The last text used by them, is, 1 Pet. ii, 13 to 17, the import of which, they say, is, that all who have a constitution by consent of the civil society, are to be subjected to for the Lord's sake, as having an institution from him: and that, however seldom they were inclined or employed in the discharge of the duties proper to their office. It may suffice to observe, that while the apostle is here speaking, as in the above texts, of moral powers, as above described, it is evident, that by every ordinance of man, can only be meant the different kinds and forms of civil government, and governors set up by men, to each of which the apostle exhorts to a submission, providing, that in the setting up of these, they acted agreeably to the general laws and rules appointed by God in his word, both respecting the constitution of government, and the qualifications of governors. Then, as they bear the stamp of divine authority, they were to be submitted to for the Lord's sake. But what manifest abuse of scripture is it, to allege with them that the inspired apostle exhorts to submit to every monster of iniquity, if only set up by the civil society, though perhaps guilty of a number of crimes that by the law of God, and laws of men founded thereon, are punishable by a severe death? Sure, such can never have a title to that obedience which is due to the ordinance of God, who have not so much as a title to live upon the earth. Moreover, let it be considered, that in the above cited texts, the spirit of God enjoins either that obedience and subjection that is due to lawful magistrates, or that subjection only which is for a time, by an extraordinary and special command, such as Jer. xxix, 7, given to conquerors and usurpers, having no right but what is providential. If the first, then they cannot intend any but those moral powers who are said to be of God, in respect of his approbative and preceptive will. If the last, then these texts are not the rule of obedience to lawful rulers, who are set up qualified, and govern according to the law of God. But that these texts can only be understood of the first, is evident from this, that in them not only is the office, duty and end of the civil magistrate as particularly described, as the obedience and subjection commanded; but the one is made the foundation, ground, and reason of, and inseparably connected with the other. And therefore it was, that the renowned witnesses for Christ and his interest, contended so much for reformation in the civil magistracy and magistrate, in an agreeableness to the original institution of that ordinance, and endured so great opposition on that account.

To conclude this: as it is evident these texts give no countenance to the corrupt scheme of Seceders, but always suppose the power, to which subjection and obedience for conscience sake is enjoined to be lawful, in regard of matter, person, title, &c. So the Presbytery cannot but testify against them for perverting and wresting the scriptures of truth, to a favoring of their anarchical and anti-scriptural tenet, and for their so stiffly and tenaciously pleading for avowed apostasy and defection (which is the whole scope and amount of their declared scheme of politics), viz., that it is lawful for posterity to turn back to where their forefathers were, giving up with many precious truths, and further attainments in reformation, valuable and necessary, acquired at the expense of much zeal, faithfulness and treasure, and handed down to us, sealed by the spirit of God upon the souls of his people, as his work and cause; and on public scaffolds and high places of the field, with the dearest blood of multitudes of Christ's faithful witnesses, who loved not their lives unto the death. And this, in express contradiction to the land's solemn covenant engagements to the Lord, for maintaining and holding fast that whereunto we had attained. For notwithstanding all the regard and deference Seceders profess to the covenants and reformation principles, they are, all the while, directly pleading in defense of the same cause, advancing the same arguments to support it, and likewise giving the same corrupt and perverted explication of the above texts of scripture, that the merciless and bloody murderers and persecuters did, in the late tyrannous times, in their stated opposition to the cause and interest of glorious Christ, together with the indulged who took part with them, in opposing the kingdom and subjects of Zions exalted King. And as [pity it is] Seceders have pleaded the cause of malignants, and, rubbing the rust from their antiquated arguments, have presented them with a new lustre; so the Presbytery, in opposition thereto, are satisfied to plead the same cause, with the same arguments and to understand these scriptures in the same sense as was done by the witnesses for reformation, whom the Lord honored to seal his truths with their blood, as is sufficiently confirmed from the Cloud of Witnesses; where their concurring testimonies are harmoniously stated, upon their disowning the authority of the then anti-christian and Erastian government, even when acknowledged by the bulk and body of the nation, both civil and ecclesiastical. Whence also it is evident, that the persecution was not the cause of their casting off that authority; but that authority's assuming and usurping the royal prerogatives of Christ, the church's Head, was the cause of their disowning it; and then their refusing to acknowledge foresaid authority, was the cause of all their persecution.

3. The Presbytery testify against foresaid Associates, on account of their corruption in worship; particularly, in the duty of prayer, both as practiced by their ministers, and by them enjoined upon their people.

Wherein, in an inconsistency with a faithful testimony against the declared enemies of the church's head and king, they affect to express a superlative loyalty unto the prelatic possessors of power, not much differing from the forms imposed upon, and observed by the Erastian church. The Presbytery acknowledge it duty to pray for all men, in the various stations of life, as sinners lost, of the ruined family of Adam, standing absolutely in need of a Savior, that they may be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth; as is enjoined, Tim. ii, 1, 2. Which yet must not be understood in an unlimited sense, but with submission to the will of God, if they belong to the election of grace. Nay, they acknowledge it indispensable duty, as to pray, that the church may obtain such kings and queens, as shall he nursing fathers and mothers, according to the Lord's gracious promise; so, when such are granted to them, it is their duty to make prayers and supplications, in a particular manner, for them. But it is no less than an abuse of scripture, and flat contradiction to many promises and threatenings, to extend foresaid command to every person without distinction whom providence advances to the supreme rule over the people of God, in a way of acknowledging their authority as lawful, and of praying for success and prosperity to them (as Seceders do), to pray for success unto, and the continuance of wicked rulers, that are enemies to the Lord, and usurpers of his crown, and such whom the Lord in anger against a people for their sins, may send as a special punishment upon them, and from whom he has promised deliverance unto his people, as a peculiar blessing, is no less than the slighting of the promises, and deriding of threatenings, and in reality, is a taking part with God's enemies, against him and his cause. As it is impossible, sincerely to pray for the coming of Christ's kingdom, and advancement thereof, without also, as a necessary mean conducive thereto, to pray for the downfall and destruction of all his enemies, as such, whatever be their place and station (which is not at all inconsistent with praying for their salvation, as lost sinners); seeing Jesus Christ no less effectually destroys his enemies, when he makes them to bow in a way of willing subjection to the scepter of his law and grace, than when he breaks them in pieces with his iron rod of wrath; so, how self-contradictory is it in Seceders, to pray for the coming of Christ's mediatory kingdom; and, at the same time to pray for the success and preservation of one, in his kingly character, who themselves acknowledge, has, in that character, made grievous encroachments upon the royal prerogatives of the Lord Jesus Christ, is an usurper of his crown, and therefore, in that view, must be considered as an enemy to his kingdom?

