Chapter 15 | Christian History

State

Live

"THE appointment of clergymen to official positions," says Headley, "in the army and navy, under the designation of chaplains, is a custom of long standing, and at the present day, among Christian nations, is considered necessary to their complete organization. It would have been natural, therefore, for Congress, as a mere matter of custom, and in imitation of the mother-country, to appoint chaplains in the American army. They did so; and chaplains, at the present time, form a part of our military organization, and rank as officers and draw pay like them. The propriety of this custom is recognized by all; for the sick, the suffering and dying need spiritual advisers as much as they do hospitals and surgeons."

The chaplains of the army of the Revolution, as well as those of the civil service, were eminent for their talents, learning, eloquence, and piety. All were ardent and active patriots, and many of them became distinguished in the pulpit, in theological literature, and in the departments of education and science. Their influence and labors are thus stated by Headley: - "It is difficult in these days, when chaplains in the army are looked upon simply as a necessary part of its methodical arrangement, - a set of half-officers, half-civilians, who are not allowed to fight, and often cannot preach, - to get a proper conception of those times when their (the chaplains of the Revolution) appeals thrilled the ranks and made the hand clutch its weapon with a firmer grasp, and when their prayers filled each heart with a lofty enthusiasm. Then the people composed the army, and when the man of God addressed the crowding battalion he addressed the young men and old men of his flock, who looked up to him with love and reverence and believed him almost as they did the Bible. The enthusiasm kindled by the pastor's address, the courage imparted by his solemn parting blessing and assurance that God smiled on them, would be a revolutionary page that would thrill the heart.

"The history of our chaplaincy is, to religious men at least, a subject of no inconsiderable interest. Going back thirty years before the American Revolution, to that memorable event in our colonial history, 'the siege of Louisburg,' we shall see that the selection of a chaplain to accompany the army in their hazardous expedition was a matter of no small importance. No sooner was Mr. Pepperell appointed commander of the land-forces than he applied to the renowned George Whitefield, then on his third visit to America, and at that time preaching in New England, not only for his sanction of the expedition, but with a request that he would accept the position of chaplain. Although Whitefield declined that offer, he favored the undertaking. In order, therefore, to give it the air of a religious crusade, Mr. Whitefield selected for their banners the motto, 'Nothing is to be despaired of with Christ for our leader."

A clergyman distinguished for piety and learning - qualities at that time deemed necessary for so important a station - received the appointment.

The history of Braddock's defeat furnishes another striking illustration of the importance then given to the service of a chaplain. In that disastrous battle, the chaplain, as well as that brave general himself, were wounded. Three days after, when General Braddock died, a young American colonel, then about twenty-five years of age, would not suffer his deceased commander to be buried like a savage in the wilderness, but acted the part of a chaplain himself, by reading the solemn and impressive burial-service of the Church of England at the interment. This young officer was George Washington.

After this event, when Washington was appointed commander of the Virginia forces, whose great work was to protect the frontier settlements from the incursions of the French and Indians, in what was called the "French War," he wrote to Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia as follows: - "The want of a chaplain, I humbly conceive, reflects dishonor on the regiment. The gentlemen of the corps are sensible of this, and propose to support one at their own expense. But I think it would have a more graceful appearance were he appointed as other officers are." At another date, Washington wrote, "As to a chaplain, if the Government will grant a subsistence, we can readily get a person of merit to accept the place, without giving the commissary any trouble on that point."

In the Governor's reply to this letter, he thus writes: - "In regard to a chaplain, you should know that his qualifications, and the bishop's letter of license, should be produced to the commissary and myself."

No chaplain was then appointed. About two years after this correspondence, Washington wrote to the President of the Virginia Council as follows: - "The last Assembly, in their 'Supply Bill,' provided for a chaplain to our regiment. I now flatter myself that your Honor will be pleased to appoint a sober, serious man, of piety and merit, to this duty."

When Washington assumed command of the army at Cambridge, in 1775, he found chaplains attached to the different regiments sent from various colonies, - some of them volunteers without pay, and others regularly appointed by the Provincial Congress. As the organization of the army was perfected, measures were adopted for their provision by the General Congress, and their number and the regiments to which they belonged formed a part of the regular army returns of Washington.

At first they were not numerous, as the Government had taken no action on the subject; but its attention was soon called to it, and on May 25, 1775, a committee of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts reported: -

Whereas it has been represented to this Congress that several ministers of the religious assemblies within this colony have expressed their willingness to attend the army in the capacity of chaplains, as they may be directed by Congress: therefore,

Resolved, That it be, and is hereby, recommended to the ministers of the several religious assemblies within the colony, that, with the leave of their congregations, they attend said army in their several towns, to the number of thirteen at one time, during the time the army shall be encamped; and that they make known their resolution to the Congress thereon, or to the Committee of Safety, as soon as may be.

Washington, who in the French and Indian War had more than once requested the Governor of Virginia to allow him a chaplain for his regiment, saw with the deepest gratification this early determination of the New England colonies to supply their regiments with regular chaplains, and encouraged it in every way he could. In the month of December, 1775, he wrote to the Continental Congress as follows: -

I have had it in my mind to mention it to Congress that frequent applications have been made to me respecting the chaplains' pay, which is too small to encourage men of abilities. Some of them who have left their flocks are obliged to pay the parson acting for them more than they receive. I need not point out the great utility of gentlemen whose lives and conversation are unexceptionable, being employed in that service in this army. There are two ways of making it worthy the attention of such. One is an advancement of their pay; the other, that one chaplain be appointed to two regiments. This last, I think, can be done without inconvenience. I beg leave to recommend this matter to Congress, whose sentiments hereon I shall impatiently expect.

The policy of having one chaplain for two regiments did not seem to work well; and on the 1st of July, 1776, Washington wrote to Congress on the subject as follows: -

I beg leave to mention to Congress the necessity there is of some new regulation being entered into respecting the chaplains of the army. They will remember that applications were made to increase their pay, which was conceived to be too low for their support, and that it was proposed, if it could not be done for the whole, that the number should be lessened, and one be appointed to two regiments, with an additional allowance. This latter expedient was adopted, and, while the army continued all together at one encampment, answered well, or at least did not produce many inconveniences; but the army being now differently circumstanced from what it then was, part here, part in Boston, and a third part detached to Canada, has introduced much confusion and disorder in this instance; nor do I know that it is possible to remedy the evil but by affixing one to each regiment, with salaries competent to their support. No shifting, no changing from one to the other, can answer the purpose; and in many cases it could not be done although the regiments would consent, as when detachments are composed of unequal numbers or ordered from different posts. Many more inconveniences might be pointed out, but these, it is presumed, will sufficiently show the defects of the present establishment and the propriety of an alteration. What that alteration shall be, Congress will please to determine.

