4 4 
 
 %\\t WowtK^ tliat \it. 
 
 1 1 
 
 A SERMON, 
 
 PREACHED IN ST. PAUL'S CTIURCn, CENTREVILLE, QUEEN ANNE 
 
 COUNTY, MARYLAND, THE FOURTH SUNDAY AFTER THE 
 
 EPIPHANY, FEBRUARY 2, A. D 1862. 
 
 REV. EDWARD J. STEARNS, A. M 
 
 RECTOR. 
 
''iftjj Wmvm t\i»t Ire. 
 
 ff 
 
 A SERMON, 
 
 PREACHED IN ST. PAUL'S CHURCH, CENTREVILLE, QUEEN ANNE 
 
 COUNTY, MARYLAND, THE FOURTH SUNDAY AFTER THE 
 
 EPIPHANY, FEBRUARY 2, A. D. 1862. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. EDWARD J. STEARNS, A. M, 
 
 RE C TOR. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 JAMES S. WATERS, 
 
 1862. 
 
a 
 
 i 
 
 
 g:^^*^ 
 ^ .% 
 
 0,^^^ 
 
 The poioers that be are ordained of God. 
 
 What say you ? it may be said ; is every ruler then elected by God ? 
 This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual 
 rulers, but about the thing in itself. For that there should be rulers, and 
 some rule and others be ruled, and that all things should not just be earned 
 on in one confusion, the people swaying like waves in this direction and that ; 
 this, I say, is the work of God's wisdom. Hence he does not say,/or there is 
 no ruler but of God; but it is the thing he speaks of, and says, there is no 
 power but of God. And, the poivers that be are ordained of God. Thus 
 when a certain wise man saith," It is by the Lord that a man is matched with 
 a woman, he means this, God made marriage, and not that it is he that joineth 
 together every man that cometh to be with a woman. For we see many that 
 come to be with one another for evil, and not by the law of marriage, and 
 this we should not ascribe luito God. 
 
 St. Chrysostom, Homil. on Epis. to Romans, Oxford T)-ansl. 
 
 Proverbt six. 14, Sept. Transl. 
 
SERMON. 
 
 Eomans siii. 1, 2. — Let every soul be subject unto the higher 
 POWERS, For there is no power but of god: the powers that be 
 
 ARE ordained OF GOD. WHOSOEVER THEREFORE RESISTETH THE POWER, 
 RESISTETH THE ORDINANCE OF GoD. 
 
 Christianity has to do primarily with our relation to God, 
 and secondarily, with our relations to one another and to 
 society. The latter grow out of the former and are intimate- 
 ly connected with it. Hence the words of my text, which 
 would otherwise he out of place in an Apostolical Epistle ; 
 and hence the Church's adoption of them in her systematic 
 teaching. They come in course to-day. They do not come 
 every year ; it is two years since they came last, and it will 
 be three years hefore they will come again. There is reason 
 therefore why we should give them ''the more earnest 
 heed," lest hy any means "we should let them slip." Let 
 us endeavor therefore to consider them soherly and dis- 
 passionately, looking to the Father of lights to ''lighten 
 our darkness," and praying the Spirit of truth to lead us 
 into all truth, that following in the steps of our Blessed 
 Master we may "render unto Ccesar the things that are 
 Cesar's," no less than "unto God the things that are God's." 
 
 I begin with an explanation of terms. The word "power," 
 which, by the way, had better have been authority, (for 
 that is what it means,) is here used, you will observe, 
 four times; twice in the singular, and twice in the plural. 
 There is a reason for this difference of number. "Every 
 soul," that is, every individual citizen or subject, is required 
 to be in subjection to the "higher powers," not, power, 
 because there always are, in fact, more powers than one 
 that have authority over him. Of course, in the "liigher 
 
powers," that is, the powers that are higher than himself, 
 is included the highest or supreme power. So, too, it is 
 the existing ''powers" that are ordained of God; not, the 
 existing power. But when we come to the next sentence, 
 it is, "power," not, powers: "Whosoever, therefore, re- 
 sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God;" because 
 the higher powers are as really of His ordaining as the 
 highest, and any one of them as really as each and every 
 other.— All the powers, then, in the State are included in 
 the phrase "higher powers." 
 
 The next question is. What are we to understand by "the 
 powers that he?" Ordinarily, there is no difficulty in 
 determining this point, because, ordinarily, there are no 
 competing powers. But the Apostle's direction applies to 
 extraordinary cases as well as to ordinary : hence the 
 difficulty. As a means toward arriving at a satisfactory 
 conclusion, let us enquire first in what sense "the powers 
 that be" are "ordained of God." 
 
