vj;

* \

Kptist^utm

THE PULPIT, IN ITS RELATIONS TO POLITICS.

DISCOURSE,

DELIVERED IN THE

TU1RD CONGREGATIONAL CHIRCH, PORTLAND,

NOVEMBER 20, 1856, AND JANUARY 18, 1857.

WILLIAM T. DWIGHT, D. D.

PUBLISHED BY BEQUEST.

PORTLAND :
PUBLISHED BY FRANCIS BLAKE.
1857.

DISCOURSE.

MARK, xii : 17. And Jesus, answering, said unto them, " Render to
CiESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE G«SAR's, AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S."
ROMANS, xiii : 1 . Let evert soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
THERE IS NO POWER BUT OF GOD : THE POWERS THAT BE ARE ORDAINED OF GOD.

As a moral power constantly operating on society, none is
equal, it may be almost said comparable, to the Pulpit.,,,, Its
proper sphere includes all that is comprehended in religion
and morality ; and the interests of religion and morality are
not only vastly the most important, but they are acknowledged
to be such in every Christian country. In its teachings on
these subjects, the Pulpit strikes the deepest, clearest, loudest
note, while the conscience and the heart are the most easily
roused to listen. Its influence is felt from early childhood, it
is exerted on the mind through all its subsequent progress to
youth, maturity, middle life, advanced age ; and where super
annuation comes not, it ceases only with the grave. There
are other agencies or elements of moral power, whose wide
spread influence some would deem not less effective ; such as
parental instruction, the writings of moralists, law with its
judicial tribunals, and the press. But the first of these is

4
rendered faithful mainly through the pulpit ; the second
addresses a far smaller number, and presses motives incom
parably less powerful ; law, with its tribunals, is rather a
system of restraints than a positive urgency to what is right
and good ; while the press, in its mingled influences of good
and evil, professedly overlooks in most cases all that binds
man to the Eternal Throne. The Pulpit, and by this term I
intend the preaching of the Christian ministry as instituted
by Christ and speaking in its legitimate sphere with His
authority, is not overrated by Cowper when he affirms in
his oft quoted lines, that it
" Must stand acknowledged while the world shall stand,
The most important and effectual guard,
Support, and ornament of virtue's cause.''
As such is its influence, the Pulpit has been alwa}*^
jealously watched in its different modes of exerting it. Under
despotic governments, the monarch and his ministers, aware
that, could it but speak freely, it would speedily overturn all
the institutions of irresponsible power and introduce those of
freedom in their stead, have ever fettered it by allying the
Church politically as a subordinate power to the State. In
countries possessing a measure of our own liberty, its freedom
of utterance has been weakened by laws more or less restrict
ive ; while in our own land, political parties with the press
have assumed this watchfulness, and with scarcely less
jealousy. I intend not by these remarks that a minister, when
abusing that liberty of speech in the pulpit which Christ has
made an inherent appendage to his office, is to be exempted

from accountability to public opinion ; or in extreme cases, to
the legal tribunals. The very power of the pulpit creates the
necessity for this responsibility, and ministers are the last class
of men who would plead for immunity. But the prevalence
of this jealous watchfulness is undeniable, nor has this jealousy
been more apparent at former periods than it is at the present
day. One mode, particularly, in which it is now displayed, is
in the frequent attempts to define and restrict the minister's
range of subjects in the pulpit ; and, especially, to debar him
absolutely from what is often termed, with very confused
notions of the import of the words — " Political Preaching." It
is not intended that such attempts are always dictated by ill
will to the pulpit, or to the Christian religion of which it is
the potent auxiliary. Far from it : for men of all tempera
ments, of every shade of ill will and of good will, have
concurred in affirming that, while on other subjects a minister
must be allowed the fullest utterance, that the pulpit is to be
as absolutely unfettered as the press, there is one class of
subjects on which he must be dumb ; there the pulpit may
neither " give an uncertain sound," nor any sound whatever. It
is not supposed that a majority or a moiety of thinking men
among us concur in such opinions, but the number is suffi
ciently great to render it expedient that the question thus put
at issue should receive a fair and full investigation. While
the number is relatively small that would universally condemn
what they call Political Preaching, there is a larger class that
indistinctly dreads it ; a class which, independent of the one
just named, would not take formal exceptions to such dis-