Congress immediately adopted his views, and Washington, having received a despatch to that effect, eight days after issued the following general order: -

NEW YORK, July 9, 1776.

The Honorable Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a chaplain to each regiment, with the pay of thirty-three and one-third dollars per month, the colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure chaplains accordingly, - persons of good character and exemplary lives, and to see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary, but especially is it in times of public distress and danger. The general hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

In 1776, Washington gave the following order to the chaplains: -

The situation of the army frequently not admitting of the regular performance of divine service on Sundays, the chaplains of the army are forthwith to meet together and agree on some method of performing it at other times, which method they will make known to the commander-in-chief.

Washington deemed the services of religion so important in the army that, in the absence of a chaplain, he would perform divine service himself. "He has been frequently known," says Weems, "on the Sabbath to read the Scriptures and pray with the regiment in the absence of a chaplain."

On the 27th of May, 1777, Congress passed the following order: -

Resolved, That for the future there be only one chaplain for each brigade of the army, and that such be appointed by Congress; that each brigade chaplain be allowed the same pay, rations, and forage allowed to a colonel in the said corps; that each general be requested to nominate and recommend a proper person for chaplain to his brigade; and that they recommend none but such as are men of experience and established character for piety, virtue, and learning.

The chaplains of the army of the Revolution were, in general, not only distinguished for "piety, virtue, and learning, but were," says Headley, "bold and active patriots, stirring up rebellion, encouraging the weak and timid by their example as well as by their teachings, and inspiring the brave and true with confidence by their heroism and lofty trust in the righteousness of the cause they vindicated."

Chaplains were also appointed for the hospitals, as the following record of Congress shows: -

September 18, 1777.

Resolved, That chaplains be appointed to the hospitals in the several departments, and that their pay be sixty dollars a month and three rations a day, and forage for one horse.

Congress was also mindful that chaplains were faithful in the discharge of their duties. The following is on the records of Congress: -

Every chaplain commissioned in the army or armies of the United States who shall absent himself from the duties assigned him, excepting in case of sickness or on leave of absence, shall, on conviction thereof before a court-martial, be fined not exceeding one month's pay, besides the loss of his pay during his absence, or be discharged, as the said court-martial shall judge proper.

The commission of chaplains varied somewhat in the different colonies, but the following form, adopted in Connecticut, will answer as a sample of all :-

To Rev. -, greeting:

Reposing special trust and confidence in your piety, ability, fidelity, and good conduct, I do hereby appoint you, the said --, a chaplain of the regiment, and do hereby authorize and empower you to exercise the several acts and duties of your office and station as chaplain of the said regiment, which you are faithfully to perform in a due and religious discharge thereof, according to the important trust reposed in you, for which this is your warrant.

Given under my hand and seal-at-arms, in the colony aforesaid, this -- day of --, 1776.

The following correspondence between the Congregational Church of Woodstock, Connecticut, and Generals Washington and Putnam, is instructive and interesting: -

WOODSTOCK, CONNECTICUT, April 22, 1776.

Whereas the inhabitants of the United Colonies of America are now engaged in the most important of causes or controversies with the greatest human Power upon earth, - contending with Great Britain for the continuance and enjoyment of all their rights, privileges, and liberties, both civil and sacred;

And whereas it has been judged to be greatly advantageous to the camp, by the commander-in-chief of the forces of the United Colonies, and others in general command, that the Rev. Abiel Leonard, minister of the First Society in Woodstock, should still continue in the army as chaplain, as by their letters to the church and congregation in said society signified, now under consideration, which letter is in the words following: -

"To the Church and Congregation at Woodstock.

"Mr. Abiel Leonard is a man whose exemplary life and conversation must make him highly esteemed by every person who has the pleasure of being acquainted with him. The congregation of Woodstock know him well. It therefore can be no surprise to us to hear that they are loath to part with him. His usefulness in the army is great. He is employed in the glorious work of attending to the morals of a brave people who are fighting for their liberties,-the liberties of the people of Woodstock, the liberties of all America. We therefore hope that, knowing how nobly he is employed, the congregation of Woodstock will cheerfully give up to the public a gentleman so very useful. And when, by the blessing of a kind Providence, the glorious and unparalleled struggle for our liberties is at an end, we have not the least doubt but Mr. Leonard will, with redoubled joy, be received in the open arms of a congregation so very dear to him as the good people of Woodstock are. This is what is hoped for, this is what is expected, by the congregation of Woodstock's sincere well-wishers and very humble servants.

"Signed

{

GEORGE WASHINGTON,

ISRAEL PUTNAM.

"HEAD-QUARTERS, CAMBRIDGE, March 24, 1776."

At a meeting of the inhabitants of the First Society in Woodstock, regularly warned and assembled, on the 22d day of April, 1776, Dr. William Skinner was chosen Moderator for said meeting. After some consultation upon the foregoing letter, and also with the Rev. Mr. Leonard respecting his continuance in the army for a longer time, the following vote was put, namely: -

"Considering that it is desired by some gentlemen of distinction in the Continental army that the Rev. Mr. Leonard, minister of the society, should still continue in said army, and he apprehending it to be his duty, we hereby manifest our consent to his being absent from this society from the 9th of May next to the 1st day of January, 1777, with the expectation, if God spares his life (which we earnestly and humbly implore of His great goodness), that he then return to us and go on in the discharge of the duties of his ministerial connections with us; and doing this we act solely with the view to the public good."

JEDIDAH MORSE, Society Clerk.

Notice, therefore, is hereby given to all the inhabitants of the First Society of Woodstock, qualified by law to vote in society meeting, to meet at the meeting-house in said First Society on Monday, the 22d of April instant, at two of the clock, after noon, there to consult and come unto some agreement with the Rev. Mr. Leonard respecting the pulpit's being supplied in his absence.

