The Right of Discussing Public Affairs.
James Dodson
SERMON I.
Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there: bid prophesy not any more at Bethel; for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s court. Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit: and the Lord took me as I followed the flock; and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel. Now, Therefore, hear thou the word of the Lord. Amos vii. 12—16.
THE subject, which I propose for discussion in a series of discourses to be delivered on this hour of the Lord’s day, has always been considered as lying out of the common routine of pulpit exhibition; and has moreover, by some, been viewed as altogether without the field in which ministers are appointed to labour. I, of course, at the commencement of my remarks on the present state of our public affairs, anticipate from a judicious audience the question once addressed to our Saviour, although I am confident it will be proposed in quite a different spirit from that which influenced the Jewish rulers. By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? [Mark xi. 28.]
It is a wide space, Christians, that separates the line of conduct, which would subject the public ministry of the church to the opinions of men, from that, which treats with contempt the sentiments of a respectable part of the community. Virtus est medium vitiorum. [Virtue is a mean between vices.] [Horace.] Though I will not be deterred by popular opinion, from prosecuting this subject, I feel it my duty to treat with tenderness, and even respect, the prejudices of valuable men. Therefore do I preface a discussion which may in a certain sense be termed political, with an exhibition of the authority under which, in this instance, I act. Far be it from me to assert the right of enslaving the minds of my hearers into passive obedience to sacerdotal claims; nor shall I insult an audience, which ought to be endowed with Christian discernment, by an effort at brow-beating the most humble of my fellow-men. My apology is found in the words of Amos the prophet.
Some explanation is necessary to comprehend the object of my text. The writer was a native of Tekoa, a small town adjacent to the wilderness of Judah. Here he passed his early years, in attending his flocks, and in gathering, in its season, the Egyptian fig, commonly called sycamore-fruit. In this pastoral life, Amos, pious and intelligent, enjoyed that happy simplicity which is unembarrassed by the fastidious distinctions of more polished society. He did not belong to the regularly authorized instructors of the church, nor was he educated in their theological schools, neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son; but, before he entered upon his public work, he had more than an equivalent for systematic study, and ordinary induction into office: he was divinely called and qualified by inspiration, for an extraordinary mission to the apostatizing tribes of Israel. He was called to the prophetic office when the kingdom of the ten tribes was in its utmost splendour and power, under the second Jeroboam, upwards of one hundred and fifty years after its erection under the first king of the same name.
The throne of Israel had been removed to Samaria; but still the king maintained a court and a palace, as well as a royal chapel, at Bethel, a city bordering upon the kingdom of Judah, and in which the first Jeroboam had established the worship of the golden calf for the purpose of preventing the Israelites from returning to the altar at Jerusalem. That very successful insurgent, a despiser himself of the worship of the true God, was an observer of human nature and of human prejudices, and well understood the importance of some form of religion, (whether true or false was to him immaterial,) as an engine of state policy: and he made no scruples to employ it as such. His successors upon the throne appreciated his policy and imitated his example. Bethel, revered by all the tribes as the scene of the remarkable vision of their father Jacob, was still continued as a principal place of devotion, and decorated with a royal court, an opulent hierarchy, and a splendid superstition.
When Amos the prophet visited, by divine direction, this city, Amaziah was at the head of the religion established by law, and in great favour with the court and the king. Resenting the freedom with which the minister of the Lord touched upon the affairs of state, Amaziah accused Amos of treason against Jeroboam, and ordered him out of the kingdom. The whole case is represented in this chapter from the 8th verse.
Amos had denounced both the religion and government of Israel, and predicted their downfall, verse 9. The sanctuaries of Israel shall he laid waste, and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.
The chief priest of the prevalent idolatry was alarmed at this uncourtly interference with the claims of majesty, and became himself the informer, verse 10. Then Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent to Jeroboam the king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the land is not able to bear all his words.
Whether authorized by the king or not, Amaziah proceeds to forbid the prophet to preach any more such doctrine at Bethel: for it is the king’s court: verse 12. Amos disregarded the injunction, and boldly addressing himself to Amaziah, said, verse 16, Now, therefore, hear thou the word of the Lord.
Here, then, we have the example of an inspired man for introducing, in public, topics of discussion which have a political bearing, together with the remonstrance of Amaziah against the practice. We venture to follow the prophet of the Lord. Nor is this a solitary example of the kind. Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Daniel, Paul, and John: yea, all the prophets of God, hesitated not to apply their doctrine to political persons and events, whensoever a proper occasion presented itself.
In my humble opinion, the present condition of our city and our land is such an occasion. It forces upon our attention a practical question, which we cannot entirely evade. However this war may have originated, it is a fact that it exists, and that we feel its pressure. This city is threatened, and many parts of our country are already invaded by a powerful foe. Our husbandmen are called off from the cultivation of their fields, and our fellow-citizens from their several occupations, in order to be trained to arms, and at the risk of their lives to defend their homes. Our sons, our brothers, and our fathers, our brethren in Christ, who have sat down with us at the table, in order to partake with us in the solemnities of our holy religion, sleep on the tented field, watch at their posts by night, or march to the cannon’s mouth, acting their part in the present contest. And does not this state of things present to Christians a practical question? Is it possible that it should not affect the conscience of every disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Shall we, who are yet permitted to meet together in the temple, accompany our brethren who march to the battle, with prayers for their success, and welcome the survivors upon their return home, both to our affections, and to the place which they occupied among the saints? or shall we now withhold from them, while they brave the danger, both our sympathy and our prayers for success; and afterwards refuse to acknowledge them as regular members of the church of God, or expel them from her communion as men who have unworthily hired themselves to shed innocent blood in an unjust war? If this war be absolutely unrighteous, then is it not only criminal to support it; but also those who do support it, are guilty of blood, and censurable as such before the church.
