Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

command, until the return of Gen. Bolivar, to whom an officer was dispatched to Panama. Gen. Paez entered Carracas on the 19th, when the expression of the public in his favour, was marked and decisive. He has written to Bolivar, stating the course he has taken. What the issue will be we have yet to learn.

MEXICO. A decree has been passed by the Mexican government, abolishing forever,every title of rank,and the use of every symbol, which might bring to mind, their ancient dependence on Spain; and that all persons are equal,whatever be their origin. On the 18th April, the Senate unanimously passed resolutions declaring, that they will never listen to any proposition of Spain or other powers, which is not founded in the absolute recognition of their independence, under their present form of government: And, that any peron, within their jurisdiction, who shall oppose this resolution, shall be deemed guilty of treason. It was confidently expected, that these would pass the chamber of deputies.

UNITED STATES.-Since the adjournment of Congress on the 22d of May, nothing of public nature of much importance has reached us, till the 4th inst. Great preparations were made, in every quarter, for celebrating the Jubilee of the nation's independence. In several places, this event was celebrated in a religious manner, which of all others, is certainly the most rational and appropriate. We were not a little struck, to learn ip a few days afterwards, that on the same day, Jefferson and Adams, who had acted a part so conspicuous in the revolutionary struggle, breathed their last. A coincidence so extraordinary, has perhaps, never occurred in the history of nations. During the past month the earth has been visited by copious and refreshing showers. Previous to this, the aspect of the season was threatening; but in the goodness of God, he remembered his covenant with the seasons, and there is yet the prospect of abundance of food for man and beast. "O that men would give praise to the Lord for his goodness!"

REPORT OF THE PRESBYTERY OF CHARTIERS,

Omitted in the Minutes of Synod for want of room.

Though the preachers appointed at your last meeting attended according to your order, yet the supply of preaching was far inadequate to the demand; and notwithstanding the greatest exertions of the settled ministers of the Presbytery, some of our vacancies have been at least six months without sermon. We hope that the Synod will, if possible, afford us a much greater supply of preachers. Since the last meeting of Synod, we have licensed Mr. James Miller; and have examined for the study of divinity, and sent to the Hall, Nathaniel Ingles, Nathan Miller, James M'Carral, James Templeton, John Wallace, and Samuel Wilson.

We desire to represent the views of this Presbytery respecting the Union of Seceders in Scotland. The Union in Scotland, which took place in 1820, between the General Associate Synod, and what is called the Burgher Associate Synod is an event which is deeply interesting to the church of Christ at large, but particularly to the Associate body in the United States, on account of their special connection with the General Associate Synod-which connection is declared in the Act of the Associate Synod, passed in the year 1783, to have been from the beginning a scriptural union, according to the plan of presbyterial church government. In that act it is declared, that we are a part of the same witnessing body with that Synod; and that if we should ever find any thing in the proceedings of that Synod contrary to truth and duty, we were to have the same liberty, as others connected with the Synod, to remonstrate, protest, or testify against it.

With regard to the deed of the General Associate Synod, in agreeing to the articles which were proposed as the Basis of union between that Synod and the Burgher Associate Synod, though we cannot now be said to have the opportunity of remonstrating or protesting in the usual form, we have both an

opportunity and a loud call to testify against this part of the proceedings of the General Associate Synod, for such reasons as the following:

1. Because in agreeing to the Basis, now mentioned, the General Synod agreed to set aside their Testimony from being any more what they had till then held it to be, a term of communion; while it was not denied to be a. Testimony agreeable to the word of God, and also necessary as an acknowledgement of what his church had attained, and as a condemnation of opposite evils. If it be said they meant to drop a particular form of words, but not the matter of the Testimony; we answer, that there is no conceivable way in which we can certainly know, whether a person or a society, in adhering to the matter of an explicit and peculiar testimony, or declining from it, without knowing the form of words which had been used in giving that testimony.Hence adherence to such a form of words, is allowed to be one proof of honesty in contract or promises, by the common consent of mankind. Besides, it cannot be pretended, that what the General Synod agreed to, in agreeing to the Basis, was only an exchange of the verbal form of their Testimony, for another equivalent form of sound words; for they had no such form of words before them, as they ought to have had according to the rule of lawful exchange-nor was any such form secured to them by the Basis. It was unwarrantable for the General Synod to suspend their adherence to their Testimony for a time, even for an hour-but how much more unwarrantable was it, for them to suspend their adherence to it, as by this deed, they agreed to do, sine die for, at this time, they knew not when, or if ever, they should obtain a Testimony equivalent to that which they now agreed to drop. In short, the Synod's proceeding in this matter, was contrary to the charge, which the Lord Christ gives his church in these words, "hold fast that which thou hast." 2. Because in agreeing to the said Basis, the General Associate Synod agreed to decline from the acknowledgement, which till then had been professed by the whole Secession body, of the perpetual obligation of the National Covenant of Scotland, and of the Solemn League for maintaining and carrying on a work of reformation in the three kingdoms. The obligation of these cove nants upon Scotland and England, has arisen from three things-First, from the fact, that the concurrence of the people in this act of entering into them, was such, as was abundantly sufficient to complete a national deed. There never had been a law or treaty, to which the consent of these nations had been given more explicitly or universally. Secondly, from the matter of them being lawful, and morally binding, according to the word of God. Thirdly, from the ends of them being commendable and necessary, such as, that they and their posterity after them, might as brethren, live in faith and love, that the Lord might be one and his name one. The end of the Solemn League, was, to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion. The denial of the obligation of these covenants is contrary to the third commandment, for he will no more hold a nation, than an individual, guiltless, which despises a lawful oath. When the Jews made a covenant for letting their servants, that were Hebrews, go free; the Lord calls it his covenant; for the breach of which, he threatens to give them into the hands of their enemies. Jer. xxxiv. 18. How then can it be denied, that a covenant for uniformity in the doctrine, worship, and government of God's church, may be justly called his covenant; for the avenging of which he threatens to send a sword. Covenant breaking, is often represented as the cause of the desolation of the Jewish nation. Deut. xxix. 24, 25. All nations will say, wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? then men shall say, because they have forgotten the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers.

The denial of the obligation of such an oath or covenant, as has now been described, is contrary to the law of nature, which teaches, that men's denying the obligation of a lawful oath into which an individual or society has entered and in which the name of God has been interposed, tends to Atheism and to the dissolution of human society.

The acknowledgement of the obligation of these covenants, has been, all along, as eminent a part of the principles of the secession, as the disowning of

it is a prominent feature in the scheme of union proposed in the said Basis.~ Even though it were allowed not to be agreeable to the scriptural order or manner of public covenanting, to make the covenant, or religion and reformation the law of the land, and to impose it on such, as were not church members, yet while the covenant was lawful in itself, and in the declared ends of it-and while the church members, who entered into it, were sufficient to represent the nation-the irregularity now mentioned, was not sufficient, to annul the obligation of it on the Brittish people. They were bound to be Christians by the primary obligation of the moral law; and they were, therefore, justly bound to the same thing by the secondary obligation of their own promise and vow, in the covenant. It is allowed by the best casuists, that an oath about a thing lawful and possible, even though extorted by force and fear, is still obligatory on account of the reverence due to the Divine name interposed in an oath.

3. Because in agreeing to the second article of the Basis, the General Synod declined adopting the Confession and Catechisms as a part of the covenanted uniformity of the churches in the kingdoms of Britain and Ireland. In the Basis, these standards, proposed by the Westminster Assembly, were received without any reference to the original design of the compilers of them.

4. Because, in agreeing to the fith article of the Basis, the General Synod agreed to a scheme of covenanting, which we judge to be contrary to truth and duty; for, though religious covenanting is acknowledged in the said Basis to be a moral duty, yet the practice of it is not professed to be enjoined upon any. The apostle says to Timothy and other ministers, these things command and teach; intimating that they should command those truths to be believed, and those duties to be practised, which they teach as contained in the word of God. Whereas, according to this Basis, though religious public covenanting may be taught to be a moral duty, yet it is not to be commanded. And, though this article professes to afford scriptural facility to them who have clearness to proceed in it, yet it gives no ground to expect, there shall be afforded them either a bond or an acknowledgement of sins, sanctioned by the supreme court. The covenanting proposed in this Basis, is not like that in the secession, the entering of all the congregations as constituting one body, into the same covenant engagement: But it is rather like the covenanting of some Independents, by which each congregation has its own separate covenant engagement; a method which Presbyterians have disapproved, as tending rather to divide, than to unite the church of Christ.