6
courses, but which, from a timid love of ease and from having
no distinct opinions of their own, are ready to unite with
those who volunteer to guide them. The intrinsic importance
of the subject itself would, also, seem to demand such a
discussion. It is a question of limitation, of perpetual limit
ation, to the circuit of every minister's preaching : he is to
be forever precluded from presenting one class of principles
and duties to his hearers, however identified they may be
with religion and morality. The political interests of the
community are, also, among its most important interests.
Every enlightened citizen clearly discerns this, and he also
perceives that, if a Christian minister may properly notice
these in some of their varied aspects, he can expect from no
other individual an equally unbiased examination. A con
sideration also of the censure which has been indiscriminately
lavished by many upon the ministers of New England, almost
as a body, for their political preaching, — a fault, of which if it
is a fault, but few of them relatively have been guilty, renders
this discussion advisable. If such preaching is, intrinsically, a
departure from the proper course of a minister's duty, let those
who have thus transgressed freely acknowledge it and sin no
more. If such preaching is no contravention of duty, if
the welfare of the community and the country occasionally
requires it, then let this censure be hereafter withheld as
causeless and unjust only.
The subject as thus announced, may be fitly termed, the
Pulpit, in its relations to Politics : and I use the word
Politics, not simply in its abstract sense of the science and

art of government, but as also importing, what is its common
signification among ourselves, the administration of public
affairs, together with the character and measures of existing
political parties. The political preaching which has been
condemned in this country, has not been confined, like the
treatises of Aristotle and Locke, to speculative discussions on
the nature and forms, the foundations and defences, of political
government. While overlooking none of these topics, it has
also examined the measures of the existing administration, the
laws proposed and enacted, the character and contests of
political parties : these and kindred subjects ministers have
occasionally discussed, and have asserted the right to discuss
with entire freedom ; not, indeed, in the spirit of the partisan,
for this they have unequivocally condemned, but with Christian
uprightness and faithfulness. It is my design to evince that
such preaching forms a part of the appropriate instructions of
the Pulpit ; that it is, of course, a minister's right aud duty
occasionally to introduce it; and that the prcmc tion of the
general welfare obviously requires it. , , , ,
In maintenance of these positions I would cbseive, that the
Pulpit embraces within its proper sphere the discussion of all
subjects which affect the interests of religion and morality ;
and that political subjects often affect such interests. The
general principle here affirmed is tantamount to this, that it is
a minister's duty to preach the law and the gospel, in all their
connections and relations. This is his appropriate province,
prescribed for him by the Master whcse commission he bears ;
— a province, which he is not permitted to widen, and which

8
none others, either rulers or private individuals, are authorized
to contract. This, I say, is the vast field which he is to
traverse and explore in every direction ; and not primarily for
himself, but as the divinely appointed guide and instructor of
those whom he addresses. This will be denied by none, who
receive the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, as a
revelation from God. What then, it may be asked, is it to
preach the Law and the Gospel ? Does this include merely
the formal discussion of each of the commandments of the
Decalogue, in the one case ; and the announcement that
Christ died on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins
of mankind, in the other ? Or is it the entire range of
thought, the whole almost unbounded compass of facts, of
principles with their applications and illustrations, of doctrines
and duties, as affecting man in all his relations in this life and
in the future life, which are presented to us in the Scriptures ?
Ancient prophets in their teachings, Christ the great pattern
for all ministers, and the apostles who followed Him both in
their preaching and their epistles, instruct us how to answer.
Were the preacher to confine himself to this bare literal
announcement, his discourses, momentous as are the themes,
would fill their entire circuit within a single year, would
speedily become so angular and narrow as to repel the most
attentive hearer.
The Pulpit, we then repeat it, comprehends within its
range of investigation every subject which affects the interests
of religion and morality: just so far as the high obligations
which these create extend, so far is the preacher to extend his