 That they are not ordained by Him now in the same 
 sense that they were under the Jewish theocracy, that is to 
 say, by a direct and immediate appointment of the indivi- 
 dual rulers, is matter of fact. Neither are they ordained 
 by Him in the sense of a direct and immediate determining 
 of the number of authorities, their several natures and func- 
 tions. The State differs in this respect from the Church. 
 "God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondari- 
 ly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts 
 of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues," 
 (1 Cor. xii. 28,) some of them permanent, some of them 
 temporary, but all of them tlie direct appointment of God. 
 This is the Constitution, the "organic law," of the Church, 
 unalterable except by Him who ordained it. Hence the 
 Church refuses to recognize as (ecclesiastically) legitimate 
 those communities that have thrown it ofl\ But in the 
 State it is not so. It was not so in the Apostle's day. The 
 powers that were^ at the time he wrote, were the Eoman 
 powers, appointed theoretically by the people or the senate, 
 practically by the Emperor, himself self-appointed. It 
 
never was so, except under tlie theocracy. From the 
 earliest times, there have been different forms of civil 
 government, kingdoms, empires, republics, democratic 
 commonwealths, each recognized by every other as a valid,, 
 if not desirable, constitution of the State, a legitimate 
 civil community. 
 
 "The powers that be," then, not being "ordained of 
 God" in the sense of a direct and immediate designation of 
 the offices to be filled and the persons to fill them, in what 
 sense are they ordained by Him? There is but one other 
 conceivable sense, namely, that civil government is an ap- 
 pointment of God; that is to say, that it is His appointment 
 that there shall be governments, and that, as there cannot 
 be governments without governors, it is His appointment 
 that there shall be governors also. This is undoubtedly 
 the Apostle's meaning in the assertion we are considering, 
 and it lets us into the meaning of the whole passage. 
 
 The right of some to govern — the right, I mean, for the 
 time being — implies the duty of others to be governed, or, 
 as the Apostle expresses it, to be in subjection: "Let every 
 soul be subject to the higher powers;" the right and the 
 duty are correlative and coextensive. But more of this anon. 
 
 To recur to the question, Who are "the powers that be?" 
 As I have before remarked, there can be no difficulty in 
 answering this question, where there are no competing pow- 
 ers. But where there are competing powers, which are 
 "the powers that be?" There are two cases of this problem, 
 depending on whether the competition be an active, or a 
 passive one. If it be a, passive one, that is to say, if powers 
 claiming to "be," are not in possession, and content them- 
 selves with merely protesting against the title of those that 
 are in possession, then plainly, these latter are "the powers 
 that be;" otherwise, there would be really no power for the 
 individual to be subject to, and, consequently, he would be 
 subject to none, and so God's ordinance of civil government 
 would be defeated of all practical efiect. 
 
 This is not merely a supposed case ; it is the actual case 
 of the French people at this moment, save that with them 
 
there are two competing powers, each refusing to recognize 
 the pretensions of the other, and both protesting passively 
 against the title of the powers in actual possession. Surely, 
 there can be no doubt to which of these powers every indi- 
 vidual inhabitant of France is to "be subject;" if he is not 
 subject to the powers in actual possession, plainly he can be 
 subject to none. 
 
 But suj)pose the case of an active competition, that is to 
 say, of a claim set up, and of an army in the field to assert 
 it, which then are the powers that be? In other words, to 
 which of the contending powers is the individual to be sub- 
 ject? Manifestly, as before, to those in actual possession; 
 and for the same reason, namely, that if he is not subject to 
 them he can be subject to none, and so God's ordinance of 
 civil government is practically annulled. 
 
 These are the only supposable cases, and they admit, as we 
 have seen, of but one answer. There can be no difficulty, 
 then, in determining in any given instance which are "the 
 powers that be?" The simple test is, actual possession of the 
 machinery of government ; for, without the machinery, gov- 
 ernment cannot act upon the individual, and the individual, 
 therefore, cannot "be subject" to it. 
 
 I think you will, by this time, begin to suspect that the 
 word "subject," in the Apostle's use of it, has not so wide 
 a signification as is sometimes attributed to it ; and you will 
 be right in your suspicion. Being "subject to the higher 
 powers" does not involve doing whatever they may command; 
 for they may command you to "pervert judgment and 
 justice," and then, if you do it, "He that is higher than the 
 highest regardeth ; and there be higher than they." (Eccl. v. 
 8.) Doing is action, and tliere is a limit to active obedience 
 to the "higher powers;" unlimited active obedience is to be 
 yielded to God only. 
 
