Imágenes de páginas

to joy, the coloured people are the best judges, and they are jogfel. d. .WILLson said we ought to acknowledge everything that is good. Some secard to thipk that as good Covenanters they ought not to do this is the case of de U.S. Government. As to the gladness of the slaves, they know that the motion smiles upon them—they know that the power of the nation is pledged on their behalf. This is the reason they flock to our lines.

“J.S. T. MILLIGAN objected to the paragraph relating to our aiding the government in its present struggles, as it would encourage our members to into the army with or without an oath, and he moved that the whole paragraph be stricken out. J. GALBRAITI said, surely it is our duty, in consistency with our testimony, to aid the government in putting down this rebellion; be indorsed this with his whole soul. A. ALEXANDER wished to know what was considered consistent. After some little more debate, Mr Milligan withdrew his motion.

“ On the first resolution or answer, A. STEVENSON moved as a substitute :We reply, "That it is not consistent with the word of God or ordination voss for ministers of our church to leave their pastoral work, and accept of military office under the government of the United States.'

"J. R. W. SLOANE said the substitute is not relevant. He had heard of a minister leaving the church on Sabbath day, and fighting prairie fire. A minister in times of persecution had fought the persecutors. No man argues that a mis ister should leave his office and fight. Were the rebels to come with their irosclads and shell the city of New York, if he had the military skill, be swald raise a company and fight as he could. A. STEVENSON said that Peter was required to put up his sword, and he knew not that ministers had ever acquired the right to take it, although self-defence is always right. Can a minister lesse his congregation and engage in war? If he had done so formerly, he would according to the old law, have been deposed at once. A. C. TODD said, I usy be indulged in a few remarks, not only because of the general interest I have in the question as a minister, but also because I have been plainly referred to and it would be folly for me not to see it. Not that he cared so much fi this, but he protested before them, as honourable men, was this the proper way! Suppose, said he, a member of the Lakes' presbytery had sworn to the Coast tution of the United States, and I had got up a petition in my congregati and then had gone to Church Hill congregation and got signatures to another copy of the petition, and brought it up here, asking Synod if it were right for members thus to swear to the Constitution. Such a petition would have been kicked out; at least, I know it ought to be. But this is the way that I bare been treated. The question is not whether a minister may give up bis ofice and become an officer in the army. No one had done this. He had done no such thing. But he had gone with a part of his congregation, with the lambs of his flock, at the earnest request of the mothers, of whom mention has bees made. Besides, he had gone as a missionary, at the request of his congrega tion, not only to preach the gospel to the whites, but to the slaves, and be had preached it, and preached it often, where it could not have been preachel unless he had been protected by bayonets... He would come directly to the question, May a minister fight? He was sure the Synod would as decide they should not. We remembered Airsmoss and such like scenes time well. We might as well say that an elder, or indeed any one, should not be This notion that a minister is so different from other people that he may fight is nothing but Popery.... J. S. T. MILLIGAN proceeded to arges that all rightful authority was from the Mediator, and that for a herald of da cross to take any office under an immoral government was wrong. J. R. W. SLOANE rose to a point of order; there was no such question before this court He was discussing a concrete case. The MODERATOR said the member me arguing what every one believed. J. M. WILLSON said Mr M. was not se much out of order as some seemed to think. The whole difficulty occured from the mode in which the question was put in this substitute. There was no such question before the Church. S. O. WYLIE moved that the substite be laid on the table. MODERATOR decided that Mr Milligan had the floor, and the motion was not in order. (After a short interval, Mr Milligan yielded the floor to R. Hutchison, that he might make some motion.) J. R. W. SLOANE renewed the motion, and it was carried. A. STEVENSON and R. JOHNSTON called for the ayes and pays. J. M'CRACKEN moved a reconsideration. (This was carried, and a motion to lay on the table was again put, and the substitute laid on the table.) J. S. T. MILLIGAN renewed the call for the ayes, but withdrew it on the earnest appeal of J. WALLACE.


