differ from them. I would have gone much farther. I would have had reso- lutions that should have expressed our views more distinctly, decidedly, strongly, than they have ventured to do. But I am perfectly ready, as I think every practical man shoukl be under such circumstances, to yield something of my own preferences to the earnest and decided views of others. I am still earnestly desirous that the res- olutions reported by the Committee should be amended before they are passed ; but if that may not be, then I am ready to vote for the resolu- tions as they are. It seems to be taken for granted by many gen- tlemen that the resolutions offered by the Lay Deputy from New-York (Judge Hoffman), are incomj)atible willi the resolutions of the Counnit- tee ; and that, if ado])ied at all, tliey must be adopt- ed as a substitute for the latter. But this is not so. They are offered, not as as a substitute, but as an amendment. In my apprehension, they may be adopted in connection with the resolu- tions of the Committee, without the slightest in- congruity or inconsistency. Tlie resolutions of the Committee take more the political and less the ecclesiastical view of the case, and the others take more the ecclesiastical and less the political view. For myself, Mr. President, I am clearly in favor of distinctly recognizing the case before us in its ecclesiastical aspect, and am therefore in Hxvor of the passage of Judge Hoffman's resolutions. Those resolutions lay down as their premises certain facts which no gentleman in the House wall presume to deny or doubt. It is indeed per- 1* 6 sister.tly and emphatically urged that we have not legal, technical evidence of these facts. Bat neither is legal, technical evidence necessary. It raiglit be necessary if we were about to pronounce a judicial sentence, which we are not; but such evidence was never held necessary before the passage of a legislative enactment, or of a reso- lution expressing the judgment of a legislative body. The premises being admitted, the resolu- tions follow without the possibility of evasion. They are only far less stringent than those prem- ises would warrant. They pronounce no judi- cial sentence. They utter no anathema. They ful- minate no excommunication, as their opponents so constantly assume and so industriously rej^re- sent. Far from it. Indeed, the honorable and eloquent Lay Deputy from Massachusetts (Mr. Winthrop), in a speech which he pronounced be- fore he left the Convention, admitted as much ; though he endeavored, in a somewhat extraordi- nary style of argument, to turn this very charac- teristic of forbearance and moderation against the resolutions of the Deputy from New-York. It was, so far as I remember, the only point which he made in his whole speech against them. He facetiously described them as "a bull without horns." ISTow, if this was intended to throw rid- icule upon the resolutions or upon their mover, never was such an attempt more ill-timed or more misplaced. No gentleman on the floor of this House more thoroughly deserves to be respected for his abili- ty and learning, for his simplicity and earnestness, for his long-tried and hearty devotion to the Church, and for his Ligli-toned Christian charac- ter, than the Lay Deputy frona New-York. Words cannot express how mucli I honor liim from my very heart. And as for his resohitions themselves, one of my lay colleagues but gave utterance to a feeling which I am sure must have been shared by many, if not all of us, when, after hearing them, and the noble speech with which they were introduced, he declared that '* he breathed more freely, that he felt himself to be more of a man." If, on the other liand, the gentleman from Massa- chusetts meant his " bull without horns" not in the way of ridicule, but as a serious argument, then what I have to say, Mr. President, is, that this is a very singular and notable argument as coming from that side, wliich is so constantly in- sinuating our want of Christian charity, our dis- position to harsh and violent judgments, and charging us with fulminating anathemas and curses, and calling hard names : I say, it is a sin- gular argument, in the midst of all this, to urge against us an almost ridiculous degree of gentle- ness, forbearance, and moderation. Anotlier Lay Deputy from Xew-York (Mr. Ruggles), has objected to the first of his col- league's (Judge Hoffman's) resolutions, because it charges the sins of " rebellion and sedition," as well as schism — sins which the learned and honorable gentleman has shown at length to be of a political, and not of an ecclesiastical charac- ter; while he alleges that the facts from wliich his colleague has inferred these sins are of an ec- clesiastical, and not apolitical character. That is to say, he has undertaken elaborately to show that 8 his colleague has been guilty of a non-seqidtur ; not that his conclusion is false, but that it will not follow from his premises. Now the learned gentleman might have saved a fall half hour of his own time and ours, if he had but referred to the very first paragraph < f his colleague's pre- amble, where he will find expressly and plainly laid down certain indisputable facts, from which he will see that the charge of "sedition and re- bellion" will follow as a necessary conclusion. The learned gentleman was probably led to com- mit this oversight, from having observed the pre- vailing ecclesiastical tone and character of his colleague's paper. Such are its tone and charac- ter, and it is in perfect consonance with them, that " sedition