Act, Declaration, & Testimony for the Whole of our Covenanted Reformation Part 4

A _fourth_ text used by them for maintaining their erroneous scheme, is Rom. xiii, 1-8. Without animadverting upon every part of their explication of this place of holy writ, it is sufficient to observe: 1.

That the power here spoken of by the apostle, is not a _physical_, but a _moral_ power; a power that is lawful and warranted, in regard of matter, person, t.i.tle or invest.i.ture. A legitimacy in each of these must go to the making of a moral power; and an illegitimacy in any of these is an illegitimacy in the very being and const.i.tution, and so a nullity to the power as moral, a making it of no authority. As the text speaks only of this moral power, so it excludes every unlawful power (see Mr.

_Gee_ on magistracy, on this text). 2. That the _being_ of G.o.d, or the ordination G.o.d here spoke of, is not a being of G.o.d _providentially_ only, but such a _being of_ G.o.d as contains in it his inst.i.tution and appointment, by the warrant of his law and precept; so that the magistrates to whom the apostle enjoins obedience, are such as are set up according to the preceptive ordination and will of G.o.d, as is evinced not only by the author referred to above, and other divines, but what sufficiently appears from the context, where the subjection enjoined, and resistance forbidden, with their respective reasons, are what can only be spoken with respect to powers ordained by the preceptive will of G.o.d. Again, by considering the office and duty of the powers, and the end of their ordination, as described, ver. 3, 4, which by no means agree to any but those moral powers ordained by the preceptive will of G.o.d, it appears a manifest abuse of this text, to apply it to every one advanced by providence to the place of supreme rule, not only without any regard, but in direct opposition to the preceptive will of G.o.d. It is most absurd and self-contradictory in professed testimony bearers for a covenanted reformation, to apply this text in a way of pleading the lawfulness of an Erastian, anti-christian const.i.tution, that is dest.i.tute of all those qualifications already mentioned (and always included in the scriptural definition of a lawful magistrate), as necessary to const.i.tute a moral power, viz., in regard of matter, person, t.i.tle or invest.i.ture, &c. But of the power which they so zealously plead for, the matter is unlawful, being Erastian, partly civil, partly ecclesiastical, by the united const.i.tution. The person invested with this supreme power, is one who is declared incapable, by the fundamental laws and covenanted const.i.tution of the nations; the manner of invest.i.ture, and terms on which the crown is held, sinful--the const.i.tution being in an immediate opposition to the unalterable const.i.tution of the kingdom of the _Messias_, and founded on the destruction of the covenanted reformation. And it may be added, that it is unlawful, as to the exercise and application of it, which has been all along in opposition to all _true_ religion, and a grievous oppression of the church, the kingdom of Christ, in the liberties thereof. And it must be so; for the tree must be made good, before the fruit can be such. By all which it appears, there is a nullity in the power as moral, being so very opposite to the revealed will of G.o.d. And from what is said, it is obvious that this scripture gives no countenance to their corrupt scheme, but furnishes with strong arguments against it.

A _fifth_ scripture adduced is, t.i.tus iii, 1: "Put them in mind to be subject to princ.i.p.alities and powers," &c. As _Seceders_ apply this text to the same purpose, and explain it in the same manner, as they have done those others above mentioned, so what is already said is sufficient to discover the deceit of their use and explication thereof. The powers and magistrates the apostle requires subjection to, are only such as are so in a moral sense; none but such are accounted powers and magistrates in the sense of the text. The apostle must mean the same powers here he describes in Rom. xiii, 1-3, &c., otherwise he contradicts himself, which must not be admitted; and the powers he there speaks of, are moral powers, i.e., such as have not only proper abilities for government and rule, but also a right of const.i.tution, impowering them to use their abilities for that purpose. How can one be expected or said to be the _minister_ of G.o.d _for good_, or a _terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well_, if he is so disposed and inclined, as to love that which is evil, and hate that which is good, and so actually is a praise to evil doers, and a terror to such as do well? To suppose any such thing, is to overthrow the universally established connection between cause and effect, the means and the end. And so much (namely, that the powers there spoken of are moral powers), _Seceders_ are forced to grant in their explication of Rom. xiii. Say they, "The text speaks only of powers in a moral sense." And this concession at once destroys their scheme, and confirms what the Presbytery plead for, namely, that none are lawful powers but such as are so according to the preceptive will of G.o.d in his word; which certainly, in the judgment of all _who would deal reverently with the oracles of G.o.d_, is, in this case, a rule far preferable "to the remainders of natural light, in the moral dictates of right reason," from which _Seceders_ fetch the inst.i.tution of this divine ordinance of magistracy, and on which they settle it, as on (what they call) "the natural and eternal law of G.o.d;" preferring that to the plain, perfect and complete, revelation of G.o.d's will in his word.

