Part 6 (1/2)
3. Against the tyranny manifested at the next meeting, there were some to stand up at the time; but the spirit of the world prevailed in all the important transactions. We testify against those who refused to permit pet.i.tions, memorials, and other papers addressed to that court, to be read. Especially do we protest against that satanical spirit evidenced in misrepresenting certain respectful and argumentative papers, as being ”abusive,” ”insulting,” &c.: also the unrighteous attempt, by some guilty members of that court, to stop the mouth of pet.i.tioners; and we condemn the reason a.s.signed for so doing, viz., ”They had no right to pet.i.tion, because they were under suspension”!
This reason is worthy of double condemnation, as coming from the mouth of him who, in this instance, acted the ecclesiastical tyrant, and who would come down from Zion's walls to the plains of Ono, mingle in political strife, that he might open his mouth for the dumb; and because a brother in covenant bonds would demur, censure him, and then make the fact of censure a reason why he should not be heard when pet.i.tioning for relief from such tyranny! ”Revolters are profound to make slaughter.”
4. As papers were numerous on the table of Synod in 1838, so they furnished occasion for displays of character and conduct, humiliating to all lovers of Zion, who witnessed the transactions of that meeting of the supreme judicatory.
This was the first time, so far as we know, when that body was called upon formally to review and rectify, in a way competent to them, some parts, both of the const.i.tutional law and administration of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod and Church in America. For a series of years, and chiefly through the influence of leaders in that faction which separated from the body in 1833, high-handed measures of tyranny had transpired: and some of the subjects of that tyranny were yet writhing under a sense of acc.u.mulated wrongs; others had, by death, been released from this species of persecution. Some thought it dutiful to call Synod's attention to these matters, and a _pet.i.tion_ was laid before them, from Rev. Robert Lusk, requesting that certain cases of discipline, which the pet.i.tioner specified, be reviewed; and especially asking, that ”the term _testimony_ be restored to its former ecclesiastical use.” As this was, in our deliberate opinion, the most important measure brought under the cognizance of the church representative in America, during the current of the nineteenth century, it was thought the court would take the matter under deliberate consideration. Whether through ignorance of the matter proposed, or that sectional interests engrossed the attention of parties, or that the prevailing majority desired to be untrammeled in their future course, the pet.i.tion was smuggled through and shuffled by, under the cognomen of a ”letter,” which a member of Synod answered on behalf of the court, as though it were a matter of the smallest importance imaginable! We solemnly testify against this manner of disposing of a weighty matter at that time, whether through inattention or design. We protest also against the violent conduct of those ministers, and others on the same occasion, who made the place of solemn wors.h.i.+p and judicial deliberation, a scene of confusion, by vociferations, gesticulations and physical force, in violation of G.o.d's law, ordination vows, and the first principle of Presbyterian church government.
5. Here we can advert only to a t.i.the of the fruits of darkness, which had been increasing in quant.i.ty and bitterness, since the meeting of Synod in New York, 1838. To carry out measures of worldly policy, in 1840, diligent electioneering was carried on during the intermediate time, that the court might be what is technically called a _packed Synod_. That court was chiefly composed of such ministers and elders as were known to favor innovations; and some who were known to be disposed to resist defection, were excluded from seats in court. Against this dishonest, partial and unjust measure, we protest. And here we lift our testimony against this course, as having greatly r.e.t.a.r.ded the Lord's work for many years before, and as having facilitated the introduction of error, disorder and open tyranny, in manifold instances, during the same period.
6. We testify against the tyranny exercised upon James McKinney, of Coldenham, who was not allowed to read his vindication and justification, when he asked permission to do so, from the published sentiments of some of those who condemned him!!! Also the cruelty practiced toward Miss King, an absent member, whose representation of her case to the Synod, could not so much as be heard. We bear testimony against those who in that Synod would interrupt, call to order--in violation of order--those members who were appearing in defense of injured truth, and who were often silenced by tumult, or the call of order by an obsequious moderator. Especially do we testify against the dishonesty and unfaithfulness of that body, displayed by them in disposing of the paper inserted (see p. 132), calling Synod's attention to what we firmly believe to be the source of all the error, guilt and distractions incident or attending to that body for many years.
On the practice of confederating with the enemies of G.o.d, we testify against this party, not only for the _fact_ of so confederating, but also, and chiefly, for resisting the evidence of G.o.d's word, often adduced in condemnation of the practice--refusing to hear the testimonies, experience, and reasoning of Christ's witnesses and martyr's when cited from the Cloud of Witnesses, Informatory Vindication, Gillespie on Confederacies, &c; and for obstinately going on in this trespa.s.s, in the face of manifold convictions from living witnesses and providential rebukes.