I might justify myself, of course, for considering this subject, under existing circumstances, upon the ground of ecclesiastical order; but, I choose rather to rest my right of introducing it into the pulpit upon a broader basis. With this view, I submit the following proposition.
Ministers have the right of discussing from the pulpit those political questions which affect Christian morals.
I prove this right—and remove objection.
I. Prove that we have such right.
The object to be accomplished by our ministry—The scriptural history—The system of sacred prediction—And the precepts which we are commissioned to expound, are the sources of argument to which I refer you in support of this claim of right.
1. The object of our ministry is, nowhere, more summarily expressed than in the words of our Saviour, in granting, immediately before his ascension into heaven, the apostolical commission, Matth. 28. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations. The word, in the original, which we render teach [μαθητεύσατε], signifies more than the diffusion of knowledge. It conveys the idea of forming disciples; and of course includes all that instruction in righteousness, which belongs to Christians.
It is impossible without perversion of language to exclude from such instruction everything which has a political bearing. Ministers are authorized to go throughout the world, and thus instruct all nations upon the face of the earth; and the object of their ministry cannot be said to be completely accomplished until nations, as such, shall have submitted to the rule of righteousness. Individuals, indeed, may be converted, and edified, and glorified; churches may be organized, and enlarged, and comforted; and even bodies politic may experience some advantage from the Christian religion; in all these instances the honour of the Deity is promoted on earth; but the object of the ministry of the word of God is not fully answered, unless the earth be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, and all nations made to feel the influence of Christianity. If religion is of any use in this world, or in the world to come, it is useful for man, in every relation of life: and certainly, no Christian, who seriously considers the value of religion, to know, and love, and serve God, by obeying in every situation his commandments, can continue to doubt the propriety of acting religiously in the important concerns of civil life. From the obligations of the word of God, no man is exempt. Directions are addressed to the military as well as to the clergy. [Luke iii. 14.] It is unreasonable then, to deprive the ministers of religion of the right of speaking upon any subject whatever, that has respect to sin and duty, or that affects the moral conduct of men and of nations. How shall we ever realize the hope inspired by these assertions, righteousness exalteth a nation—The kingdoms of this world arc become the kingdoms of our Lord, if Christian divines have no right to apply the principles of revealed religion to the concerns of civil life?
2. The scriptural history cannot be explained or applied without touching on political topics. The sacred writers treated of the public concerns of their own, and of preceding ages, and have set us the example. Deny us the right of expressing political sentiments, and of remarking upon national conduct and events, and a great part of the sacred volume will necessarily remain unexplained before our eyes, and comparatively useless. Every man, who believes in the providence of God, will admit that all true history is worthy of attention as a development of the divine government over human affairs; as an exposition of the principles of human action; and as a record of facts and events useful for the direction of our conduct in every situation of life: and shall we not be permitted to avail ourselves of such aid in the instruction of the several ranks of our hearers? We are assured, by the inspired writers, that national concerns are made subordinate to the interests of true religion: and it is obvious to all, that there is an intimate connection between political events, and the interests of the Christian church. Where, then, is the propriety of sealing up our lips, that we may not speak of the divine providence, or point out the agency of our Saviour in overruling, for the good of Zion, the changes which take place among the nations of the earth?
3. The prophecies of scripture can never be explained without political discussion.
The prospective history contained in the bible, as well as the narration of past events, interweaves the story of the rise and fall of empire, with that of the chinch of God; and the whole is employed for the purpose of instructing the saints, and of supporting their hopes and benevolent exertions. The education of believers, of which the bible is unquestionably the perfect standard, cannot correspond with their diversified conditions, temptations, and duties, if all their civil relations be excluded from consideration, and their pastors utterly prohibited from expounding those portions of scripture which exhibit mankind in their collective capacity and character. Individual man is certainly a very interesting object of attention and study. The Christian, from the first moments of his spiritual life; throughout the whole progress of this his new and better nature to the perfection of the man of God; in the trying hour of his separation from the world; and in his future state of endless enjoyment; furnishes the public teachers and private members of the church, with abundant matter of useful discourse and reflection but, the social concerns of the rational creature, as they occupy a great portion of our time; give exercise to all our powers; and affect all our duties and enjoyments; must not be forgotten in the application of the word of truth, to the moral part of the tenants of this world, who are preparing for the high society which we hope to enter when our pilgrimage is finished. No man can be permitted to explain the prophecies which are already accomplished, unless he be allowed to apply the fact to the prediction: and for the same reason, those, which are now fulfilling, or hereafter to be fulfilled, cannot be pointed out to the friends of religion, unless we have a right to bring into view in our public ministrations great political events and characters. Let the experiment be made upon the books written by Daniel and John, and the truth of my assertion will be universally confessed.
