Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1885-01-23

The question whether clerByuen bnoulu ]
engage in politics ID discussed in the North /
American Review for February by Rev. DR.. /
H. j. Van Dyke, ir., and Rev. Henry Ward |
Beecher DR.. Van Dyke answers with de. |
cided negative. He argues that thy clergy
man in politics is superhuous, because his
training does not fit him for this sphere of
activity. His frequent and absurd mistakes
when be attempts it have often given occa-
sion to the pious to mourn, to the ungodly to
scott, and to the politicians to swear. The
clergyman in politics Is diss0yal because "a
non-sectarian state implies non partisan
church" DIR. Van Dyke argues that if the
ministers of one church should unite to IA
vor any particular party they would receive
special favor from that party when in power
and so they would prepare the way 'for the
worst kind of union between church and
state, union in which the word church shall
be synonymous with a sect and the word
state Synonymous with a section"
Finally, he asserts that for the clergyman
to engage in politics is injurious to the cause
of religion. In depicting the evils of the
day when the church shall be secularized, be
says: eve shall see the stewards of the
bread of life waiting for the crumbs that fall
from Caesars table, and hear the notes OF
the gospel trumpet blending with the blare
of political brass bands We shall have
churches constructed on party lines into
which none shall enter unless they vote the
right ticket, where the acts Of the candidates
will be expouuded more frequently than the
acts of the apostles"
In defence of the right of ministers to en-
gage in politics, Mr.. Beecher undertakes to
defend the following theses
/. All procedure which puts clergymen
into class, and by reason OF their holy
function frees them from contact with the
ordinary duties of humanity is pernicious"
.. The very spirit of our free government
requires that no man shall be exempt from
the full duties Of citizenship.
g. Because the clergyman is moral
teacher he should be an example in consci-
entious performance of the duties of citizen
ship.
4. Jesus himself WIS no dainty teacher in
professional robes. Born to poverty and la
Dor he never forsook his mates He refused
the dignity of rabbiship and to the end was
man among men He rebuked rulers he
exposed hypocriteH aud pretenders in high
places; he meddled with the temple the
altar, the officers thereof
3. The best days of the American pulpit
were those wherein the clergymen took the
most active interest in political affairs.
III this discussion, both Mr.. Beecher and
DR.. Van Dyke take for granted that if the
minister is not to use his position for politi-
cal purposes it is because OF some peculiar
restriction that pertains to his profession, and
which separates him from other men. DR..
Van Dyke desires to magnify bis Office, and
declares that such a popularity does exist
Mr., Beecher takes the broad ground that the
clergyman is to be judged simply as man
among men he is not exempt from any of
the duties of citizenship. The minister has
just the same right TO engage in politics as
he's any other man.
Here we think his ground is uuassailable.
But when we have conceded all this, there
comes another question which the political
preachers are apt to overlook 1t is the uues
ton is it aoise or right for any man to use
his professional Influence or prgHCge for par
tisaR purposes To this we can see only one
answer and that is a decided negative. A
physician may, as citizen, have decided
convictions upon party questions, but he will
not use his professional calls as q time for en-
forcing upon his patient the right views on
the tariff or civil service reform. As phy-
sician, he has nothing to do with politics
Nor has the judge, or even the advocate, a
right to appeal to the political prejudioes of
the jury. The employer is guilty of gross
injustice when he introduces political tests
into the workshop
Now Is not the clergyman violating the
law which other men obey, when be uses the
opportunities of his o flee for the advocacy
of his private views on the disputed cues
tions of state In using the pulpit for DO
litieal propagandism he is guilty of the same
offence against common propriety as would
be the Judge who should deliver party plea
from the bench In each case a sacred trust
Is used for some other purpose than that for
which 1t was intended and in each case the
hearers are taken at a disadvantage. The
right of free speech is abused when people
gathered together for a specific purpose are
compelled to listen to a discourse upon some
thing altogether foreign to that
But the clergyman is also a man aud a citi-
zen As citizen, the same opportunities
are open to him as to any other In enter
ing the arena he must divest himself of his
professional character and claim no immuni-
ty or special authority because of his Office
He must represent only himself, not the re-
hgious sect to which he belongs II he can
do this, without prejudice 10 his special
work as Christian minister, he deserves not