That the above is no false charge against Seceders, is witnessed by a variety of their causes of fasting, concluding with such prayers, which they have emitted, as well as by their daily practice: and particularly, Antiburgher Seceders, have given a late recent proof of this; in what they call, A solemn warning by the Associate Synod, &c. Which unfaithful warning concludes with a self-contradictory form of prayer, enjoined upon all under the inspection of said Synod. Among other things, they "exhort all—the people under their inspection, to pour out earnest and incessant supplications before the Lord, in a dependence upon the merit and intercession of our great High-priest, that he may—bring about a revival of our covenanted reformation,—removing all the mountains which stand in the way; that he may abundantly bless our sovereign king George, and the apparent heir of the crown,—blasting all the plots or efforts of whatever enemies, open or secret,—against the Protestant succession to the throne of these kingdoms in the family of Hanover; that he may be gracious to the high courts of parliament, in this and the neighboring island,—leading them to proper measures for the honor of Christ; that he may hasten the enlargement of the Mediator's kingdom," &c.

On all which, let it suffice to observe, 1. That as in no part of this prayer they make any exceptions against, so they must be understood therein, approving of the constitution of the king, the establishment, and limitation of the throne of these kingdoms in the Hanoverian family, as presently by law established: and also, approving of the British and Irish, parliaments, in their constitution as by law established, though both of them grossly Erastian, and necessarily connected with maintaining English popish ceremonies, the whole English hierarchy, and civil places and power of churchmen; in opposition to the word of God, reforming laws, and covenanted constitutions of the nations. Hence, 2. This pattern of prayer must be understood as containing earnest supplications to the Lord, that he may continue and preserve an Erastian constitution, that he may perpetuate the limited succession to the throne in the family of Hanover; and that, in opposition to all attempts whatever, toward any change, however much it might contribute to the glory of God, good of the church, and revival of a covenanted reformation; and also, seems to include a desire that, God may preserve and maintain a parliament in the nations, one of the houses whereof, viz., the House of Peers, is composed partly of spiritual lords, as essential members thereof,—an anti-christian designation, a title and office, not to be found in the book of divine revelation. So, 3. This prayer seems to suppose a consistency between the preservation of all these, and the revival of a covenanted reformation in these lands; and also that they, particularly a parliament, thus anti-christian in its constitution, are proper instruments for promoting the honor and declarative glory of Christ; although the prelates, constituent members therein, are a generation of men that were never yet known to have a vote for Christ's kingdom and interest. And therefore, 4. This prayer consists of flat contradiction. (1.) In regard the revival of a covenanted reformation, and the flourishing of Christ's mediatory kingdom, nationally, must be attended with the overthrow of all constitutions, civil and ecclesiastical, that hinder and oppose the same; Hag. ii, 6, 7, and with the down bringing of all the enemies thereof, from the height of their excellency. (2.) It is a contradiction for them to pray, that the Lord would remove all the mountains that stand in the way of the revival of our reformation; and yet, at the same time, pray for the preservation and continuance of the constitution, under which (as they themselves acknowledge, Defense of their Princ., page 51): "There is a mighty bar thrust into the way of our covenanted reformation, both in church and state; yea, a gravestone is laid, and established upon the same." (3.) It is a sinful and glaring contradiction for Seceders to rank an approbation of the English hierarchy among our public national sins and steps of defection (as they do, page 53 of their pamphlet); and yet themselves persist and continue in the same sin and guilt, homologating and approving the anti-christian constitution of the British and Irish parliaments, by praying (like their forefathers, in their fulsome address to James the Papist) for divine illumination and conduct to the Prelates in their civil places and power, as necessary members there, as they do in this prayer of theirs. Can such be supposed to be either truly sensible of sin, or humbled for it, who, notwithstanding all their confessions, still continue in the love and practice of it? But with such mock acknowledgements (of which a variety of other instances might be given) have they hitherto imposed on the generation. And so, 5. It is a prayer, that in several parts thereof, has no scripture warrant, no foundation in the promises of God. Particularly, on what scriptural warrant, what promise, can Seceders build their prayers for, or expectation of the Lord's answering them, by blessing an Erastian government to themselves or others, which being, in its constitution, contrary to the word of God,—is such, that under it (as they grant, ibid, page 46), a people cannot truly prosper in their civil concerns, nor be enriched with the blessings of the gospel? From what scriptural promise are they warranted to pray, that God may perpetuate the succession to the throne in any one family, and especially, when that succession is circumscribed and limited, in a way opposite to the laws of God, and mediatory kingdom of Christ? and therefore, a prayer that cannot be made in faith, and so cannot be acceptable to God in its complex form. No person can have faith in the merit and intercession of Christ, for obtaining anything in prayer, but what Christ has priorly merited, and does actually intercede for. But it would savor too much of blasphemy, to apply some of the particulars already noticed in this form of prayer, to the merit and intercession of our great High-priest. Sure it cannot be thought, that he makes intercession for the prosperity and success of his enemies, in their stated opposition to his kingdom and interest in this world; neither can it be consistent with fidelity to Christ, as a King, for his professed subjects to pray for it. What a fearful trifling with God in the duty of prayer, is it to pray that the Lord may bring down Popery and Prelacy; and next breath to pray that the Lord may continue, prosper, and preserve the Erastian head, and great bulwark of Prelacy?

4. Again, the Presbytery testify against the Associate party for their treachery in covenant. This is a sin that is in scripture, and even by the common voice of mankind, declared very heinous; but which, by what is already discovered anent said party, appears too, too justly chargeable upon them. It is notorious, and what themselves boast much of, that they professedly maintain the moral and perpetual obligation of the covenants, both the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland, England, and Ireland, entered into for reformation and defense of religion, and bringing the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, according to the word of God. They also do in the most public manner profess, that they are the only true faithful witnesses for a covenanted reformation. But the consistency of such a profession with maintaining principles that are diametrically opposite to these covenants, and the cause of truth, sworn to in them (as has been made evident they do) is altogether unintelligible. Is it possible strenuously to maintain the lawfulness of a prelatical government abjured in the covenants, and yet at the same time sincerely and honestly, according to the profession made by the church, Psal. xliv, 17, 18, to contend for the moral obligation of the covenants, and the work of reformation sworn to in them? But further, the necessity of lifting up a testimony against Seceders for their treachery and unfaithfulness in the matter of the covenants, will appear by considering that they, after making a very solemn profession of renewing the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three lands, in place of practicing accordingly, have, in reality, made a new and very different bond or covenant, both in form and substance, which they have not only sworn themselves, but also imposed upon many honest people: and this as a renewing, nay, as the only right way of renewing said covenants according to the circumstances, of the times. That this bond entered into by Seceders (however good it may be, considered in an abstract sense) is not a renovation of the national covenants, as they assert it to be, but a treacherous and deceitful burying of these covenants, as to their sum and substance, is abundantly evident from their industrious keeping out, and omitting the most part of them out of their new and artificial bond. Particularly, although they pretend to a renovation both of the National and Solemn League and Covenant, yet they have almost entirely left out, and passed over the National Covenant of Scotland; and satisfying themselves with simply testifying against Popery, have omitted all the particular errors, and branches thereof expressly contained in the National Covenant. As to the Solemn League, of which they pretend their bond is also a renovation, there is very little of it to be found therein, as appears from a comparison of the one with the other. Thus they have left out that remarkable and necessary clause in the first Article, viz., "Against our common enemies:" and in place of endeavoring to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechizing, as in said article, there is an unintelligible clause or jumble of words brought in, viz., to promote and advance our covenanted conjunction and uniformity in religion, just as if that conjunction and uniformity had a present existence (in its native and original state and form) in the three lands; when, on the contrary, Presbytery is established in Scotland, yet not on the footing of the word of God and the covenants, and Episcopacy is established in England and Ireland, in contradiction to the word of God and the covenants. 2. They have kept out that necessary clause in the 2d article, viz., "Without respect of persons, endeavor the extirpation," &c, and instead thereof say, "Testify against Popery and Prelacy;" where appears not only a difference in expression, but a substantial difference. 3. They have altogether omitted and kept out the 3d and 4th articles. 4. They have kept out that material and necessary clause in the 5th article, viz., "That justice may be done on the willful opposers thereof," in manner expressed in the preceding article. 5. They have left out all the 6th article, excepting these words: "We shall not give ourselves up to a detestable neutrality and indifference in the cause of God." And 6. They have wholly omitted that material paragraph of the conclusion of the Solemn League. It is therefore evident, that the model of the covenants agreed to by Seceders, is different in substance, as well as form, from our ancient covenants; so that, under pretense of renovation, they have made a new bond.

