Part 5 (2/2)
2. This body of Christians have been all along unfaithful in applying their own avowed principles relative to magistracy. Their innovation in this respect would seem to have been a carnal expedient to reach a two-fold object: the one, to retaliate on the Reformed Church for supposed indignities offered; the other, to render themselves more popular in the eyes of other communities. They admit that a const.i.tution of civil government may be so immoral, that it cannot be considered as G.o.d's ordinance; that in such a case ”no Christian can, without sinning against G.o.d, accept any office supreme or subordinate, where an oath to support such a const.i.tution is made essential to his office.” These admissions are equally just and important; yet these concessions are wholly neutralized in practice by these people, for they claim it as their privilege to choose others to fill those offices, which they say, they themselves cannot fill ”without sinning against G.o.d.” We must continue our earnest testimony against this attempt to separate in law, between the representative and his const.i.tuents, involving as it does, if consistently carried out, the total overthrow of the covenants of works and grace, and ultimately of G.o.d's moral government by his annotated Son! The effort made to sustain their practice in this matter, from the examples of the Marquis of Argyle and Lord Warriston, is very disingenuous; simply because the church of Scotland had not at the date referred to, reached the measure of her attainments on that head.
Indeed, the whole drift of their argument goes to justify the position, that in some cases, it is expedient to do evil that good may come.
3. On the doctrine of faith this church has, we think, darkened counsel, by words without knowledge. Their distinctions and caveats relative to _a.s.surance_, are calculated rather to bewilder than enlighten the mind of the general reader. ”Receiving and resting on Christ as offered in the gospel,” amounts to ”appropriation, certainty, a.s.surance,” &c. There is evidence of a tendency to ”vain jangling” here, against which, even suppose there be no error couched in the terms, we ought to testify.
4. This church evinces a disposition to intercommunion, in the practice both of ministers and members, wholly inconsistent with steadfastness, and at war with her own declared views of toleration. Occupying pulpits in common with more corrupt communities, doing this in connection with the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and attendance and co-operation with others in conventional proceedings among those who style themselves ”Reformed Churches,” are practices among these people, on which we feel constrained to animadvert with decided disapprobation. As also their violation of the form of Presbyterian church government by one minister with ruling elders presuming to set apart candidates to the office of the holy ministry.
SEC. IV. To speak thus publicly against those who may be the precious sons of Zion, is a painful duty. That charity, however, which rejoiceth in the truth, requires of Christ's witnesses that they censure and rebuke, in a way competent to them, those of the household of faith whom they see and know to be in a course of error or of sin; _Isa._ lviii, 1; _t.i.t._ i, 13.
Many of those with whom we were wont to take pleasure in displaying a banner jointly, and in a judicial capacity, are now, alas! arrayed against us. To the real friend of Jesus, and the truth as it is in Jesus, there cannot be a more lamentable spectacle than the _professed witnesses_ of the Lamb disposed in rank under hostile colors as the company--not of two, but of many armies, ready to engage in mutual destruction! And indeed those who bite and devour one another, are in danger of being consumed one of another. The Lord is righteous in all that is come upon us; for we have sinned against him--both we and our fathers. We know not how to avert more wrath from the Lord, reclaim backsliders, confirm the wavering, direct sincere inquirers, apprise the unsuspecting of their danger, and exonerate our own consciences, otherwise than by giving open, candid and honest testimony for Christ and truth, against those, even once brethren by covenant bonds, who have dishonored him, and caused the way of truth to be evil spoken of.
Against those who separated from us in Philadelphia, 1833, erecting a rival judicatory, and dishonestly claiming the name Reformed Presbyterian Church, we bear our feeble testimony for the following among other reasons:
1. They did then openly enter on a course subversive of our whole covenanted system of doctrine and order, by withdrawing their dissent from the civil inst.i.tutions of the United States, and incorporating with the National Society--knowing the same to be, by the terms of the national compact, opposed in many respects, both to G.o.dliness and honesty.