4. A more copious and conclusive argument in support of our right, to preach what may, in a certain sense, be denominated politics, is derived from the precepts of inspiration which we are required to proclaim to the world. The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouthy for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. [Mal. ii. 7.]
It will not, I hope, be denied, that Christian ministers have a right to make the commandments of their God a subject of discussion. The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. [Rom. vii. 12.] There is, I admit, some danger of abusing this and every other right which we possess; and for such abuse we deserve correction. In proportion, too, to the danger of misrepresenting the word of truth, should be our caution in the selection and discussion of subjects before the public. This caution is peculiarly necessary for those ministers who venture upon political remarks. Our own partialities are apt to betray us into error. The acuteness of an independent people, alive to their political interests, is waiting to detect our aberrations. A feverish sensibility, inseparable from the deep intrigues of selfish policy, renders a few incapable of hearing without misapprehension, and of speaking without misrepresentation. Some have swerved from a good conscience, and have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully. [1 Tim. i. 5—8.] And it is impossible to make any use of some parts of the divine law, without entering upon discussions that may be termed political. If I can show to you, my Christian brethren, from this volume, by which alone you are bound to try my ministry among you, that the law of God gives directions about the several great concerns of civil polity, you will not again call in question my right, to declare, from this place, the duty required of us in relation to civil life. Bear with me, for a little, and I shall quote for your inspection passages, which prescribe The mode of constituting civil rulers—The character of such as administer the government—The duty of the constituted authorities—The conduct proper upon the part of subjects—passages which Reprove them who confer power improperly—and Threaten magistrates who are unmindful of their high obligations.
All these are political doctrines, which the Governor of the universe commands us to teach to the nations of the earth.
1. The mode of constituting rulers, is by electing, to the several departments of state, suitable characters from among the people over whom they are to exercise authority. Exod. xviii. 21. Thou shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, and place such over them to be rulers. The chief concern of a nation in forming its arrangements, ought to be the wise and equitable distribution of power into proper hands. The divine rule for doing this, now quoted, has never been surpassed. It is adapted to every nation; and its excellence obvious to every man of understanding. The prerequisites, in a candidate for power, are plainly stated. They are four, capacity, piety, integrity, and disinterestedness. They appear, too, in the order of their relative importance. First, capacity—able men. The ignorant, the feeble, the foolish, and the insane, are discarded, as obviously unfit to bear office among rational beings. Second, piety—such as fear God. The sceptic, the vicious, and the profane, are rejected from authority over the accountable subjects of the divine moral government. Third, integrity—men of truth. The ambitious, the dissembler, and the hypocrite, being unprincipled, are dangerous and unworthy of trust. Fourth, disinterestedness—hating covetousness. The selfish, and the mercenary man, would sacrifice the public good at the shrine of an individual servant.
The general maxim of polity, from which all these directions flow, is, that no provisions of a constitution of government, however wisely adopted, can preserve the liberties and promote the good of society, unless they be administered by suitable officers. Measures, the object; and, for their sakes, proper men. In this view, I consider as correct, the declaration of a great parliamentary orator, “How vain then, how idle, how presumptuous is the opinion, that laws can do everything? and how weak and pernicious the maxim founded upon it, that measures, not men, are to be attended to!” [Fox’s Hist. Phil. 1808, page 14.]
2. The character, to be supported by those who are in power in any commonwealth, is expressly prescribed, 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. The God of Israel said—He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
If government be instituted for the good of the community, and not for the pleasure of an individual, as the divine law declares, and common sense admits, provision ought to be made for the speedy removal of a public servant who is unworthy of the trust reposed in him. The law must of course be applied to his character during the whole period of his continuance in office. If he cannot bear the test, a more worthy personage ought to be selected in order to occupy in his room. In vain would the divine law appoint a criterion, unless it were proper to dispossess the occupant who could not endure its application. The constitution of government, which requires base men, or those otherwise disqualified for the duties of a high station, to continue in power for life, is on that very account inconsistent with the bible. The criterion specified in the passage before you, is both obvious and of easy application. It is twofold—justness to men, and reverence for their Creator. He that ruleth over men—moral agents united by social ties, during the time he continues in power, must, of necessity, exhibit these qualifications. If he be unjust to men, these men ought, for their own sakes, to dispossess him: and if he have no respect for the Creator, men, accountable to him who is worthy of esteem and fear, ought, in testimony of their allegiance to the almighty Governor of nations, to remove from influence and honour the despiser of his name and law.
3. It is required of the constituted authorities of a nation, that they officially recognize the Christian religion, and cherish the interests of the church of Jesus Christ. Psalm ii. 10,12. Be wise, now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear—Kiss the Son lest he be angry.
As it is the will of God, declared in the constitution of human nature, and in the circumstances of human life, as well as in the scriptures, that men should associate under suitable regulations, he prescribes for those, who frame and execute laws in a commonwealth so formed, their duty in relation to himself their sovereign Lord, almighty Protector, and omniscient Judge. It is their wisdom to comply—to hear, understand, and obey his divine injunctions, revealed in the Christian religion.