But, again, that their pretended renovation is a real burying of the covenanted reformation, appears from their overlooking, casting by, and keeping out the National Covenant, as it was renewed in the year 1638, and the Solemn League and Covenant, as renewed in the year 1648, and going back to the years 1580 and 1581, as the pattern they propose to follow in carrying on of their covenanted testimony. And what can be the reason of this? Can it be, because Prelacy, and the civil places and power of churchmen, were, by the explication and application of the covenant, anno 1638, expressly and explicitly condemned, while they were formerly only implicitly, and by way of consequence? So they have at least, by this step back, both tacitly condemned our reformers, of giving themselves needless trouble in their explanation of the covenant, as condemning and abjuring Episcopacy; and also, do overlook, despise, and disgracefully bury the many advanced steps of reformation attained to in these covenanted lands between 1638 and 1649 (particularly the church of Scotland's testimony against Prelacy) in which time reformation arrived to a greater height of purity than ever was attained in any foregoing period of this church and nation. However, whatever their reasons were for so doing, that they have so done is clear, from their act Edinburgh, February 3d, 1743, where they conclude with a nota bene, lest it should not otherwise have been observed that they do so, and thereby declare their sin as Sodom, as if the publishing of it would make an atonement for it. "N.B. Only the National Covenant, as it was entered into, annis 1580, 1581 (without the bond wherein it was renewed anno 1638) and the Solemn League and Covenant (without the solemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, anno 1648), are hereby prefixed unto the following act, agreeably unto the design of said act": and for this they pretend the example of our reformers, anno 1638, who renewed the National Covenant by a new bond, in place of that new bond wherewith it was renewed and sworn, 1590, which they omitted—wherein their deceit and unfaithfulness is very obvious from the following observations: 1. Hereby they have cast a most injurious calumny and reproach upon our honored reformers, and in their pretending to imitate their practice, in renovation of the covenants, are guilty of a most dreadful and deceitful imposition on the generation; for though our reformers did renew the covenants with a new bond, and perhaps very seldom swear them without some additions, yet they never went back from any part of reformation, espoused, and sworn to in the renovations that were before them, under a pretense, that such points of reformation formerly attained, were unsuitable, or not adapted to their circumstances, as Seceders have done. On the contrary, our reformers, in all the different renovations of the covenants, not only included all that was formerly attained to, binding themselves in strict adherence to all the articles priorly in the oath and covenant of God (at the same time solemnly acknowledging all former breaches thereof; and obliging themselves, in the strength of grace to the performance of the contrary, and consequential duties), but also, still went forward in explaining and more explicitly applying the covenants against the sins of the day, and more expressly binding themselves to the opposite duties, as is clear from the bond wherewith our reformers renewed the covenants 1638, and the solemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, 1648; both which the Seceders have barefacedly cast by and exploded in their alleged renovation of the covenants; whereby, as it is manifest that our reformers always went forward to further degrees of reformation, so it is no less manifest, that foresaid party acting contrary to them, have gone backward. But 2d. They have not only rejected the renovations of the covenants by our ancestors 1638 and 1640; but even when they pretended to follow the renovation of the covenant, 1580 and 1581, they have kept out and perverted almost the whole of the national covenants, as was already observed; particularly in their new bond, they have cast away the civil part of the covenants altogether. For what reason they do so, is indeed hard to say. True, they allege it would be a blending of civil and religious matters together; and that it is not proper (or competent for them, as a church judicatory) to meddle in these matters that are of a civil nature. But seeing infinite wisdom has not judged it a (sinful) blending of civil and religious concerns together, to deliver the duties both civil and religious in one and the same moral law unto mankind; it is difficult to conceive, how the people of God their binding themselves in a covenant of duties to the conscientious performance of all the duties God required of them in his word, whether civil or religious, according to their respective or immediate objects, can be reputed a blending of them together; or that this has the remotest tendency to destroy that distinction which God in his revealed will has stated between what is immediately civil in its nature, and what is properly religious. This, therefore, is a mere groundless pretense and evasion; and if it has any force at all, as a reason, it strikes against the reformers who compiled these covenants. They are the proper objects at whom through the sides of others it thrusts; for they, at the framing of sundry of their covenants, and afterward at the renovation of their covenant, did it both without the ecclesiastical authority, and also without, and contrary unto, yea, at the hazard of suffering the greatest severities from the civil authority on that account. And yet the ecclesiastical judicatories of the church of Scotland afterward found it competent for them, as such, to approve of these covenants, both as to the matter and form of them, without branding and exploding them as a blending of matters civil and religious together, as Seceders have done. Again, as the covenants require no other than a lawful magistrate; and seeing Seceders acknowledge the present as lawful, and that it is their duty to be subject to, and support them as such, it is impossible to conceive any reason, why they have not honored the present rulers with a place in their new and artificial bond: unless perhaps this, that they were aware that would have been so glaring a contradiction to these covenants they were pretending to renew, as would doubtless have startled and driven away from them a good many honest people, whom they have allured and led aside by their good words and fair-set speeches; and yet it is pretty obvious they have included the present rulers in their bond, and taken them in an oblique and clandestine way, by swearing to the relative duties contained in the fifth commandment, seeing they acknowledge them as their civil parents. Again, as their bond is supposed to reduplicate upon the national covenants, and so to bind to every article in them, by native consequence, they swear to a prelatical government: for seeing they have made no exception in their bond, it must be applied to no other, but the government, which presently exists; and this, in flat contradiction to the covenants, by which such a government is abjured. So that their new bond is no less opposite to the national covenants, and is much mere deceitful, than if they had plainly and explicitly sworn allegiance to the present government therein; only the generality of their implicit followers do not so readily observe it. Upon the whole, how strange is it, that they should have the assurance to father their deceitful apostasy, and wretched burying of the covenants upon our reformers, so injuriously to their character, and at the hazard of imposing a heinous and base cheat upon the world, while, notwithstanding all their vain pretensions, it is undeniably evident to those who will impartially, and without prejudice, examine the method and order whereby our ancestors renewed our covenants, that in this they have been so far from following their example, that they have directly contradicted the same, and, in reality, buried much of the covenants and work of reformation sworn to in them. For though a people may very lawfully, by a new bond, enlarge and add to their former obligations that they brought themselves under; yet they can never, without involving themselves in the guilt of perjury, relax or cancel former obligations by any future bond. Accordingly, our worthy ancestors, by all the new bonds they annexed to former obligations, were so far from attempting to loose themselves from any covenanted duty that either they or their fathers were priorly bound unto, that they thereby still brought themselves under straighter bonds to perform all their former and new obligations of duty to God. But, as has been discovered, Seceders, by their artificial bond, have cast out the very substance and spirit of the covenants, by their rumping and hewing them at pleasure, to reduce them to the sinful circumstances of the time: and this, in opposition to their own public profession, that these covenants are moral in their nature and obligation upon these nations to the latest posterity. How surprising it is then, that after such a profession, they dare cast out of their bond the greatest parts of the covenants! This is not only to break these obligations, but it is to make a public declaration, that different times and circumstances do free men from their obligation to keep their most solemn vows to the Most High. To this, as very applicable, may be subjoined the words of Mr. Case, in a sermon relative to the covenants: "Others have taken it (viz., the covenant) with their own evasions, limitations and reservations: such a Jesuitical spirit has got in among us, by which means it comes to pass, that by that time that men have pared off and left out, and put what interpretation they frame to themselves, there is little left worth the name of a covenant." And, indeed, so many are the self-inconsistencies and gross contradictions attending this new bond, that it would have been much more for the honor both of the covenants, and of Seceders themselves, rather never to have attempted such a work, than to have done it in a way of tearing to pieces our solemn national vows. Wherefore the Presbytery cannot but, in testifying against them for their unfaithfulness, obtest all the lovers of truth, to beware of joining in this course of treachery, and apostasy from God and his covenanted cause.