survey. Man individually, man in his domestic, social and
civil relations, man as the ruled and the ruler, men as combined
into parties of every name or as constituting communities and
nations, are all included. The minister, when treating all such
topics, is at home, on his own domain, and he who seeks to
drive him from any portion of it, is a lawless invader.
I would now ask, whether political subjects, in many of
their aspects, do not affect the interests of religion and.
morality ; and are not thus properly included in the inves
tigations of the Pulpit ? We shall be aided in answering
this question by propounding another : Are rulers, as such,
whether monarchical or republican, whether despotic or
constitutional, accountable to God for their public official
conduct ? are the subjects, or citizens, of any country likewise
responsible for their conduct, in their reciprocal relations ? We
answer this second query by propounding still another : Are the
Sovereign, the President, the Parliament and the Congress —
are all inferior magistrates and officers, to perform their official
duties in obedience to the law of God in His word ; and in
our own country and State, for example, are the citizen and
the people universally to yield in their political relations the
same obedience ? Men who hold, with the author of the
Positive Philosophy, that moral obligation is of the same
nature with the attraction of gravitation or the circulation of
the blood, men whose conscious interest in civil government
rests solely on the consideration of the amount of money or
power which they can thus acquire, will not hesitate to answer
this query in the negative. These are the men in our own

10
country who affirm, to use their own language, that " Religion
has nothing to do with Politics." All such persons, Avere they
to speak their honest convictions, would also hesitate not to
affirm that religion, both in its obligations and final sanctions,
has nothing to do with themselves. Kings, rulers, public men
universally, not equally accountable to God for their whole
official conduct as is the subject or the citizen ; and each, all,
as fully so as is the peasant or the slave : — were this notion
once generally adopted, what restraint would any ruler or
government acknowledge but that of fear ! What government
let it be truly paternal even, would not soon be overthrown
by the assaults of an armed populace, to give place to ferocious
anarchy ! And what country which was thus cursed, both in
the governors and the governed, would not be changed into a
province of Pandemonium ? These inquiries are all repeated
in another form, when we ask : Whether civil government as
such, including not only the supreme power in any country
but those also who exercise it, is not a divine institution ? We
mean not such government as characterises a tribe of Caffres,
or a Tartar horde, nor such as a military usurper briefly holds
over the modern Pretorian cohorts that have deserted to his
standard ; but such government as long and peaceful custom
has hereditarily established, or which rests as its basis on the
consent of the people. Was it not, in distinction from anarchy
and all other forms of misrule, originally established by God
himself? One portion of the text, Rom. xiii: 1, gives us the
scriptural reply. " Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers," i. e. to the supreme power in the State. Then is

11
given the reason for this required subjection : " For there is no
power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God."
The reason for obedience to the civil government, whatever
its form is immaterial, is then this : such a government is
God's own institution, designed by him to preserve men from
anarchy and ruin, just as the family is God's institution, just
as the church is God's institution. The authority and the
general rights of rulers on the one side, and the subjection or
obedience due from the governed or the people on the other
side, are all thus established by the Most High. They con
stitute one great branch of reciprocal rights and duties of the
two classes towards each other, and of duties from both
classes towards God : they are thus identified in many of their
relations with the interests of religion and morality, and they
thus become proper subjects for exposition in the pulpit to the
understanding and conscience of every man.
Many seem not to be aware how evidently this conclusion
flows from the chapter just cited. Its first seven verses are
wholly occupied with the subject of civil government, in
some of its great relations. Among these we are instructed
as to what is the foundation, and whence the authority, of
such government ; both of which are affirmed to rest on the
will of God. The Apostle also announces the design of God
in the institution, which is always the good of the governed
or of the people ; and never that of the ruler, whether heredi
tary or elected. The inference which we are required to
make is, that rulers of every name, in other countries or our
own country, who do not steadily make the general good of

12
the people their primary aim, frustrate God's design in invest
ing them with power, and render themselves either absolute
tyrants, or the mere heads of a party. Here also are mentioned
the sinfulness of wanton, lawless resistance to the ruler's
authority, the duty of cheerfully paying tribute and custom—
that government may be thus sustained, with other kindred
topics. All these are topics, as has been just remarked, obvi
ously included within the comprehensive relations of religion
and morality, they are questions affecting every man's personal
duty, ministers are therefore in fulfilment of their obligations
to Christ and to their congregations to preach on these
subjects ; and such preaching is, preaching Politics. It is not
indeed preaching Politics, as seeking to aid one or another
party in solving the pitiful, miserable problem, — How shall
we get possession of the government of the State or the
nation, and thus be able to dispense offices, honors, salaries, to
our adherents according to the rule that " to the victors belong
the spoils"; but the politics of the Bible, the entire compass
of duties and rights which rest on men in their political
relations. The whole broad field is thus laid open before the
minister ; were it oftener entered and explored, were congre
gations generally over our land to be properly instructed in
these their relative rights and duties, would not our country
have been saved from much misgovernment ? would many
of the clouds which now blacken our zenith, have risen above
the horizon ?
This, then, is our first argument in maintenance of the
rightfulness of political preaching : that political subjects in

