| The Constitution of the Associate Reformed Synod Testified Against. THECONSTITUTIONOF THEASSOCIATE REFORMED SYNODIN AMERICACONSIDERED,DISOWNEDANDTESTIFYEDAGAINST.byThe Reformed Presbytery (Scotland)GLASGOW:Peter Tait,1787.We lay before our readers the following old andimportant document, not doubting that they will regard it as a highly interestingand instructive article. It is entitled—The Constitution of the AssociateReformed Synod in America, considered, disowned, and testified against,as inconsistent with the REFORMATION Constitutionof Britain and Ireland; the Reformed Presbytery. It was prepared, adopted,and published 1783, by the then highest Judicatory of the Reformed PresbyterianChurch in Scotland. During the preceding year, 1782, the UNIONbetween the Reformed Presbytery and two Associate Presbyteries, all America,was completed, after having been five years in agitation, to the NewBody was constituted. The earliest opportunity was taken by the Churchin Scotland to express her testimony against the union, which she consideredessentially defective in many important particulars, and, on the part ofReformed Presbyterians who joined in it, a gross relinquishment of theirReformation attainments. This testimony forms the document given below.Many of our readers will be able to see, in the subsequent practice ofthe Associate Reformed church, the evidence and illustration of the correctnessof the views entertained and expressed by the Church in Scotland, in relationto the Union, when she had nothing from which to form a judgment but theTerms on which that union was effected.—ED.The Reformed Presbytery having receivedat different times, through various channels, some intelligence of an EcclesiasticalUnion being formed between their brethren in the ministry in America, andsome members of the Associate Synod—were at last put in possession of fullinformation of that matter, by a copy of the terms of their union, transmittedto them a member of the new association by authority, bearing the titleof The Constitution of the Associate-Reformed Synod. On receiptof this new performance, the presbytery ordered it be read, paragraph byparagraph, by their clerk in the of the meeting, after which the mind ofall the members was taken with respect to the soundness of the terms oftheir union as expressed thereon; when it appeared that the happiest unanimityprevailed through the whole court, that this recent union, whereby theparties had raised themselves to the dignity of a synod, was so far frombeing a laudable attainment towards the healing of breaches, upon the onlyjustifiable ground of truth, that, in their brethren, it was a manifestrelinquishment, in many respects, of the noble cause on behalf of whichthey, in connection with this presbytery, had formerly displayed a banner;and that the news of this new performance, instead of meeting their approbation,was considered by them as the messenger of heavy tidings, conveying thedisagreeable information of an union which had involved in apostacy theirbrethren, with whom they wished and even hoped to have lived and died inthe bond of truth. The presbytery next deliberated what now became theirown duty in relation to this unexpected event, when they agreed that somethingshould be done by them in condemnation of a measure so much to be deplored,to which they were the more prompted, in regard, that they had receivedseveral letters from private christians in America, complaining of thedefection of their ministers from the testimony formerly espoused by them,upon a coalescence taking place between them and some Seceding ministers;and requesting advice from them, as to their present duty, in such a tryingjuncture. For this purpose the presbytery nominated a committee of theirnumber, with instructions and powers, to meet and draw up a paper expressiveof their sentiments about the union, and to transmit copies thereof totheir quondam brethren, and these private christians in America, for theirconsideration.The several members of the committee as nominated by thepresbytery accordingly met, and, after prayer to God for direction, enteredupon the serious consideration of the important business committed to them.It is with the deepest regret, that the committee findthemselves laid under the disagreeable necessity against the conduct oftheir brethren; but when the defence of truth calls them out, no tie whatsoevermust be allowed to counteract the superior obligation of faithfulness,they therefore cannot be blamed in using christian freedom with their brethrenon this mournful occasion.The committee cannot help being of the opinion, that itwould have been nothing more than consonant to the laws of ecclesiasticalsociety, for their brethren to have acknowledged and consulted with themother church at home, previous to their adopting a measure, which, asthemselves in synod declare,[1]finally dissolves all church fellowship with her, except the church hereshall explicitly own their new constitution in company with their friendsof the Secession. The committee would not be inattentive to the peculiarembarrassments their brethren might be in, arising from the commotionsof America, at the commencement of the union; but they cannot allow thatthere is sufficient force in this to justify a deed of the kind, concertedand finished altogether independent of the church at home; did practicesof this kind become general, all social connection would be at an end.Changes in religion made by churches, especially those which affect thegeneral