Part 5 (1/2)

This paper was instantly ”laid on the table;” and when, at a subsequent session of the court, it was regularly called up for action, it was again and finally ”laid on the table!” Ever since that transaction, this paper has been diligently misrepresented, as consisting only of _one_ resolution, and that the _first_, contrary to its own evidence.

After the final adjournment of Synod, those individuals who, as a minority, had opposed the innovations and backslidings of their brethren, embraced an opportunity for consultation. It appeared that without preconcert, they were unanimous that all legal means having failed to reclaim their backsliding brethren, who const.i.tuted a large majority of Synod; both duty and necessity required them to a.s.sume a position independent _of_ former organizations, that they might, untrammeled, carry out practically their testimony. Accordingly two ministers and three ruling elders proceeded to const.i.tute a Presbytery on const.i.tutional ground, declaring in the deed of const.i.tution, adherence to all reformation attainments. This transaction took place in the city of Alleghany, June 24th, 1840. The declining majority continued their course of backsliding, following those who had relinquished their fellows.h.i.+p with slanderous imputations and pretended censure, as is usual in such cases. Since that time, there are no evidences given by them either of repentance or reformation.

The Synod of Scotland has for many years been in a; course of declension, in many respects very similar to that of America. As early as the year 1815, some ministers of that body began to betray a disposition to accommodate their profession to the taste of the world.

The judicial testimony emitted by their fathers was represented as too elaborate and learned to be read and understood by the common reader, and too severe in its strictures upon the principles and practice of other Christian denominations. The abstract of terms of communion was viewed as too strict and uncharitable, especially the Auchensaugh Covenant became particularly obnoxious. By a persevering importunity for a series of years this degenerating party prevailed so far in the Synod as to have the Auchensaugh Deed expunged from the symbols of their profession. This was accomplished in 1822; and, taken in connection with other movements indicating a prevailing spirit of worldly conformity, this outrage upon the const.i.tution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, gave rise to a secession from the body, by the oldest minister in the connection, and a considerable number of others, elders and members. At the above date, the Rev. James Reed declined the fellows.h.i.+p of the Scottish Synod; and he maintained the integrity of the covenanted standards in a separate communion till his death: declaring at his latter end, that ”he could not have laid his head upon a dying pillow in peace, if he had not acted as he did in that matter.”

Deaf to the remonstrances of this aged and faithful minister, his former brethren pursued their perverse and downward course, until their new position became apparent by the adoption of a Testimony and Terms of Communion adapted to their taste. Their Testimony was adopted in 1837.

This doc.u.ment ostensibly consists of two parts, historical and doctrinal; but really only of the latter as _authoritative_. This will appear from the preface to the history, as also that it is without the _formal_ sanction of the Synod, which appears prefixed to the doctrinal part of the book. A considerable time before they ventured to obtrude this new Testimony on the church; they had prepared the way for its introduction, by supplanting the authoritative ”Rules of Society,”

framed and adopted by their fathers. This was done by issuing what they called a ”Guide to Social Wors.h.i.+p,” which the Scottish Synod sent forth under an ambiguous _recommendation_, and the spurious production was republished by order of Synod, in America, 1836, with the like equivocal expression of approbation.

What has been just related of the Ref. Pres. Church in Scotland, will apply substantially to that section of the same body in Ireland. On the doctrine of the magistrate's power _circa sacra_, however, there was a controversy of several years' continuance and managed with much asperity, in which Rev. Messrs. John Paul, D.D., and Thomas Houston were the most distinguished disputants. Their contendings issued in breach of organic fellows.h.i.+p in 1840. Indeed the sister-hood which had subsisted for many years among the Synods east and west of the Atlantic ocean, was violated in 1833; when the rupture took place in the Synod of America, by the elopement of the declining party, who are since known by alliance with the civil inst.i.tutions of the United States. Among these five Synods, the principle called _elective affinity_ has been strikingly exemplified; while what the Scripture denominates _schism_, has been as visibly rampant as perhaps at any period under the Christian dispensation.

This brief historical sketch may serve to show the outlines of the courses respectively pursued by the several parties in the British Isles and America, who have made professions of attachment to that work in the kingdom of Scotland especially, which has been called the Second Reformation. But the duty of fidelity to Zion's King, and even the duty of charity to these backsliding brethren; together with the informing of the present and succeeding generations, require, that we notice more formally some of the more prominent measures of these ecclesiastical bodies and so manifest more fully our relation to them. It is not to be expected however, that we are about to condescend upon _all_ the erroneous sentiments or steps of defection, supplied by the history of these communities. To direct the honest inquiries of the Lord's people, and a.s.sist them in that process of reasoning by which facts are compared with acknowledged Standards, supreme and subordinate, that their moral character may be tested, is all that is proposed in the following sections.