13
many of then- relations are directly connected with religion
and morality, and that all such questions belong necessarily
to the Pulpit. There are not a few, I suppose, who will
assent to the justness of such views, who, in other words,
will approve of a minister's treating such subjects in what
they term a general, impersonal manner. But this is to be
his limit, no farther advance can be allowed him. They will
assert, particularly, that he may not consider the wisdom or
the folly, the rightfulness or the wrongfulness, of any proposed
measures of the government ; he may not deny the duty of
obeying what has become the law of the land ; he may not
comment on any course of governmental or party policy.
These, it is insisted, are party questions, while under discus
sion ; and for a minister to favor either side, is to render
himself a partisan. Still more, if the proposed measure has
once become a law, then, to preach against it is to preach
disobedience and resistance to the laws ; instead of that
obedience which one part of the text evidently enjoins. To
comment on any course of governmental policy, it is added, is
a prostitution of the sanctity of the Pulpit : relinquish this to
the hackneyed politician, as his proper business, for it debases
the office of the herald of salvation. Many, and among them
not a few sincere Christians, will thus affirm.
Let me now inquire, whether the Pulpit is to be studiously
silent in all such cases, simply because the political question
which it would review, is then agitated ; because the govern
ment, as such, is proposing or opposing the particular measure ;
or because what was for a time doubtful, and then not

14
obligatory, has been subsequently enacted by Congress and
approved by the Executive, and having thus the sanctity of
law, must, while continuing to be law, demand unqualified
obedience ? If these are not the grounds of their opposition,
if, whatever the language they may use, they intend this
only, that all the political measures or questions of the day
which have no bearing on religion or morality should be
excluded from the pulpit, then we fully agree with them. All
such -questions, nay, all subjects, political or personal, scien
tific or of familiar life, which involve not moral and religious
principles, should be discussed elsewhere. A minister's duty,
as has been already so distinctly remarked, is, to preach the
Law and the Gospel in all their connections and relations :
traversing the whole vast region which they include, but
crossing not the boundary. To prevent then all misconception
which is not wilful, I would proceed to say, that the principle
which is to regulate every case is obviously this : that what
ever the subject, whether it is a measure of the government
or its course of policy ; whether a bill before Congress or the
Legislature which may soon become a law, or an existing
law ; whether a territory or a state is primarily concerned, or
the whole country is equally interested ; if such measure, or
course of policy, or law, is contrary in its spirit to the law of
God or the gospel of Christ, then a minister may properly
consider it in these relations, and in certain cases the import
ance of the question may render it his duty to consider it.
He is "set for the defence of the gospel"; whatever dishonors
the gospel, whatever contravenes its precepts and nullifies

15
its sanctions, he may expose and denounce. Whether God's
authority is thus contemned in high places, or in low places,
makes no difference but this ; that the more public and
therefore the more influential to evil the trangression, the
greater the necessity of rebuke. If this position as I have now
carefully defined it is denied, then the denier also affirms, for
the one is inseparable from the other, that while wickedness
in private individuals must be rebuked from the pulpit,
wickedness in public men, and wicked measures of the
government must not be noticed. The preacher, whom the
God who has instituted civil government and imparted to it
all its authority, — the preacher, whom God has commissioned
to denounce all sin and to urge upon his hearers all holiness,
must still be dumb as to public sins. Though every com
mandment of the Decalogue should be broken, still, if it is a
political matter, he must not allude to the testimony which
prophets and apostles have borne against it, but he must
relinquish the entire treatment of it to party newspapers, to
the candor and conscience of the political pamphleteer!
Let us practically test the question. Within the past six
months it has been openly affirmed in the public press and in
different quarters of our country, that it might be expedient
for Congress again to legalize the African slave trade. The
Governor of South Carolina has subsequently addressed the
Legislature of that State on the subject, asserting that the
re-opening of the slave trade is a measure necessary to the
prosperity of her people, that the traffic is perfectly right in
itself, and urging on the Legislature such measures as may