interests of the gospel and the common bond of union in the catholicbody, ought to be cautiously proceeded in. They are sorry to think, thatwhile their brethren have neglected the church here, they seem to havebeen carried on, in the completion of this union under the influence oftheir new friends; as, in the inconsistent jumble of principles emittedby the synod (if first principles they may be allowed to have) there areto be seen various traces of a seceding pen, and the cause of truth, formerlyin controversy betwixt the parties, is in a great measure yielded up. Theappellation, The Associate-Reformed Synod, by which they have distinguishedthemselves as a church, resigns the honors of the day to the seceding body,and seems to indicate a predilection for their testimony, in point of reformation-principles,before the testimony they had solemnly espoused; if the thing comprehendedunder the name had been right, the title of the court with more proprietywould have read, The Reformed-Associate Synod; as it is certainthere was a standing testimony for the reformation cause, long before theassociated seceders were heard of.This new synod, in the summary view they have exhibitedof their constitutional doctrinal principles, have thought proper to arrangethem under eight distinct articles, which the committee will examine inorder. In general, it may be remarked, that the expressions of the synodare laid in such ambiguous forms, and there are so numerous apparent inconsistenciesrunning through these articles, that it is no easy task to form an ideaof their genuine meaning: this duplicity of expression may have arisenfrom the different characters of the constituent members of the synod,as composed of persons formerly holding jarring principles, and who havenot, either one or all of the parties, so far as we are told, expresslyrenounced to one another their old principles; but the whole impelled froma fondness to become members of the same church, have conceived their termsof coalescence after such sort as to offend none, while, alas! precioustruth falls to the ground thereby.The first article sets out with the declared resolutionof the synod to adhere "to the system of truth laid down in the Holy Scriptures,and exhibited in the Confession of Faith, and Catechisms larger and shorter,"&c.If this article had ended in agreeableness to its beginning, little objectioncould have been made thereto, but the progress and conclusion of it stainthe beauty of the whole: the synod immediately say, "This declaration doesnot, however, extend to the following sections of the Confession of Faith,which define the powers of civil government in relation to religion,viz.chap. xx. sect. 4, chap. xxiii, sect. 8, chap. xxxi. sect. 2; these sectionsare resolved for a candid discussion on some future occasion, as God maybe pleased to direct." The synod are the best judges of their own reasonsfor making this exception of these passages out of their general acknowledgmentof the Confession of Faith, but tile passages themselves are all thoseparts of that excellent standard which define the powers of magistratesabout religion and the church of God. The defectiveness of the adoptingact of the synod is no dark evidence that they are not of the same faithwith our zealous reformers, else why refer it for future discussion onthis important subject? While they have not avowed their sentiments onthis head, the synod are liable to the charge of being deficient in fundamentals:there is reason to fear they may have caught the epidemic infection ofthe age, an evil that seems to rage violently in their own country, thatcivil government is conversant about secular affairs only. With whateverclass of professors this synod may he conjoined, they have no title tobe accounted the followers of the reformed-church of Britain and Ireland;a consent given by our brethren in synod to this exception involves themin deep apostacy from their former profession, and throws a slur upon theheroic contendings and sufferings of our pious ancestors for the divineordinance of civil government, and the principle upon which they actedin endeavoring to extend reformation, namely, that the revelation of themoral law in the word of God, wherever it obtains, obliges all nationsto conform thereto in their civil establishments; and that therefore whenthere is a contradiction and opposition to this law in the constitutionof magistracy there is a contradiction and opposition to the ordinanceof God’s precept, and so the constitutional deed does not oblige the inhabitantsin a subjection thereto for conscience sake, as to God’s ordinance.The synod plead a right to adjust the circumstances ofpublic worship, and ecclesiastical policy to the situation in which providencemay place them. In this respects the outward circumstances of worship asto time and place only, there can be no ground of contest here; a powerof this kind never was denied in the covenanted churches; but there isreason to apprehend something more is couched under the expression, asthe synod have warily adopted the Directory for public worship with generalreserve; did they speak out their sentiments more fully the world wouldknow them better. As to ecclesiastical policy; the policy ordained by theglorious Head of the church is invariably fixed by him to remain the samein all times and places: nor can there be any thing so very uncommon inthe state of the church of Christ in America, as to warrant this new synodto claim peculiar powers to themselves, in adjusting the