SECTION I. The Secession from the Revolution Church of Scotland in that country a.s.sumed a position in relation to the civil inst.i.tutions of Great Britain, which their posterity continue too occupy until the present time in the United States without material alteration.

1. They cooperate practically with all cla.s.ses in the civil community, in maintaining national rebellion against the Lord and his Anointed.

They give their suffrages toward the elevation of vile persons to the highest places of civil dignity in the American confederacy--knowing the candidates to be strangers or enemies to Immanuel. And although they have recently lifted a testimony against that system of robbery called slavery, which is so far right; yet this fact only goes to render their professed loyalty to an unscriptural frame of civil government, as manifestly inconsistent as it is impious.

2. The have all along in the United States renounced the civil part of the British Covenants, declaring that they ”neither have nor ever had anything to do with them.” Truth is not local, nor does the obligation of the second table of the moral law, on which that part of our covenants is plainly founded, depend on the permanency of our residence in a particular portion of the world. ”The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.” It follows, that however solemnly or frequently they profess to renew their fathers' covenants; the whole transaction displays their unfaithfulness to the Lord, who is a party in the covenants; and is calculated to mislead the unwary.

3. Their unsteadfastness is further evidenced, by conforming to other ecclesiastical communities in the loose practice of occasional or indiscriminate hearing; and even in some instances of ministerial intercommunion--the law of their church on that matter having become obsolete. Against these courses, in some of which that body has obstinately persevered for more than a hundred years, we deem it inc.u.mbent on us to continue an uncompromising testimony. Many comments the Moral Governor of the nations has furnished in his providence within the last century, making still more intelligible the righteous claims of his word: but Seceders seem to have their moral vision obscured by a vail of hereditary prejudice. We trust the Lord is on his way to destroy the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations; Is. xxv, 7.

SEC. II. Our testimony against the unfaithfulness of the a.s.sociate Reformed Church, continues also without material change since the rise of that body. The following among others may here be noticed, as const.i.tuting just grounds of opposition in a way of testimony-bearing, by all who would be found faithful to the Lord, and their covenant engagements.

1. Their very origin was unwarranted by scripture. All the scriptural attainments to which they profess to adhere, were already incorporated in the standards of the organic bodies, from whose fellows.h.i.+p they seceded. They did therefore make a breach without a definite object, and multiply divisions in the visible body of Christ without necessity. Thus they did violence to the royal law of love; for while under a profession of charity they invited to their new fellows.h.i.+p their former brethren; the nature of the case evinces a disposition to unmitigated tyranny.

This state of things we think has not been generally understood. We shall here endeavor to render it intelligible. The fact of organizing that church (the a.s.sociate Reformed) said to both Covenanters and Seceders ”It is your duty to dissolve your respective organizations, and join us.” This is undeniable. The Covenanter or Seceder replies by asking--”What iniquity have you or your fathers found in us, that you forsook our communion?” &c. ”Not any,” replies the a.s.sociate Reformed Church; ”only some trifling opinions peculiar to you severally which we deem unworthy of contending about. Only join our church, and we will never quarrel with you, relative to your singularities.” ”Ah,” replies the other party, ”the matters about which we differ, are trifling in your account; how then could they be of such magnitude as to warrant your breaking fellows.h.i.+p with us? What you call _trifles, peculiarities_, &c, we cannot but still judge important principles, sealed by the precious blood of martyrs: must we deny these or bury them in silence, to gain members.h.i.+p in your new church? Is this the nature and amount of your professed charity? This is not that heaven-born principle 'that rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.'

You break fellows.h.i.+p for what you esteem mere trifles--you propose to us a new term of communion, with which it is morally impossible that we should comply, without doing violence to our consciences. Is this charity or tyranny?”