16
secure the repeal of the Law of 1808, which was then intended
to be a perpetual prohibition. Suppose, then, that within the
coming four years, or two years, and who knows that this
may not become fact, members of Congress should be found
wicked enough to urge the re-opening of the slave trade on
that body : I ask whether the pulpit ought to be silent while
a scheme so diabolical was undergoing discussion in our
national legislature ; or whether every minister and every
other friend of righteousness ought not, as God enjoined the
prophet Isaiah to do, to lift up his voice like a trumpet in
proclaiming the iniquity of the measure ? It has been very
lately stated, that the territory of Utah now contains a popu
lation of near eighty thousand persons. Suppose that Brigham
Young, with his corps of "latter day saints," should succeed
in having a bill brought before Congress for the admission of all
that horde of worse than Mohammedan polygamists, drenched
in a pollution equal to that of Sodom, as an independent State
into our Union : is a minister to shrink from exposing the
foul dishonor which such an admission would affix to us as a
Christian nation for generations, for centuries, to come ? A
number of years since, the city of New Orleans derived one
portion of its yearly revenue from taxing a certain number of
houses of ill fame. I ask again, would it have been a breach
of duty in a Christian minister of that city to have proclaimed
from the pulpit the utter baseness and scandal of such a
policy : would not fidelity to God and to public virtue have
imperatively demanded it ?
If the great principle which has been thus illustrated is

17
just, the rightfulness of political preaching with the limitation
specified is undeniable ; and the duty also in various cases, is
no less evident. I proceed to say, in further maintenance of
its rightfulness, that it is sanctioned by the declaration, and
example, of Christ. We read in Mark xii: 13 — 17, that
certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians were sent to
Him, " to catch Him in his words." Palestine was at that
time, and long had been, subject to the government of Rome ;
the title of whose Emperor, as all know, was Caesar. The
Pharisees hated the Roman government : the Herodians were
friendly to it, because the Emperor sustained the authority of
Herod. The question which they proposed to Christ, was
strictly a political question ; and it was purposely couched in
language that would constrain him, as they anticipated, so to
reply that He must incur the anger, either of the Sanhedrim, or
of Pilate. " Master," was the query, "is it lawful to give tribute
to Caesar, or not ?" Christ instantly perceived their hypocrisy,
and shunned the snare, by giving an answer in terms so
general that, while they could not fasten any distinct accusa
tion on Him, He in fact admitted the duty of paying such .
tribute, and at the same time proclaimed a most comprehensive
principle of political duty. "Render", was his reply, "to
Caesar the things that are Caesar's ; and to God the things
that are God's !" Caesar, the term then denoting the imperial
power at Rome, is thus but another name for civil government
universally, for the supreme power of the country or the state ;
and Caesar, or the civil government, as Christ declares, has its
rights ; and God, as the author of civil government, to whom

18
as Final Judge all rulers and all men will account, has His
rights ; and no government is to interfere with the authority
of God, as the supreme lawgiver. We are here instructed to
render to the government just that which it may rightfully
claim, tribute, custom, obedience generally to the laws : Caesar
is to have the things that are Caesar's. But when God's
authority is invaded, when any political measure or any law
is a violation of His precepts, then Caesar has 'no right ; then,
whatever the consequences to ourselves personally, we are to
refuse obedience to a wicked law. As the great revealer and
expounder of God's will and of man's duty, Christ here pro
claims the principle as unchangeable and supreme. It includes
within itself the entire system of the relations existing between
civil government and the Church : it affirms the duty of sub
jects to rulers with its proper limitations, and the supremacy
of God's laws to all earthly legislation. In the sense in
which the words are used in this discourse, this was political
preaching by Him who was not only the pattern for all
men, but who was also in a peculiar sense the pattern for all
ministers. Who then, we inquire, are to expand, to enforce, to apply,
the great principles of this momentous declaration of Christ
to existing cases as they arise from time to time, if not His
embassadors, when speaking by His authority ? Who, if not
the preacher, is to illustrate this portion as well as every other
portion of Christ's gospel, and thus to instruct his hearers as
to the nature of the citizen's duty to the government under
¦which he lives, as to the foundation of its authority, and the