circumstancesof her worship and government. The conclusion of this article grants aliberty to every member of synod to call in question, and dispute the truthof any article of their received confession of faith in open synod, providedit be managed with a becoming decorum. If a member of court shall be foundto deviate from the received faith and practice of the church, it becomesthe immediate duty of the court to endeavor to convince the conscienceof the offender, and to restore him again to the truth; but judicial permissiongranted to a member to introduce and dispute in open court his hereticalopinions, or to form objections to all the articles of revealed religionwithout holding the objector liable to censure, is not only highly dangerous,butit is utterly irreconcilable to the notion of first orreceived principles in a church. The moment Paul saw Peter to deviate fromthe truth of the gospel, he withstood him to the face because he was tobe blamed. The indulgence the synod have bestowed upon any of their members,is homogenious with the liberty they have taken to themselves in referringthe excepted articles of the Confession of Faith to a future discussion,which, if ever it take place, may either effectual their dissolution, orproduce an act of mutual forbearance, indulging one another in their respectiveopinions. The indulgence granted to their members, and the liberty assumedto themselves, go very far to pronounce that either there is nothing certainin religion, or that the synod have no positive system of faith deliveredto them, for which in duty they arc bound earnestly to contend againstall opposition from within and from without.In article second the synod "declare their hearty approbationof the earnest contending for the truth, and magnanimous sufferings inits defence by which their pious ancestors were enabled to distinguishthemselves in the two last centuries."' This declaration cannot be understoodin a sense more extensive than the act of synod adopting the reformationstandards, but it is well known the ordinance of civil government accordingto God’s word, as defined in the excepted articles of the Confession ofFaith, was one, and very particular one too, of the great truths for whichour ancestors in the last century bled and died; the synod therefore mighthave been so plain as to have set aside this also, and told the world theywould consider this head of suffering again, but for the present they hadnot made up their mind about it. They further declare their "affectionateremembrance of the National Covenant of Scotland, and of the Solemn Leagueand Covenant of Scotland, England, and Ireland, as well intended engagementsto support the cause of civil and religious liberty." Here the synod professa regard for our solemn covenants; but this profession of our brethrenis lame, in as much as they do not explicitly own the moral obligationof these national transactions upon themselves in their own persons; thoughthe descendants of such as vowed. Their language upon this point is rathershuffling; nor does their foot note amend the matter greatly. No changeof place can annul the obligation of an oath to Jehovah, consisting ofmoral duties upon the person or persons who have sworn it, of which kindour solemn covenants are; and if they are of this nature where can be theobjection against professing and holding out the same covenants, as tothe spirit and substance of them, (mutatis mutandis,) to the peopleof America, to be accepted and sworn by them in their respective placesand stations, any more than to those Isles? Moral duties are the same allthe world over, and professors of religion in America are as much boundto worship God after the manner pointed out in his own word, to supportthe purity of the ordinances of the ministry and magistracy, to love andperform all good offices to one another, to strengthen their hands mutuallyin the ways of the Lord, and to exert an active zealous opposition againstidolatry, heresy, and vice as the church in our own lands; but these werethe great objects of our solemn covenants, why not then bring the peopleof America under the same obligations in entering into a church capacitywithout delaying the work to an uncertain future period? Had the synodfelt in their consciences the obligation of the duty of explicit covenanting,as they profess to have done, why did they not proceed to testify thisin the performance of the duty itself, as a mean of cementing their union,of building up the kingdom of Christ among them, and of evidencing theircordial approbation of the covenanting conduct of our pious ancestors,in their noble struggle for civil and religious liberty? The synod holdthemselves bound by the divine authority to practise all the moral dutiescontained in our solemn covenants according to their circumstances. Hereagain the reader is left at a loss, they have not told us what moral dutiescomport with their circumstances and what not, though it is pretty evidentthat this limitation is intended to restrict the duties in these covenants;which renders their affectionate remembrance of them as deficient as theiracceptance of the other reformation standards. They also declare their"intention to carry with them all the judicial testimonies against defectionfrom the truth once delivered to the saints, which have been emitted inthe present age by their brethren in Britain, as far as these testimoniesserve to display the truth, and comport with the circumstances of theirchurch." Most of the approbations and disapprobations