4. The course of conduct, becoming the subjects of such equitable and righteous rulers, is also pointed out, and the reason upon which it is founded, is connected with the precept. Rom. xiii. 1, 5, 6. 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. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. For this cause, pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers attending continually on this very thing.
The duty specified is conscientious submission: that submission to be expressed by obedience to the law, and the punctual payment of such sums, as are required for the maintenance of public credit, and the support of the government. The reasons annexed are sufficiently forcible. The rulers of the nation, are its public servants, and of course to be supported by those who appoint them: being appointed, they are the servants of God for the maintenance of moral order; and reverence for him will produce respect for them. “They are ordained of God. They are God’s ministers, attending continually on this very thing.”
The controversy, about the divine right of both the MITRE and the CROWN, is passing rapidly into oblivion. The theory of civil polity, is from the scriptures, very easily understood. The formation of constitutions, and the election of officers, are the work of the community; and thus, government is the ordinance of man. Jehovah, the God of order and equity, approves of the civil association formed upon moral principles, and sanctions with his own high authority the proper exercise of legitimate power. Thus, government is the ordinance of God. 1 Pet. ii. 13—15. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, whether it be to the king or unto governors, for so is the will of God. Rom. xiii. 2. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.
5. The Sovereign of the universe threatens with his divine displeasure, those who contrive and maintain governments, otherwise than upon true moral principles. Hos. viii. 3, 4, 13. Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not. Now will he remember their iniquities, and visit their sins.
In this chapter, the sin of creating and maintaining an immoral system of civil polity is connected with that of an abuse of religion. It was the crime of Israel, as well as of other nations, both ancient and modern, to couple together an abuse of religion and government into one complex system of impiety and misrule. This has always been effected by the evil management of designing men, who availed themselves of the ignorance, the apathy, and the vices of the people at large, in order to promote their own schemes of ambition. But these are not alone in the blame. The Lord in his word declares the whole community guilty, and threatens them with deserved punishment. His providence is a continual commentary upon the declaration, and a constant execution of the threatening. The body of a nation suffers under bad government. The fact cannot be disputed. The justness of this measure is easily shown. The population of a country have the power. They can, if they will, pull down, build up, alter, and amend the system of social order. When they submit to thrones of iniquity which frame mischief by law, their condition is not merely a state of suffering which we may pity, but also a fault which we are to blame. If through neglect or discord, they do not co-operate in reform, suffer they justly must. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
6. Civil rulers who neglect their duty, and abuse their power, are also threatened with divine judgments. Psalm xciv. 20, 23. Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? He shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off.
Iniquity is displeasing to the Lord, because it is contrary to his nature. The splendour of human greatness, and the pomp of human power, although they dazzle our eyes and impose upon our credulity, will not prevent him from judging righteously; and the greatness of the mischief, consequent upon the transgressions of men in power, instead of screening them from detection, will increase their condemnation. Elevated as the higher ranks of life are above the censures of the community, and unrestrained as is their consequent indulgence in crime, they cannot escape with impunity from him who refuses fellowship with them in their illegitimate authority. “Hath he said, and shall he not do it ? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” [Numb. xxiii. 19.]
In these judgments, which are inflicted upon those who neglect to rule according to the principles of the moral law, however heavy they fall, Christians, so far as they are influenced by scriptural advice and example, will readily acquiesce. O Lord, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction. Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity. [Hab. i. 12, 13.]
From this collation, of passages selected from the standard of our faith and practice, and embracing the whole theory of civil polity, you will readily perceive the force of my argument in support of the right which I now claim. If the divine law be the rule of our Christian ministry, and the scriptures be the bond of connection between pastor and people, then have I shown the authority, under which I act in introducing this discussion, to be perfectly competent.
I claim the privilege of explaining the law of my God. I claim it, too, not merely as a privilege, which I am at liberty to use. It is not even optional to the ministers of religion whether to use it or not: they are bound by their public instructions, as ambassadors for Christ, to raise a voice which shall reach to both the cottage and the throne, and teach their several occupants their respective duties. “Go,” said our arisen Lord to his ministers, when handing to them their commission, “disciple all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” We must, my brethren, in order to be faithful to our exalted employer, have it in our power to say upon a review of our ministry, after an example of approved excellence, “I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God.” [Acts xx. 27.]
II. Remove Objections.
There are many, who admit that the public teachers of the Christian churches have a right, both as citizens of the commonwealth, and as interpreters of the oracles of God, to express their sentiments on political subjects, who, nevertheless, deem it inexpedient to exercise the right. Prudence, lest by giving offence, they frustrate the more important objects of their ministry; personal timidity, lest they provoke disrespect and opposition; Christian tenderness, lest they should wound the feelings of a pious hearer; and in some, perhaps, a sense of their own incompetency, or an ignoble pusillanimity, prevent the ministers of religion generally from introducing political remarks in their discourses. In abstaining from the exercise of this right, let Christian pastors use their own discretion: I am willing to admit, that we ought rarely touch on such points; but an absolute prohibition cannot be supported by any solid reasonings. The following summary comprehends all the arguments, with which I am acquainted, against the right of introducing politics to the pulpit.
Christ crucified is the proper theme of ministerial discussion—The kingdom of the Redeemer is not of this world—Ministers have the care of souls, and not of the bodily estate—Gospel hearers are divided in political opinions—Political remarks are unfavourable to devotion—Preachers are dictatorial, and usually opposed to civil liberty.