WILLIAM SKINNER,

JEDIDAH MORSE,

BENJAMIN LYON,

}

Soc. Com.

WOODSTOCK, April 12, 1776.

The policy of the Government, in securing the services of chaplains, has always been the same in the civil as in the military departments of the Government.

The first meeting of the Continental Congress took place in Philadelphia, September 5, 1774. The record for the 6th of September contains the following: -

Resolved, That Rev. Mr. Duché be desired to open Congress to-morrow morning with prayers.

Sept. 7, 1774. - The meeting was opened with prayer by Rev. Mr. Duché. Voted that the thanks of Congress be given to Mr. Duché for performing divine service.

This Congress adjourned on the 26th of October, 1774, and reassembled the 10th of May, 1775. The Journal of that day shows the following: -

Agreed, that the Rev. Mr. Duché be requested to open the Congress with prayers to-morrow morning.

May 11, 1775. - Agreeable to the order of yesterday, the Congress was opened with prayers by Rev. Mr. Duché.

July 9, 1776. - Resolved, That Rev. Mr. Duché be appointed chaplain to Congress, and that he be desired to attend every morning at nine o'clock.

Oct. 17, 1776. - Mr. Duché, having by letter informed the President that the state of his health and his parochial duties were such as obliged him to decline the honor of continuing chaplain to Congress: - Resolved, That the President return the thanks of this House to the Rev. Mr. Duché for the devout and acceptable manner in which he discharged his duty during the time he officiated as chaplain to it; and that one hundred and fifty dollars be presented to him as an acknowledgment from the House for his services.

Oct. 30, 1776. - Mr. Duché writes to Congress, and requests that, as he became their chaplain from motives perfectly disinterested, the one hundred and fifty dollars voted to him may be applied to the relief of the widows and children of such of the Pennsylvania officers as have fallen in battle in the service of their country. In consequence, Congress orders the money to be deposited with the Council of Safety of Pennsylvania, to be applied agreeably to his request.

Dec. 23, 1776. - Agreeable to the order of the day, Congress elected the Rev. P. Allison and the Rev. W. White chaplains.

The old Colonial and Confederate Congresses paid respect to religion by system and on principle. If they were ever without a chaplain performing daily religious services, it was but for a short time; and it may well be presumed that Mr. Witherspoon then performed the stated divine service.

In the first Congress, after the adoption of the Constitution (1789), soon after a quorum had come together, Oliver Ellsworth was appointed to confer with a committee of the House "on rules and the appointment of chaplains." The House chose five men, - Boudinot, Bland, Madison, Sherman, and Tucker. The result was a recommendation to appoint two chaplains of different denominations, one by each House, to interchange weekly. The Senate appointed an Episcopal clergyman, and the House a distinguished Presbyterian minister, both of New York, the city in which Congress was then holding its session. Thus began the practice of appointing chaplains to our national legislature, a practice continued without interruption to the present time.

The first chaplain appointed under the Constitution was the Right Rev. Dr. Provost, Bishop of New York. The next was Bishop White, whose memory is cherished as the father of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, - the man who at the call of the Continental Congress took his life in his hand and followed it as their chaplain. The service of these two chaplains to the Senate extended through eleven years, from 1789 to 1800, at which time the seat of government was removed to Washington.

The House elected, as colleagues of Provost and White, three distinguished Presbyterian divines, William Linn, of New York, and Blair and Green, of Philadelphia, the latter of whom was subsequently president of Princeton College. We need only look over the list of the earlier chaplains to Congress, to find the names of men who were lights in their day, and who made their mark, which has not been obliterated by time.

On this list we find, besides those who have been mentioned, the names of Breckenridge, Campbell, and Post, from the Presbyterians; Claggett, McIlvaine, and Johns, from the Episcopalians. From among the Methodists, we meet with the names of Bascom, Stockton, and Cookman; from the Baptists, Allison, Staughton, and Cone; and from the Congregationalists, Dr. Dwight, Jared Sparks, and President Bates.

To hear some of these men preach in the Capitol, one had to go early to secure a place to stand, even, in the crowded hall. Most of these men were able representatives of the religion of Christ, men who could with a force of character as well as of argument set before members of Congress its claims to their consideration, in such a manner as to command respect, even when it was urged upon their individual acceptance.

The navy as well as the army of the United States has a Christian record, confirming the uniform policy of the Government in the appointment of chaplains. The establishment of a navy was recommended by Washington, the first President, but the recommendation was not carried out until the administration of his successor, John Adams, began. From the earliest history of the navy till the present, the Government has recognized the need of chaplains, and has always had them on Government ships.

Cruising on every ocean, our sailors pass through the extremes of heat and cold, and the unhealthy climates of every latitude, in which some sicken and die and are buried in the sea, and but for a chaplain they would hear no prayer when sick, nor hardly have a Christian burial when dead. Long months, yea, years even, would pass without their hearing a sermon in a language they could understand. Who will deny that the navy opens many an important field for the labors of a faithful Christian teacher? One who has an aptness to teach and a love for doing good might find in the American navy a great work to do.

In view of this Christian work, Congress passed the following order: -

The commanders of all ships and vessels in the navy having chaplains on board shall take care that divine service be performed in an orderly and reverent manner twice a day, and a sermon preached on Sunday, except bad weather or other extraordinary accident prevent it, and that they cause all, or as many of the ship's company as can be spared from duty, to attend every performance of the worship of Almighty God.

CHAP. 204. - An Act for the better government of the navy of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, from and after the first day of September next, the following articles be adopted and put in force for the government of the navy of the United States.

ART. 1. The commanders of all fleets, squadrons, naval stations, and vessels belonging to the navy are strictly enjoined and required to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all who may be placed under their command; to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices, and to correct all who may be guilty of them, according to the laws and regulations of the navy, upon pain of such punishment as a general court-martial may think proper to inflict.

ART. 2. The commanders of vessels and naval stations to which chaplains are attached shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday, whenever the weather and other circumstances will allow it to be done; and it is earnestly recommended to all officers, seamen, and others in the naval service diligently to attend at every performance of the worship of Almighty God. Any irreverent or unbecoming behavior during divine service shall be punished as a general or summary court-martial shall direct.

In 1838, Congress passed the following: -

An Act to increase the present military establishment of the United States, and for other purposes.