5. Because, in agreeing to the said Basis, the General Synod agreed to a scheme, which does not guard sufficiently against lax, or what is called free communion. To show how this sort of communion was guarded against by the Testimony of the General Synod, it may be sufficient to recite a passage of it,which is quoted in our Book of Discipline. "We also testify against all communion in public ordinances, with churches which are in such a state of apostacy from, or opposition to the truth, as to render constant communion with them unlawful. Those who are chargable with this practice, pull down with the one hand what they seem to build up with the other. It is inconsistent with holding fast what we have already attained, (Rev. ii.25.) and with many calls in scripture, to be steadfast and immoveable; in opposition to wandering and wavering It tends directly to induce those in corrupt communion, to make light of any testimony for truth, and to harden them in courses of errror and defection. It is indeed manifestly absurd. For, if we may warrantably join with such at one time, why not always? why continue in a separate society?" This, and other parts of their Testimony against such lax communion, were receded from, by the General Synod, when they agreed to the said Basis; for it is obvious, that there is nothing more in this Basis, in opposition to such free communion, than what there is in the profession of the Relief church, and others bearing the Presbyterian name, who allow and practice that commun ion.

6. Because, in agreeing to the Basis, the General Synod agreed to drop the Tistimony they had till then maintained, against the evil of the civil power

in Britain, in restoring the law of patronage, in Erastian encroachment; which had occasioned many gross abuses in the church of Scotland: and in establishing prelacy in England and Ireland, in oppositon to the covenanted uniformity in these lands.

7. Because, in agreeing to this Basis, they agreed to consider several acts of the Associate Synod as null and void, which cannot be justly denied to be agreeable to the word of God, and necessary still, on account of the continuance of the evils condemned; such as, the Act condemning the Mason oath, and the oaths imposed on constables and church wardens in England, and the Act concerning some Arminian errors on the head of universal redemption.

8. Because, in agreeing to this Basis, they agreed to bury many laudable acts of the church of Christ, which had been always recognised in the secession church, as belonging to the discipline of the church of Scotland, such as acts condemning promiscuous assemblies for dancing, theatrical entertainments, and the like.

9. Because, in agreeing to the Basis, they neglected a necessary testimony against the corruption of God's worship, by singing hymns of human composition in public worship; for it was well known, when the Basis was under consideration, that this practice had obtained, some time before, in the Burgher communion. Yet the Basis was agreed to without any precaution against this evil.

10. Because the article of the Basis concerning presbyterial church governinent, is expressed ambiguously, not giving a certain sound as to the exclusion of prelacy and independency, from being agreeable to the word of God. This night have been allowed to have been merely an inadvertent defect of verbal precision, were we not led to apprehend, that it was designedly expressed as it is, by the very different manner in the approbation of presbyterial church government, is expressed in the standards of the secession. The words of the Judicial Testimony, are plain and decisive, viz: "That presbyterial church government is the only form of government laid down and appointed by the Lord Christ in his word." And in like manner, the words of the third question in the Formula," Are you persuaded that presbyterial church government is the only form of government laid down and appointed by the Lord Christ to continue in his church till the end of time.

But the words of this Basis are; "That presbyterial church government is the only form of government which we acknowledge as founded upon, and agreeable to the word of God." As if it might be the case, that others might lawfully acknowledge another form of government, as Episcopacy or Independency, to be founded on and agreeable to the word of God. It is now a prevailing opinion, that there are different forms of church government equally agreeable to the word.