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 const.i.tution by consent of the civil society, are to be subjected to for the Lord's sake, as having an inst.i.tution 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 G.o.d in his word, both respecting the const.i.tution 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 G.o.d, and laws of men founded thereon, are punishable by a severe death? Sure, such can never have a t.i.tle to that obedience which is due to the ordinance of G.o.d, who have not so much as a t.i.tle to live upon the earth. Moreover, let it be considered, that in the above cited texts, the spirit of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. 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 inst.i.tution 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, t.i.tle, &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 G.o.d 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 mult.i.tudes 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 l.u.s.tre; 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 a.s.suming 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 a.s.sociates, on account of their corruption in wors.h.i.+p; 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d'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 _a.s.sociate 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution 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 G.o.d, reforming laws, and covenanted const.i.tutions 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 const.i.tution, 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 G.o.d, good of the church, and revival of a covenanted reformation; and also, seems to include a desire that, G.o.d 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 t.i.tle 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 const.i.tution, are proper instruments for promoting the honor and declarative glory of Christ; although the prelates, const.i.tuent 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 flouris.h.i.+ng of Christ's mediatory kingdom, nationally, must be attended with the overthrow of all const.i.tutions, 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 const.i.tution, 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, h.o.m.ologating and approving the anti-christian const.i.tution 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 G.o.d. 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 const.i.tution, contrary to the word of G.o.d,--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 G.o.d may perpetuate the succession to the throne in any one family, and especially, when that succession is circ.u.mscribed and limited, in a way opposite to the laws of G.o.d, and mediatory kingdom of Christ? and therefore, a prayer that cannot be made in faith, and so cannot be acceptable to G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sociate 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 G.o.d in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, according to the word of G.o.d. 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 a.s.sert 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 pa.s.sed 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 G.o.d in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d and the covenants, and Episcopacy is established in _England_ and _Ireland_, in contradiction to the word of G.o.d 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 G.o.d." 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 publis.h.i.+ng 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 G.o.d (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 G.o.d their binding themselves in a covenant of duties to the conscientious performance of all the duties G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.surance 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 G.o.d. 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 circ.u.mstances 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 circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.s, 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 G.o.d 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 princ.i.p.ally 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 G.o.d 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 const.i.tution, both civil and ecclesiastical, which they did not in their testimony condemn as sinful; but, on the contrary, acknowledged the civil const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution, 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution 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 G.o.d, in their former testimony, and professedly adopted the revolution settlement, as theirs, acknowledging the const.i.tutions, 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution 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 G.o.d, is requisite to work a conviction in every one, that they may turn from their sins, and as might correspond to the t.i.tle given that performance. Thus, pa.s.sing 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 const.i.tuted 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 a.s.suming 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 _a.s.sociate 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 const.i.tution and administration, run in agreeableness to the word of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d in his word. While (as has been already observed) they, with the most violent pa.s.sion, 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 prost.i.tution 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 a.s.sociates; 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 G.o.d'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 prost.i.tution of the discipline inst.i.tuted 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 unG.o.dly 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 _a.s.sociate Presbytery_, now called _Synod_, whether before or since, in their separate capacity, claiming a parity of power, neither were, nor are lawful and rightly const.i.tuted 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 ent.i.tled, _Bigotry Disclaimed_--together with the vindication of said sermon; wherein is vented such a loose and lat.i.tudinarian 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 const.i.tuted themselves in their former capacity, upon terms (as appears from a printed account of their agreement and const.i.tution, 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 wors.h.i.+p; 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 lat.i.tudinarianism and falling away, is also sadly verified, in the conduct of another princ.i.p.al 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 ent.i.tled _Abstract of the covenanted principles of the Church of Scotland, &c._, with a prefixed advertis.e.m.e.nt in some copies, a.s.serting 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 lat.i.tudinarian 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 h.o.m.ologation 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 inst.i.tuted 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 G.o.d, 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]

ADVERTIs.e.m.e.nT.

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 dest.i.tute 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 a.s.sociate 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. a.s.suming that the Son of G.o.d, as Mediator, has nothing to do with the concerns of G.o.d'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 a.s.sumption 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 G.o.d of justice to give success to the respective armies! East of the ocean the pet.i.tion 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 p.r.o.ne to subst.i.tute 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 const.i.tuted 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 a.s.sociate Church, formed that society, since known by the name of the a.s.sociate 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. I