and rebellion" are spoken of, for they are denominated sim. But whatever be the character of these resolutions, whether civil or ecclesiastical, if the premises are admitted, then, as I have said, the conclusions will inevitably fol- low ; and the premises are but statements of un- deniable and undoubted facts. I am therefore in favor of the passage of these resolutions, as being called for by the facts of the case, and as being not only dignified and earnest, but gentle and moderate, breathing a pure Christian spirit, and couched in kindly Christian language. The verbal amendments to one of the resolu- tions of the Committee, proposed by my lay col- league, are intended not to change its j^urport, but to give it a more straight-forward, positive, and, I may say, manly expression. If the resolu- tions are to pass at all, I see no reason against these amendments, and many reasons in their 9 favor ; and I understand they are approved, and would be readily accepted by the gentleman (Mr. Winhtrop) who drew the original resolutions. Tliey introduce no substantial change of sense ; no new charge, reproach, condemnation, or de- nunciation of our Southern brethren. For if it is true, as the resolutions assert, that they " will have iiillicted a grievous wrong, should they per- severe in striving to rend asunder," etc., it cer- tainly must be true, as the amendment would say, that they " are inflicting a grievous wrong in trying to rend asunder," etc. Only the amend- ment states simply and directly in the present tense, what the resolutions state timidly, hesitat- ingly, in a round about way, in the pmih jyost fu'ure. Nothing is gained f.)r our own Christian character or consciousness, or in the view of our Southern brethren — who will not fail to see our meaning, however adroitly concealed or timidly expressed — or before the world, by such temporiz- ing circumlocutions. The open, manly course is always the safest and best. It commands the re- spect of all parties. But, Mr. President, we have been told over and ov«r again in this debate, and it was insisted upon yesterday by the Reverend and learned gen- tleman from Xew-Jersey (Dr. Mahan), with great emphasis and plausibility of reasoning and rhet- oric, that if we pass these resolutions at all, amended or not amended, " we shall be meddling with iiyhat does not concern iisP To establish this point, I understood the gentleman to lay down the principle that the divinely appointed functions of the Church and of the Stale are per- 10 fcctly distinct and separate, that things political and things ecclesiastical never run into each other, or become mingled or intertwined toc:ether. These propositions may well be doubted. But the learned gentleman goes further, as I understand him. He admits that the Church and the State may stand in certain relations to each other, but he maintains that the relations must be such that whatever the Church may properly do toward the State, the State may properly do the same toward the Church ; so that, if, in view of the imminent dangers of the State, the Protestant Episcopal Church may, in the language of the proposed resolutions, "pledge to the "National Governmeut the earnest and devout prayers of us all that its efforts may be so guuled by wisdom and replenished with strength, that they may be ci'owned with speedy and complete success, to the glory of God and the restoration of our beloved Union," it would be equally proper for the Con- gress of the United States, in view of a threat- ened schism in the Church,- to pass a formal res- olution, " pledging to the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States the earnest and devout prayers of us all, that its efforts may be so guided by wisdom and replenished with •strength, thai they may be crowned wi h speedy and complete success, to the glory of God and the restoration of the unity of our beloved Prot- estant Episcopal Church." The idea, of course, struck every one as ridiculous, and could not fail to provoke a general laugh ; and the Reverend gen- tleman had the satisfaction of feeling that he had triumphantly refuted his opponents by a reductio 11 ad ah&urdmn. But let ns examine the case again. Let us take the gentleman's princijde, that what- ever the Church may properly do toward the State, the State may properly do the same toward the Church, and let us proceed to apply it. Tlie Protestant Episcopal Cliurch has, by a legislative act, provided a prayer " for the President of the United States, and all others in authority ;" now would it be equally proper for the Congress of the United States, by a formal legislative enact- ment, to provide and set forth a prayer for " the Bishops and other clergy of the Protestant Epis- copal Church in the United States of America?" [Dr. Mahan — The gentleman has misunder- stood me ; my position was simply that the rela- tions of the Church and of the State to each other are reciprocal.] So I understood the gentleman ; but I also un- derstood him to hold that general proposition as hearing upon the case in hand j and I under- stood him to endeavor to show its bearing by the illustration I have referred to. It is his own illustration of his own prhiciple ; and therefore may be taken, I suppose, as showing how he un- derstands his own principle, and intends it should be applied. I need say no more to demonstrate that his principle being so understood and applied, his reductio ad ahsurdum rebounds upon his own head. And if it is not so understood and applied, it may be very true and very important, if