SEC. 18. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the officers composing the council of administration at any post, from time to time, to employ such person as they may think proper to officiate as chaplain, who shall also perform the duties of a schoolmaster at such post; and the person so employed shall, on the certificate of the commanding officer of the post, be paid such sum for his services, not exceeding forty dollars per month, as may be determined by the said council of administration, with the approval of the Secretary of War. In addition to his pay, the said chaplain shall be allowed four rations per diem, with quarters and fuel.

Approved, July 5, 1838.

This Act was extended, in 1849, by

An Act to provide for the increase of the Medical Staff, and for an additional number of Chaplains of the Army of the United States.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of the Act of eighteen hundred and thirty-eight be, and hereby are, extended so as to authorize the employment of ten additional chaplains for military posts of the United States.

Approved, March 2, 1849.

At different times within the last twenty years a very small portion of the American people have petitioned Congress to abolish the office of chaplain. The petitions were respectfully received, and referred to the Committees on the judiciary, in both Houses of Congress, who made very able reports against granting the request of the petitioners. The doctrines of these reports are in harmony with the entire Christian policy of the Government, and are official records to prove that the Christian religion is the basis of the civil institutions of the United States. They are placed in this chapter in full, and will amply repay a careful perusal.

CHAPLAINS IN CONGRESS AND IN THE ARMY AND NAVY.

March 27, 1854. Mr. Meacham, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following report: -

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the memorials of the citizens of several States, praying that the office of chaplain in the army, navy, at West Point, at Indian stations, and in both Houses of Congress, be abolished, respectfully report: -

That they have had the subject under consideration, and, after careful examination, are not prepared to come to the conclusion desired by the memorialists. Having made that decision, it is due that the reason should be given. Two clauses of the Constitution are relied on by the memorialists to show that their prayer should be granted. One of these is in the sixth article, that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." If the whole section were quoted, we apprehend that no one could suppose it intended to apply to the appointment of chaplains.

"ART. 6, Sec. 3. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound, by an oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Every one must perceive that this refers to a class of persons entirely distinct from chaplains.

Another article supposed to be violated is Article 1st of Amendments: - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Does our present practice violate that article? What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist. There never was an established religion without all these. Is there now, or has there ever been, any thing of this in the appointment of chaplains in Congress, or army, or navy? The practice before the adoption of the Constitution is much the same as since: the adoption of that Constitution does not seem to have changed the principle in this respect. We ask the memorialists to look at the facts. First, in the army: chaplains were appointed for the Revolutionary army on its organization; rules for their regulation are found among the earliest of the articles of war. Congress ordered, on May 27, 1777, that there should be one chaplain to each brigade of the army, nominated by the brigadier-general, and appointed by Congress, with the same pay as colonel, and, on the 18th of September following, ordered chaplains to be appointed to the hospitals in the several departments, with the pay of $60 per month, three rations per day, and forage for one horse.

When the Constitution was formed, Congress had power to raise and support armies, and to provide for and support a navy, and to make rules and regulations for the government and regulation of land and naval forces. In the absence of all limitations, general or special, is it not fair to assume that they were to do these substantially in the same manner as had been done before? If so, then they were as truly empowered to appoint chaplains as to appoint generals or to enlist soldiers. Accordingly, we find provision for chaplains in the acts of 1791, of 1812, and of 1838. By the last there is to be one to each brigade in the army; the number is limited to thirty, and these in the most destitute places. The chaplain is also to discharge the duties of schoolmaster. The number in the navy is limited to twenty-four. Is there any violation of the Constitution in these laws for the appointment of chaplains in the army and navy? If not, let us look at the history of chaplains in Congress. Here, as before, we shall find that the same practice was in existence before and after the adoption of the Constitution. The American Congress began its session September 5, 1774. On the second day of the session, Mr. Samuel Adams proposed to open the session with prayer. I give Mr. Webster's account of it: - "At the meeting of the first Congress there was a doubt in the minds of many about the propriety of opening the session with prayer; and the reason assigned was, as here, the great diversity of opinion and religious belief; until, at last, Mr. Samuel Adams, with his gray hairs hanging about his shoulders, and with an impressive venerableness now seldom to be met with (I suppose owing to different habits), rose in that assembly, and, with the air of a perfect Puritan, said it did not become men professing to be Christian men, who had come together for solemn deliberation in the hour of their extremity, to say there was so wide a difference in their religious belief that they could not, as one man, bow the knee in prayer to the Almighty, whose advice and assistance they hoped to obtain; and, Independent as he was, and an enemy to all prelacy as he was known to be, he moved that Rev. Mr. Duché, of the Episcopal Church, should address the throne of grace in prayer. John Adams, in his letter to his wife, says he never saw a more moving spectacle. Mr. Duché read the Episcopal service of the Church of England; and then, as if moved by the occasion, he broke out into extemporaneous prayer, and those men who were about to resort to force to obtain their rights were moved to tears; and floods of tears, he says, ran down the cheeks of pacific Quakers, who formed part of that interesting assembly; and, depend upon it, that where there is a spirit of Christianity, there is a spirit which rises above form, above ceremonies, independent of sect or creed and the controversies of clashing doctrines." That same clergyman was afterwards appointed chaplain of the American Congress. He had such an appointment five days after the declaration of independence.

On December 22, 1776, on December 13, 1784, and on February 29, 1788, it was resolved that two chaplains should be appointed. So far for the old American Congress. I do not deem it out of place to notice one act, of many, to show that Congress was not indifferent to the religious interests of the people; and they were not peculiarly afraid of the charge of uniting Church and State. On the 11th of September, 1777, a committee having consulted with Dr. Allison about printing an edition of thirty thousand Bibles, and finding that they would be compelled to send abroad for type and paper, with an advance of £10,272 10s., Congress voted to instruct the Committee on Commerce to import twenty thousand Bibles from Scotland and Holland into the different ports of the Union. The reason assigned was that the use of the book was so universal and important. Now, what was passing on that day? The army of Washington was fighting the battle of Brandywine; the gallant soldiers of the Revolution were displaying their heroic though unavailing valor; twelve hundred soldiers were stretched in death on that battle-field; Lafayette was bleeding; the booming of the cannon was heard in the hall where Congress was sitting, in the hall from which Congress was soon to be a fugitive. At that important hour Congress was passing an order for importing twenty thousand Bibles; and yet we have never heard that they were charged by their generation of any attempt to unite Church and State, or surpassing their powers to legislate on religious matters.