 If now I should say that unlimited passive obedience is 
 due to "the powers that be," you would probably demur 
 to it, because you would misapprehend my meaning. The 
 phrase "passive obedience" is a theological one, and is as 
 generally misunderstood by laymen as the legal phrase 
 
"benefit of clergy."* Passive obedience does not mean doing 
 whatever is commanded; that is active obedience, for doing 
 is action. Passive obedience is simply non-resistance. The 
 Quaker exemplifies it, when, refusing to do military duty, 
 or even to pay the fine for non-performance of it, he suffers 
 his goods to be distrained and sold at a heavy sacrifice to 
 satisfy the law. The Confessor exemplifies it, when, refusing 
 to betray the secrets of the confessional on the witness stand, 
 he submits to whatever penalty the Court may inflict upon 
 him. Whether their scruples are well grounded is apart 
 from my purpose: I do not cite them for their scruples, but 
 for their patient taking of the consequences. 
 
 After this, a definition of passive obedience is, perhaps, 
 hardly needed. Still, it may not be altogether superfluous 
 to give one. 
 
 "Passive obedience" is unresisting submission to wrong, 
 real or supposed, at the hands of authority. Now such sub- 
 mission is the duty of the individual, as such, when there is 
 no legal and peaceable way of resistance. I say, of the 
 individual, as such: I am not speaking of him now as a con- 
 stituent member of the State ; I shall come to that by and 
 by. I repeat, passive obedience is the duty of the indivi- 
 dual, as such, when there is no legal and peaceable way of 
 resistance. This is the plain teaching of Christianity. "Put 
 them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to 
 obey magistrates." "They that take the sword," that is, as 
 the connection shows, they that in their private and indivi- 
 dual capacity take the sword against the civil magistrate, 
 "shall perish with the sword." "Submit yourselves to 
 every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." It is the 
 teaching of reason also ; for if every man is to be judge in 
 his own case, there can be no such thing as a civil commu- 
 
 * I had hardly written the above, when I met, in the daily papers, with the 
 following confirmation of it, in the Report of a Committee of Congress on the 
 examination of Lieut. Col. Maynadier in regard to his execution of Mr. Secretary 
 Floyd's order for the distribution of arms : "He says that 'his duty was obedience, 
 not questioning.' This, as a general rule, is correct; but in the case of palpable 
 treason on the part of a high ofiScer, passive obedience in the inferior ceases to be a 
 dutv and becomes a crime." The italics are mine. 
 
8 
 
 nity; and if every man is not to "be judge in his own case, the 
 individual, human nature being what it is, must sometimes 
 suffer wrong at the hands of society, and if he suffer must 
 submit unresistingly. 
 
 Call not such submission slavish and degrading ! Is dig- 
 nity to be found only in resistance? Is there no dignity in 
 suffering? Shades of the "noble army of martyrs" and 
 confessors, of all that have ever suffered joyfully for the 
 right and the true, forbid it ! Infidelity calls submission 
 degrading. Infidelity has no martyrs. The Church teaches 
 submission. The martyrs of the Church are a vast multi- 
 tude whom no man can number, gathered out of every kin- 
 dred and tongue and people. "^ These are they which came 
 out of great tribulation." These " had trial of cruel mock- 
 ings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprison- 
 ment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were 
 tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about 
 in sheepskins and goatskins ; being destitute, afflicted, 
 tormented; (of whom the world was not worthy,) they 
 wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and 
 caves of the earth." (Heb. xi. 36 — 38.) 
 
 Chief of the noble band, foremost among those who thus 
 
 " climbed the dizzy steep of heaven 
 
 Through peril, toil and pain," 
 
 stands the great Apostle the meaning of whose words we 
 are seeking to ascertain. Let his life be their best expounder. 
 A living martyrdom was his, such as no other, probably, 
 ever went through, save Him who was more than man. 
 Listen to the solemn music of his words: "Five times 
 received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with 
 rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night 
 and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in 
 perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own 
 countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, 
 in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils 
 among false brethren ; in Aveariness and painfiilness, in 
 watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in 
 cold and nakedness." (2 Cor. xi. 24—27.) 
 