I proceed, to the examination of these objections, with a confidence that, without injury to the feelings of any candid mind, 1 shall be able to prove them invalid.
1. Objection. “Christ and him crucified is the proper theme of pulpit discussion; and, therefore, it is improper to introduce political concerns.”
In examining this objection, I joyfully, as well as readily, admit the precious truth contained in the assertion upon which the argument is supposed to rest. With my hand upon my heart, I repeat, in your ears, the words of the great evangelizer of the Gentiles, “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.” [1 Cor. ii. 2.] And from that determination, if I ever recede, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. [Psalm cxxxvii. 6.]
This declaration, however, neither supports the objection, nor excludes from the pulpit the duties of civil life. We are not to confine our ministry to the mere words “Christ crucified.” The doctrines of the cross must be inculcated. We are not to confine our discussion to the fact of Christ’s death; but must preach of his person, his covenant, his mission, his work, his power, his providence, and his law; and that law, in its application to man in his social as well as individual capacity.
The apostle Paul himself, who first employed the words referred to, understood them in this latitude. He inculcated the doctrines of grace. He proclaimed the duties of domestic and of civil life. He spake of rulers, and of their laws, and of their subjects. He shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God.
The prophets, who preceded Paul, in diffusing the light of revealed truth, had acted in the same manner; and the Lord himself, when he appeared on earth, spake of other subjects, as well as of the decease which he was to accomplish in Jerusalem. Following their example we, too, would give this extension to our ministry, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.”
That very reason, which the objector urges against the introduction into the pulpit of political remarks, we esteem as an argument in its favour. The objection proceeds upon the principle, that the gospel doctrine, the Christian religion, is to be perpetually separated from the polity of nations; we go upon the directly opposite principle, that civil rule should be regulated by the maxims of Christian law. Seeing, therefore, that we determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified; we introduce into this place our political sentiments, and invite you to correct, by the revelation of truth, all your political maxims and actions. Let us recommend in the same breath, religious and civil duty. Love the brotherhood—Fear God—Honour the King. [1 Pet. ii. 17.]
2. Objection. “The kingdom of the Redeemer is not of this world; and therefore the ministers of the Redeemer should not interfere with the kingdoms of this world.”
Far be it from me to deny the truth of the maxim with which this objection commences. It is a part of that good confession, which the faithful and true witness made before the Roman deputy, who exercised over subjugated Palestine, the iron sway of the Cæsars. Pontius Pilate, agitated by a consciousness of the innocence of Jesus Christ, and of his own guilt, and labouring to devise means for delivering the victim of Jewish malevolence without risking his own popularity, proposed from the judgment-seat, which he so unworthily filled, the question, Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. [John xviii. 33, 36.] He admitted that he was a king. He bore witness unto the truth; and the truth is, that he is King of kings—higher than the kings of the earth. [Psalm lxxxix. 27.] How then are we to understand the assertion, “My kingdom is not of this world?” In its most obvious meaning. His power is from a higher source. It is of God. It is not from the election of the people, nor the appointment of the Emperor. It is Jehovah, who said to him. Sit thou at my right hand—Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. [Psalm ii. 8.] If, therefore, his kingdom is not of this world, it is of God; it is over the world: The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom ruleth over all. [Psalm ciii. 19.]
So far, then, from furnishing an objection against the claim of right which we make, is this principle, that it in fact establishes it beyond all dispute. The kingdom of Christ is of God, over the nations, therefore we apply the laws of that kingdom to the national polity. We shall never recognize as valid the claim of Satan, though termed the god of this world, to the sovereignty over the nations; but shall endeavour to rescue them from the dominion of the usurper, and restore them in allegiance to their lawful governor, “the prince of the kings of the earth.” The Saviour himself, when the adversary tempted him, by a requisition of homage, and an offer of power over the world, refused both the demand and the gift, because worship is due only unto God; and from God himself, the Redeemer had already obtained all power over the kingdoms of the earth. The church of Christ is in this world. Christians are concerned in the kingdoms of this world, as rulers and ruled. The kingdom of Christ is not of, but over this world. The ministers of Christ have therefore a right to treat of all the moral concerns of human society.
3. Objection. “As ministers have the care of souls, and not of the bodily estate of men, they should not be permitted to treat of any except spiritual subjects.”
The great concern of every pastor who is faithful to the people whom he serves, is to feed the flock of God with knowledge and understanding. It is mind that makes the man; and the interest of one soul is more to be sought after, because, in reality, more valuable, than the whole world. I know that the oracles of God inform you, who hear the gospel, that the rulers of Israel watch for your souls, as they that must give account. [Heb. xiii. 17.] Wo to the unfaithful pastor who forgets the souls of men, or refuses to minister to their edification.
