Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1865-01-19
Church Politics.
ST. CLAIRsvTLLE, Jan. II


At meeting Of the Session OF the u. r
Congregation, it was Resolved to Is,lues
the Belmont Chronicle to publish the &C
tion Of the Monmouth Pres, I'll. in relation
to complaint Of political preaching ant
political Church action.
The principal document is presumed I,
be from the pen Of Or. A. Young, late o
ST. Clairsville, and Chairman Of the com
mittee which drafted the paper.
A paper, of which copy is given below
received from the congregation Of Olena:
Alta Meeting of the 0lens congregation
Of the U. =. Church, held at their place OF
worship on Saturday, Dec. 3, 1864, the fol.
| lowing action was had.
WHEREAS, The Presbytery of Mon
mouth, at its late session at Little York,
passed certain resolutions hereto appended:
And, WHEREAS, We regard that in 10.
king this action, said Presbytery transcend.
ed its just power and authority, for the fol
lowing among other reasons:
1. In our judgment, it is in conflict with
our Confession Of Faith, which says, (ohap.
81, sec. 5..) -Synods or councils are to ban
die or conclude nothing but that which is
! ecclesiastical; and are not to intermeddle
with civil affairs which concern the com
monwealth:"
@ That the mission Of the church is to
! inculeate the holy truths of the Christian
religion, as taught in the Scriptures:
g. That in the saying of Christ, the
Head Of the Church. "Ronder unto Caesar
the things that are Caesars" &C., we recog-
nizs that great latitude of opinion in poit-
| ical matters, which it is contrary to the
spirit of the age for the teachers 10 Israel
to attempt TO abridge:
4. That the fitness of members to be
deemed conmunicants in the church, shall
be arrived at from their moral and religious
! life and depportment; and not under any
circumstances, by reason of purely political
views entertained by them.
5. That the spirit of the Constitution of
our Country, which allows perfect freedom
in religious matters, implies that the
Churches will be equally tolerant in regard
to differences OF sentiment among their
members upon matters, which, from their
! political character, should ever remain out
side of the pale of priestly dictaton:
6. That in this age of enlightened Chris
/ tianity, we view with adherence the old
| dogma of once dominant church, that its
| spiritual head had the right to exercise do
minion over the temporal, as well as the
/ spiritual of his flock; therefore resolved,
| /. That We protest against said action of
the Presbytery as unauthorized by the can
mons and usages of the church; and as an
unwarraDtable interference with the rights
of its members to act free and unrestrained
in the exercise of the rights of free thought,
free speech, and the free exercise Of the
| elective franchise. fs.~.t
asmuch as we hold it to bs the privilege of
every American citizen TO vote for whatev-
er candidate or party he secs proper with
out dctatiOn from any power or church
court. .
3. That the Presbytery of Monmouth be
required to rescind its action in the matter
referred to. G 80
VIM. TURNER, Chairman.
r. W. GADDEs, Secretary.
This paper was referred to committee,
consisting of Alexander Young, Samuel
Millen, John Scott, J. r. McCalister, and
Robert Kendall. The committe brought
in a report, which was adopted, in an
amended form, as follows.
The paper purports to be the action of
the Congregation of Olena, but whether of
tuo WuOiC COHkIOSdtlUus VI vi q pOTtiOu VI
it, or of what proportion of its members,
the paper expresses the sentiments of many
or few, it is evident that the action of Pres
bytery has been misunderstood and as a
consequence, the feelings of the persons
concerned seem to have been considerably
excited; and this may account for the
strength of some ofthe expressions contain
ed in the paper as well as for the inferences
erronsously drawn from the action Of which
they complain. H.. .s..
Although there are six reasons given in
the paper they may all be resolved inte two
real causes of grievance. The first is that
which denies the right of the Presbytery to
act in the case, because the matter is politi-
cal. The second is, that the Presbytery
dictates how the members Of the churches
under its care shall cast their votes. We
think the complainants are mistaken in both
these respects.
In denying the right Of the Presbytery to
act in the matter because it is political. ref
erence is made to cur Confession of Faith,
chap. 81, sec. 5, "Synods or Councils are to
handle or conclude nothing but that which
is ecclesiastical; and are not TO intermeddle
with civil affairs which concern the COM
monwealth. In making this reference,
the complainants overlook very important
principle, and the one which the passage
tea aches The Confession recognizes two
kinds of jurisdiction and authority; the one,
ecclesiastical that is, belonging TO thechurch,
the other POLITICAL thatis, belonging to the
civil authority. These two departments are
under distinctly separate officers, and have
distinctly separate Objects The civil au-
thority is not to usurp power in church
matters; nor the church to- assume author
| ity in tho sphere Of the civil magistrate,
| Certainly, tho Presbytery Of Monmouth has
not interfered, in any way, with the func-
| tions of any civil officer.
While the Confession meant to keep the
civil and church officers separate and dis
tict in their spheres of duty, it is very
great mistake to suppose that the duties Of
The members of civil society, whether in
matters relating to views of public policy,
or anything else Of human duty are things
with which the church has no legitimate
concern. Have the complainants forgotten
that the Westminster Assembly itself did
interfere with matters political, and thst,
too, in the very respect ofwhich they com
plain? Does not the whole Of the twenty.
third chapter treat of the subject, and is il
not, in the sense of the complainAnts, po-
lit;eal sub;sct? Does not that chapter say,