of this synod, asalso their resolutions to drop or prosecute the testimonies and confessionsof the church in Britain, are qualified from their own circumstances, which,in how far they differ from the circumstances of the church here, theyhave not told the world. To us it appears an inscrutable mystery, thata testimony displayed for the truth in Britain will not comport with thecircumstances of the church in America, or in any place of the world. Ithas long been the unhappiness of professors of religion in Britain andIreland to be divided in sentiment amongst themselves, which hath givenbirth to opposite testimonies. But for any thing the synod have declaredhere, no person can learn what testimony of the church in Britain theywish to support amongst themselves in America. This general and doubtfulplan of things, however, seems to be the great hinge on which the constitutionturns.In article third, the synod profess a regard for the religiousdenominations in Britain to which they formerly belonged, a desire to correspond,and to concur with them in promoting true religion. We would indeed fondlyhope our brethren have not altogether forgotten the church with which theyonce joined in sweet counsel in God’s house; but the committee have reasonto ask them, where the evidence of respect for the church and a desireto correspond with her appears, in the strange step they have taken toabandon her communion for the society of those against whom they had formerlytestified, without first obtaining from them a full renunciation of theirold errors.Our brethren now consider the church in Britain and Irelandas existing in no other relation to them than one to which "they formerlybelonged," a fair confession, they have cut the staff of bands asunder,and broken the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. As to the desire ofholding an amicable correspondence and of concurring with her in any justmeasure for promoting true religion, the question again, recurs where isthe consistency of doing this upon the principles of the synod while theydeclare, in article 4th, their fixed resolution never to suffer the religiouscontroversies of the church here to be introduced into their court, andalso in the rules of this new synod, subjoined to their articles, thatthey will receive no minister coming from this church into their communion,but upon the express condition of homologating this new constitution, withhis resolution pledged to adhere to it: though on the same terms they mightreceive one coming from the Papal or Episcopalian churches into the closestconnection with them. If the cause of the church in Britain and Irelandis the cause of God and true religion, why did they forsake her communion?if it is not, how will they justify their consciences in promoting withher the cause of error; and if they cannot admit the ministers of the churchin this country to officiate with them in the duties of the ministry inAmerica, how can they concur with them in their ministerial functions outof America? this strange inconsistency can be explained upon no principlebut this, that our brethren imagine the terms of ecclesiastical communionin and out of America to be diverse; but how very opposite is this to theholy scriptures, in which we are taught, there is but one body, onehope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. iv, 4. 5.In article fourth, the synod declare their resolution"never to suffer to be introduced into their church, the local controversiesabout the civil establishment of the Presbyterian religion—or any unnecessarydisputes about the origin of civil dominion." &c. And "they esteemthemselves bound to detach their religious profession from all foreignconnections." Here the synod have dug a deep and gloomy grave for the burialof the whole of the civil reformation of Britain and Ireland; never, atno future time, are the civil establishment of the Presbyterian religion,and the origin of civil dominion to be introduced as a subject of discussioninto their church. What more effectual measure could the most inveterateenemies of our reformation interest adopt to check its progress, and sinkits name into oblivion; after this barefaced decretal with what shew oftruth can the synod claim relation to the old reformers of these islands.While they declare their resolution, in the first article, to allow anyof their members the liberty of disputing in the face of their court thesoundness of all the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion; theyhere shut the door forever against making mention of our glorious civilreformation. But in doing so, they certainly have forgotten the reservetaken to themselves for admitting unto a candid discussion, in some futuretime, those sections of the Confession of Faith which treat of the originof civil dominion, the qualifications and duties of civil magistrates.To give a plausible coloring to this deed, the synod have called thesesubjects "local controversies" and "unnecessary disputes." For our partwe are ignorant of any doctrines in religion that can be considered local:the whole system of the Christian faith is committed as a trust to allnations, tongues and kindreds to whom it is revealed. It sometimes indeedhappens that a part of the catholic body of the church, living in a particularplace of the world, is providentially called out to defend a certain doctrineof the church’s faith impugned amongst them, (as was the case of the churchin these lands in relation to the civil establishment of the Presbyterianreligion and the origin of civil dominion) but this by no means rendersthe doctrine local; nay, the church resident in other places of the world,upon becoming acquainted therewith, is bound to approve and honour thecontending part in her maintenance of the truth; as much as the more remotemembers of an extended empire are bound to applaud the patriotic zeal oftheir fellow subjects, in repelling the invasion of the common enemy, thatmay have been more immediately directed against that part of the countrywhich they inhabit. Unnecessary disputes about religion ought ever to beavoided, but when the least iota of precious truth suffers opposition,silence in the church is a most heinous evil.