No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment THOU SHALT CONDEMN.
It is sometimes said, that the Clergy should abstain from politics; and that, if a Minister of CHRIST is political, he is not a follower of him who said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Now there is a sense in which this is true, but, as it is commonly taken, it is very false.
It is true that the mere affairs of this world should not engage a
Clergyman; but it is absurd to say that the affairs of this world
should not at all engage his attention. If so, this world is not a
preparation for another. Are we to speak when individuals sin, and
not when a nation, which is but a collection of individuals? Must we
speak to the poor, but not to the rich and powerful? In vain does St.
James warn us against having the faith of our LORD JESUS CHRIST with
respect of persons. In vain does the Prophet declare to us the word
of the LORD, that if the watchmen of Israel "speak not to warn
the wicked from his way," "his blood will be required at
the watchman’s hand."Complete our LORD’S declaration concerning the nature of His kingdom, and you will see it is not at all inconsistent with the duty of our active and zealous interference in matters of this world. "If My kingdom were of this world," He says, "then would My servants fight."—Here he has vouchsafed so to explain Himself, that there is no room for misunderstanding His meaning. No one contends that His ministers ought to use the weapons of a carnal warfare; but surely to protest, to warn, to threaten, to excommunicate, are not such weapons. Let us not be scared from a plain duty, by the mere force of a misapplied text. There is an unexceptionable sense in which a clergyman may, nay, must be political. And above all, when the Nation interferes with the rights and possessions of the Church, it can with even less grace complain of the Church interfering with the Nation.
With this introduction let me call your attention to what seems a most dangerous infringement on our rights, on the part of the State. The Legislature has lately taken upon itself to remodel the dioceses of Ireland; a proceeding which involves the appointment of certain Bishops over certain Clergy, and of certain clergy under certain Bishops, without the Church being consulted in the matter. I do not say whether or not harm will follow from this particular act with reference to Ireland; but consider whether it be not in itself an interference with things spiritual.
Are we content to be accounted the mere creation of the State, as schoolmasters and teachers may be, or soldiers, or magistrates, or other public officers? Did the State make us? can it unmake us? can it send out missionaries? can it arrange dioceses? Surely all these are spiritual functions; and Laymen may as well set about preaching, and consecrating the LORD’S Supper, as assume these. I do not say the guilt is equal; but that, if the latter is guilt, the former is. Would St. Paul, with his good will, have suffered the Roman power to appoint Timothy, Bishop of Miletus, as well as of Ephesus? Would Timothy at such a bidding have undertaken the charge? Is not the notion of such an order, such an obedience, absurd? Yet has it not been realized in what has lately happened? For in what is the English state at present different from the Roman formerly? Neither can be accounted members of the Church of CHRIST. No one can say the British Legislature is in our communion, or that its members are necessarily even Christians. What pretence then has it for not merely advising, but superseding the Ecclesiastical power? (more)