Such is the record. Would you have had it otherwise? 
 Would you the Apostle had met taunt with taunt, and 
 blow with blow? Would his memory then have been 
 handed down along the ages with the halo that encircles it 
 now ? Ah ! brethren^ there is a power in passive endurance 
 that the world little dreams of. 
 
 "Nobly borne is nobly done." 
 
 Still, martyrdom is not to be courted : on the contrary, it 
 is to be avoided in every possible way consistent with duty. 
 " When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another," 
 was our Lord's direction to his disciples, and it applies to us 
 in its spirit, if not in the letter. If you cannot flee, or if 
 duty to others will not permit you to flee, remain and take 
 the consequences. If they attempt to deprive you of your 
 rights as citizens, stand only the more firmly upon them. 
 Assert them in every possible legal way. It is a duty you 
 owe not merely to yourselves, but to society and to posterity. 
 Asserting them is not "resisting the ordinance of God." 
 The Apostle's conduct is the best commentary on his words. 
 On the occasion of his preaching the gospel at Iconium 
 along with Barnabas, there being " an assault made both of 
 the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use 
 them despitefully, and to stone them, they were ware of it, 
 and fled unto Lystra and Derbe," and " there they preached 
 the gospel." (Acts xiv. 5, 6, 7.) On another occasion, 
 when the Apostle had been seized and brought before the 
 '' higher powers, " and therefore could not flee, he claimed 
 his privilege of citizenship. "As they bound him with 
 thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it 
 lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncon- 
 demned ? " What was the consequence ? Why, that when 
 the chief captain, who was at first doubtful, became satisfied 
 of the fact, and that at the bare word of the Apostle, 
 " straightway they departed from him which should have 
 examined him : and the chief captain also was afraid, after 
 he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound 
 him." (Acts xxii. 25, 29.) Verily there were some prac- 
 
10 
 
 tical rights under that " despotic " government which we 
 are told St. Paul commanded the Roman converts to he sub- 
 ject to. On another occasion, the Apostle went still further. 
 His "companion in travel" and ''fellow-laborer," Silas, 
 and himself, had been " beaten with many stripes" by com- 
 mand of the magistrates of Philippi, and delivered to the 
 jailor with the charge to "keep them safely: who, having 
 received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, 
 and made their feet fast in the stocks." At midnight, a 
 great earthquake opened the prison doors, and loosed the 
 prisoners' bands : but they disdained to leave the prison in 
 any underhand manner. "And when it was day, the ma- 
 gistrates sent the sergeants, saying, Let those men go. And 
 the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul : The ma- 
 gistrates have sent to let you go : now therefore depart, and 
 go in peace. But Paul said unto them. They have beaten 
 us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us 
 into prison ; and now do they thrust us out privily ? nay 
 verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. And 
 the sergeants told these words unto the magistrates : and 
 they feared, when they heargl that they were Romans. And 
 they came and besought them, and brought them out, and 
 desired them to depart out of the city. And they went out 
 of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia : and when 
 they had seen the brethren," — not before, — "when they 
 had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." 
 (Acts xvi. 22—40.) 
 
 Such is the Apostle's example, and it is a safe one to fol- 
 low. "All these things happened unto them for ensamples : 
 and they are written for our admonition." (1 Cor. x. 11.) 
 " Brethren," says the same Apostle, " be followers together 
 of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an 
 ensample." (Phil. iii. 17.) The Apostle's example, then, 
 is intended to hcfolloived. In like circumstances, we are to 
 do as he did. That is the lesson here taught. Brethren, act 
 upon it. If ever you are wrongfully taken to prison, go 
 unresistingly. If, afterward, they *■' send to let you go," 
 bid them "come themselves and fetch vou out." If that 
 
11 
 
 happen to you which did not happen to the Apostle, then 
 follow the general analogy of his conduct, or if there be 
 specific precepts elsewhere in Holy Scripture, follow tliem. 
 If a yoke is attempted to be put upon your neck, ''which 
 neither your fathers nor you were able to bear," (Acts xv. 
 10,) the yoke of silence where free speech, the manly utter- 
 ance of honest conviction, hath been heretofore accustomed, 
 shake it off; it is a duty you owe to posterity. If an oath 
 unknown to the Constitution is exacted of you, refuse to 
 take it ; it can serve only for a snare to your conscience. 
 Keep clear of that "vain and rash swearing," which the 
 Church says, in her Thirty-ninth Article, "is forbidden 
 Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his 
 Apostle." Extra-constitutional, like extra-judicial, oaths 
 are not merely outside the Constitution, they are against the 
 Law of God. In brief, if anything is required of you on 
 the ground that it is for a right end, see that it be itself 
 right. Give no countenance, by word or deed, to the doc- 
 trine, so popular of late, that the end justifies the means : it 
 is a " doctrine of devils." God preserve our land from the 
 blight it is bringing on it ! 
 