—The synod’s resolution todetach their profession of religion from all foreign connections, containsin it the very soul and spirit of independency, and tends to destroy thatuniversal unity in faith, practice, profession, and testimony which cementstogether, before the world, the one church of the Living God, scatteredthrough the various kingdoms of the world. It savors too much of the spiritof the kingdoms of this world that claim internal sovereignty in Law, counsel,and operation, independent of each other; but since the spiritual kingdomof the Messiah is one in faith, in hope and baptism, &c. therecan be no foundation in its peculiar constitution, for a part thereof toavow a profession of religion detached from all other parts of the samekingdom divided from each other by extensive tracts, and wide oceans, orliving under distinct civil governments. But how does this deed of synodcomport with their readiness to concur with the church here in promotingtrue religion; since their religious profession has no connection withthat of our’s?In article fifth the synod lay down their sentiments aboutdiscipline, in the branches of deposition and excommunication. They speakof a distinction betwixt the deposition of minister, and a dissolutionof his connexion with their church. Query—What is the real difference thesynod would state betwixt a formal deposition, and a final dissolutionof the union betwixt them and a brother, upon offences given by him? Thesynod confine the ground of deposition to notorious violations of the lawof God, in practice, and such errors in principle as unhinge the christianprofession. But may not a violent opposition to any of the christian doctrinesand duties, engaged to by a minister at his ordination, accompanied witha contemptuous refusal to submit to his brethren over him in the Lord,be sustained as relevant rounds for inflicting upon him the censure ofdeposition from the office of the holy ministry, received by him on suchfooting? And is not a judicial dissolution of the connexion betwixt thesynod and a private member of the church: or in other words, a solemn judicialwithholding of the seals of the covenant from him, or her, as unworthyto partake thereof, an excommunication of the person from the privilegesof the christian church? If there be a difference, we would be glad toknow from our brethren in what it consists.In article sixth the synod hold out their terms of fixedcommunion to the world, and declare that these "shall be soundness in thetruth, as defined in the above mentioned Confessions of Faith, Catechisms,"&c.Communion with the church, is either christian or official; as no limitationis put upon communion, we are allowed to extend it to both kinds. The readeris advised, that the above mentioned are the terms of fixed communion;fixed communion seems to be opposed to what the synod, in the followingarticle, design by the name of occasional communion: as no distinctionis offered of this last kind of communion, the reader is left at an uncertaintywhat idea to affix thereto. Do our brethren by occasional communion, understandcommunion for once, or returning communion after long intervals? In whatlaws, or precedents of scripture have they found room for this divisionof communion? A distinction of this kind is found no where, but in thelatitudinarian opinions of men. Search the whole scriptures, and you willfind no traces of this, either in the Jewish or Christian church: theynever extended private or official communion to any, but those with whomthey meant to continue it, provided the receivers persevered to act conformablyto the dictates of their holy religion. How absurd would it be in the churchto bestow official communion upon a person, by investing him with the sacredoffice of the ministry, under a declaration, that, upon his installmenttherein, he was to be no longer of their communion? Is it not equally preposterousto admit unto the enjoyment of the privilege of the seals of the covenantof grace, a person, over whom the church has no jurisdiction? The synodhave established distinct terms of admission to each of these two kindsof communion; those who wish to enjoy their fixed communion, must be soundin the faith, as above defined; but we would ask our brethren, how cana person’s acknowledgment of the soundness of the faith, as expressed inthe confession, be stated as a term of communion, in a consistency withthe synod’s laying open all the doctrines of that confession to objections?nay, how can it be said there is any faith at all in a church, whose doctrinesare liable to disputation? The synod have set aside some articles of theConfession of Faith for future discussion, but, they have not said, anacknowledged adherence to the articles excepted out of the confession wouldbe reckoned by them unsoundness in the faith, and so