19
limitations of its authority ; and preeminently, as to the
citizen's duty at all times to obey God rather than men,
whenever the claims of the two conflict ? This, it should be
said, is not preaching violent resistance to the government, or
its officers. It is but enlightening the hearer respecting his
duty as a citizen in such cases, which is to co-operate with
other citizens in a legal manner in securing the repeal of
wicked laws ; and in inducing those who constitute the
government for the time, to abandon unhallowed measures ;
or where this cannot be accomplished, to promote the election
of wiser and better men. As to direct, violent resistance, no
minister who understands his duty will ever counsel this, until
just such a crisis arrives as justified our fathers in waging the
Revolutionary War. The citizen should be instructed that,
in certain cases, it is right to withhold obedience ; but not to
offer resistance. Should he, as an illustration, be required to
assist an officer in arresting a fugitive slave, that the latter
may be sent back to his southern master, he is to refuse
obedience ; and on the principle that the fugitive slave law is
contrary to the spirit of the divine law and of the gospel. But
he is not to resist the officer, he is to permit him to perform,
unaided, his wretched work ; and then, should the penalty of
the law fall on himself for withholding co-operation, he is
quietly to suffer.
We need no other arguments than those which have been
now adduced : those furnished by the nature and scope of
the ministerial office, and by the authority of Christ. But we
may also allege, what is a kindred argument to the one last

2(1
noticed, the authority of the Apostles and of the ancient
Prophets. When John and Peter were interrogated before
the Jewish Sanhedrim respecting their preaching the doctrine
of a risen Saviour, and were forbidden longer to do this, they
replied at once to the great Council of the nation : " Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than
unto God, judge ye." This was a political, no less than a
religious, question. The Jewish Government forbad these
apostles to continue preaching. They replied that they should
preach, denying that the Sanhedrim had any right to require
obedience ; and alleging in justification the great principle
that, whenever God's laws and those of human governments
interfere, the latter are to be disregarded. I have already
noticed the declarations of Paul, in Rom. 13 cap. In this
inspired passage, as has been previously remarked, we are
instructed as to the foundation, the authority, and the limita
tion of authority, of civil government, and as to the design
of God in its institution. Instead of the apostle's requiring
passive obedience and non-resistance, we are taught by neces
sary inference that the ruler, Avhose great aim is not the good
of the people, so far frustrates God's design in investing him
with the supreme power. To himself, personally, no obedi
ence is rightfully due : he is to be the minister of God to the
peaceable subject or citizen for good, and to be a terror only
to evil workers. Should he at any time, in such a country
as our own, transcend his constitutional power, no obedience
is due to him. Here then we listen to the apostle Paul, as
a political preacher ; and if all the possessors of supreme

21
power, whether hereditary or elective, whether Parliaments
or Congresses or Legislatures, were to have obeyed his
instructions, never would there have arisen a cause for a
revolution, or an insurrection ; despots and tyrants would
be now forgotten words, and men in all Christian lands
under the sun would " lead peaceable lives in all godliness
and honesty." We know how ancient prophets spoke, and
preached, and wrote, what would be now called "Politics" by
many, when they from time to time proclaimed and denounced
the transgressions of the kings, the princes, the people, of Israel
and Judah. This was also done before multitudes, with a
plainness and severity which would be scarcely tolerated in
many modern congregations. The office of the Christian min
ister is, in this respect, not dissimilar to that of the prophet.
The Jewish priesthood became virtually extinct, when its
great duty, that of offering typical sacrifices, had ceased at the
offering of the Lamb of God as the sacrifice for the sins of the
world ; so that the very title and name of priest, as officially
given, is now a misnomer. And while the line of ancient
prophets has also become extinct, one of their great duties, that
of rebuking sin in every quarter, and also of summoning men
to repentance, has descended on modern ministers. " Them
that sin," whether rulers or citizens, they are to "rebuke,
reprove, exhort, with all long suffering and doctrine." If the
ministry of reconciliation are God's embassadors, what immu
nity can either of these classes assert, until they can establish
their claim to a release from subjection to His revealed pre
cepts ? Is it affirmed in repudiation of these conclusions, that