There was a convention assembled between the old and new forms of government. Considering the character of the men, the work in which they were engaged, and the results of their labors, I think them the most remarkable body of men ever assembled. Benjamin Franklin addressed that body on the subject of employing chaplains; and certainly Franklin will not be accused of fanaticism in religion, or of a wish to unite Church and State.

[Franklin's speech is omitted, as it is inserted in another chapter.]

There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs.

The first Congress under the Constitution began on the 4th of March, 1789; but there was not a quorum for business till the 1st of April. On the 9th of that month, Oliver Ellsworth was appointed, on the part of the Senate, to confer with a committee of the House on rules, and on the appointment of chaplains. The House chose five men, - Boudinot, Bland, Tucker, Sherman, and Madison. The result of their consultation was a recommendation to appoint two chaplains of different denominations, one by the Senate and one by the House, to interchange weekly. The Senate appointed Dr. Provost on the 25th of April.

On the 1st day of May, Washington's first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? The law of 1789 was passed in compliance with their plan, giving chaplains a salary of $500. It was reenacted in 1816, and continues to the present time. Chaplains have been appointed from all the leading denominations, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Catholic, Unitarian, and others.

I am aware that one of our petitioners might truly reply that the article was not in the body of the Constitution, but was one of the amendments recommended by Virginia. This does not weaken the argument in favor of chaplains. In the convention of Virginia, which proposed amendments, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Marshall were members. All these men were members closely connected with the Government. Madison and Monroe were members of Congress when the first amendment was adopted and became a part of the Constitution. Madison was a member of the convention framing the Constitution, of the convention proposing the amendment, and of Congress when adopted; and yet neither Madison nor Monroe ever uttered a word or gave a vote to indicate that the appointment of chaplains was unconstitutional. The Convention of Virginia elected on its first day a chaplain, Rev. Abner Waugh, who every morning read prayers immediately after the ringing of the bell for calling the convention. No one will suppose that convention so inconsistent as to appoint their chaplain for their own deliberative assembly in the State of Virginia, and then recommend that this should be denied to the deliberative bodies of the nation.

The reason more generally urged is the danger of a union of Church and State. If the danger were real, we should be disposed to take the most prompt and decided measures to forestall the evil, because one of the worst for the religious and political interests of this nation that could possibly overtake us. But we deem this apprehension entirely imaginary; and we think any one of the petitioners must be convinced of this on examination of the facts. Now look at that score of different denominations, and tell us, do you believe it possible to make a majority agree in forming a league to unite their religious interests with those of the State? If you take from the larger sects, you must select some three or four of the largest to make a majority of clergy, or laity, or worshippers. And these sects are widely separated in their doctrines, their religious rites, and in their church discipline. How do you expect them to unite for any such object? If you take the smaller sects, you must unite some fifteen to make a majority, and must take such discordant materials as the Quaker, the Jew, the Universalist, the Unitarian, the Tunker, and the Swedenborgian. Does any one suppose it possible to make these harmonize? If not, there can be no union of Church and State. Your committee know of no denomination of Christians who wish for such union. They have had their existence in the voluntary system, and wish it to continue. The sentiment of the whole body of American Christians is against a union with the State. A great change has been wrought in this respect. At the adoption of the Constitution, we believe every State - certainly ten of the thirteen - provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government: one, Virginia, had the system of tithes. Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism, or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among sects to the exclusion of others. The result of the change above named is, that now there is not a single State that, as a State, supports the gospel. In 1816 Connecticut repealed her law which was passed to sustain the Church; and in 1833 Massachusetts wiped from her statute-book the last law on the subject that existed in the whole Union. Every one will notice that this is a very great change to be made in so short a period, - greater than, we believe, was ever before made in ecclesiastical affairs in sixty-five years, without a revolution or some great convulsion. This change has been made silently and noiselessly, with the consent and wish of all parties, civil and religious. From this it will be seen that the tendency of the times is not to a union of Church and State, but is decidedly and strongly bearing in an opposite direction. Every tie is sundered; and there is no wish on either side to have the bond renewed. It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the thirty-ninth day of a general deluge.

If there be no constitutional objection and no danger, why should not the office be continued? It is objected that we pay money from the treasury for this office. That is certainly true; and equally true in regard to the sergeant-at-arms and doorkeeper, who, with the chaplain, are appointed under the general authority to organize the House. Judge Thompson, chairman of this committee in the Thirty-First Congress, in a very able report on this subject, said, that if the cost of chaplains to Congress were equally divided among the people, it would not be annually more than the two-hundredth part of one cent to each person. That being true, a man who lives under the protection of this Government and pays taxes for fifty years will have to lay aside from his hard earnings two and a half mills during his half-century for the purpose of supporting chaplains in Congress! This is the weight of pecuniary burden which the committee are called to lift from off the neck of the people.

If there be a God who hears prayer, - as we believe there is, - we submit that there never was a deliberative body that so eminently needed the fervent prayers of righteous men as the Congress of the United States. There never was another representative assembly that had so many and so widely different interests to protect and to harmonize, and so many local passions to subdue. One member feels charged to defend the rights of the Atlantic, another of the Pacific, coast; one urges the claims of constituents on the borders of the torrid, another on the borders of the frigid, zone; while hundreds have the defence of local and varied interests stretching across an entire continent. If personal selfishness or ambition, if party or sectional views alone, bear rule, all attempts at legislation will be fruitless, or bear only bitter fruit. If wisdom from above, that is profitable to direct, be given in answer to the prayers of the pious, then Congress need those devotions, as they surely need to have their views of personal importance daily chastened by the reflection that they are under the government of a Supreme Power, that rules not for one locality or one time, but governs a world by general laws, subjecting all motives and acts to an omniscient scrutiny, and holds all agents to their just awards by an irresistible power.

In the provisions of the law for chaplains in the army, the number is limited, and these not to be granted unless for "most destitute places;" and then for a very small salary they are to perform the double service of clergymen and schoolmasters. While every political office under all administrations is filled to overflowing, while the ante-chambers of the departments are crowded and crammed with anxious applicants, waiting for additions, or resignations, or death, to make for them some vacant place, it is of recent occurrence that only fourteen of the twenty posts for chaplains were supplied.