5. The presbytery testify against foresaid party, for their unfaithfulness and partiality in point of testimony-bearing to a covenanted, work of reformation; while yet they not only profess to be witnesses, but the only true and faithful contenders for the said work and cause. The justness of this charge manifestly appears from the scope of their Act and Testimony, which seems to be principally leveled against the corruptions of the present church judicatories, and not equally against the corruptions of both church and state, in agreeableness to the faithful testimonies of the Lord's people in former times, and in a consistency with the reformation that was jointly carried on in both church and state, and solemnly sworn and engaged to in the covenants. They appear never to have fully adopted the testimony of the Church of Scotland in her purest times, when the profession of the true religion was by law made a necessary qualification of every one that should be admitted to places of civil trust and power in the nation. Nor are the faithful testimonies of the valiant sufferers and contenders, even unto death, for the precious truths of God in the late persecuting period, as stated against both church and state, fully stated, and judicially approven by them; much less have they fully adopted the testimony, as stated against the revolution constitution, both civil and ecclesiastical, which they did not in their testimony condemn as sinful; but, on the contrary, acknowledged the civil constitution lawful, notwithstanding of their complaining of some defects and omissions therein. Of which error in the foundation, it may be said, in respect of all the mal-administrations since, it was fons et origo mali. And seeing, in and by the revolution constitution, the nation was involved in the guilt of apostasy and treachery, in subverting and overturning the good and laudable laws for true religion and right liberty, a faint declaring against some omissions cannot be accounted sufficient; especially when what is thus partly complained of, is at the same time complexly extolled, as a great and glorious deliverance to the church and nation. Their testimony further appears to be partial and unfaithful, considering that their secession was not from the constitution of the Revolution Church, but in a partial and limited way, from a prevailing corrupt party in the judicatories of the church: upon which footing it was, that some of greatest note among them made their accession after their first secession, expressly declaring so much; whereby they have injured the true state of the testimony which the Lord honored his covenanted Church of Scotland to bear; which is stated against all lukewarm and Laodicean professors, as well as open enemies, and against all Erastian usurpation, and sectarian invasion on the cause of Christ. Moreover, their unfaithfulness in point of testimony, convincingly appears from their bitter contentions, and almost endless disputes among themselves, after their breach, upon the religious clause of some burgess oaths, anent the true state of their own testimony, whether lifted up against the revolution constitution of the church, and settlement of religion, or not. Had necessary and real faithfulness been studied, in stating their testimony clearly and plainly, against all the defection, and apostasy of the day from a covenanted reformation, there had been no occasion for such a dispute among them. And now, when the one party have more openly avowed their unfaithfulness, in receding from almost everything that had the least appearance of faithfulness to the cause and covenant of God, in their former testimony, and professedly adopted the revolution settlement, as theirs, acknowledging the constitutions, both civil and ecclesiastical, as lawful, in an open contradiction to any testimony for reformation work: the other party, to wit, Antiburghers, have now indeed professedly cast off the revolution constitution of the church (at the same time continuing to make their partial Act and Testimony the basis of their distinguished profession); but yet, in an inconsistency therewith, and in contradiction to the covenanted testimony of the church of Scotland, continue to adopt the constitution of the State, as being, however defective, yet agreeable to the precept and so lawful. Hence, they are still most partial in their testimony, of which they have given a fresh and notable proof, in forementioned warning published by them: wherein though there are a variety of evils condescended upon, as just grounds of the Lord's controversy with the nations, yet there is not that faithfulness used therein, in a particular charging home of the several sins mentioned, upon every one in their different ranks, as, in agreeableness to the word of God, is requisite to work a conviction in every one, that they may turn from their sins, and as might correspond to the title given that performance. Thus, passing other instances that might also have been observed, they justly remark, page 31st, "The glorious sovereignty of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the alone King and Head of his church, is sadly encroached upon and opposed by the royal supremacy, in causes ecclesiastical. The king is acknowledged as supreme head, or governor on earth, of the churches of England and Ireland. The civil sovereign is thus declared to be the head or fountain of church power, from whence all authority and ministrations in these churches do spring, is vested with all powers of government and discipline, and constituted the sole judge of controversies within the same." "The established Church of Scotland have also, by some particular managements, subjected and subordinated their ecclesiastical meetings to the civil power." But while they acknowledge this to be the sin of the church, and an high provocation against the Lord; yet, as to the particular sin of the civil power, in assuming and usurping this Erastian supremacy unto itself, they are quite silent. They have not the faithfulness to say, in their warning, to the robber of Christ, in this matter, as once the prophet of the Lord said to the king of Israel, in another case, Thou art the man. On the contrary (which cannot but have a tendency to ward off any conviction of his sin that this warning, should it come into his hands, might be expected to work), they are guilty of the basest flattery, used by court parasites, stiling him, "the best of kings, of the mildest administration," as in page 13th; and acknowledge it, as a particular effect of the Lord's goodness, that we are privileged with such an one. But is he indeed deserving of such a character? better than which could not be given to the most faithful ruler, devoting all his power, as in duty bound, to the support and advancement of the kingdom and interest of Jesus Christ, that over reigned. Does he really merit such an encomium, who sacrilegiously usurps and wears the crown, that alone can flourish on the head of Zion's king? And is this such a blessing to the church, that an enemy to her Lord and Head rules over her? Oh! may not the Lord say? "I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright."