2. This party had, in a clandestine way, exerted their influence to seduce and draw away disciples after them for a series of years. This is evident from the pet.i.tions addressed to Synod on the jury law, issuing from those who are known to have been in correspondence with some of the leaders in that defection.
3. This party are chargeable with mutilating the Judicial Testimony emitted in Scotland, 1761; and also with changing the terms of communion, and obtruding a mutilated formula upon an unsuspecting people, contrary to due order.
_History_ and _argument_ are excluded from the terms of Church Fellows.h.i.+p, on the very face of ”Reformation Principles Exhibited;” and the Auchensaugh Covenant expunged from the formula of terms of communion, without submitting them in overture to the people for inspection. We say these steps of defection and apostasy are chargeable to the account of those who made the breach in 1833: _First_, Because the senior and leading ministers in that separation were the men who framed the American Testimony and Terms of Communion; and so had many years before laid the platform and projected the course on which they violently entered at that date. _Second_, These separatists, in the edition of these symbols of their profession lately published, have consistently left out of the volume, the Historical Part, and also remodeled the formula of Terms of Communion.
4. This body continues to wax worse and worse, against all remonstrance from their former connections and others, as also in the face of providential rebukes;--losing, because forfeiting, the confidence of conscientious and honorable men, exemplified in the frequent meetings, and to them, disastrous results, of the Convention of, so called, Reformed Churches.
SEC. V. With the foregoing party may be cla.s.sed those different and conflicting fellows.h.i.+ps in Scotland and Ireland, whose recent Terms of Communion and Judicial Testimony, substantially identify with those mentioned in the preceding section.
1. Public fame charges the Eastern Synod of Ireland, and the Synod of Scotland, with connivance at the members and officers under their inspection, in co-operating with the immoral and anti-christian government of Great Britain. They are therefore guilty of giving their power and strength to that powerful and blood-thirsty horn of the beast.
We are inclined to give more credit to public fame in this than we would in many other cases, because:
2. These Synods have opened a door in their new Testimony for such sinful confederacies. ”What!” will the simple and uninitiated reader of the Testimony ask, ”does not that Testimony declare, often and often, that the British const.i.tution is anti-christian?” We answer, the _book_ declares so; but we caution the reader to be on his guard, lest he judge and take for granted, without a careful examination, that the book and the Testimony are the same thing. Let the honest inquirer consult the _preface_ to the _Historical_ part of the book, and then the preface to the Doctrinal part: the latter, he will find, on due examination, to const.i.tute the Testimony. True, in page 8 of the preface to the volume, it is said, ”the Testimony, as now published, consists of two parts, the one _Historical_ and the other _Doctrinal_.” This sounds orthodox; but, in the same page, when these two parts come to be defined, it is said, ”when the church requires of those admitted into her fellows.h.i.+p, an acknowledgement of a work like the present, the approbation expressed has a reference to the _principles_ embodied in it, and _the proper application_ of them,” &c. ”So they wrap it up”--better than our fathers succeeded in a similar enterprise in America. The truth is what they call the _historical_ part is largely _argumentative_; and both these parts are carefully and covertly excluded from the _terms of fellows.h.i.+p_! We shall have occasion to recur to this subject, as there are many others likeminded with these innovators.
3. These people are also deeply involved in the popular, so called, benevolent a.s.sociations of the world, Sunday Schools, Bible Societies, Temperance Reforms, Missionary Enterprise, &c, evidencing a wide departure from our covenanted uniformity, based upon our covenanted Testimony.
SEC. VI. Those who in 1838, on account of sensible tyranny, growing out of defection on the part of the majority, declined the authority of Synod, have shared all along in our sympathies; and it has been our desire that they and we could see eye to eye in the doctrines and order of the house of G.o.d.