to exclude the adherentfrom communion with their church.In article seventh, the synod declare their willingnessto hold occasional communion with churches of other denominations. Thisbehooves to be done either by admitting them to the privilege ofreceiving from the synod the seals of the covenant, and liberty to officiatein conjunction with their office bearers; or by their receivingthe same things from other denominations. The authority, under which theywould patronize this practice, is the following expression of the Confessionof Faith: "To extend communion to all who in every place call upon thename of the Lord Jesus;" these words are taken out of the Scriptures, andas explained in them, and understood by the compilers of the Confession,they mean those only who call upon, and worship the Lord Jesus,after the manner he has appointed to be done in his own divine institutionsand ordinances; and not those who profess to call upon and worship theLord Jesus in a way not established by him in his word. All christian sectariesprofess to call upon and worship the Lord Jesus; Popish, Episcopalian,Arminian, do so; but we are commanded to go to the law and testimony, forif any speak not according to these things, it is because there is no lightin them. The synod’s application of the expression to support the causeof promiscuous communion, on certain occasions, is a gross perversion ofits genuine meaning. There is nothing in the practice of our reformersto vindicate their sense of it. The Solemn League and Covenant, in whichour reformers league and bind themselves together, or state the terms ofcommunion with them by others, is such, as may easily convince any person,that the synod’s interpretation of this passage is fallacious. The kindof communion plead for by the synod here, shifts the ground of church fellowshipfrom an agreement in the faith and practice of true religion, to the supposedgoodness of persons; a most dangerous maxim in the communion of the church.In the eighth and last article, the synod make anotherboast of having detached their principles from local peculiarities; a strikingindication of their conceited fondness for this new modeled professionof their own, by which they would bury in everlasting oblivion all thatthe good hand of God upon his people enabled them to do for his cause andinterest, in former ages, and different countries from their own, as inclusiveof both the principles of religion on which they proceeded, and the applicationthereof to particular objects, as presented in the course of providence.In this article they also point out the mode to be observedby persons in making application for admission to fixed communion withthem; and enjoin it upon bodies of people belonging to other denominationsof Presbyterians, who cannot be seasonably provided in gospel ordinancesby the judicatory under whose inspection they are, that, previous to theirbeing admitted into communion with the synod, they shall inform the judicatoryover them, of the reasons of their intended application, and use all duemeans to obtain the concurrence of the judicatory. To us this appears tobe a very strange plan of forming church connections; inasmuch as it impliesthat these bodies of people, supposed to make application to the synod,are still of the same principles with those of the church to which theyformerly belonged, as different from the principles of the synod, but findingit difficult for the time being to receive a full supply of gospel ordinances,have thought proper to apply to the synod for that purpose. If these supposedbodies of people shall be found so loose as to seek admission into communionwith a church whose principles they cannot adopt; a church professing tobear a pointed testimony against the errors which prevail in their country,should be so strict as not to open the gates of their church fellowshipto admit them; nor is there any weight in the destitute state of thesebodies of people, to warrant a church to deviate from the plain path ofduty to extend relief to them. But this charitable decision of synod exhibitsin a moving light their wide latitudinarian scheme of communion. If thesebodies of people had seen the evil of their former principles, and thesoundness of those of the synod, they might well state before the judicatory,from which they withdrew, their errors, as just grounds of a separation;but, in this case, there is no necessity for them to endeavour to procurethe concurrence of the judicatory in their intended application to anothercourt; nay, it would he absurd and inconsistent in them once to attemptit, and while the synod oblige them to do so, as it recognizes the lawfulnessof the authority of the judicatory over them, so it has a manifest tendencyto destroy what is the only justifiable ground of forsaking the communionof a church, viz. defection from the faith and ordinances of Christ.The synod would do well recollect the words of the prophet, Open yethe gates that righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in. Isa.xxvi. 2.The questions to be proposed unto those who enter intooffice contained in the formula, and the rules established for directingthe judicial operations of the synod, in so far as these reduplicate uponthe articles, must be viewed in the same light with them. On the whole,the committee find themselves in duty bound to testify against this synodicalunion of their brethren, with those of the seceding ministers, with whomthey have chosen to associate themselves, on the reasons assigned above,and