he w^ill, and a great many other principles may be very true and important also ; but it is simply irrelevant, and proves just nothing at all in the present argument. I may admit, I do ad- 12 mit, as a general statement, that the proper func- tions of the Church and of the State are clifierent ; that tliere is a distinction between things ecclesi- astical and things political, and that the relations of the Church and State aie reciprocal ; and yet it will not follow from these propositions that the Church may not do anything towards the State which the State may not do also towards the Church ; and unless this follows, the gtntleman pr- ves nothing to our present purpose by his genei'al principles. The relations of father and son may be reciprocal, but it does not follow that whatever the lather may do towards the son, the son may do towards the father. Supposes the Church should be the " divinely appointed oignn'* to pray for the State, for kings, and for all that are in authority, is such prayer then to be reck- oned amonor things political or things ecclesiast'- cal? And is the State conveiseiy to be the " divinely appointed organ" to pray for the Church? It is evident that our Church has not followed the Reverend gentleman's tlieories. She has not contented herself with simply declaring in gene- ral that she receives and holds all that is taught in Holy Scripture ; but she has stated in di tinct, positive, and practical form, what she belit-ves to be taught in Holy Scripture. Neither does she content herself with merely prayng in general terms for rulers and magistrates; but she has ventured to pray specifically for the President of the United States, and for the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled j thus acknowledging, be- 15 for-e God and man, her all^^giance to the Govern- ment (.ftlie United States, and, moreover, recog- nizing its peculiar political constitution. Holding herself also to be " the divinely appointed or- gan" to teach and admonish men of their duties to the State, sue has declared, in her Articles, *' tliat it is tlie duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay tespectful obedience to the civil authority regularly and legitimately consti- tuted ;" and, in her homilies, she lias rebuked and denounced rebellion in the most unqua iti(3d terms. Now, in setting forth such prayers, and in iuculcatuig such instructions, has our Church hQQW ineddlittg vjith 'what doe< not concern, he > f Has she been intruding upon the sphere of things political? If not, then neither will she be thus meddling or intruding by addi'ig other prayers specially adapted to the peculiar circumstancen of the times, and by reiterating, recntbrcing, and applying her general instructions, bhe has a ru/ht to do again what she has had a right to do once. The Church is not yeo elevated so I'ar inio the em[)yrean as to have no regard to times, and seasons, and circumst -nces. Rathei-, it is her duty, her Chiis ian duty, her ecclesiastical duty, to regard them, and to shape her course and action accordingly. It is for the Church to judge when she will offer special {)rayers, and when she will reitc' ate and apply tier special instructions. She has a right to pass these resolutions. But the Reverend gentleman objects to these resolutions as being a mere expressi n of opinion y and declares that the opinion of this House ex- pressed by their vote as a House, would have no 14 greater weight with him than the same opinion expressed by the same persons in the street. To this I answer that though it might have no great- er weight with him, it would have greater weight with men generally ; and in fact, may not this be one reason why its utterance here is so A'ehemently opposed ? The Reverend geutleraan goes on, with facetious expressions, to say that after all, it is not exactly an oimiio7\^ but a cotnpro'niise. Well, pray, what is there so laughable in a com- promise, especially when the compromise does not concern the opinion itself, but only the form, and style, and phraseology in which it shall be expressed ? As to the opinion itself, are we not continually reminded by gentlemen that all the members of this House are at heart intensely loyal? that in our sentiments acd opinions on the great subject before us we are all agreed ? But the Reverend gentleman insists that our Southern brethren have simply committed an error of ophvon. Be it so. And is an error of opinion then so small a matter ; so entirely blameless? Suppose a man thinks that whatever will pro- mote his happiness is right. This may be an error of opinion. Suppose next he thinks that drunkenness promotes his happiness. This, too, may be an error of opinion. But is he therefore blameless in his inebriation ? [Dr. Mahan — I spoke of an error in regard to a matter of fact. ^ This will not mend the case. Are not almo'-t all the articles of the Apostles' Creed statements oi facts? Is not a denial -of them heresy ? And is heresy to be excused as a mere mistake as to a 15 matter of fact? I suppose that all schismatics that ever existed might urge the same excuse. Bui. the Reverend gentleman intimates that the mistake as to the matter of fact in this case, may- turn out to be no mistake at all. Our Southern brethren, he says, suppose themselves to be inde- pendent, whereas it may turn out, in the provi- dence of God, that they are not independent, or it may turn out that they are. Now ^uch a view of the case overturns the first principles of morality. It makes success the criterion of right. It makes the