22
apostles and prophets were inspired ; and that until ministers'
can lay claim to inspiration, they should in all cases be silent?
Let me then ask in reply, Which is the most important duty,
that of publishing the conditions of salvation, or that of
expounding men's political obligations ? If the minister,
though uninspired, must preach on the amazing themes of
salvation and perdition, he is not to shrink from the consider
ation of these far less important subjects.
Here we rest our vindication. We refer to the design and
scope of preaching, as Christ's established ordinance for His
church ; we appeal to His own declaration and example, as
full authority ; we also appeal to the example of apostles and
prophets. " I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say."
As we are now approaching the close of this discussion, it
will be not only proper but necessary to remark, that political
subjects will not constitute, in ordinary cases, the frequent
staple of preaching. We have endeavored to establish the
rightfulness in itself of introducing such topics : their relative
frequency is a different matter, and except in peculiar cases
would require a different decision. Oft repeated instruction
respecting the nature and extent of our political rights and
duties is obviously unnecessary, and wherever unnecessary
would be misplaced and unprofitable. Whenever the occasion
justifies their introduction, they are to be presented only in
the clear light of God's truth, and as invested with all the
sacredness and solemnity of eternal obligation. No selfish
aim, no partisan bias, is to inspire a thought, to shape a sen
tence, to dictate a word. The preaching of party politics, or

23
of the individual's personal sympathies, dishonors the gospel
and the Lord of the gospel, and disgraces His embassador. No
minister is qualified to discuss these subjects, who remembers
not that for every such exercise of his high commission he
will be held hereafter to a strict account ; and who under such
influences is not enabled to speak deliberately, impartially,
benevolently, fearlessly, fully.
I might here fitly close this discussion, for if it has not
secured conviction any additional suggestions would seem
superfluous. Yet there are certain persons in every commu
nity whose understandings would be generally convinced, but
whose fears would be none the less active. There are others,
also, whose prejudices, consisting in misdirected and excited
feeling, argument can but feebly sway. It may be, therefore,
expedient to notice for the moment several Objections, which
are instinctively urged by such individuals against the preach-
,/ ¦ '
ing which we have attempted to justify. Before noticing
these, let me offer one or two preliminary remarks.
I have just alluded to the fears and prejudices of certain
persons as to all such preaching. Why do these prejudices
and fears exist? What is their origin, and how are they
nurtured ? Or, to propound a kindred query, — how happens
it, that in republican America, the country as we universally
boast of the largest, liberty, where every man's thought and
speech are to be absolutely unfettered, — how happens it, that
an intolerance prevails on this subject which is scarcely
equalled in lands that are cursed by despotism or slavery !
Whence comes the persuasion that, while ignorance and party

24
malignity may control unchallenged hundreds of our political
presses, while demagogues bankrupt in character and purse
are often the acknowledged leaders of a great party, the unbi
ased and Christian discussion of some great political principle
or measure, thrice or once even in a minister's life time, is
deemed by many a sin for which there is no forgiveness ?
What explanation shall we give, unless we are to admit that
the spirit of party politics has become more impatient of oppo
sition, more relentless in its hatred, here than in any other
land ; that the very freedom of our institutions is thus engen
dering a tyranny, with which an Austrian and a Turk may
taunt us and cry — Shame upon us ! Yes. Shame on such
degenerate descendants of those noble ancestors, whose Puritan
ministers withstood in the pulpit and in the camp the tyranny
of Charles I of England ! Shame on the base sons of those
brave New England fathers, who marched to the battles of
the Revolutionary war, headed at times by their pastors, and
animated through the whole contest by their patriotic addresses!
The patriotism, the piety, of the living New England ministry
are as untainted, as lofty, as those of their honored predeces
sors. The stigma which these unworthy men would attach
to those whom their fathers, if still living, would delight to
honor, is but ineffaceably affixed to their own degeneracy f
But we are to notice these Objections.
It is affirmed, then, that the wide difference of opinions
which prevails on political subjects, should prevent their
introduction into the pulpit. This diversity is constant and
notorious ; it has always existed, it will never cease. And as