We presume all will grant that it is proper to appoint physicians and surgeons in the army and navy. The power to appoint chaplains is just the same, because neither are expressly named, but are appointed under the general authority to organize the army and navy, and we deem the one as truly a matter of necessity as the other. Napoleon was obliged to establish chaplains for his army, in order to their quiet, while making his winter quarters in the heart of an enemy's country; and that army had been drenched in the infidelity of the French Revolution. The main portion of our troops, though not in a foreign land, are stationed on the extreme frontiers, the very outposts of civilization ; and if the Government does not furnish them moral and religious instruction, we know, as a practical fact, that they will go without it.

It is said that they can contribute and hire their own chaplains. Certainly they can, and their own physicians and surgeons; but if we throw on them this additional burden, are we not bound to increase their pay to meet these personal expenses? We may supply them directly with more economy and effect than we can do it indirectly. We trust that the military force of the United States will never be engaged in a contest, unless in such a one that devout men can honestly invoke the God of battles to go with our armies. If so, it will inspire fortitude and courage in the soldier to know that the righteous man is invoking the Supreme Power to succeed his efforts. If our armies are exposed to pestilential climates or to the carnage of the battle-field, we believe it the duty of Government to send to the sick and wounded and dying that spiritual counsel and consolation demanded by the strongest cravings of our nature.

The navy have still stronger claims than the army for the supply of chaplains: a large portion of the time our ships-of-war are on service foreign from our own shore. If they are in the ports of other nations, the crews cannot be disbanded to worship with the people of those nations; and, if they could, the instances are rare in which the sailors could understand the language in which the devotions are conducted. If you do not afford them the means of religious service while at sea. the Sabbath is, to all intents and purposes, annihilated, and we do not allow the crews the free exercise of religion.

In that important branch of service the Government is educating a large number of youth who are hereafter to have the control of our navy. They are taken from their homes at a very early age, when their minds are not generally instructed or their opinions formed on religious affairs. If the mature men can be safely deprived of such privileges, is it wise or just to deprive the youth of all means of moral and religious culture? Naval commanders have often desired to have their crews unite in devotions before commencing action. They have sometimes done it when there was no chaplain on board. One striking instance of this was in the naval action on Lake Champlain. On Sunday morning, September 11, just as the sun rose over the eastern mountains, the American guard-boat on the watch was seen rowing swiftly into the harbor. It reported the enemy in sight. The drums immediately beat to quarters, and every vessel was cleared for action. The preparations being completed, young McDonough summoned his officers around him, and there, on the deck of the Saratoga, read the prayers of the ritual before entering into battle; and that voice, which soon after rang like a clarion amid the carnage, sent heavenward, in earnest tones, "Stir up thy strength, O Lord, and come and help us; for thou givest not always the battle to the strong, but canst save by many or by few." It was a solemn, thrilling sight, and one never before witnessed on a vessel-of-war cleared for action. A young commander who had the courage thus to brave the derision and sneers which such an act was sure to provoke would fight his vessel while there was a plank left to stand on. Of the deeds of daring done on that day of great achievements, none evinced so bold and firm a heart as this act of religious worship.

While your committee believe that neither Congress nor the army or navy should be deprived of the service of chaplains, they freely concede that the ecclesiastical and civil powers have been, and should continue to be, entirely divorced from each other. But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, - without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion. They did legislate on it, by making it free to all, "to the Jew and the Greek, to the learned and unlearned." The error has arisen from the belief that there is no legislation unless in permissive or restricting enactments. But making a thing free is as truly a part of legislation as confining it by limitations; and what the Government has made free it is bound to keep free.

Your committee recommend the following resolution: -

Resolved, That the Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

The Senate of the United States adopted the following report: -

In Senate of the United States, January 19, 1853, Mr. Badger made the following report: -

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred sundry petitions praying Congress to abolish the office of chaplain, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report: -

The ground on which the petitioners found their prayer is, that the provisions of law under which chaplains are appointed for the army and navy, and for the two Houses of Congress, are in violation of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If this position were correct, if these provisions of law do violate either the letter or the spirit of the constitutional prohibition, then, undoubtedly, they should be at once repealed, and the office of chaplain abolished. It thus becomes necessary to inquire whether the position of the petitioners be correct.

The clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country, and its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection, with the state, of a particular religious society, by its endowment at the public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of Church and State of which our ancestors were so justly jealous and against which they so wisely and carefully provided. It is true that, at the time our Constitution was formed, the strictness of this establishment had been, in some respects, and to a certain extent, relaxed in favor of Protestant dissenters; but the main character of the establishment remained. It was still, in its spirit, inconsistent with religious freedom, as matter of natural right to be enjoyed in its full latitude, and not measured out by tolerance and concession from the civil rulers. If Congress has passed, or should pass, any law which, fairly construed, has in any degree introduced, or should attempt to introduce, in favor of any church, or ecclesiastical association, or system of religious faith, all or any one of these obnoxious particulars, - endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, - such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion," and, therefore, in violation of the Constitution. But no law yet passed by Congress is justly liable to such an objection. Take, as an example, the chaplains to Congress. At every session two chaplains are elected, - one by each House, - whose duty is to offer prayers daily in the two Houses, and to conduct religious services weekly in the Hall of the House of Representatives. Now, in this no religion, no form of faith, no denomination of religious professors, is established in preference to any other, or has any peculiar privileges conferred upon it. The range of selection is absolutely free in each House among all existing professions of religious faith. There is no compulsion exercised or attempted upon any member or officer of either House to attend their prayers or religious solemnities. No member gains any advantage over another by attending, or incurs any penalty or loses any advantage by declining to attend. The chaplain is an officer of the House which chooses him, and nothing more. He owes his place not to his belonging to a particular religious society or holding a particular faith, but to the voluntary choice of the members of the House, and stands, in this respect, upon the same footing with any other officer so elected. It is not seen, therefore, how the institution of chaplains is justly obnoxious to the reproach of invading religious liberty in the widest sense of that term.