6. The Presbytery testify against said Seceding party, because of the sinfulness of their terms of ministerial and Christian communion, as being partly destructive of that liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free. By which they have both imposed upon themselves, and shut the door of access unto the privileges of the church, upon all such, as, in a consistency with their adherence to truth and duty, cannot accept of their unwarrantable restrictions. Of this, they gave early discoveries, as appears from the known instance of that notable, backslider, Mr. Andrew Clarkson, whom they obliged, before license, to make a public and solemn renunciation of his former principles and profession, respecting the covenanted reformation.[4] As also, their rejecting all accessions from his Laodicean brethren, wherein was contained an explicit adherence to the same, until they did drop their former testimony. This blind zeal in Seceders, against a testimony for truth in its purity, did gradually increase, until it hurried them on to a more particular and formal stating of their terms of communion, whereby were totally excluded all the free and faithful of the land from their communion, who could not approve of, nor swear the bond, whereby they pretended to renew the covenants: as in their act at Edinburgh, 1744; wherein they did resolve and determine, "That the renovation of the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three nations, in the manner now agreed upon, and proposed by the Presbytery, shall be the terms of ministerial communion with this Presbytery, and likewise of Christian communion, in admission of people to sealing ordinances; secluding therefrom all opposers, contemners, and slighters of the said renovation of our solemn covenants." By this act, Seceders have obliged their adherents to consent to their infamous burial of our national covenants with the Lord, and reformation therein sworn to, particularly as they were renewed, both 1638 and 1648. And that they might further evince their resolution to bear down the foresaid work, they afterward proceeded to subjoin unto their formula of questions to be put to candidates before license, and to probationers before ordination, the following questions, viz., "Are you satisfied with, and do you propose to adhere unto, and maintain the principles about the present civil government, which are declared and maintained in the Associate Presbytery's answers to Mr. Nairn, with their defense thereunto subjoined?" Whereby, in opposition to the professed endeavors for the revival of a covenanted reformation in the lands, they expressly bind down all their intrants into the office of the ministry, to an explicit acknowledgement of their anti-government scheme of principles anent the ordinance of magistracy; and thereby to an acknowledging of the lawfulness of a government, which themselves confess has not only departed from, and neglected their duty of espousing and supporting the covenanted principles of this church, but also opposed, contradicted and overthrown the glorious reformation once established in these nations. A government, under which, as they profess, the nations cannot be enriched by the blessings of the gospel; and that, because it does not, in all the appurtenances of its constitution and administration, run in agreeableness to the word of God. By all which it appears that although they refuse formally to swear any oaths of allegiance to the powers in being; yet they do materially, and with great solemnity, engage themselves to be true and faithful to a government, under which, and while it stands, they are certain, if their concessions hold true, that they shall never see the nations flourish, either in their temporal or spiritual interests. It is only needful further to observe, that Seceders in the terms of their communion, by debarring from the table of the Lord, all who impugn the lawfulness of a prelatic, Erastian government (as is notourly known they do), make subjection and loyalty to such an authority, a necessary, and, to them, commendatory qualification of worthy receivers of the Lord's supper, although none of those qualifications—required by God in his word. While (as has been already observed) they, with the most violent passion, refuse to admit the professing and practicing the true religion, a necessary qualification of lawful civil rulers over a people possessed of and professing the true religion, which is in effect to deny the necessity of religion altogether as to civil rulers, than which nothing can be more absurd.

Lastly, not to multiply more particulars, the Presbytery testify against the scandalous abuse, and sinful prostitution of church discipline, and tyranny in government, whereby the forementioned party have remarkably signalized themselves; and which, in a most precipitant and arbitrary manner, they have pretended to execute against such as have discovered the smallest degree of faithfulness, in endeavoring to maintain the principles of our reformation, in agreeableness to the true state of the covenanted testimony of the Church of Scotland; which has not only appeared in the case of David Leslie, and some others, on account of a paper of grievances given in to said Associates; against whom they proceeded to the sentence of excommunication, without using those formalities and means of conviction required and warranted by the church's Head, even in the case of just offenses done by any of the professed members of his mystical body; or so much as allowing that common justice to the sentenced party, that might be expected from any judicatory, bearing the name of Presbyterian. (Though the Presbytery are not hereby to be understood as approving every expression contained in foresaid paper.) But particularly, they have given notable proof of their fixed resolution, to bear down all just appearances in favor of Zion's King and cause, in the case of Mr. Nairn, once of their number, because of his espousing the principles of this Presbytery, especially, respecting God's ordinance of magistracy, against whom they proceeded to the highest censures of the church, upon the footing of a pretended libel; in which libel, they did not so much as pretend any immorality in practice, or yet error in principle, as the ground of their arbitrary procedure, further than his espousing the received principles of this church in her best times, and what stood in necessary connection with such a profession: although, in adorable providence, he has since been left to fall into the practice of such immorality, as has justly rendered him the object of church censure by this Presbytery. As also in the case of Messrs. Alexander Marshall, and John Cuthbertson, with some others, elders and private Christians, against whom they proceeded in a most unaccountable, anti-scriptural, and unprecedented manner, and upon no better foundation, than that noticed in the case above, pretended to depose and cast such out of the communion of their church, as never had subjected to their authority, nor formerly stood in any established connection with them.

And further, besides these instances condescended upon, they habitually aggravate their abuse of the ordinances of Christ's house, in pretending to debar and excommunicate from the holy sacrament of the supper, many of the friends and followers of the Lamb, only because they cannot conscientiously, and in a consistency with their fidelity to their Head and Savior, acknowledge the authority of the usurpers of his crown as lawful. From all which, and every other instance of their continued prostitution of the discipline instituted by Christ in his church, and of that authority, which he, as a Son over his own house, has given unto faithful gospel ministers, to the contempt and scorn of an ungodly generation; the Presbytery cannot but testify against them, as guilty of exercising a tyrannical power over the heritage of the Lord; and to whom may too justly be applied, the word of the Lord, spoken by his prophet, Isa. lxvi, 5: "Your brethren that bated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." Wherefore, and for all the foresaid grounds, the Presbytery find and declare, that the pretended Associate Presbytery, now called Synod, whether before or since, in their separate capacity, claiming a parity of power, neither were, nor are lawful and rightly constituted courts of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to his word, and to the testimony of the true Presbyterian Covenanted Church of Christ in Scotland: and therefore ought not, nay cannot, in a consistency with bearing a faithful testimony for the covenanted truths, and cause of our glorious Redeemer, be countenanced or submitted to in their authority by his people.