“ The question was now upon the original resolution of the Committee. W. MILROY moved to strike out the latter part of the apswer, and insert words to the effect, " But in no case can a minister of the gospel among us accept a military office under the United States' Government as at present constituted.' J. M. WILLSON said no doubt Mr Milroy desired to settle the question as he believed to be right; but if this were passed, then it would settle the question that it was not right for any man to do this. If it was not right for a minister, it was not right for any man ; if it were not right for Covenanters, then it was not right for others. There was only one code of morals for all men. (The Moderator wished Mr W. to state the difference between a juryman and a military officer.) An officer in the army, said Mr W., does not become a member of the Government; his office gives him no civil connection with it. An army is but the physical force of a nation-a great club in the hand of the nation, wielded for the overthrow of its enemies. If the nation is wrongfully assailed, then we may and ought to help it, by adding our force to that of others. (When Mr W. had concluded) Synod adjourned with a prayer by S. Bowden."

" June 3, 9 A.M. "Consideration of the report on the state of the country was resumed. The amendment of Mr Milroy was now before the Synod, viz., to strike out the latter part of the first answer, and substitute, 'yet ministers of this church cannot voluntarily enter into the military service of the United States while it retains its present ungodly character.'

" In support of his amendment, Mr MILROY said-1. The great distinctive principle of this church is tho supremacy of Christ practically carried out. This principle Mr Milroy stated and developed very fully and at length. He ob. served, 2, Proceeding on this principle, Covenanters have alway dissented from and testified against the government. While it is true that the Confederates are in rebellion against the United States Government, still that government is in a great rebellion against Christ. ...... Before we would sustain the Government of the United States, that government should have a charter from the great Bill of Rights, the Bible, otherwise it has no right to exist. It may be said we are not loyal in uttering such sentiments. If by loyalty be meant no sympathy with the rebelliou, then we are as loyal as any. But loyalty does not require us to think the United States Constitution is right. The Professor had last evening taken a most extraordinary position, that in entering the army a man was not in 'homologation' of the government. One who holds that position : has but a little step or short journey to go to occupy tho position taken by the majority of the Scottish Synod in its recent action. That club is a living, rational, thinking, and accountable club, in the hands of, and wielded by a strong man. He had no desire to form a part of that club. He should fear that he should be dashed to pieces. Why may not ministers enter the army? 1. Because the object for which the army is used is only partially right. As to putting down the rebellion, it is wholly right; but that is not the main object of the war. He quoted from a resolution passed by the House about two years since to shew that the object of the war is to maintain the supremacy of the laws, and the integrity of the Union...... 2. Because an immoral oath is required in order to enter the army.

"S.O. WYLIE here rose to a point of order. The matter of the oath was in another part of the report. Has a member a right, in discussing one part of a eport, to discuss at the same time another The Moderator decided that Mr

roy was out of order. An appeal was taken, and the Moderator was sus


“Mr MILROY resumed-3. Though the object of the war was entirely right, yet

a minister could not join with it in the war. Scripture condemns it. He quoted the case of Asa joining with Benbadad; Ahaz joining with Tiglath-Pileser, and other instances. These are all condemned in the Bible; so in the case of Amaziah, who hired 100,000 wicked Israelites. We may not, said Mr Milroy, even allow the wicked to join us in self-defence. Mr Milroy enlarged upon the instance of Jehoshaphat and Ahab uniting in order to recover Ramoth-Gilead. The inference he drew from this was, that, however the nation may in some measure have repented, and however just the war and its object, yet we must not help the ungodly. 4. Ministers should not enter the service, because they can do no good.

,“ W. L. ROBERTS would make a few remarks on this question, and ministers may, said he, when necessary, enter the service of the United States. I. Because of the natural allegiance all owe to the country. He did not refer to that allegiance of sworn subjection. Here he was born, here was his family, his property; all that he had of this world was under the protection of the government, and he was bound to defend the country when it was assailed. 2. Because this war was in defence of a republican form of government. The Testimony acknowledges that the constitution has numerous excellencies. The government wages the war to destroy slavery. The true question is not, Whether the constitution shall be preserved ? but, Have we a country? He would take no immoral oath. (The doctor presented several other arguments in an eloquent strain.)

“ J. M. WILLSOn saidI have no prepared speech to deliver, nor have I any eloquence to display, and I would not if I had. That is not the way this question is to be settled. Mr Milroy has said the government is immoral, and therefore has no right to live at all. Mr Milroy interposed, I meant to have said,

before God;' but, said Mr Willson, we are not speaking of rights before God, but whether this government has a right to defend itself against ruthless rebels The whole basis of Mr Milroy's speech is a misapplication of the doctrine that man by bis sin forfeited all right to live, and so forfeited every other right Man by his fall forfeited as before God every right, but as against his fellowman he has rights which he may plead and defend. The doctrine of this speech is the same substantially with that of the Mormons, that no one has any right to the earth but the saints. They sought to carry out this doctrine at Nagroe; they were driven to Utah ; and there the United States Government is after them now. He hoped they would be driven into the Pacific.