25
ministers are no more entitled to form their political opinions
than their fellow citizens, as they can claim no infallibility, it
is presumption to undertake the instruction of their congrega
tions on such topics. All this, I reply, is freely admitted, except
the charge of presumption. But if diversities of opinion, and
the absence of infallibility, are to be a barrier against such
preaching, they must exclude all preaching, and the pulpit be
forever deserted. But who sees not that this is all idle talk ?
Politics occasion no greater differences of opinion than meta
physics, or political economy, or morals, or religion. And
with all these foreseen diversities of opinions and of minds
that form them, Christ has instituted the ministry and required
his servants, fallible as they are, to preach his whole gospel
in all its world wide relations. Fallible ministers can discover
the truth, and preach the truth, so as to rectify the errors of
their hearers. What doctrine or precept of the Bible has not
been construed with every practicable diversity ? Is a min
ister, therefore, to shun declaring one portion of the whole
counsel of God ?
But such preaching will give offence. Whom will it
offend ? Honest men ; candid men ; the hearer, who concedes
to his minister that independence in thinking which he claims
for himself, and who recognizes in him Christ's embassador ?
What will be the ground of offence? Because, as one required
by the high commission which he bears, to be disinterested,
impartial, faithful and benevolent in all his preaching, he has
discussed some question of political duty in the fear of God
and with the love of Jesus Christ. Whom will he offend ?
4

2ti
The office-holder, the demagogue, the bond-slaves of party, all
who cry out — that religion has nothing to do with politics.
Christ gave offence to Pharisee and Sadducee, to Scribes and
Rabbis, whatever the subject of His discourse. If prejudices
are roused, if passion is kindled, if fierce denunciations are
heaped on him, should such subjects be scripturally presented,
the sin and the reproach will not be that of the minister.
But such preaching will be regarded as attacking the
government. In most cases> I answer, there will not be the
semblance of reason for such an accusation, for the subjects
treated of will be of a general nature, having no reference to
any existing administration. And where the existing govern
ment is identified or connected with the questions discussed,
they are discussed as great questions of religion and morality
— subjects, which in all their dependencies governments have
no more right to withdraw from the Pulpit than individuals.
When the questions of divorces, of lotteries, of privateering,
are acted on by the Legislature or by Congress, and laws
contravening the morality of the Bible are enacted, is it
attacking the government, to expose in a Christian manner
the wrongfulness of such legislation ? If so, then the govern
ment must be attacked, whenever immorality or wrong of
any sort is legalized, until its unrighteous legislation shall be
done away. If so, the calling on the sinner to turn from his
iniquities and to repent is a personal attack ; and ministers
are to address the pews, but not the living men who occupy
them. So the great subjects of temperance and slavery are
moral and religious questions, and whether the government

27

of the state and the nation legislate on them or let them alone,
they belong to the Pulpit, and ministers are not attacking the
government when they apply the unchangeable laws of God
to such legislation. For doing this, and especially for what
some of them have thus done in the great matter of slavery,
they have lately received unmeasured censure. The head
and front of their offending has been this : in common with
an overwhelming majority of our New England population,
and with great multitudes in New York and throughout the
West, they have opposed the extension of the wicked system
of Southern slavery into our territories — an extension, which,
we say it with sorrow, our government with its vast influence
has directly and indirectly aided — as a violation of God's
laws of justice and righteousness, and as involving immense
evil in every relation, social, civil, and economical. In
maintenance of the gospel of Christ whose spirit has been
thus trodden under foot, in vindication of the government of
God as the supreme ruler which has been thus dishonored,
the ministers of New England have expressed their opinions
in private intercourse, they have voted at the public elections,
they have remonstrated and prayed, and some of them have
also testified in the pulpit. Party aims they have not followed,
party politics they have not preached, but in one almost
literally unbroken body they have opposed this great wicked
ness. Have they done wrong? Have they done wrong ? Let
the principles maintained in this Discourse answer. Thus, I
add, they will continue to testify and to act until, under
God's controlling providence, this momentous question shall
be settled right, and settled finally.

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08540 1231