therefore they did, and hereby do, testify, and declare against thisas an ambiguous—defective—loose—unstable—latitudinarian—and local union,opposite to, and eversive of, the covenanted union of Britain and Ireland,in the bond of which they and their brethren were once connected. An ambiguousunion, the terms of it being so very doubtful; a defective union, omittingsome of the substantial truths of God, and attainments of the reformedcovenanted church of Britain and Ireland; a loose union, being foundedon very general principles; an unstable union, referring truths about whichmembers are not supposed to be agreed to a future discussion, which mayin the issue tend to annihilate the synodical connection; a local union,being detached from all foreign connections with the Christian church inany other parts of the world, and having for its limits the boundariesof the American states.The committee having delivered their sentiments concerningthis synodical union, would now entreat their brethren, in the bowels ofour Lord Jesus Christ, seriously to review the nature and tendency of theunion in the light of the word of God, to give their observations on ita dispassionate hearing, and, persuaded as they are, that their brethrenwill find them agreeable to truth, to allow them to have their due influenceupon their minds; in doing which they must be convinced, that in the hourof coalition, they have been deceived into an apostacy from their formerprofession, though perhaps meaning to act in the spirit of it, and thattherefore their present duty, remembering from whence they have fallen,is to repent, return, and to do their first works. The gracious call ofGod to them in his word is, Turn, O backsliding children, for I am marriedunto you;—the expostulation of this church with them is, Why shouldour staff of brotherhood be broken asunder? we are brethren, the sons ofone mother; why then should division be found amongst us? Though you arenow in the hands of another fellowship, it is not yet too late to thinkof disconnection. We are afraid there are some amongst you who troubleyou, and labor to pervert the faith you once espoused, and have so farbrought you into bondage, but on your return to your former professionand duty, be assured you will find the church here ready to embrace youwith the most cordial reception. As your defection from her communion hathwounded her dearest comforts, nothing but your return can furnish to hertrue consolation; she hath no greater joy than when all her connectionswalk in the truth. Be persuaded then, our dear brethren, to reflectupon your present course; try your ways—and speedily turn your feet untoGod’s testimonies; which may the Lord himself, who gathers the dispersedof Israel into one, enable you to do. But if it shall be our mortificationto find, that you still remain inflexible in your present union, then wemust adjure you to hear witness, that not we, but you, by an obstinatedereliction of the common profession we made of the covenanted testimonyof Christ, have broken our ecclesiastical union, that all the disagreeableconsequences resulting therefrom lie at your door; and to a greater thanman you have to answer.To those of the people who, following their ministers,have been drawn away from their profession, into a submission to this synodin their scheme of principles, the committee would say, What cause haveyou now discovered in the good profession you once made, that you haveso far turned your back upon it? where now is that ancient zeal, whichcarried you over these wide seas to this country, to seek for yourselvespastors of the reformation church? Have length of time, political revolutions,and the influence of falling churchmen, extinguished all that? But, Ohconsider! that no vicissitudes in human affairs can produce any alterationin the precepts of religion, and the permanent obligation lying upon usto prosecute the same. Believe it that the changes which have of late passedover your country, and the instability of your spiritual guides leave thecause of truth the name; hearken to it, dear friends, apostacy inthe members of the church, is a very heinous evil before that God who keepethtruth for evermore; defection from, or neutrality about any divine truth,opens a door for more of the same kind. A loose scheme of principles, suchas is that of the synod, whereby defection is promoted from former attainments,and the communion of the church laid open to the supposed pious of alldenominations, has a native tendency to introduce into the church indifferenceabout every other truth, but those which are supposed to be amongst theessentials of salvation, and who can say where suppositions of this kindwill stop? Though the ministers you obtained from this church have deviatedfrom the profession they made at the time you received them in that character,and the relation was formed between you and them, that by no means laysany obligation upon you to follow them in their back-sliding ways. Letit not be always said, The leaders of this people have caused them toerr. Recall to your minds the many awful threatenings a jealous Godhath denounced in his word against those who turn aside; though he maygive pardon to his own people, guilty in this respect, he will certainlytake vengeance upon their inventions. There is one request the church inthis country hath to ask of you, which is that you will attentively considertheir judgment of the synodical union, to which your practices have saidAmen; and, if with them you are now able to