“If a wicked man has no rights, then a man has no right to defend his wife when she is assailed, if she be wicked; a father has no right to defend his child, a brother has no right to defend his sister, unless the child or the sister are is a regenerate state. Now, if this be so, mark it well, the premises are wrong. I. is a reductio ad absurdum. No man can believe that a husband has no right to defend his wife, or a father his children; but this necessarily follows from the premise that a wicked man has no rights, and the conclusion proves that the premise is wrong.

“Mr Milroy has brought instances from the Scripture in reference to alliance of good with bad kings which God denounced. But they are not relevant. If the Southern Confederacy were established, and we were to assist that confederacy is its iniquity against another nation, then these Scripture examples would be in point. But will Mr Milroy be good enough to shew us where God denoacced an Israelite for defending his own government against unjast and cruel attacks! But we have a Scripture example in point, 2 Kings xiii, 12-19. Here was wicked king, ruler of a kingdom founded in wickedness, who came to a prophet of the Lord, and that prophet calls the arrow which symbolised the victories of that wicked king 'the arrow of the Lord's deliverance,' and gives express promise of victory. An example of this kind is of more force than all fine-spun reasonings

“Mr Milroy has faulted my argument about the army, and the illustration 1 used. He had thought that he was uttering what every one knew, and all admitted that entering an army did not connect a man with the institations of a country. In our revolutionary struggle, many Hessians were British soldiers, but they were not British men; the civil law had nothing to do with them, or they with it. Any one in the standing armies of Europe has no connection with

the civil institutions. So true is this, that soldiers are deprived of their civil rights, with a few exceptions. If you take an army in Europe, there are in it men from almost all nationalities, and they do not become incorporated in the nation in whose army they are. I believe, said Mr Willson, that these things have never been contradicted before. They are not new-they wero not got up for the purposes of this war. Why is it that guerillas are not dealt with as soldiers? But because they are not of the armies, but are part and parcel of the civil institutions. They are citizens, not soldiers. Mr Milroy says the club is used against God. I do not know that this is true. The army has fought against bad men, who rose up against right. It had liberated thousands of slaves. When or where had it fought against God?

"Mr Milroy said, any man who maintained that Covenanters might enter the army was but a short step or journey from being a New Light. Mr Willson quoted from the Historical Testimony to shew that Covenanters had aided their country in the war of 1812. They generally thought it their duty to aid in the defence of their country.' While they refused to bind themselves in sinful oaths, they were willing to expend their property, employ their influence, and risk their lives in defence of their country. Mr Milroy has said they became New Lights. There is one man, a member of this court (pointing to John Z. Willson, who sat just at the edge of the platform), who fought in that war, and he has never looked toward New Lightism.

"The doctrine here maintained is, that the government has no right to make war, or to defend itself; and we are pot to be told that those who maintain it are New Lights. We follow the footsteps of the fathers, and he maintained that the men who had gone about the country saying that we are leaving the truth, belied the fathers, as they had belied us. Some say we may fight in a foreign, but not a domestic war. The war of 1812 was to secure the rights of naturalised foreigners, Irishmen and others. This war began in defence of human rights, and because of the determination of the government not to yield to the demands of slaveholders. Now, if the Covenanters of 1812 entered into that war, who has got new light when they denounce us as traitors to Christ?

“Mr Milroy referred to the resolutions of Congress in 1861 to indicate the purpose of the war. The lower house did this. It was a bad resolution, such as men will frame in transition times. How was it, however, when Vallandigham and other copperheads wished to have this resolution reaffirmed near the close of the last session? They would not reaffirm it; and why? because they did not believe it. The times had gone beyond that resolution. Mr Milroy has referred to the malignants in the time of our forefathers in Scotland. This was not in point now. The question was then as to giving office and influence to men who were opposed to the truth, and would use their office and influence to overturn it. It was as if now the question were, whether slaveholders or copperheads should be elevated to places of power and trust? Mr Willson then briefly touched upon the question directly before the Synod. He said ministers, as to moral character, are precisely as other men are. If it be right for other men, then, as to the moral character of the act, it is right for ministers to go. He referred to the case of Col. Clark—a minister at Pitsburgh-who had raised a regiment. A. STEVENSON asked if he were a Covenanter? Mr Willson said the question referred to ministers. It was replied, it is ministers of this Church. He replied, it did not matter much, for ministers of our Church are no better as such than the ministers of other Churches. He did not believe that the ministers should go unless it were necessary

“H. H. GEORGE said, it is an unhappy thing that the matter has come up in this shape. If it is even passed there will be no settlement of the question. He called for the previous question. The Moderator stated that we had no previons question. It was then moved, that the amendment be laid on the table. A. Stevenson called for the ayes and noes, seconded by R. Johnston. The amendment was laid on the table. Ayes 56. Noes 19.