 What I have said thus far, respects the individual in his 
 individual capacity. What I have now to say, respects him 
 in his capacity of constituent member of the state. 
 
 In a constitutional government — and nearly all civilized 
 governments are constitutional, whether the constitution be 
 a written instrument^ or a body of traditional customs which 
 the ruler violates at his peril — in a constitutional govern- 
 ment, the Constitution is the Supreme Power ; but then as 
 the Constitution cannot carry on and carry out itself, there 
 must be subordinate powers to carry it on and carry it out. 
 In a government like that we live under — for that is the 
 hind of constitutional government I am now speaking of, 
 and I wish it distinctly understood, that I am dealing with 
 'principles — in a government like that we live under, these 
 powers are parcelled out among three co-ordinate depart- 
 ments, the legislative^ the executive, and tlie judicial ; 
 theoretically co-ordinate, for practically one of them is 
 
12 
 
 superordinate (if I may coin fhe word) and the other two are 
 subordinate. The superordinate department is not the legis- 
 lative, still less the executive ; it is the judicial. The execu- 
 tive officers of a constitutional government of the kind we 
 are considering, are virtually ministerial officers of the 
 Courts, for the Courts have power to pass upon their acts, 
 and even to compel them by mandamus, or restrain them by 
 injunction. Even the " Chief Executive " is in this respect, 
 in his relation to the people at large, no more than his sub- 
 ordinates, save in the possession of the pardoning power, 
 which is a power on the side of mercy, not of oppression. 
 Suppose now the Chief Executive of a constitutional govern- 
 ment, sustained, if you will, by a subservient majority in 
 the legislative department, which, be it observed, does not 
 necessarily sup|)ose a majority of the people, should under- 
 take to set aside the Constitution as expounded by the 
 Courts, and to govern "after the counsel of his own will," — 
 a prerogative of God only, — have the people, ever, in such a 
 case, or have they not, the right, not in their several indi- 
 vidual capacities, but in their capacity of constituent mem- 
 bers of the state, to restrain such exorbitancy, even to the 
 extent, if it cannot be done in any other way, of deposing 
 such Executive and putting another in his place? To say 
 that they have not, is to say that if he should take it into 
 his head to have a "grand custom," after the example of 
 the Chief Executive of Dahomey, there is no help for it but 
 in the Providence of God, or in the sin of man. I am aware 
 that the case is an extreme one, but an extreme case is the 
 proper test of a universal negative ; for if there is a single 
 exception, the whole ground is shifted, and the question be- 
 comes one, not of the right of revolution, but of how much 
 will justify a resort to it. It will not do to say that the 
 Word of God forbids revolution : that would be to ignore 
 the distinction between public and private acts, a distinction 
 clearly recognized in Holy Scripture. In the very verse but 
 one preceding my text, we read, "If thine enemy hunger, 
 feed him; if he thirst, give him drink." If on the strength 
 of this injunction you were to send a ship-load of provisions 
 
13 
 
 to Charleston, I think you would hardly get clear of the 
 penalty even before a court of non-jurors. To deny entirely 
 the right of revolution, is to forget that the state, like the 
 sabbath, was made for man, not man for the state; it is to 
 sacrifice the many to the few, the people to the powers that 
 be, the end to the means, which is simply preposterous. 
 