Again, the Presbytery find themselves in duty obliged to testify against these brethren who some time ago have broken off from their communion, for their unwarrantable separation, and continued opposition to the truth and testimony, in the hands of this Presbytery, even to the extent of presuming, in a judicial capacity, to threaten church censure against the Presbytery, without alleging so much as any other reason for this strange procedure, than their refusing to approve as truth, a point of doctrine, that stands condemned by the standards of the Reformed Church of Scotland, founded on the authority of divine revelation. But, as the Presbytery have formerly published a vindication of the truth maintained by them, and of their conduct, respecting the subject matter of difference with their quondam brethren, they refer to said vindication, for a more particular discovery of the error of their principle, and extravagance of their conduct in this matter. And particularly, they testify against the more avowed apostasy of some of these brethren, who are not ashamed to declare their backslidings in the streets, and publish them upon the house tops; as especially appears from a sermon entitled, Bigotry Disclaimed—together with the vindication of said sermon; wherein is vented such a loose and latitudinarian scheme of principles, on the point of church communion, as had a native tendency to destroy the scriptural boundaries thereof, adopted by this church in her most advanced purity; and which is also inconsistent with the ordination vows, whereby the author was solemnly engaged. This, with other differences, best known to themselves, occasioned a rupture in that pretended Presbytery, which for some years subsisted: but this breach being some considerable time ago again cemented, they constituted themselves in their former capacity, upon terms (as appears from a printed account of their agreement and constitution, which they have never yet disclaimed as unjust) not very honorable nor consistent with their former principles and professed zeal for maintaining the same. Which agreement was made up, without any evidence of the above author's retracting his lax principles, contained in the foresaid sermon. Whatever was the cause, whether from the influence of others (as was said by the publisher of their agreement), or from a consciousness of dropping part of formerly received principles, is not certain; but one of these brethren, for a time, gave up with further practical communion with the other, namely, Mr. Hugh Innes, late of the Calton, Glasgow; while yet it was observed, that both used a freedom, not formerly common to them, anent the present authority, in their public immediate addresses to the object of worship; which, together with their apparent resiling from part of their former testimony occasioned stumbling to some of their people, and terminated in the separation of others. Foresaid latitudinarianism and falling away, is also sadly verified, in the conduct of another principal member of their pretended Presbytery, who has professedly deserted all testimony bearing for the reformation principles of the Covenanted Church of Scotland.[5]

At last, after their declared interviews for that purpose, these brethren have patched up a mank agreement, which they have published, in a paper entitled Abstract of the covenanted principles of the Church of Scotland, &c., with a prefixed advertisement in some copies, asserting the removal of their differences, which arose from a sermon on Psal. cxxii, 3, published at Glasgow,—by a disapprobation of what is implied in some expressions hereof, viz., "That all the members of Christ's mystical body may, and ought to unite in visible church communion."

Here is, indeed, a smooth closing of the wound that should have been more thoroughly searched, that, by probing into the practical application of said sermon, the corrupt matter of communion with the Revolution Church, in the gospel and sealing ordinance thereof, might have been found out; but not one word of this in all that abstract, which contains their grounds of union, and terms of communion. Nothing of the above author's recanting his former latitudinarian practices of hearing, and thereby practically encouraging, that vagrant Episcopalian, Whitefield; his communicating, which natively implies union, with the Revolution Church, in one of the seals of the covenant; nor his public praying for an Erastian government, in a way, and for a reason, that must needs be understood as an homologation of their authority. On which accounts, the Presbytery testify against said union, as being inconsistent with faithfulness in the cause of Christ; and against said abstract, as, however containing a variety of particulars very just and good, yet bearing no positive adherence to, nor particular mention of, faithful wrestlings and testimonies of the martyrs and witnesses for Scotland's covenanted cause. As also, they testify against the notorious disingenuity of their probationer, who, after a professed dissatisfaction on sundry occasions, with the declining steps of said brethren, particularly with the declaimer against bigotry, has overlooked more weighty matters, and embraced a probability of enjoying the long grasped for privilege of ordination, though it should be observed at a greater expense than that of disappointing the expectation of a few dissatisfied persons, who depended upon his honesty, after they had broken up communion with those he continues still to profess his subjection unto.

And further, the Presbytery testify against the adherents of foresaid brethren, in strengthening their hands in their course of separation from the Presbytery, rejecting both their judicial and ministerial authority, and the ordinances of the gospel dispensed by them. And more especially, the Presbytery condemn the conduct of such of them as, professedly dissatisfied with the above said left-hand extremes, and other defections of foresaid brethren, have therefore broken off from their communion; yet, instead of returning to their duty in a way of subjecting themselves to the courts of Christ, and ordinances instituted by him in his church, have turned back again to their own right-hand extremes of error, which once they professedly gave up, but now persist in, an obstinate impugning the validity of their ministerial authority and protestative mission, undervalue the pure ordinances of the gospel dispensed by them, and live as if there were no church of Christ in the land, where they might receive the seals of the covenant, either to themselves or their children; and therefore, in the righteous judgment of God, have been left to adopt such a dangerous and erroneous system of principles, as is a disgrace to the profession of the covenanted cause.[6]



ADVERTISEMENT.

The following supplement, having been a competent length of time before the church in overture, was adopted in Logan county, Ohio, May, 1850. And, although without the formality of a judicial sanction, we trust it will not be found destitute of divine authority. The design of it is to show the application of the principles of our Testimony to society, as organized in the United States. For although conventional regulations, civil and ecclesiastical, in this land, are very different from the condition of society in Great Britain, where our Testimony was first emitted, yet the corruptions of human nature, embodied in the combinations of society, are not less visible in this than in other lands, nor less hostile to the supreme authority of the Lord and his Anointed. "The beast and the false prophet" continue to be the objects of popular devotion: Rev. xix, 20.

Cincinnati, Nov. 12th, 1850.



SUPPLEMENT TO PART III,

Containing an application of the principles of our Covenanted Testimony to the existing condition of society in these United States.

The controversy which arose between the Associate and Reformed churches, on the doctrine of civil magistracy, was the occasion of greater divergency between them, on collateral subjects. From false principles, consistent reasoning must produce erroneous conclusions. Assuming that the Son of God, as Mediator, has nothing to do with the concerns of God's moral government beyond the precincts of the visible church, it would follow, that church members, as citizens of the "kingdoms of this world," neither owe him allegiance nor are bound to thank him for "common benefits." The assumption is, however, obviously erroneous, because, as Mediator, he is "head over all things to the church," Eph. i, 22, consequently, all people, nations and languages, are bound to obey and serve him, in this office capacity, and to thank him for his mercies.