moral character of present action de- pend upon a future contingent event which remains to be determined by the providence of God. It finds the source of sin and crime in the providence of God, and not in the heart, the will, the motives of man. We may not pronounce our Southern breth- ren rebels or schismatics, because they may yet achieve their independence ; and thus Jefferson Davis may be an embryo AVashington, ajid Le- onidas Polka germinant Bishop White. To this I reply, that the same may be said of all rebels, while their rebellion is in progress. They are all to be regarded as Washingtons, and Frank- lins, and Whites. According to this, there never was and never can be such a thing as rebellion, as a present existing fact. It is always a thing of the past, or a contingency of the future. And then what becomes of the Church's Homily on Rebellion ? Must a man be a prophet before he can say this is a rebellion? The Southern Con- federacy may, in the providence of God, be per- mitted to succeed, for aught I know ; it may even overrun and subdue the whole country ; I do 16 not profess to be a prophet, or to know what is laid up ill the dai-k womb of the future ; tlie just cause does not always triumph ; God sometimes uses wicked men as his instruments for chastising the comparatively good ; no men, no people, are good and righteous enough to claim exemption fro'ii the Divine chastisements. But though the Southern movement should be ever so successful, it will still be, in view of the moralist and of right reason, a most causeless and wicked rebellion, and so it will stand forever on the pages of human his- tory. With reference to mere political relations, and in the view of international law, success may suffice to justify a revolution. But at the bar of moral judgment it can be justitied only by the character of its proper causes, by the actnaf facts and circumstances of the case. It must be a case of necessity — a last report, when all other means of redress for grievous urongs, or of the maintenance of constitutional rights, have been tried in vain. Such was the case of our fathers in the American Revolution. They forebore, they waited, they argued the cause, they petitioned, they remonstrated, they supplicated, they expos- tulated, they were diiven to seU-defence, they were finally forced to separate and declaie their independence. How difterent the case of the South ! What wrong had they suffered at the hands of the Government? They petition! they supplicate! No, they spurned the thought. They began with rebellion, hoping that, in " the provi- dence of God" — alas for the b asj-hemy ! — it miirht be ultimately sanctioned as a revolu'ion. The atheist only commits a mistake as to a matter of n fact. He believes there is no God^ whereas it may turn out, in the course of Divine Providence, that there is. And as to the ecclesiastical movement of our fathers ; they waited eiglit long years, until the in- dependence of the country was achieved and ac- knowledged, before they moved in the organiza- tion of an independent Church. But our Sauth- ern brethren have waited scarcely a few months or days, but rather have thrown themselves with most indecent haste into the very van of the revolutionary movement. The Reverend gen- tleman admits that they have been hasty ; they hive been hasty — that is all. Yes, and that is enough ; that is the very head and front of their offence. They have done what, at all events, they had no right to do now, and what, per- chance, they might never have a right to do. If a son, impatient for the hoped-for inheritance, should kill his father that he might seize upon it, or should seize upon it directly and turn his fi- ther out of doors, would it be a sufficient apology to say that he had been merely a little in liaste? But the Reverend gentleman has argued at great length to sliow tliat our Southern brethren are not guilty o^ scJtism. I shall not fallow him in an examination of his authorities. I shall only say that his citations from Field and Pahnerhave very little bearing upon the present case. When Field speaks of " the connection and communion Avhich many particular Chnrehes have among themselves," he means, by particular Churches, national Churches ; not Dioceses with Dioceses, nor a knot of rebelhous Dioceses with the mother 2* 18 Chiircb. And Palmer and Bingham, in their cautions, refer to solemn judicial se?itences, and not at all to such action as is now proposed in this House. The Reverend gentleman- from Xew-Jersey proceeds in reality upon the same assumption with his Reverend brother from New-York, or rather from Noith Carolina — viz., that the South- ern States and the Southern Dioceses are actucflh/ independent of the United States and of thi.s Church. I proceed upon precisely the opposite assumption, that those States are part and parcel of the United States, and those Dioceses are Dio- ceses of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. Between these two assumptions we must take our choice ; and then the aroument lies in a nut-shell. For if, for example, the Dio- cese of Virginia is a Diocese of this Church, then this Church has a right to have her Bishop, and to enforce her canons there ;. and if so, any other Bishop there — any Bishop who renounces her ju- risdiction and rejects her authority — places liim- selt in a schismatical position. Either one paity or the other has a rigJit to the Diocese ; both cannot have ir together. As to the definition of schism, I beg to refer, first, to Eden's Theological Dictionary, revised