 Of course, the right of revolution is an extreme right ; 
 the resort to it is a legitimate resort, only when it is a last 
 resort. Not only "prudence," but the law of God, "will 
 dictate that governments long established should not be 
 changed for light and transient causes;" and even when 
 that law will sanction the change, it will not sanction any 
 and every means of bringing it about, "Sedition, privy 
 conspiracy, and rebellion," we pray to be delivered from; 
 and that, not asexternal evils, like "lightning and tempest," 
 "plague, pestilence, and famine," "battle and murder," and 
 " sudden death;" but as internal evils, ranging themselves 
 under the same category with "false doctrine, heresy, and 
 schism," with "hardness of heart, and contempt of God's 
 Word and Commandment ;" that is to say, as siiis. That 
 they are sins, and very aggravated ones, too, no Christian 
 can doubt. Sedition is expressly declared by St. Paul to be 
 one of the " works of the flesh," and it was because of the 
 seditious tendencies of the Cretians and especially those of 
 them who were Jews that he gave to Titus the injunction, 
 "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, 
 to obey magistrates." Privy conspiracy is not only a sin, 
 but a very cowardly one, ranking on a par with the assassi- 
 nation to which it tends and often leads. I cannot now re- 
 call a single instance in which, even though successful in its 
 immediate object, it has ever accomplished its ultimate end ; 
 so evidently does the Providence of God seem to have put 
 its special mark of reprobation upon it. Catilinarian conspi 
 racies, gunpowder treasons, rye-house plots, are crimes 
 against civil society, and, as such, have met, as they liave 
 ' deserved to meet, the execration of all right-thinking 
 persons. The same has been the ftite of the conspiracy of 
 Brutus and Cassius ; even the acknowledged purity of 
 
14 
 
 motive of the conspirators could not shield it. As for re- 
 bellion, the prophet has declared that it is "as the sin of 
 witchcraft," and that the law of God punished with death. 
 
 But revolution is not necessarily rebellion. The revolu- 
 tion of 1789, the revolution, I mean^ (for such it was, and 
 such it was declared to be by a distinguished orator in one 
 of our large cities last summer,) by which the Federal Con- 
 stitution was adopted with the consent of eleven States only, 
 though the then existing Constitution expressly required 
 the consent of the whole thirteen, was not a rebellion, and 
 nobody ever thought of calling it one. True it was a peace- 
 ful revolution, but it was not its peacefulness that kept it 
 from being a rebellion. Suppose the Constitution had been 
 adopted, as it might have been, by the nine smallest States 
 of the Confederacy^ and suppose the consequence had been 
 a bloody war between them and the other four, that would 
 not have made the act a rebellion : it would not have altered 
 its character in the slightest degree. The character of an 
 act already done cannot be affected by any supervening con- 
 sequences. 
 
 But "rebellion" in the Litany, we are told, means revolu- 
 tion. I deny it. And, to sustain myself in the denial, I 
 will not even ask that the language be "allowed," to use 
 the words of the Church of England, as quoted in the 
 preface to our own Prayer Book, "such just and favorable 
 construction as in common equity ought to be allowed to all 
 human writings." I will simply make the action, the 
 deliberate action, of the Church of England herself a com- 
 mentary on her words: it is tlie very best kind of com- 
 mentary. 
 
 In the very same suffrage of the Litany in which we pray 
 to be delivered "from all sedition, privy conspiracy, and 
 rebellion," we pray also to be delivered "from all false 
 doctrine, heresy, and schism." Now what rebellion is, in 
 the State^ that, schism is, in the Church. If, then, shaking 
 off usurped authority in the State is, of itself, rebellion_, sliak- 
 ing off usurped authority in the Church is schism, and the 
 Chiircli of England, in sliaking off the usurped authority of 
 
15 
 
 the Pope, and retaining in her Litany tlie petition to be 
 delivered from schism, has stultified herself. It matters 
 not to the argument, that the authority of the Pope over 
 the Church of England, was wholly usurped, and that of 
 the king of Great Britain, for instance, over the Colonies, 
 only in part; for if the usurped authority could not he 
 thrown off without throwing off the legitimate with it, then 
 the legitimate was fairly forfeited, and so ceased to he 
 legitimate. 
 
 From what has heen said, it follows clearly that a revolu- 
 tion can he rightfully brought about in but one or other of 
 two ways, either by organized communities acting in their 
 organic capacity, openly and above-board, for the security 
 of their Constitutional rights, as was the case with our 
 fathers a hundred years ago, or, by the spontaneous upris- 
 ing of a whole people to shake off intolerable oppression. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to ascertain the meaning of the 
 text — what it does teach, what it does not. How far I have 
 succeeded, is known only to Him who has "caused all holy 
 Scriptures to be written for our learning." We are fallible: 
 He only is infallible. 
 
 After all^ the important thing is, the practical lesson as 
 respects our duty in the circumstances in w^hich we are 
 placed. Plainly it is that of the Apostle under the Pioman 
 government eighteen hundred years ago: passive obedience 
 to ''the powers that be," in all things; active obedience, 
 only so far as is consistent with our duty to a Higher Power. 
 ''We ought to obev Grod rather than man." 
 
J4u^ /i /'W-. ^<^^/- ^ ^yr 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 028 263 3'