As it respects ecclesiastical relations, we testify against these former brethren for having wittingly, perseveringly, and presumptuously fostered _schism_ in the visible church, manifestly for carnal ends, during many years. It is notorious that five Synods are in organic fellows.h.i.+p, while hardly two of them will hold ministerial or sacramental communion! What a picture does this state of things in the professing church of Christ present to the infidel; how hardening to the self-righteous and the openly profane! And although conventional regulations be lightly looked upon by many, not being based upon express words of scripture; yet when framed and engaged to, according to the general rules of scripture, much sin is the result of violating them, and trampling them under foot, as has often been done by this body of people. This has been the case in Presbyteries, subordinate Synods, and especially in the general Synod. Subordinate Synods have been dissolved by the action of the general Synod after they had ceased to be; and without consulting the Presbyteries, who alone were competent to decree or dissolve the delegation form of the general Synod, that court dissolved itself, after having many years trampled upon the law of Presbyteries fixing the ratio of delegation. Against such reckless, disorderly procedure we testify as being the cause or occasion of much sin against Zion's King, and much suffering to his precious people.
Finally--We solemnly enter our protestation against this church, as having taken the lead of most others in razing the very foundation stone of the covenanted structure. All the evils that have befallen the professed friends of a work of reformation on both sides of the Atlantic are traceable to a _setting aside_ the _footsteps_ of the flock from being terms of ecclesiastical communion. It is now more than ten years since this important matter was expressly submitted to the Old Light Synod's consideration, and during the subsequent period, in various forms, the same has been pressed, but without effect; except as manifesting more fully their obduracy. They refuse still to return, Ephraim-like, going on frowardly in the way of their own heart.
That uninspired history ought to be incorporated among the terms of communion in the Church of Christ, is a proposition which we firmly believe, on the evidence both of reason and Scripture, although denied, condemned, and rejected by all pretenders to reformation attainments.
That _history_ and _argument_ are so rejected by all parties affecting to be _reformed_ churches, will appear from the following citations from their own authoritative judicial declarations: ”Authentic history and sound argument are always to be highly valued; but they should not be incorporated with the confession of the Church's faith.” ”The Declaratory part is, the Church's _standing Testimony_.”--Ref. Prin.
Exhibited, preface--edition, 1835. Here history and argument are both excluded, not only from the Church's _testimony_ but also from her confession! This is the declared sentiment of Old and New Light Covenants, together with the Safety League people--evidencing to all who are free from party influence, that however they differ in practice, on this all important point they perfectly harmonize in principle. East of the Atlantic, among the three Synods professing to follow the footsteps of the flock, the declared sentiment is the same, but then they differ from their brethren in practice--mingling with the heathen and learning their works without scruple. In this respect they are more consistent than the other parties, though more visibly corrupt.
The Reformed Dissenters ”prefix a _Narrative_ to their testimony,” thus rejecting _history_ from _testimony_. Some advocates for union in conventions of reformed churches, have plead for a historical introduction to their proposed _testimony_; but they have carefully a.s.sured the public that this introduction shall const.i.tute no _term_ of union or communion. Thus, it is evident, that all the professed followers of the British Reformers around us, have cast off this reformation attainment from the standards of their professions severally. We condemn this church-rending and soul-ruining sentiment, and testify against all who maintain it, for the following reasons:
_First_, on their part it is inconsistent and self-contradictory. They all say they are following the footsteps and holding the attainments of the Scottish Reformers. But how do they discover these footsteps, or how ascertain these attainments? Are they recorded in the Bible? No. Are they to be found elsewhere but in _uninspired history_? Certainly no where else. Yet all these parties absurdly reject uninspired history from their bonds of fellows.h.i.+p! and still venture to tell the world, they are holding fast these attainments!! This is solemn trifling, profane mockery. _Second_. This position is unsound and false in the light of reason. All civilized nations, as well as the Jews, have it written in their laws, ”That the testimony of two men is true.” The witnesses do not need to be inspired to be credible. ”We receive the witness of men,” although a ”false witness will utter lies.” No society can exist without practical recognition of the credibility of human testimony; and this is especially true of the ”Church of the living G.o.d, which is the pillar and ground of the truth;” for, _Third_. In the light of Scripture, her members cannot perform some of their most important duties, either to G.o.d or to one another if they irrationally and wickedly relinquish this principle. G.o.d's people are charged ”not to forget his mighty works;” Psa. lxxviii. 7. Are these works all written in the Bible? They are required to confess their fathers' sins, as well as their own. Since the divine canon was closed, many sins have been, and now are chargeable against professing Christians. Are these recorded in the Scriptures? And thus the reader may ask himself of sin and duty to any extent, in relation to G.o.d as a party.
And the same is true of the second table of the moral law. For example: in reference to ”the first commandment with promise,” should the Christian minor be asked as the Jew did his Lord, ”Who is your father?”