by Archbishop Whately. I refer to it, not as in itself very high authority, but as giving the plain, unbiased, common-sense, and commonly received view of the case. He defines schism thus: '' Schism is, strictly S|:)eaking, the renouncing al- legiance to the ecclesiastical government under which one lives; whilst heresy is the adopting 19 opinions and practices contrary to its laws." But since Eden and Arclibishop Whately may be spurned as of little weight by the side of Field and l^almer, I will go at once to the very fount- ain of ecclesiastical authority, to which the Rev- erend Deputy from New-York (Dr. Ilawkio) orig- inally invited us — to St. Augustine. In his Letter against Cresconius, Lib. II., Cap. 3, he cites with approbation the toUowing definition : '• Hteresis est diversa sequentium secta, schisma vero eadem sequentium separatio." He afterwards proposes the following amendments : "Schisma est recens congregationis, ex aliqua sententiarum diversitate, dissensio (neque enini et schisma fieri potest nisi diversum aliquid sequantur qui faciunt) ; ha3resis autem schisma inveteratum." Under either of these definitions, are not the Southern Dioceses plainly in schism, whether schism be a separatio eadem sequentium^ or a recens congregationis dls- sensio f And as the very charitable manner in which St. Augustine treated even the Donatists has been held up to us for our imitation, I will add that the loving Saint does not hesitate, in different places, to caU them antichristos^ furi- osos^ immanes^ 7nendaces^ latrones^ as well as schismatics and heretics. But " all things with charity." T am not disposed to follow him in the use of such language in relation to our Southern brethren. It is considered one of the harshest things in the resolutions of the Lay Deputy from New- York (Judge Hoffman), that he charges those who have voluntarily separated themselves from the Church to which they owed obedience with the 20 sin of schism. Now, I wish to call the special at- tention of the House to the fact that we have it at last from the highest ecclesiastical authority on this floor, from the Clerical Deputy from New- Yoik (Dr. Hawks) ; have it as an unwilling, but enfoi'ced admission ; have it in plain and expi'ess terms, that, " unless, in separating from us, our Southern brethren have acted under the presmre of miperative necessity^ they are undoubtedly schismaiical." Does not this fully bear out Judge Hoflman's charge that those who h^YQ voluntarily thus separated are guilty of schism ? But we hear the suggestion reiterated on all sides, that they may have acted under duress. I reply, the mere suggestion is not enough ; it might always be made ; no proof whatever has been offered ; and in such a case, the burden of proof hes on that side. But I am willing to take the burden on my side. And, in the Brst place, I wish it to be distinctly observed and understood that nei- ther Judge Hoffman's resolutions, nor any gentle- men on til is floor that I have heard, lay it to the charge oK our Southern brethren, either as schis- matica\ or even blamable, that individual clergy- men h ave omitted the prayer for the President of the United States, or have used, instead, a prayer for the President of the Confederate States. These and similar things they might be compelled to do ; and we do not charge them with any fxult in so doing. And to assume that this is what we do charge, is certainly illogical, if not dishonest, argumentation. What the resolutions charge, and what we ad charge, is, the acts and proceed- inofs of certain Conventions. Now, I maintain 21 that those Conventions neither came together nor acted under duress. There is not the slightest evidence of it. It is, in the nature of tlie case, almost incredible, if not impossible. If, tliereibre, their action was scliismntical iniless compdled hy an mtperative necessity^ it clearly follows that all those who voluntarily joined in such acts and proceedings were guiily of schism. Even the Reverend gentleman from New-Jer- sey (Dr. Mahan^, admits that the course of our Southern brethren is dangerous., though he will not allow it to.be damnable — i. e., as he interprets it, condenniahle., or cidpaUe. And here, in pass- ing, Mr. President, I cannot reirain from express- ing my unfeigned surprise at the definitions which the learned Professor of Ecclesiastical History has given us of certain theological and ecclesiasti- cal te]-ms. As a clerical young gentleman from New-Jersey (the Rev. Mr. Doane) has already taken me to task for using a theological term, as he alleged, in a non-tlieoiogical sense, I am the more emboldened to purme the subject a little further. The learned Professor has told us that, in speaking cf " damnable schism," the word damnable is used, '-' not in any profime or com- mon sense, but in its proper signification of con- demnable or culpable?^ Now, I venture to say that the proper, technical, theological sense of the term — the sense uniformly attaclied to it in this connection in all ecclesiastical history — is, " that which exposes to, and, if persevered in, will pro- cure eternal damnation." In like manner, the learned Pi'ofessor tells us that anatJiema does not express a denunciation, nor even a judgment of 22 the Church ; that it means simply, " O God, we cannot judge; we commit all judgment unto thee." Whereas, the merest tyro in language or history must know that anathema means accursed^ an accursed thing, a thing devoted to destruction, from the Septuagint verpion of Joshua down to the Council of Trent. Anathema and accursed are used by councils and ecclesiastical writers as interchangeable terras. It not only expresses a denunciation, a judgment, a sentence of the Church, but it expresses the highest and most awful denunciation, judgment, and sentence which the Church or man can pronounce. It is the technical form of excommunication. But, says tlie learned Professor, the Church does not de- noimce ; she has no warrant for denu7iciation. Ajiathema is not analogous to denunciation; " deyiunciatioii!'