The improvement of mind, however, does not require the neglect of the body. These constituents of living man, are intimately connected by a divine hand. Both were assumed by the Saviour, and redeemed by his blood. In both, we glorify God on earth, and shall enjoy him in heaven. The material world is created for the sake of the moral; and it is upheld by Messiah for the sake of revealing his perfections, in the salvation of men. Matter itself, therefore, may be referred to in our ministry; and useful remarks, upon its nature and its laws, may, without incurring the blame of injuring the cause of spirituality, be interwoven with pulpit exhibitions. Politics respect not the bodily estate only, or even principally. They affect mind, morals, piety, comfort, and duty. So far as they do so, they may come under review. It is not to settle the claims for empire, to define geographical boundaries, or to adjust the contendings of human ambition; but in order to aid the Christian in maintaining a conscience void of offence towards God and man, that we would ever introduce the subject into the public worship of our God. In order to promote the good of souls, and not with the design of diminishing your spiritual-mindedness, we urge this duty, that, with spiritual views of political movements, you may intermingle with the world; that whatsoever ye do, whether ye eat or drink, ye may do all to the glory of God. [1 Cor. x. 31.] All things, not excepting political events, are for your sakes. The whole of the nations are subordinate to the church, the spiritual spouse of Immanuel. I am the Lord thy God, the holy one of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee; therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life. [Isa. xliii. 3, 4.]
The judicious minister will weigh, in the balance of the sanctuary, every subject, for the purpose of determining its importance. He will rarely enter upon political topics. He will never descend to questions of mere party: but there are times in which he ought not to be silent, respecting the conduct of nations, or of Christians in their civil capacity.
4. Objection. “Gospel-hearers are usually so divided, on political subjects, that ministers ought not to give offence by expressing their own opinions.”
Christians are, alas, divided: and the pride of opinion in their distracted state, does much mischief. It is the policy of the mere men of this world to keep them divided; and the god of this world triumphs in their want of unanimity and cordiality. If Christians did uniformly co-operate, Satan’s servants and kingdom could not prosper. But the professors of religion are divided, not about politics only; every doctrine of Christianity, every article of ecclesiastical order, has been a subject of dispute and contention. Are not the ambassadors of Christ at liberty to preach disputed doctrines, and enforce any particular discipline or rule, even although some professed Christians should withhold their assent? Certain public teachers may, indeed, esteem it convenient to act upon this maxim, and never support any one system of doctrine or of order. These are not the examples of our ministry. Evangelical truths, I know, are more important, infinitely more important, than the common causes of party contention in politics; therefore they require the more attention. When occasion requires, however, the mere fact, that men are of different politics, ought not to prevent the application of the word of God to their disputes. Political morality is essential to Christianity.
Am I told, that this will do no good: that it will only give offence: that it will alienate the affections of one set of politicians from the pastor: that it will mar his usefulness; and create personal enemies to himself? Who makes these assertions? Men who are mild and free from political bias? or men who are full of violence, and determined to execute the threatening? In the discharge of my duty, I will fearlessly run this risk. I will try whether, in this liberal age, the candid investigation of the subject before me, without ungenerous allusion or invective, will create me personal enemies. I will make the experiment, whether it be possible for any minister of religion to prefer the cause of his country to that of its powerful foe, without provoking the resentment of party spirit. If I suffer, I am prepared for it; but I do not expect any such treatment. Men of different religious sentiments hear without passion the same sermon. Are they, then, more concerned about political than religious truth, and disposed to resent a difference of opinion on that subject, more than on subjects relative to their eternal interests? I cannot, as yet, admit this to be the case. I confidently indulge the hope, that there is more liberality, among those who attend upon gospel ordinances, than to deny to us the right, which they exercise themselves, of forming each his own sentiments, on political morality, and of modestly expressing them to the world.
We do not presume to prescribe for you. We do not dictate to you in the choice of public officers. We allow you to judge for yourselves. We only require of you a similar permission for us: and, upon this subject, while we cautiously avoid the use of intemperate language, we have only to ask, that you do justice to our arguments, and to the motives with which they are offered.
5. Objection. “Political remarks are unfavourable to devotion; and therefore unsuitable to the pulpit.”
In endeavouring to obviate this objection, I feel as if I had to encounter the most difficult task which my subject imposes upon me. The devotional feelings of many professed Christians are so feeble, and have so little foundation in moral principle, that they are readily deranged or removed. Others, who have learned only the rudiments of religion, seldom consider it in any other light than as matter of mental comfort to an individual, without having any relation to their improvement and usefulness as members of society. As they would give their attention to the things of time, uninfluenced by Christian principles, they may wish to fix in the sanctuary their attention upon the concerns of eternity, without any reference to a general reformation of either church or state. It is ever to be expected, that those, who are unwilling to consider religiously their political concerns, will be as unwilling to behave religiously in their political transactions.
This is the way to produce a separation between the two subjects. And yet the separation cannot be complete, unless all Christians are secluded from every concern in national politics; and the entire management devolved upon those, who will not be tempted to think of the bible as the rule, or of piety as the principle, according to which civilians should act: and where would this end; but in the transfer of the undivided management of national affairs into the hands of infidels.
The principle of this objection, while it appears to proceed from spiritual-mindedness, is near of kin to the unenlightened devotion of the recluse or the hermit, who retires from the world into a life of solitude. It approaches monastic holiness more than the piety of Abraham, of Elijah, of Daniel, of Paul, and of John the Divine, These were men of piety. They taught, and they practiced the duties of political life, both in peace and in war, without thinking that it injured devotion: and even, in the spirit on the Lord’s day, the beloved disciple is directed by his arisen Lord, to write of the contendings and changes of empire.