How shall he answer? Is he warranted to appeal to G.o.d to manifest his earthly sons.h.i.+p? No; but he is required by G.o.d's law to ”honor his father;” and his obedience to this command is grounded on human testimony as to the object to whom this honor is due. Thus consistency, reason and scripture combine, to accuse and fasten guilt--the guilt of apostasy upon all who have renounced that fundamental principle of our glorious covenanted reformation--_that history and argument belong to the bond of ecclesiastical fellows.h.i.+p_. With any who hold the theory here condemned, however exemplary or even conscientious in morals and religion they may appear, we can have no ecclesiastical fellows.h.i.+p; for, however ardent their attachment or strong their expressions of affection to Confession, Catechisms, Covenants, &c.; they give no guarantee of competent intelligence or probable stability; as alas! we see in the present declining course of many in our day.
We would earnestly and affectionably beseech all well wishers to a covenanted work of reformation: that they would take into their serious consideration whether these things are, or are not connected inseparably with the wellfare of Zion. Especially would we expostulate with such as have any regard for the Judicial Testimony adopted at Ploughlandhead, Scotland, in 1761: that they conscientiously compare it with the book called Reformation Principles Exhibited, and also with the new Scottish Testimony, where it is practicable, and all these with the supreme standard, the holy scriptures. They will find on examination, that these are wholly irreconcilable in the very form of testimony-bearing.
Particularly, let the reader notice that our fathers in 1761, considered _history_ and _argument_ as const.i.tuting their testimony: and did not look upon _doctrinal declaration_ as formal testimony at all. Look at the very t.i.tle page of their Testimony; where you read, ”Act, Declaration and Testimony,” plainly distinguis.h.i.+ng between _declaration_ and _Testimony_. Now, all innovators make doctrinal declaration their testimony, reversing our fathers' order; yea, we would add G.o.d's order, for he distinguishes between his law and testimony; Ps. lxxviii, 5-7; cv, 42-45. G.o.d's special providences toward his covenanted people const.i.tute his testimony by way of eminence; Exod. xx, 1, &c., and their conduct under his providences const.i.tute their testimony, which must consist of history; and by this and the blood of the Lamb, Christ's witnesses are destined to overcome all anti-christian combinations.
In attempting thus to follow the approved example of our covenant fathers, whose practice it was to testify not only against the corruptions of ecclesiastical, but also of civil const.i.tutions, where their lot was cast, we deem it inc.u.mbent on us to continue our testimony first published in 1806, against the immoralities incorporated with the government of these United States.
Believing that a nation as such, is a proper subject of G.o.d's government, and that those nations favored with his law as revealed in the holy scriptures, are peculiarly required to regard the authority of the Lord and his Anointed, therein made fully known: it is with deep regret that we feel constrained to designate and testify against evils in the Const.i.tution of this nation. Notwithstanding numerous excellencies embodied in this instrument, there are moral evils contained in it also, of such magnitude, that no Christian can consistently give allegiance to the system. There is not contained in it any acknowledgment of the Christian religion, or professed submission to the kingdom of Messiah. It gives support to the enemies of the Redeemer, and admits to its honors and emoluments Jews, Mohammedans, Deists and Atheists--it establishes that system of robbery by which men are held in slavery, despoiled of liberty, and property, and protection. It violates the principles of representation, by bestowing upon the domestic tyrant who holds hundreds of his fellow creatures in bondage, an influence in making laws for freemen proportioned to the number of his own slaves.
This const.i.tution is, in many instances, inconsistent, oppressive and impious.
Much guilt, and of long standing, is chargeable against this nation, for its cruel treatment of the colored race, in subjecting them ever since 1789 to hopeless bondage; its unjust transactions with the Indian race, and more recently waging an unjust war with a neighboring republic, as would appear, for the wicked purpose of extending the iniquitous system of slavery.
”Arise O G.o.d, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.”
PART IV.
A brief declaration or summary of the principles maintained by the Presbytery, as to doctrine, wors.h.i.+p, discipline, and government, in agreeableness to the word of G.o.d, our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and whole covenanted testimony of the Church of Scotland.--The contrary doctrines condemned.
Unto what has been more generally laid down in the preceding pages, with respect to the principles and practice of this church and nation, both in former and present times; the Presbytery proceed to subjoin a positive and explicit declaration of their principles anent the truths of our holy religion, whether by the generality agreed unto, or by some controverted.
I. OF G.o.d.--The Presbytery did, and hereby do acknowledge and declare, that there is one infinite, eternal, self-existent, and independent Being; and that this only true and living G.o.d, absolutely all-sufficient, having all being, perfection, glory, and blessedness, in and of himself, subsists in three distinct, divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (in one and the same undivided essence and G.o.dhead), all equally the same in substance, power, and glory, although distinguished by their personal properties; according to Deut. vi, 4; 1 Cor. viii, 6; 1 Tim. i, 17; Acts xvii, 24, 25; 1 John v, 7; Matth.
xxviii, 19; Confession of Faith, chap. 2; larger catechism, quest.
7--11; shorter catechism, quest. 4--6.