"The second resolution, or the answer to the second query, was then taken up: This relates to the soldier's oath. J. S. T. MILLIGAN made a motion to trike out the latter part. H. H. GEORGE would like to substitute for that, if it were stricken ont, these words, That in the judgment of this Synod voluntary eslistment in the U.S. Army is an identification with the government of the United States, inconsistent with the profession of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.' T. SPROULL said Mr George's amendment did not state the true issue before this court. There are some, and I am one of them, who think that covenanters may engage in this war; but the difficulty lies in the oath. (The amendment was not seconded.) J.S. T. MILLIGAN said he was in favour of striking out this clause relating to the frame of an oath, because he had strong doubts whether, even without an oath, covenanters could enter the army. He accepted the gauntlet; if a nation has a right to defend itself, then it is right to help it in its defence. Let us inquire into the right of defence. Mr M. entered into a discussion of rights, civil natural, civil gracious, &c., and inferring that as man had lost all his rights, no civil government could restore them. They can be only regained in Christ. Civil governments, set up in opposition to God, derive all that they have from the dragon, the old serpent, and Satan. We now come to belligerent rights. Before Mr Milligan bad concluded, Synod adjourned."

“ June 4, 9 A.M. “The consideration of the report on the State of the Country was resumed. The second article, the military oath, was under discussion. J. M. WILLsos, in Jieu of the latter part, presented the following oath :- I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR BY THE LIVING GOD, THAT I WILL BE PAITHFUL TO THE UNITED STATES, AND WILL AID AND DEFEND THEM AGAINST THE ARMIES OF THE CON. FEDERATE STATES, YIELDING ALL DUE OBEDIENCE TO MILITARY ORDERS.' Mr Willson explained that · United States' meant the country, and that dae" was to shew that it was only obedience to right and justifiable orders. A. STEVENSON said he would swear no such oath. J. R. W. SLOANE said this had been his sentiment from the beginning. The form of oath expressed his views. He would vote for it heartily. Mr MILROY was not prepared for this; it implies that members of the Church may enter the army. The form of oath was adopted. A. Stevenson called for the ages and days. (Owing to the many changes that were made, and the speedy adjournment of Synod, I could not ascertain definitely how the vote stood, but only some eight or ten voted in the negative.)

C. B. FRENCH offered the following resolution, which was adopted. That in the above vote Synod did not mean to give encouragement to young men to enter the army, but to provide a form of oath for those who feel it to be their duty to go, not objectionable, as is the present army oath. J.R. W. SLOANE moved to insert the word ordinary' before 'army' in the resolution presented by the Committee; adopted. The resolution in relation to aliens was also adopted.

"W. MILROY said, I am a native-born citizen, and in a sincere desire for the best interests of the country he yielded to no man; but he designed to be faithful, and entered his dissent from the above resolutions adopting the oath: 1. Because there is in the oath an implied homologation of the government of the United States. 2. It is against the Scriptures, which forbid us to help the ongodly. 3. It is inconsistent with the practice of Christ's witnesses in erers age. 4. It virtually pledges us to the support of an immoral government. 5. It is inconsistent with faithfulness to Christ, for though slavery may be oferthrown in the war, yet the declared purpose of it is the defence and maintenance of the Constitution. 6. Because we ought to be faithful to the Redeemer 33 King of nations.

J. M. WILLSON, from the Committee appointed to answer, soon presented the following, premising that as there was no argument in reasons of dissent, so there was none in the answers. To the first, we reply, That in the oath prepared by Synod there is no homologation of an immoral constitution. To the second, That this war against the Confederate armies is not helping the ungodly. To the third, That we follow, as well as the dissentients, the footsteps of the flock. To the fourth, The oath does not pledge us to the support of an immoral government. To the fifth, That the purpose of this war is to be judged by the whole state of the case, and this determines that the war is now carried on for the

« AnteriorContinuar »