Believe me, brethren, if our religion is of the right description, and exists in a proper measure, we shall certainly be enabled to contemplate the providence of God in all human affairs, and apply the law of God to questions of civil polity, without either endangering a pious frame of mind, or engendering the evil passions of worldly politicians. I confess, however, that I feel, at the same time, for the infirmities of the weak; and should be disposed to avoid anything that might have a tendency to mar their feeble devotion, did not duty require of the ambassadors of Christ, to apply the law of their God to all questions of practical morality.
6. Objection. “Preachers are usually dictatorial, and opposed to the religious and civil liberties of men. It is painful to be under the necessity of publicly contradicting them, and it is therefore better for them to omit political remarks in the pulpit.”
The habit of public speaking without danger of interruption, or immediate opposition to the declarations which they make, as it is required by the respect due to devotional exercises, and enjoyed by the ministers of religion, is calculated to cherish, upon their part, a decision of expression, which may border upon the dogmatic. It is probable, nevertheless, that the pulpit orator is, usually, as far removed from this extreme, as the members of the senate, or the gentlemen of the bar. A man of mind, convinced himself of the truth of his assertions, will, in any situation, speak with an air of confidence; but there is no necessity of his treating with contumely the sentiments of such as think differently from him: and it is especially unbecoming the pulpit to affect contempt for the persons of men. If it be a fact, that a multitude of religious instructors are found friendly to arbitrary power, and to an illegitimate subserviency of church to state polity, it is surely no good reason for preventing men, who understand and value the rights both of God and man, from pointing out the duty of Christians in relation both to ecclesiastical and civil society. It is not difficult to account for the fact, that so many of the sacerdotal order have inclined to despotism, and yet show, that the liberal discussion of such topics from the pulpit is truly favourable to the real liberties of men.
Licentiousness is as remote from civil liberty as is tyranny itself. The righteousness which exalteth a nation, includes intelligence and public morality. No moral improvement can take place without regard to religion: and Christianity, as opposed to infidelity, to superstition, and to lawless power, is emphatically the religion of “peace upon earth, and of good will towards men.” It is the religion of benevolence to man, as well as piety towards God; and of course the only “perfect law of liberty.” You will allow me to add, that no means whatever can be possibly successful in finally rescuing from usurpation the liberties of mankind, and of purifying and perpetuating them, without the aid of the religion taught by the Son of God. This alone is effectual in changing the heart, from whence proceed the ambition and the strife which have been the causes both of arbitrary domination and wasteful wars among the nations of the earth. When I shall have pointed out the causes which incline the ministers of the church, to the side of arbitrary power among the nations, I shall illustrate this sentiment with a review of facts, and so conclude my apology for introducing this subject into the pulpit.
1. Account for the fact, that Christian ministers should, in despite of the tendency of the Christian religion to favour the cause of civil liberty, be often found among the supporters of the interests of arbitrary power.
It is not to be expected, among men of imperfect faculties and of like passions with others, that they should be perfectly conformed to the divine law, or even, in every case, assimilated to the examples which divine revelation records with approbation. They are capable of being, in part, affected by surrounding circumstances, where they are piously disposed; and, it is not to be questioned, that, in many instances, men enter into the ministry with unsanctified hearts, as the means of procuring a convenient livelihood. The great body of the priesthood of the nations will accordingly yield to the force of circumstances, and there are found so many exciting causes to prejudice the mind against civil liberty, that it is easy to account for the fact which we deplore.
These causes are to be found in the ecclesiastical establishments of the nations—The personal ambition of ecclesiastics—The power of fear—And the inclination to propagate their own opinions, natural to all men.
First. The ecclesiastical establishments among the nations, secure a very great proportion of all the clergy in the Christian world, upon the side of the system of civil rule, by which they are supported, many of them in great splendour and opulence. They are themselves, as much as the Egyptian, Chaldean, or Roman hierarchies, a part of the national government, and as such identified with the prevailing despotism. They, of course, and also as many as can be influenced by their doctrine and example, will be disposed to coincide with tyrannical power.[1]
Second. Personal ambition is, everywhere, in a greater or less degree, to be found. Clerical ambition was found in the apostolical age, and it has never yet diminished; but still continues to agitate the churches. That civil liberty, which offers restraint to its exercise, and which denies gratification to its desires, will not receive so much of its aid, as a more splendid and powerful system, which can reward its services, by reducing within its reach the objects which it is anxious to compass—rank, influence, and opulence. Discerning statesmen, of arbitrary and ambitious views, will understand their men; and the understanding becomes mutual.
