THE PROOF CONCLUSIVE.

Thus it appears that this influential religious journal, located at the capital of South Carolina, doth "indignantly deny" the charge, as a gross slander upon their character, that the clergy of the South were the "servants of politicians" in the cause of rebellion; and it denies this, furthermore, "for the Churches of the whole South, of every denomination;" and it undoubtedly is well qualified to make the denial, from its ample knowledge in the premises. But when the counter-charge is made, that the clergy led the politicians, "urging political men to uncompromising resistance" to the United States Government, it does not deny the soft impeachment; but it says, "Yes!"-we did do it" and so long as we have tongue or pen to use," we will continue the good work!

Well,—we must leave it so. If they make up such a record for themselves, and if the politicians in the highest places in the "Confederate Government" agree to it, as we have seen they do, then the clergy of the South, "of every denomination," have a most fearful responsibility upon them for the horrors of this rebellion; a responsibility claimed, gloried in, and of which they are so jealous that they will not divide it with politicians. Be it so; and let God reward them "according to their works."

This, be it observed, was the language used a month before the crisis brought on by the attack on Fort Sumter.

There can be no doubt that nothing beyond the simple truth is stated in the foregoing extracts. It would have been impossible for the political demagogues of the rebel States to carry the people with them into rebellion, had not THE CHURCH, at the earliest moment, under her leaders, given to it of" her strength;" and even after the work had been thus begun, "the enterprise would have been a fail

LOYAL CLERGYMEN IN THE BORDER STATES.

201

ure," and that soon, had not the Church stood by the object of "her own grand creation."

The power, and of consequence the responsibility, of the Church of the South in aid of the rebellion, may be illustrated by contrast, and that in two respects; by mentioning what is well known concerning an early period of the strife in some of the loyal Border States, and by noting the action of the larger religious bodies all over the loyal States.

LOYAL CLERGYMEN IN THE BORDER STATES.

As illustrating the first point, take the case of Kentucky. What would have been its condition had all its leading clergymen, as in the rebel States, taken open ground for the rebellion at the beginning of the contest? Does any one suppose, in such case, that the State would not have been carried into secession, so far as the action of its own people is concerned? On the other hand, take the case as it is. Does any one doubt that leading clergymen of the State, taking open and public ground for the Union, through the press and in other ways, at the earliest and most critical period, contributed most essentially to form the public sentiment of the more influential classes of the people, to preserve the State to the Union, and to save its fair fields from becoming, far more than they have been, the scene of the most bloody and suicidal carnage?

It is stating no more than what is believed throughout the country, as we have often heard expressed, that, in addition to the valuable aid rendered by others, Kentucky's adherence to the Union is due to the influence of Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge more than to that of any other man in the State; and we only repeat what we have many times heard stated by citizens of Kentucky, that had he taken the course of the Thornwells and Palmers of the

South at that early day, the power he would have wielded in the Church and among the leading politicians of the State would have carried Kentucky out by an act of secession, and thus have made her territory the great early battle-ground of the West. We quite as confidently believe, that, had the distinguished ministers of the South taken a determined stand against secession, they would have been equally successful. It is but stating what their own politicians declare.*

LOYALTY OF NORTHERN CHURCHES.-THEIR DUTY.

The other point is illustrated in the action of the religious bodies in the two sections of the country. They have given, in their influence over the people, the most powerful aid to the respective Governments. Those in the North could, in conscience and before God, do nothing less. They did but their duty. We say nothing here