^ is a heathen word, heathen in spirit and in meaning. This may be so ; but it must be a late discovery of the learned Professor, for the Church of England and our own Church had not discovered it; but in the 33d Article of Religion we still read, " That person which, by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommu- nicated, ought to betaken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen and publican." But what is it, asks the learned Professor, to be a heathen man and a publican ? It is, says he, to be simply not of our communion — to be a Pres- byterian — to be a Methodist. Mr. President, I protest against classing Presbyterians and Metho- dists with heathen and publicans. I stand here, and do not hesitate to declare pubUcly and em- 23 phaticallj on this floor, that I regard Presbyteri- ans and Metliodists as my brethren, my Christian brethren, and not as heathen men and publicans. And I know of no place where our Protestant Episcopal Church has ever denounced Presbyteri- ans and Methodists as heathen and publicans, has ever anathematized them or excommunicated them, or has even declared that they are schis- matics, or denominated them sects, or denied that they constitute branches of the Church of Christ. And with my notions of Christian char- ity, I feel at liberty to remain within the limits of the quiet and cautious reserve which the Church has exercised. [Dr. Mahan desired to explain. He had meant to use the terms Presbyterian and Methodist in no invidious sense.] But I contend, Mr. President, that the gentle- man has no more right to elevate the " heathen man and the publican" to the level of Presbyteri- ans and Methodists, than he has to degrade Pres- byterians and Methodists to the level of heathen men and publicans. To be a heathen man and a publican means something more than simply not to be of our particulcir visible communion. It means to be cut off from the Church catholic, from the body of Christ ; to be an accursed thing, a thing to be shunned by the whole company of the faithful. If I understand the drift of the Rev- erend gentleman's argumentation about schism and Church discipline, the upshot of it is, that it is very dangerous, as well as a most difficult, rare, and extraordinary thing, for the Church to de- nounce anybody j if done at all, it must be done 24 with many delays and precautions, against only a few at a time, and with ahiiost perfect unanimity; but Churchmen, individual Churchmen, may de- nounce to their heart's content, may fuhninate their exconununications ad lihltuin against whole multitudes, sects, schismatics, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., etc. Only Southern Churchmen must be dealt with gently — must not even be re- buked for their faults ; for we must remember that we, too, have faults. Now, I have no great sympathy with that kind of one-sid d Christian charity which is so very meek, forbearing, forgiv- ing, and Christ-like towa-ds one set of sinners who happen to live in a certain latitude, only to pour out upon others the more fieely the vial of its vituperation. It may not be amiss to remem- ber that Presbyterians and Methodists may have something of the *' Saxon blood" — something of the " Old Adam" — in them, as well as our South- ern brethren. In the spirit of St. Augustine to- wards the Donatists, I would look upon South-ern brethren ; not as heathen men and publicans, but as my Christian brethren, erring, yet beloved ia Christ, whom I would most heartily welcome back to the old fold. Still, I look upon them in their present position as guilty of schism — not damnable schism — no, God forbid ! — nor yet whol- ly innocent either, but adpable^ censurable cer- tainly, sinfid as well as dangerous; and I would have the Church declare it so. According to the Reverend gentleman's argu- ment, as it would seem that no man could possi- bly commit the sin of schism unless he were obsti- nately bent upon committing it, knowuig it to be 25 schism, so it would seem that no inan can be dealt with for schism, unless he absolutely insists upon it, and wnll not take no for an answer. As I have listened to the course of this debate, and heard the beautiful precepts of the Sermon on the Mount so frequently urged upon us for our guid- ance in this case, it has seemed to me that w^e were getting ready to resolve ourselves into a Peace Society — all with special reference to the present war — in order to carry out the precept, " If a man smite thee on the one cheek, oifer also the other;" and that, perhaps, we might even come to establish a community of goods, in con- formity with the injunction, '' Give to every one that asketli of thee, and from him that would bor- row of thee turn not thou away.'' I trust I am' ready to receive and obey these, and similar pre- cepts, as they were intended to be received and obeyed ; but I do not suppose they are to be tak- en literally, and least of all are they to be applied to governmental action either in Church or State. And I do not see with what good reason they