Although this party promised fair for a time, and apparently contended for ”all the attainments of a covenanted reformation,” in process of time it became apparent that they possessed not intelligence sufficient to manage a consistent testimony for that cause. They seem to have been under the influence of temporary impulse, arising from the experience of _mal-administration_; rather than to have discovered any _const.i.tutional_ defection in the body from which they separated. This is apparent indeed if we have access to any credible source of information relative to the principles they profess, and their Christian practice. More particularly,
1. Although that paper which they designate ”Safety League,” has the sound of orthodoxy; yet, as originated, and since interpreted by them, there is a lamentable falling off from the attainments and footsteps of the flock. _First_, so far as we can ascertain, that instrument had clandestine origin being framed and subscribed by those _who were yet in fellows.h.i.+p with the Synod_! This might be earnest, but, we think, not honorable contending for the truth. _Second_, when this paper comes to be interpreted by its framers and signers, it seems to cover only the American Testimony and Terms, as remodeled by breach of presbyterial order. At other times, it will conveniently extend to the Scottish Testimony, 1761, and the Auchensaugh Deed, 1712! From which we infer that these people have no settled standards.
2. We testify against these people for unwarrantable separation from us.
One of their elders co-operated in organizing the Reformed Presbytery in 1840; this in official, and, as then distinctly understood, representative capacity. Yet, some time afterward, he and his brethren withdrew from said Presbytery, without a.s.signing justifiable reasons.
3. Efforts are known to have been made, by some then in their fellows.h.i.+p, to have social corresponding meetings established among them, but without success; in opposition to the well-defined example of our witnessing fathers, whose example they affect to imitate.
Lastly, these quondam brethren are not, to this day, distinguishable, in the symbols of their profession, from any party who have more evidently and practically abandoned the distinctive principles and order of a covenanted ancestry. There is no const.i.tutional barrier in the way of their coalescence with any party, whom interest or caprice may select.
SEC. VII. Against that party usually, but improperly, styled the Old Lights, are we obliged to testify more pointedly than against any other party now claiming to be Reformed Presbyterians. _First_, because we believe there are among them still, real Covenanters; and, in proportion to the whole body, a greater number of such than in any other fellows.h.i.+p. These we would undeceive, if the Lord will; for we earnestly desire renewed fellows.h.i.+p with all such on original ground. _Second_, because the leaders among these make the fairest show in the flesh, and, calculating on spiritual sloth and the force of confirmed habit, hope to lead honest people insensibly after them back into Egypt. _Third_, because they are more numerous, and, from habit, more exemplary than other parties; and therefore more likely to influence honest Christians unwittingly to dishonor Christ, and gainsay his precious truth.
1. These former brethren acted, in 1833, very similar to the policy of the Revolution Church of Scotland in 1689. Instead of repairing the breaches made, and going on to fortify our New Testament Jerusalem, against the a.s.saults of enemies in future, they rested in their present position, providing only for a new edition of Reformation Principles Exhibited, with a continuance of the history to that date. It was urged, at the time, that the argumentative part of our Testimony should be hastened to completion, but without effect. As the apostate a.s.sembly of Scotland, 1689, admitted unsound ministers, curates, &c., to seats in court; so, with the like politic design, members were admitted to seats in Synod, 1833, who claimed ”a right to withdraw to another party, if they should see cause”--yea, one of these was called to the moderator's chair!
2. At next meeting, 1834, when the continuation of the historical part of the Testimony was read, and referred to a committee for publication in the forthcoming edition of Reformation Principles Exhibited, it was directed that the terms of communion should be inserted, supplying the deficiency in the first term, in these words: ”and the alone infallible rule of faith and manners.” In the new edition these important words were omitted, as before! Several ministers seemed to be influenced in social relations, at that time, more by public opinion, than by the infallible rule. No further progress was made with the argumentative part of the Testimony, and a pet.i.tion from Greenfield, to have Synod's mind relative to occasional hearing, was returned. Against these steps of unfaithfulness we lift our protest.
<script>