He

*We find the views we have taken concerning the responsibility of the Southern Church and the Southern Clergy, fully sustained by the Rev. Dr. George Junkin, in his work entitled “Political Fallacies," Dr. Junkin was, at the beginning of the rebellion, President of Washington College, at Lexington, in the Valley of Virginia, and, from his position and enlarged acquaintance, is a most competent witness. says: "These Southern Presbyterians are either laughing at your simplicity or pitying your stupidity. For, first, it is notorious that they held the controlling power in their hands. I could name half a dozen of Presbyterian ministers who could have arrested the secession, if they had seen fit. Notoriously, the Presbyterian ministers of the South were the leading spirits of the rebellion. It could not have been started without them. That stupendous victory, won by ten thousand of the unconquerable chivalry, over Robert Anderson and his seventy-two halfstarved soldiers, after thirty-six hours of heavy cannonading, could never have been achieved but for the encouraging shouts of Rev. James H. Thornwell, D. D., and Rev. Benjamin M. Palmer, D. D. But secondly, even in the Border States, the Presbyterian ministers alone, if they had had a moiety of the heroic martyr spirit of Robert J. Breckinridge, could have shut up the sluices of treason and turned the battle from the gates. All that was needed was to present a solid front, and the demon spirit would have cowered before them and slunk back to his own den. Had my beloved brother, Dr. White, and his twelve Union elders, stood firmly together, all the demons of pandemonium, and Charleston, too, could not have driven them from Rockbridge county, and forced treason and rebellion on a people who had voted more than ten to one in favor of the Union candidates for the (Virginia State) Convention."

LOYALTY OF NORTHERN CHURCHES.

203

upon the character and details of the "deliverances" and "resolutions" adopted. Some of them, in some branches of the Church, may have points of special faultiness. We now speak only of the one principle running through them all, of allegiance to the Government. To express that unequivocally, at such a time of civil war, was their manifest duty; for the same civil obligations rest upon the Church, in her corporate or organic capacity, as rest upon any other organizations of men, or upon the individual citizen, so far as they may apply to each respectively. These religious bodies, as such, are under civil protection, which the Government is bound to render; they enjoy immunities which the civil authorities grant and guard; they hold property under the laws of the land; their charters and franchises are from the State; they have the same rights and privileges at law and in equity which other corporations enjoy; and in other ways, in their organic character, do they stand related to the Government.

By virtue of their public organization, and of their relations to the civil power, these religious bodies wield a vast influence over society, and especially over its more influential classes. By virtue of these things, they owe, in their organic character, full allegiance to the civil authority. Every principle of the Word of God, of human law, of common sense, and every principle in any way entering into the welfare of society, shows this beyond dispute. It is, therefore, their manifest duty, in their organic character as public bodies, when the land is rent and torn by foul rebellion, striving to overthrow the Government, formally to express their allegiance to the Government before all men. If it be said that this is political action, we meet it with a denial. It is action which God enjoins as a duty of religion; and should be recognized among the demands of conscience.

DUTY OF THE SOUTHERN CHURCH THE SAME.

On the other hand, it was equally the duty of the Church in the South to stand by the Government in opposition to rebellion. Had she done this, it is the testimony of Southern politicians that they could not have succeeded in initiating civil war. But be this as it may, it was equally her duty.

What right had the Presbyterian Church in the rebel States, for example, in defiance of her civil and religious obligations, to give in her adhesion, organically, to a rebellious Power styled the "Confederate States of America," at the earliest stage of the rebellion? A time might possibly come when it would be right for her to acknowl edge such a Government de facto. But that time had not arrived when her leading men took their earliest step. They bounded into the arena at the very beginning of the civil strife. Some of them, in their public utterances, went ahead of the politicians around them; and some ecclesiastical bodies did the same.

Was this a proper spectacle to be presented by the Church of God? It is, rather, her decent mission to adhere to "the powers" which God has placed over her, an 1 when the issues of a bloody rebellion shall have been determined, then to acquiesce in the result. The case is not altered, even when, as in the South, the fires of revolution were burning around or even within her. She is still to stand to her civil as well as to her religious obligations, and abide the issue.

But this, it may be said, would have subjected her to persecution, and brought her ministers to the halter. Well-what of that? May we abandon duty for safety? Are we not to suffer, as well as do, the will of God? We do not suppose we should have been, personally, more