are cited in just this particular emergency, when we all know that we are not ready so to apply them in other and ordinary cases. And as to the slow and cautioussteps of proceeding, on which the Rev- erend gentleman so much insists, tliey belong, as I liave said, to the passing of a judicial sentence, which is not what we propose now to do. j^ut the gentleman bids us beware lest w^e ex- pose ourselves to " the fearful retcrt of that grand old saint Firmilianus," and ciit ourselves off in- stead of the others. There might indeed be good reason for great circumspection, if we were pro- 3 20 posing to ciU cmyhody off. Gentlemen are con- stantly declaiming about excomniimication^ as if we were proposing to excommunicate our South- ern brethren, which I have not heard proposed here as yet, and which, if proposed, I should cer- tainly resist as strenuously as anybody. The gentleman also warns us that, if we pronounce our Southern brethren schismatical, the rest of the Church catholic might not agree with us, but, siding with our Southern brethren, might even pronounce us in schism. Our Mother Church of England, I think, was not troubled with such fears as this. In her 27th Canon, Avhich she entitles, " Scliismatics not to be admitted to the Communion," she describes as one class of schismatics, " any who huve spoken against or depraved his majesty's sovereign authority in matters ecclesiastical." Any who have spoken against the king's supremacy are here declared to be schismatics, and excluded, from the Com- munion. Such is the dictum of the Anglican Church. Has the rest of the Church catholic ap- proved of it? Or has the Church of England bten in schism ever since she uttered it ? No more does our own Church liitherto seem to have been troubled by similar fears; as witness her Canon which was applied in the case of Bishoj) Ives in 1853. That Canon provided for a much more summary process than the Reverend gentle- man holds to be allowable. Did our Church ask what the rest of Catholic Christendom would think of it ? She provided an extraordinary remedy for an extraordinary case — -just what we are called upon to do now. And has she been in schism 27 ever since ? But the nntliority of onr own Cliurch or of the Church of England may liave no great Aveiglit with those gentlemen who ho'd that some of the Canons of the Chinch of the first three centuries, and of our own Church for thirty years ]>ast, are "grossly inconsistent with the iirst ])rin- ci|)les of the Gospel of Christ." I will therefore refer to a precedent which may be thought more to the purpose, as showing with what tardy re- luctance, with what Christian gentleness, forbear- ance, and caution, ecclesiastical discipline should be administered. I shall state the facts to the best of my recollection, and subject to correction if I err in any particular. In one of our Dioceses a few years since, a certain clergyman from another Diocese was sojourning. It was alleged that he associated in religious services too freely with ministers of other denominations. The Bishop of the Diocese immediately interpreted this as "a crime or misdemeanor," under Tit. II. Can. III. Sec. 2 ; and without trying the effect of any previous admonition, forthwith, in a letter which certainly was not distinguished for Christian meekness and gentleness of expres^'ion, publicly denounced the said clergyman, and foi-bade him to exercise with- in the bounds of that Diocese that '* great and glorious gift which had been bestowed upon him by the Holy Ghost." In thus proceeding with- out taking the first, second, tliird, and fourth steps Avhich the Reverend gentleman has laid down as required by Christ in the administration of ecclesiastical discipline, I desire to know wheth- er that Bishop so grievously sinned that, ihlling under " the retort of that grand old Saint Firmili- 28 anus," he lived the rest of his life and died in schism. There is one point, Mr . President, to which I must jilkide in passing, and which I could wish I had time to discuss more thoroughly than I shall now be able to do ; a point on which several gen- tlemen have laid much stress, and which, if they are right, becomes a cardinal point in this debate ; I mean the duty of submission to a de facto gov- ernment. It is alleged tliat the Southern Confed- eracy is a de facto government, that it is among " the powers that be ;" its vast armies are refer- red to in proof that it is such a pov^er^ and the authority of the Apostle is invoked to show that Christians at the South are bound to yield it obe- dience. The argument is plausible ; but I reply that armies and fleets, mere brute /brce, do not con-titute what the Apostle means by the " pow- ers that be." By " the powers that be," he means governments; governments, as our Church has interpreted him, " regularly and legitimately constituted." The mere/ac^ oi force or 2yoioe7' is not enough to bind the co7iscience. From pru- dence or necessity, we may indeed yield to force anywhere, whether of rebels or of robbers ; but then we yield for icrath^ and not for conscience sake / we yield not because we ought^ but because we must. So long as the regularly constituted govern- ment remains, exercising or seeking to exercise its functions, a Christian man's allegiance is due to that government, and not to any de facto pow- er, though backed by any amount of force what- ever. I would like to know whether gentlemen 29 carry their notions of the duty of submitting to a de facto government so f'lr as to hold that any persons, within any of the