Third. The fear of infidelity, ruinous as that system is, not only to ecclesiastical authority, but to good morals, and to present and future happiness, has driven many of the best men of the present age, into an unhappy attachment to the doctrines of the old antichristian school. Irreligion formed, especially at the commencement of the French revolution, a temporary connection with liberty against the dominion of European despotism; and virtuous minds, not capable of sufficient discrimination, rejected liberty on account of her evil associate. Designing men looked upon the connection with pleasure, as affording an opportunity of sounding the alarm, and reducing into discredit the cause of liberty, as if inseparable from impiety and licentiousness. Ministers, like others, took the alarm; and although the scriptures assure us, that no other evil is to have such destructive influence in the church, as the antichristian polity of superstitious establishments, they spake, in private, and from the pulpit, as if democracy and deism were the only calamity to the church of God. In the course of a few years, of madness and misrule upon the part of France, habits of opposition to revolutions, and of attachments to ancient despotism, have been so strongly formed, that, even now, when history proves the danger to have been visionary, and France has actually returned to her ancient boundaries, and her ancient superstition, under her former race of kings; the practice continues of presenting liberty arrayed in the garb of infidelity, as an object of execration and universal abhorrence. Another generation will scarcely credit the extent of the panic among the churches of the reformation. They will be amazed on learning from history, that distinguished and intelligent protestants in our own country, had been driven by their fears of French infidelity, so far into a forgetfulness of the faith of their fathers, and of the recent struggles which established their national liberties, as to hail like the millennium, an event which tended to consolidate European despotisms; which restored to power the man of sin, with all the gloomy terrors of the Roman inquisition; and which afforded the opportunity to their ancient foe, of pouring out his victorious legions upon their own shores.
Fourth. It is natural for men to express their opinions to others; and to be uneasy under restraint. Ministers of religion are as much disposed as any of their fellow-citizens to propagate their own sentiments. Their habits render them as impatient, under restraint, and of opposition, as any class of men. They, of course, incline to those political partisans who guarantee and encourage the exercise of their right. When they open their bibles, they discover political precepts which they are to expound. If the friends of freedom should, under misapprehension, manifest an unwillingness to permit such exposition, and their political opponents by every means encourage it, a prejudice must immediately arise in favour of the latter. Unhappily for our country, this is very generally the case. And yet, however obvious the effect produced by these causes, separate or combined, it is a misrepresentation of the most injudicious and unjust description, to class the ministers of Christianity indiscriminately among the enemies of civil freedom. Real religion is the best friend of rational liberty.
2. History vindicates the character of Christian ministers, and holds them up to view, as furnishing, in every age, some instances of the most intrepid and successful resistance to the foes of freedom.
We do not carry you back, for proofs of this assertion, to the ages of inspiration; for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: who, through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. [Heb. xi. 32—34.] Nor do we refer you to the history of the Maccabean brethren, who signalized their zeal and their constancy, against the tyrant Antiochus, in defense of the liberty and religion of their country. The story of more recent times, makes us acquainted with ministers of Christianity, who vindicated the cause of God and man at the peril of their lives, against the encroachments and pretensions of arbitrary power. In the era of the reformation, it was by the aid of Christian divines, that men became acquainted with their sacred rights: Zuinglius, and Luther, and Calvin, and Knox, like Moses, who feared not the wrath of the king, said to the enslavers of their brethren, let my people go; and in the words of Samuel, when Saul had rent his mantle, the Lord hath rent the kingdom from thee, did they venture to address both kings and emperors. Who more valorous in restoring the liberties of Holland; in conquering the veterans of Alva; and in resisting Philip the tyrant, than the thousands who wept under the ministry of their patriotic and faithful pastors, before the gates of Antwerp and Haerlem. Throughout the several provinces of the Netherlands, the founders of that famous republic were accustomed to meet in arms, to hear sermons from preachers for whose heads rewards were in vain offered by the foes of liberty and truth. Scotland, the original country of the WHIGS, led on by her faithful pastors, introduced the name and the spirit into England; and, by the aid of the Puritan ministers, succeeded in the temporary reformation of both the sanctuary and the throne. To these advocates of liberty, the British empire stands to this day under obligation for all the freedom enjoyed by the constitution. In encouraging and effecting the American revolution, the exertions and influence of Christian ministers, in the pulpit, in the congress, and in the field, were felt and duly appreciated: and there are yet among our own pastors, men, who, in despite of the baleful influence of party spirit, feel the force of piety and patriotism, and remember their duty to the cause of equity, their country, and their God. If the rights and liberties of this great and growing empire are doomed to perish, their last abode will be found along the side of the pulpits of the ministers of religion. There are men, in that sacred office, who would, in such a case, use upon better principles than did the Roman orator, the words which he put on the lips of his distinguished client, Titus Annius Milo, “I will withdraw, and retire into exile: if I cannot be a member of a virtuous commonwealth, it will be some satisfaction not to live in a bad one; and, as soon as I set foot in a well-regulated and free state, there will I fix my abode—quam primum tetigero bene moratam et liberam civitatem, in ea conquiescam.” But, no? Liberty shall not perish! The daughter of Zion rejoices in her fellowship. Peace and prosperity shall hereafter visit our land, and dwell in our habitations. The Lord hasten it in his own time, and unto him be glory in Christ Jesus, world without end. AMEN.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] “Human establishments have always been made engines of state policy: they have promoted hypocrisy and infidelity—the great evil has been in the civil magistrate usurping the throne of Christ, and exercising spiritual dominion—Here,” in the United States, “is an asylum for you, our brethren of the old world, whose lives are embittered by the cruel impositions of men; the fruit of whose labours go to support lazy priests and luxurious princes; who, though you rise early, and late take rest, obtain only a scanty subsistence for yourselves and families.” The Blessings of America. A sermon, by the late Dr. Linn, of New-York, 1791.