It is said, indeed, by the petitioners, that if members of Congress wish any one to pray for them, they should, out of their own means, furnish the funds wherewith to pay him, and that it is unjust to tax the petitioners with the expense of his compensation. It has been shown that there is no establishment of religion in creating the office of chaplain, and the present objection is to the injustice of putting upon the public this charge for the personal accommodation of members of Congress. Let it be seen, then, to what this objection leads. If carried out to its fair results, it will equally apply to many other accommodations furnished to members of Congress at the public expense. We have messengers who attend to our private business, take checks to the bank for us, receive the money, or procure bank drafts, and discharge various other offices for our personal ease and benefit, unconnected with the despatch of any public function. Why might it not be said that members, if they wish these services performed in their behalf, should employ and pay their own agents? Members of Congress come here to attend upon the business of the public. Many of them are professed members of religious societies; more are men of religious sentiment: and these desire not only to have the blessing of God invoked upon them in their legislative capacities, but to attend the public worship of God. But how are all to be accommodated in the churches of the city? And of those who belong to either House of Congress some have not the means to procure such accommodations for themselves. Where, then, is the impropriety of having an officer to discharge these duties? And how is it more a subject of just complaint than to have officers who attend to the private secular business of the members? The petitioners say, "A national chaplaincy, no less than a national Church, is considered by us emphatically an establishment of religion." In no fair sense of the phrase have we a national chaplaincy; in no sense in which that phrase must be understood when connected, as it is by the petitioners, with a "national Church." A national Church implies a particular Church selected as the Church of the nation, endowed with peculiar privileges, or sustained or favored by the public in preference to other Churches or religious societies. Of such a Church we hare no semblance, nor have we any such chaplaincy. We have chaplains in the army and navy, and in Congress; but these are officers chosen with the freest and widest range of selection, - the law making no distinction whatever between any of the religions, Churches, or professions of faith known to the world. Of these, none by law is excluded, none has any priority of legal right. True, selections, in point of fact, are always made from some one of the denominations into which Christians are distributed; but that is not in consequence of any legal right or privilege, but by the voluntary choice of those who have the power of appointment.

This results from the fact that we are a Christian people, from the fact that almost our entire population belong to or sympathize with some one of the Christian denominations which compose the Christian world. And Christians will of course select, for the performance of religious services, one who professes the faith of Christ. This, however, it should be carefully noted, is not by virtue of provision, but voluntary choice. We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity, and have a reasonable respect for its ministers and religious solemnities?

The principle on which the petitioners ask for the abolition of the office of chaplain, if carried out to its just consequences, will lead us much further than they seem to suppose. How comes it that Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government? In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;” it cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes. The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits.

Here is a nearer approach, according to the reasoning of the petitioners, to an establishment of religion than is furnished by the official corps to which they object. Here is a recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but of the Christian Sabbath, in exclusion of the Jewish or Mohammedan Sabbath. Why, then, do not the petitioners exclaim against this invasion of their religious rights? Why do they not assert that a national Sabbath, no less than a national Church, is an establishment of religion? It is liable to all the obligations urged against the chaplaincy in at least an equal, if not in a greater, degree. The recognition of the Christian Sabbath is complete and perfect. The officers who receive salaries, or per-diem compensation, are discharged from duty on this day, because it is the Christian Sabbath, and yet suffer no loss or diminution of pay on that account. Why, then, do not these petitioners denounce this invasion of their religious rights, and violation of the Constitution, by which their money is applied to pay public officers while engaged in attending on their religious duties, and not in the discharge of any secular function?

The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. This is evident, if not from what we have said, - from this consideration, that from the beginning our Government has had chaplains in its employment. If this had been a violation of the Constitution, an establishment of religion, - why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the Government, were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They were wise to discover the true character of the measure; they, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oaths, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioners to be unfounded. Unfounded it no doubt is. Our fathers were true lovers of liberty, and utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience. They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But 1 they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to send our armies and navies forth to do battle for their country without any national recognition of that God on whom success or failure depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted. On the contrary, all had been done with a continual appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the world, and an habitual reliance upon his protection of the righteous cause which they commended to his care.

What has thus been done, with modifications, indeed, to suit external circumstances and particular exigencies, but in substance always the same from the beginning of our existence as a nation; what met the approval of our Washington, and of all the great men who have succeeded him; what commands the general commendation of the people; what is at once so venerable and so lovely, so respectable and respected, - ought not, in the opinion of the committee, now to be discontinued.

The committee, therefore, pray to be discharged from the further consideration of the petitions.

The House of Representatives of the Thirty-Fourth Congress, 1854, were for two months unable to organize by the election of a Speaker. The contest was protracted and exciting, and resulted in the election of Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts. In the midst of that long and fierce struggle for political ascendency, the House paused and passed the following preamble and resolutions: -

Whereas, The people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence, and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore,

1. Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer.

2. Resolved, That the ministers of the gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty.

The pastors of various churches in Washington City sent to the Senate of the United States the following proposition: -

GENTLEMEN: - The undersigned, ministers of the different denominations of Christians in Washington, respectfully submit to you the following statements and consequent proposal.

During the long delay in the organization of the present House of Representatives, several of our number were invited to officiate in prayer at the opening of the daily sessions. The suggestion was then made that the various clergymen of the city might discharge this duty permanently, in the place of a single chaplain, but doubt was expressed as to the readiness of the ministers of Washington to render such service.

An expression on our part seeming therefore to be called for, we beg leave to state to you our conviction that the established election of a chaplain from abroad by your honorable bodies had its origin in a necessity now no longer existing; that the plan adopted by many of our State legislatures, of inviting neighboring pastors to act as their chaplains, thus removing all objection to the associating religious devotion with their deliberations, would reflect more credit on Christian ministers, would conduce more to their individual acceptableness and general usefulness among members of Congress and their families, and would in every way promote the end had in view in the election of chaplains.

We therefore respectfully tender our services, offering to alternate in the weekly service of opening the two Houses with morning prayer, and in conducting divine service on Sabbath morning, with the distinct understanding that we decline receiving any remuneration for these services.

GEORGE W. SAMSON, Pastor of E Street Baptist Church.

BYRON SUNDERLAND, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church.

JAS. R. ECKARD, Pastor of Second Presbyterian Church.

T. A. HASKELL, Pastor of Western Presbyterian Church.

P. D. GURLEY, Pastor of F Street Presbyterian Church.

GEO. HILDT, Pastor of McKendree Chapel, M. E. Church.

GEO. D. CUMMINS, Rector of Trinity Church.

J. GEORGE BUTLER, St. Paul Lutheran Church.

J. MORSELL, Rector of Christ Church.

SAMUEL D. FINKEL, Pastor of G. E. Church.