While this controversy was keenly managed by the respective parties in the British isles, the Lord Christ interposed between the disputants, as it were, to decide the chief point in debate. By the rise of the British colonies west of the Atlantic, against the parent country, and their successful struggle to gain a national independence, a clear commentary was furnished on the long-contested principle, that, in some cases, it is lawful to resist existing civil powers. Seceders, forgetting, for the time, their favorite theory, joined their fellow colonists in casting off the yoke of British rule. Those who vehemently opposed Reformed Presbyterians, for disowning the British government, joined cheerfully in its overthrow. How fickle and inconsistent is man! During the revolutionary struggle might be witnessed the singular spectacle—humbling to the pride of human reason, revolting to the sensibilities of the exercised Christian—brethren of the same communion, on opposite sides of the Atlantic, pleading with the God of justice to give success to the respective armies! East of the ocean the petition would be, "Lord, prosper the British arms;" on the west, "Lord, favor the patriots of these oppressed colonies!" Such are the consequences natively resulting from a theory alike unscriptural and absurd—a principle deep-laid in that system of opposition to the Lord and his Anointed, emphatically styled "The Antichrist."

Great national revolutions are special trials of the faith and patience of the saints. No firmness of character will be proof against popular opinion and example at such a time, without special aid from on high. Reformed Presbyterians in the colonies rejoiced in the success of the revolution, issuing in the independence of the United States. Their expectation of immediate advantage to the reformation cause was too sanguine. A new frame of civil polity was to be devised by the colonies, now that they were independent of the British crown. This state of things called forth the exercise of human intellect, in more than ordinary measure, to meet the emergency. Frames of national policy are apt to warp the judgment of good men. Even Christian ministers are prone to substitute the maxims of human prudence for the precepts of inspiration. Many divines conceived the idea of conforming the visible church to the model of the American republic. The plan was projected and advocated, of bringing all evangelical denominations into one confederated unity, while the integral parts should continue independent of each other. This plan would have defeated its own object, the unity of the visible church, and subverted that form of government established by Zion's King. Upon trial by some of the New England Independents and Presbyterians, the plan has proved utterly abortive.

Prior to the Revolutionary war, a Presbytery had been constituted in America, upon the footing of the covenanted reformation. The exciting scenes and active sympathies, attendant on the Revolutionary war, added to a hereditary love of liberty, carried many covenanters away from their distinctive principles. The Reformed Presbytery was dissolved, and three ministers who belonged to it, joining some ministers of the Associate Church, formed that society, since known by the name of the Associate Reformed Church. The union was completed in the year 1782, after having been five years in agitation.

These ministers professed, as the basis of union, the Westminster standards; but the abstract of principles, which they adopted as the more immediate bond of coalescence, discovered, to discerning spectators, that the individuals forming the combination, were by no means unanimous in their views of the doctrines taught in those standards. Indeed, there were certain sections of the Confession reserved for future discussion, which, in process of time, were wholly rejected. This attack upon a document, venerable not so much for its age as its scriptural character, gave rise to zealous opposition by some in the body, and ultimately resulted in a rupture. Two ministers dissented from the majority, left their communion, and proceeded to erect a new organization, styled "The Reformed Dissenting Presbytery." This was in the year 1801. At this date, there were four denominations, in the United States, claiming to be the legitimate successors of the British reformers, viz., the Associate, Reformed, Associate Reformed, and Reformed Dissenting Presbyterians. Three of these professedly appear under the banner of a standing judicial testimony, which they severally emitted to the public. The Associate Reformed Church, by judicial declaration and uniform practice, is opposed to this method of testimony-bearing.

The Reformed Presbytery, which had been dissolved by the defection of the ministry, during the Revolutionary war, was reorganized toward the close of the eighteenth century. The troubles in Ireland, when the inhabitants united for the purpose of gaining independence of the British crown, were the occasion of bringing strength to the church in America. Reformed Presbyterians, feeling sensibly with others the arm of British tyranny, joined interests hastily with Papists and others, in one sworn association, for the purpose of overturning the existing government by force of arms. The enterprise, as might have been expected, was unsuccessful; Isa. viii, 11, 12; Obadiah 7; 2 Cor. vi, 17. Many fled to the asylum which God had provided, shortly before, in America. Among the refugees were some of the Covenanters, by which the church was strengthened in her ministry and membership.

Early in the nineteenth century, measures were taken by the Reformed Presbytery, in the United States, for re-exhibiting the principles of a covenanted reformation, in a judicial way. Accordingly, in the year 1806, the Presbytery published, as adopted, a work entitled "Reformation Principles Exhibited"—a book which has ever since been popularly called the American Testimony. The familiar designation, Testimony, the general complexion of the book, the orthodox aspect of terms, and even most of the leading sentiments of the work, gave it currency, and rendered it generally acceptable to pious and intelligent Covenanters. And however it seemed to the unsuspecting to sustain, it eventually and effectually supplanted the Scottish Testimony. The men who had the principal hand in giving shape and direction to the principles and practice of Covenanters in the United States, at that time, were located in some of the most populous and commercial cities on the Atlantic coast, where temptations to conform to this world were many and pressing. A disposition to temporize was manifested in these localities, soon after their principles had been judicially exhibited. The last war between the United States and England, subjected Covenanters to new trials in America. As aliens, they were deemed unsafe residents at the seaboard, and were ordered, by the government, to retire a certain distance to the interior (much like the course pursued by Claudius Caesar toward the Jews, Acts xviii, 2). To meet the exigency, a deputation of the church was appointed to repair to Washington, in 1812, and offer a pledge that they would defend the integrity of the country against all enemies. This measure was, however, never carried out.