11. Because, in agreeing to the Basis, the General Synod agreed to an unwarrantable exercise of forbearance. In so doing, they agreed, that none should be censured for swearing the religious clause of some Burgess oaths; though the swearing of it had been judicially condemned, as not consistent with the present Testimony as stated against the communion of the Established church, nor with the bond for renewing the covenant that had been entered into, by Scotland and England, for religion and reformation. They agreed, that none should be censured, for denying the obligation of these covenants, or for denying the seasonableness of public covenanting at present. They agreed to exempt from censure, occasional communion in public ordinances, with other churches, whose public profession is so corrupt, as to forbid constant communion with them; and also, the swearing of the Mason oath, and other evils that had been condemned by the Associate Synod. In short, in agreeing to this Basis, they agreed to the tenet of the party with whom they were professing to unite, in the 9th reason for their protest against the Synod's decision concerning the religious clause of some Burgess oaths. "Even supposing" said they "that we should grant there is sufficient evidence unto all, that swearing that clause would be a sinful receding from any part of their Tes timony; though it were granted that this behooved to be the tendency of the

work, whatever was the intention of the worker; yet still the Synod ought rather to have enjoined this mutual forbearance than to have prohibited the swearing of this said clause. We ought to carry our forbearance towards one another thus far."

Indeed, the immmediate occasion of the breach, was not the question-(whether the swearing of said clause was lawful or not,) but the question was, whether the Synod's decision about it should be a term of communion or not; which was just the same, as if it had been, whether the practice of swearing the said clause, should be censured or not. It is plain, that the General Synod in agreeing to the Basis, agreed that the Burghers were right in contending for the exercise of forbearance towards the swearers of that clause, and that the members of Synod who voted against it were in the wrong. Thus the General Synod in agreeing to the Basis, yielded a cause for which they had contended above seventy years. If it had been their own cause, it might be deemed a small matter; but if it was, what we believe it to be, an important part of the cause of God and truth, the relinqushing of it might add greatly to the causes of the Divine displeasure, and the consequence is likely to be tremendous.

It is true, there is a christian forbearance to be exercised towards the weak of the flock. There are infirmities in practice, without obstinacy, and defects in the knowledge of some parts of the church's profession, from weakness of capacity, from want of opportunities of instruction, and even from some degree of prejudice, which may not hinder persons from being received into and continued in church communion; while they approve of the public profession according to their light, and submit to it as in due submission to the word, the standard of the church's attainments and administrations. But ministers and church courts, are bound by the law of Christ, doctrinally and judicially to declare to their people, and to enjoin upon them, all things whatsoever he hath commanded them. No practice of acknowledged sin, no neglect of acknowledged duty, ought to be doctrinally or judicially exempted form censure. The opposers of such truths and duties of God's word, as the church has explicitly received, as such, cannot consistently be admitted to her communion.

12. Because, in agreeing to this Basis, the General Synod agreed to impose an undue restraint upon ministers, with respect to matters of their public profession. This charge is grounded on the following words in the preamble to the Basis. "Without interfering with the right of private judgment respecting the ground of separation, both parties shall carefully abstain from agitating in future, the questions which occasioned it."

It was well known, that all the members of the General Synod had vowed, that they would adhere to the sentence of the Synod in April 1746, concerning the religious clause of some Burgess oaths: they had solemnly declared their persuasion, that the forbearance or allowance, which the Burghers contendeu for, of the swearing of that clause for some time, was a profanation of the Lord's name, and a material abjuration of the whole cause and testimony, as it was in the hands of the Associate Synod. Thus the members of the General Synod in their public profession, held this allowance to be contrary to the scripture, to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms; to be inconsistent with the duties of reproving whatever is sinful, of avoiding all appearance of evil, and of holding fast the profession of our faith without wavering. The question of this allowance ought to be agitated, in order that the evil and danger of it may be manifested, and men warned against it. Yet, this being the chief question, which occasioned the separation, this Basis, enjoins both parties carefully to abstain from agitating it in future, however much the swearing of the said clause may come to be practised. Is not the silence hereby Imposed, a sinful silence?

The sinful conduct of the General Synod in agreeing to this Basis, was greatly aggravated, by their ordination vows, and other engagements, which the members of that Synod had come under; andalso, by the faithful contending of a respectable number of their brethren, against their proceedings, in this affair.

WILLIAM WILSON, Presb'y. Clerk

« ZurückWeiter »