P. LIGHT WILSON, Pastor of Methodist Protestant Church.

An act of Congress, passed and approved July, 1861, contains the following sections in relation to chaplains: -

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That no person shall be appointed a chaplain in the United States army who is not a regularly ordained minister of some religious denomination, and who does not present testimonials of his present good standing as such minister, with a recommendation for his appointment as an army chaplain, from some authorized ecclesiastical body, or not less than five accredited ministers belonging to said religious denomination.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That hereafter the compensation of all chaplains in the regular or volunteer service or army-hospitals shall be one hundred dollars per month and two rations a day when on duty; and the chaplains of the permanent hospitals, appointed under the authority of the second section of the act approved May twentieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, shall be nominated to the Senate for its advice and consent, and they shall, in all respects, fill the requirements of the preceding section of this act relative to the appointment of chaplains in the army and volunteers; and the appointments of chaplains to the army-hospitals, heretofore made by the President, are hereby confirmed; and it is hereby made the duty of each officer commanding a district or port containing hospitals, or a brigade of troops, within thirty days after the reception of the order promulgating this act, to inquire into the fitness, efficiency, and qualifications of the chaplains of hospitals or regiments, and to muster out of service such chaplains as were not appointed in conformity with the requirements of this act, and who have not faithfully discharged the duties of chaplains during the time they have been engaged as such. Chaplains employed at the military posts called "chaplain-posts" shall be required to reside at the posts, and all chaplains in the United States service shall be subject to such rules in relation to leave of absence from duty as are prescribed for commissioned officers of the United States army stationed at such posts.

West Point, the military school of the nation, has from its organization had the services of a Government chaplain. Some of the most distinguished ministers of the nation have received appointments, among whom has been the venerable Bishop McIlvaine. The importance of religious instruction and of the public worship of God in that national military school is thus stated by the venerable Christian statesman Lewis Cass. In 1832, Mr. Cass, as Secretary of War, in his annual report to Congress, says, -

Especially am I impressed with the importance of a place of public worship, where all the persons attached to the institution, amounting, with their families, to more than eight hundred individuals, can assemble and unite in the performance of religious duties. In a Christian community the obligation upon this subject will not be questioned; and the expense of providing a suitable place of worship, especially as a chaplain is maintained there, cannot be put in competition with the permanent advantages of a course of religious instruction to such a number of persons, a large portion of whom are in that critical period which determines whether the future course of life shall be for evil or for good.

The report of the Board of Visitors at West Point for the year 1862 urged the same views of religious instruction at the Academy. They say, -

The moral element of the nation, by far the most important of all, receives far less attention than it deserves at the Academy. Moral and religious teaching is of supreme importance at all times to the young. How much more important is it to young men, associated as they are at the Academy, far from all the influences of domestic affections and the counsel and examples of parents and friends! We desire to see the moral and intellectual powers cultivated simultaneously, believing we should desire as much at least that the cadet should be a good man as a good officer.

The following remarks in reference to the history and labors of chaplains are taken from a report made at a meeting of the chaplains of the army held in Washington City, in the month of November, 1862: -

The office of chaplain in the army and navy is one of the oldest in the Government of the United States. In the early stages of the American Revolution and through to its glorious close, in the convention that framed the Constitution of our Union, in the subsequent wars of this country, on the land and the sea, chaplains have ever been a necessary and useful class of men. When engaged in negotiating treaties abroad, when making discoveries by means of exploring expeditions, when sending out ships to convey provisions and arms to suffering and struggling nations, when promoting the high purposes of commerce and science by means of electric oceanic communication, when preparing the way for the establishment of distant colonies that have become powerful and profitable auxiliaries to civilization and good government, competent and truly Christian army and navy chaplains have taken a conspicuous part. Their books and reports on these subjects are with the country, while the record of their faithful Christian labors is on high.

On the breaking out of the present wicked and futile rebellion, ministers of the gospel of all the denominations of Christianity were at once found among the most devoted and active supporters of the Union and its flag. They caused that honored standard to be suspended over their pulpits and from the towers of their churches. They addressed their congregations in the stirring appeals of Christian patriotism. They gave their sons and grandsons, by thousands, to the ranks of the Union army and navy. Some of them, with gray hairs on their brows, were among the first to volunteer as privates and march to the field of battle. As opportunity offered, they have borne themselves bravely in the fight, rising from the ranks to be acting generals, colonels, majors, captains, and lieutenants. They have borne all the privations of camp-life, side by side with their comrades in arms. Not a few of them have been borne down by exposure and fatigue, until the hand of death has interposed to translate them from the weary march, the sickly camp, the dangerous battlefield, to the rest and victory and peace of heaven.

A wide and effectual door of usefulness has been opened to truly devoted chaplains in the military and naval hospitals of the United States. Never was there a more inviting field presented to self-denying and laborious men. Peculiar obstacles exist at times in the way of its successful cultivation, but this has always been and always will be the case in the prosecution of every good word and work. Right-minded chaplains have constantly endeavored to overcome these obstacles. Prejudice, sometimes more invincible than strong men armed, has to be conquered. Passion has to be subdued. The schemes of peculators on public and private rights have to be ferreted out and thwarted. Facilities for holding public worship have frequently to be obtained under great difficulties.

The character and qualifications of a chaplain for Congress are presented in the following view, given by Rev. Thomas H. Stockton, himself having occupied that responsible position for several years. He says, -

"The Congressional chaplaincy is not (or ought not to be) a sectarian ministry, but a great American representative of a pure Bible Christianity, above all parties, all glowing with the divinest energies of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,-arresting and commanding attention and exerting saving influences by its heavenly loftiness and majesty, - something worthy of the sublimest Christian position on the face of the earth. We want evangelical ministers who represent the immense majority of American Christians, noble witnesses for Christ, orators of the Spirit, worthy to challenge heaven and earth to hear their 'Thus saith the Lord.' It is a glorious thing rightly managed."

Thus explicit and uniform has been the course of our legislative councils on the subject of religion. Their enactments have all been on the side of Christianity, - taking its truth for granted, acknowledging its obligations, magnifying its importance, treating it as in fact the religion of the Government, and as worthy to be made the rule of action for public bodies and for States no less than for individuals.

1
religious freedom