The church increased in numbers and influence, and began to be noticed with respect and professions of esteem among surrounding denominations. Some of her members had ventured to act in the capacity of citizens of the United States, by serving on juries. This was of course managed for a time clandestinely. At length, waxing confident by success, they began to act more openly. This gave rise to a petition addressed to the supreme judicatory of the church. The petitioners were answered by instructing them to apply for direction to the inferior judicatories—thus shunning the duty of applying their own acknowledged principles. This was in the year 1823. This course did not satisfy the petitioners, and application was again made to Synod in 1825, to explain the import of their former Act. The reply was—"This Synod never understood any act of theirs, relative to their members sitting on juries, or contravening the old common law of the church on that subject;" a response obviously as equivocal as the preceding. As early as 1823, a motion was made in the Synod to open a correspondence with the judicatories of other denominations. This motion was resisted, and for the time proved abortive. At next meeting of Synod, however, the measure was brought before that body, by a proposal from the General Assembly to correspond by delegation. This proposal found many, and some of them able, advocates in the Reformed. P. Synod. The measure was, however, again defeated; but immediately after the failure, a number of ministers forsook the Reformation ranks and consorted with the General Assembly. In the year 1828, the Synod gave its sanction and lent its patronage to the Colonization Society, which was continued till the year 1836, when its patronage was transferred to the cause of Abolition. The spirit of declension became manifest at the session of Synod in 1831, when some of the most prominent and practical principles of the Reformed Church were openly thrown into debate, in the pages of a monthly periodical, under the head of "Free Discussion." Through the pernicious influence of that perfidious journal, sustained by the patronage of ministers of eminent standing in the church, a large proportion—neatly one-half—of the ministry were prepared, by the next meeting of Synod in 1833, to renounce the peculiar principles and long known usages of the Reformed Covenanted Church. Organizing themselves as a separate body, yet claiming their former ecclesiastical name, they deliberately incorporated with the government of the United States, and some of the senior ministers, more fully to testify their loyalty, in their old age, took the oath of naturalization!—thus breaking down the carved work which they had for many years assiduously labored to erect.

It was hoped that the severe trial to which the professing witnesses of Christ were subjected at that time, would have taught them a lesson not soon to be forgotten. It was thought by many that the church was now purged from the leaven which had almost leavened the whole lump. The Synod met in 1834, when a perverse spirit was evident in the midst of its members. The Colonization and Abolition Societies, with other associations—the exfoliations of Antichrist—had evidently gained an ascendency in the affections of many of the members. The altercation and bitterness with which the claims of these societies were discussed, evidenced to such as were free from their infection, that some of those present viewed these popular movements as transcending in importance, the covenanted testimony of the church. As the practice of occasional hearing was on the increase in some sections of the church, Synod was memorialized on that subject, but refused to declare the law of the church. The old spirit of conformity to the world was still more manifest in 1836, when Synod was importuned by her children, from the eastern and western extremes of the church, by petition, memorial, protest and appeal—growing out of the practice then generally prevalent of incorporating with the voluntary associations of the age. The response of the supreme judicatory was in this case as ambiguous as on any former occasion. The backsliding course of the factious majority was but feebly counteracted by dissent from only two members of Synod; a respectable minority having been outwitted by the carnal wisdom of those who were prompt in applying the technicalities of law. Hope was, however, cherished, that this check so publicly given, together with the practical workings of the system of moral amalgamation, would induce even reckless innovators to pause—to consider their ways and their doings. This hope, however rational and sanguine, was totally disappointed in 1838, when the table of the supreme judicatory might be said to be crowded with petitions, letters, remonstrances, memorials, protests and appeals. The just grievances of the children of witnessing and martyred fathers, were treated with contempt—"laid on the table," "returned," with the cry "let them be kicked under the table," &c. And when some attempted to urge their right to be heard, they were called to order, treated with personal insult, or subjected to open violence. A few of these, having thus experienced the tyranny and abuse of the ruling faction, declined the authority and communion of Synod, and established a separate fellowship.

When the Synod again met in 1840, the same measures which had been carried by mob violence at the preceding meeting, were pressed as before; but with less tumult—leaders having learned caution from the consequences following their former outrageous conduct. Matters had now come to a crisis, when a reclaiming minority were reduced to this dilemma—either to acquiesce in the almost total subversion of the covenanted constitution of the church; or, by separating from an irreclaimable majority, attempt, by an independent organization, to make up the breach. It is easy to see which alternative was duty, not only from the nature of the case, but from the well defined footsteps of the flock. Reformation has been effected in the church of God in all ages, by the protestation and separation of a virtuous Minority. At this juncture a paper was laid upon the table of Synod, of which the following is a true copy:

"PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS.

"Whereas, It is the province and indispensable duty of this Synod, when society is in a state of agitation as at present, to know the signs of the times and what Israel ought to do: and whereas it is also the duty of this Synod, to testify in behalf of truth, to condemn sin and testify against those who commit it; to acquaint our people with their danger, and search into the causes of God's controversy with them and with us: and whereas it is the duty of Synod further, to point out to the people of God the course to be pursued, that divine judgments may be averted or removed—therefore,

"1. Resolved, That uniting with, or inducing to fellowship, by the members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, in the voluntary and irresponsible associations of the day—composed of persons of all religious professions and of no profession—be condemned, as unwarranted by the word of God, the subordinate Standards of the church, and the practice of our covenant fathers.

"2. That an inquiry be instituted, in order to ascertain the grounds of God's controversy with us, in the sins of omission and commission, wherewith we are chargeable in our ecclesiastical relations.

"3. That the sins thus ascertained, be confessed, mourned over and forsaken, and our engagement to the contrary duties renewed; that the Lord may return, be entreated of his people and leave a blessing behind him."

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 constituted a large majority of Synod; both duty and necessity required them to assume a position independent of former organizations, that they might, untrammeled, carry out practically their testimony. Accordingly two ministers and three ruling elders proceeded to constitute a Presbytery on constitutional ground, declaring in the deed of constitution, 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 fellowship 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 constitution 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 fellowship 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 document 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 Worship," 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 fellowship 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 institutions 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 assist 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 assumed a position in relation to the civil institutions 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 classes 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 incumbent 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 Associate Reformed Church, continues also without material change since the rise of that body. The following among others may here be noticed, as constituting 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 fellowship 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 fellowship 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 Associate 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 Associate 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 fellowship 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 membership 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 fellowship 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 God. 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 fellowship, 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 membership, in the communion of the General Assembly.

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 constitutions 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 "Constitution of the Associate Reformed Church"—a designation which might be considered as militating against the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures. In this Constitution a sphere is assigned 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 instituted 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 worship is not guarded by the terms of fellowship 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 God "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 worship has been submitted in some instances, to the voice of the congregation by their pastor; thus manifesting in the same act, latitudinarianism in regard both to the government and worship of the house of God.

Lastly, to specify no further—Laxity of discipline is observable in this church. She has always admitted to her fellowship, and to a participation 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 superstitious! The same privileges are granted in this church to such as habitually neglect the worship of God in the family. Nor does this church inculcate or enjoin, as a part of Christian practice, fellowship 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 Associate 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 fellowships was not a happy expedient for effecting union in the truth.

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 constitution of civil government may be so immoral, that it cannot be considered as God's ordinance; that in such a case "no Christian can, without sinning against God, accept any office supreme or subordinate, where an oath to support such a constitution 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 God." We must continue our earnest testimony against this attempt to separate in law, between the representative and his constituents, involving as it does, if consistently carried out, the total overthrow of the covenants of works and grace, and ultimately of God'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 assurance, 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, assurance," &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; Tit. 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 institutions 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 godliness 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 petitions 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 Fellowship, 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 classed those different and conflicting fellowships 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 constitution 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 constitute 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 fellowship, 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 fellowship! 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 associations 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 God.

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 constitutional 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,