Confederate States so- called, as in Western Virginia, or in Tennessee, or in North Carolina for example, who may enlist in the service of the United States, under the old flag and under the old Government which has never abdicated its functions, are guilty of a vio- lation of the Apostle's precept, guilty of" rebellion, guilty of one of the blackest crimes which man can commit. If gentlemen are not ready to go thus far, \ hope that, for consistency's sake, they will insist no more on the duty of submitting to de facto governments. But, Anally, the Reverend gentleman from New-Jersey objects against our being led to pass the resolutions before us, in view of the momen- tous character of the present emergency — alleging that we ought not to take such action in an im- portant case, unless we are ready to take similar action in regard to any and every trifling ques- tion ; the principle is the same for all. This rea- soning would be good, if it were admitted to be wrong in itself to take such action. This is all along quietly assumed by the other side, without the slightest proof, in all they have to say about yielding to outside pressure. But I maintain that w^e have a right to take such action, if we think best. And then it is folly to say that we ought not to take it in an important case, unless we do the same in trifling cases. As well might we say that the Mayor or Governor of iSTew-York ouglit not to call out the Militia to quell an insurrection or a furious mob, unless he applies the same 3* 30 means to suppress the slightest disturbance that may take place in the street. And if it is urged, again, that we are an ecclesiastical body, and tiierefore have no right to act upon anything but ecclesiastical afiairs, I answer that we are con- stantly in the habit of" acting upon other than ec- clesiastical affairs, and that, too, in very trifling cases. Is it an ecclesiastical matter to accept an invitation to visit an Academy of Arts or a public charity ? Is it an ecclesiastical act to vote our thanks for hospitalities or other favors shown to us ? Yet such votes are solemnly passed by us, sitting as a council of the Church, and are for- mally entered in our Journal. They are required of us as matters of courtesy, it will be said. Yes ; and Christian courtesy is no more our duty, sit- ting as a solemn council of the Church, than Christian patriotism. And as for a precedent for the precise action we are now called upon to take, it is not true, as is so often assumed or alleged, that there is no precedent in all the past history of this Church. There is a precedent — pertinent, almost perfectly coincident, most interesting, and most authorita- tive ; and to this, Mr. President, I beg, in con- clusion, to call the attention of this IIousp. I refer to the Address to the President of the United States which was voted by the first General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church — the same Convention which in the fol- lowing October, at an adjourned meetinj?, and with fuller attendance, established the Constitu- tion, and ratified and set forth the Prayer-Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 31 StUcs.* Tims, the principle of expressly recog- i)izini^ our iiiterost in the civil govcrniiient in iiu- poil.'int emergencies was dei)osite(l in the very :ra(lle of our C'lmrch, und engrafted u]»ou its v^ery germ. To show how deliberately and seriously this Srst Council ol our Church treated the subject, I beg to read from their Journal : ''Juhj 20, 1780.— Ordered : That the Rev. Dr. 5mith, the I lev. Dr. Moore, and ]\Ir. Ogden be a ['ommiitec to prepare an Address tp the Presi- dent of the United Slates. " Aug. 5. — ]Mr. T. Coxe was added to the above Committee. ^''Aug. 0. — The Committee presented a draught; read ; ordered to lie on the table. Subscfpiently, read a second time ; afterwards read by para- graphs, and ordered to l)e engrossed for signing. ''^ Aug. v. — Engrossed Address signed l)y the * Subsequently, Dr. Ilawkg eDdoavorcd to parry tbo forcb Df tliis precedorit, by saving tliat ibe General Couvt-ntion meddling lulth politics — meddling icith what did not concern them f If it was, then let it no more be said that our Church has never meddled with politics. If it was not, then let it no more be said that the action now proposed is meddling with politics. The present seems to be just tlie time, and per- haps the first time since that address was made to Washington, when our Church is called upon open- ly and solemnly to reaffirm its original position. If the lathers and founders of our Protestant Episcopal Church expressed their satisfaction at the establishment of the Constitution, surely we may express our sympathy with the efforts made by the Government for its defence and preserva- tion. If they spoke joyously and thankfully when ournationalexislencebegan,we may speak sorrow- fully and prayerfully when that national existence is in imminent peril. I invoke the spirit of our early fathers. If they could be present now, and make theirvoicesheard again in these deliberations Qf ours, I am confident they would visit with stern and withering rebuke those who oppose the ex- pression of any patriotic sentiments, the utter- ance of any sympathy with our Constitutional Government, with our struggling and bleeding country. Were they here, I have no doubt they would vote, every man of them, for resolutions incomparably clearer and stronger than any which Ave have before us. Let us not disgrace our ancestry. 54 ¥1 •^o^ ■^0^ 5^>. ,* ..v.. <-c ^ - • . o - .V