2. Although covenanting was declared by this body at their origin, to be an ”important duty,” they never recognized the solemn deeds of their fathers as binding on them; nor have they ever attempted the acknowledged duty in a way supposed to be competent to themselves. Nay, the obligation of the British covenants has been denied both openly and frequently from the pulpit and the press; and even attempts have been made, not seldom, by profane ridicule, to bring them into contempt. The very duty of public, social covenanting, either in a National or ecclesiastical capacity, has been often opposed in the polemic writings of the ministers of this body, however often inculcated and exemplified in the word of G.o.d. The moral nature of the duty taken in connection with prophetic declarations, to be fulfilled only under the Christian dispensation, demonstrates the permanency of this divine ordinance until the end of the world.

3. This church set out with unsound views of church fellows.h.i.+p, as has been already in part made appear. But when their position came to be more pointedly defined, they made the novel distinction between _fixed_ and _occasional_ communion. The practical tendency of this unscriptural experiment was necessarily to _catholic_ communion, which theory was soon advocated by some of the most prominent of the ministry; and accordingly eventuated in the merging of a large number of her ministry and members.h.i.+p, in the communion of the General a.s.sembly.

4. On the doctrine of the divine ordinance of civil government, this church has all along been unsound; as is fully evidenced in the practice of her members, which has been similar to that of Seceders. Our testimony against the latter is, in this particular, equally directed against the former.

5. This church has appeared as the advocate of a boundless toleration, conforming her views and policy in a most servile manner to the infidel model presented in the civil const.i.tutions of republican America. It would seem, indeed, that this body aimed at conforming their ecclesiastical polity to that standard, from the fact that the very symbol of their profession as a corporate body, is designated the ”Const.i.tution of the a.s.sociate Reformed Church”--a designation which might be considered as militating against the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures. In this Const.i.tution a sphere is a.s.signed to conscience, which is incompatible with due subjection to the Supreme Lawgiver. As well might the _will_, or any other faculty of the soul of man, be invested with this impious supremacy, and immunity from control, by any authority inst.i.tuted on earth by the only Lord of conscience. Jehovah will rule the _consciences_ of his creatures, as well as their _judgments_ and _wills_, by his holy law, in the civil commonwealth, in the church and in the family.

6. The unfaithfulness of this body appears further, in shunning to declare the _divine right_ and unalterableness of Presbyterial Church Government, she testifies not against Prelacy or Independency. If this church is Presbyterial in practice, it is on no better footing than that of the Revolution Church of Scotland.

7. The purity of divine wors.h.i.+p is not guarded by the terms of fellows.h.i.+p in this church. It is true, ”No Hymns merely of human composure, are allowed in her churches.” But what mean these guarded terms and phrases, ”merely;” ”churches?” The best interpretation of these cunningly contrived expressions is supplied by the practice of those ministers of the body, who scruple not to offer unto G.o.d ”hymns merely of human composure” when occupying pulpits of other denominations, or sojourning for a night in families where these hymns are statedly used. It is known that this part of the order of public wors.h.i.+p has been submitted in some instances, to the voice of the congregation by their pastor; thus manifesting in the same act, lat.i.tudinarianism in regard both to the government and wors.h.i.+p of the house of G.o.d.

Lastly, to specify no further--Laxity of discipline is observable in this church. She has always admitted to her fellows.h.i.+p, and to a partic.i.p.ation in her special privileges (the seals of the covenants), persons who openly deny the divine warrant for a fast in connection with the celebration of the Lord's Supper; yea, who ridicule that part of the solemnity as _superst.i.tious_! The same privileges are granted in this church to such as habitually neglect the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d in the family.

Nor does this church inculcate or enjoin, as a part of Christian practice, fellows.h.i.+p meetings for prayer and conference. We must, as witnesses for the cause of Christ, solemnly protest against these sentiments and correspondent practices, as inconsistent with the scripture and the reformation attainments of our covenant fathers.

SEC. III. The Reformed Dissenting Church embraced more of the peculiar principles of the covenanted reformation than either of the two preceding. On the doctrines of magistracy and toleration, abstractly considered, they have manifested commendable fidelity. Nevertheless, in the practical application of these doctrines and in other respects, we are constrained to continue a testimony against them.

1. What has been remarked of the origin of the a.s.sociate Reformed body, is partly true also of the party which dissented from them: their organization was uncalled for, there being no scriptural attainment embraced by them, which was not already exhibited under a judicial banner. Those who erected the Reformed Dissenting Presbytery may have been harshly treated by ministers of the Reformed Presbytery, when attempting negotiations for union, as public fame has often rumored: yet supposing this to have been the case, multiplying separate fellows.h.i.+ps was not a happy expedient for effecting union in the truth.