discern it to be an union whichhath involved in apostacy all parties, it will be truly Christian and noblein you to disclaim all future connection with it, and again to return tothe profession of the truth, in which desirable event, the church thatnourished you in your infancy, will, with parental affection rejoice toreceive you as her returning children into her tenderest care, and, bythe assistance of God, bestow upon you all the help their situation canafford; but, if deaf to the voice of the church, you persevere in the choiceyou have made, then know that there hath been a warning sent you from theword of the Lord—and it is at your peril to reject it.Before we conclude, the committee would tender a few thingsto those private Christians who have transmitted by letters their complaintupon the union of synod. Though the apostacy of the ministers, and thegreat majority of the people have given them the most sensible pain; notwithstandingthe committee rejoice to find, that there are any left in the church inAmerica, who have not bowed the knee to this synodical union, and, thatthe Lord hath still a remnant to witness for himself, in that quarter ofthe world. The committee condole most feelingly with the disappointed,destitute, and tried condition of those members; and they do assure themthey have the tenderest sympathy of the church in this country, who desirenot to forget them in their prayers before the great Shepherd of Israel,who knows all his own sheep, and is known of them. To those members thecommittee would recommend a patient continuance in a wise, bold, and steadfastmaintenance of the covenanted testimony of the church of Britain and Irelandin her purest times; a testimony that hath been marked with signal tokenof the divine approbation; stood the test of ages; and has been sealedwith the best blood of faithful martyrs. As ye have withstood the forceof the artifices laid to ensnare you into the common apostacy, in the dayof coalition, endeavor, in dependence upon grace, still to exercise a continuedvigilance, lest any avail themselves of philosophy and vain deceit to spoilyou of your crown of glory. You have kept the ground whilst others havefallen, let it never be said, in any after period, that ye also have goneaway. Remember that perseverance to the end is the criterion of Christ’sfaithful witnesses. Deserted by your spiritual guides, who were hound towatch over your souls in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, as itwould be inconsistent with a proper testimony against their backsliding,so it is far from being the judgment of this church to advise you to goafter them, and now to attend upon their official ministrations; you willat once evidence the truest love for their good, and exhibit the fairesttestimony against their evils, by a continued declining of their publicministry; and though in your forlorn state, you may not enjoy the sweetvoice of the gospel from the mouth of men, as formerly, yet remember, thatthe Master of assemblies can feed your souls, manifest himself to yourconsolation, and advance your eternal salvation, in the believing and diligentuse of the private means of grace, to which the faithful have often hadrecourse in similar circumstances, and which in their joyful experience,have been found to be to their disconsolate souls refreshing wells of salvation.Whilst thus appearing in the public character of witnesses, forget notthat your great spiritual duty is, to live in the daily exercise of faithupon Jesus, a crucified Saviour, for the sanctification of your persons,and the establishment of your practices in the paths of true and undefiledreligion, against the power of the prevailing vices wherewith you are surrounded.Let your lights of truth, holiness, and virtue so shine before others,that you may be the acknowledged followers of the Lamb; let the wisdomof serpents and the innocence of doves mark all your footsteps; rememberthat a life of good offices to all, and a tender concern for souls, areinsuperable from the character of true Church members. Those of you wholive contiguous will see it to be your duty, and find it to be your interest,to convene upon the holy Sabbath, and at other seasons, for the performanceof private social worship; and all of you ought to form a general correspondenceamongst yourselves, in order to strengthen the hands of one another inyour present broken state, in supporting the cause of truth we all profess.The Church in this country is willing to hold a correspondence with you;—asa proof of which they have transmitted this short view of their judgmentof the union, both for the conviction of declining members, and the confirmationof you who still avow an adherence to your ancient profession; but, asthey are partly ignorant of the state of matters amongst you at large,and as there may be internal differences amongst you in relation to yourduty to the ministers of your former connexion, (a thing scarcely to bewondered at, in your very trying situation,) they would desire you to meettogether amongst yourselves, or so to correspond, as to be able to collectthe views of different persons, where they disagree; and, along with these,to send over a state of your situation, at large, from which they willbe better enabled to judge of your case; till then, they assure you oftheir most sincere wishes for your prosperity in religion, and your steadfastnessin the truth, under the great trial Divine Providence hath laid beforeyou. As to your desire, that the Church would so far sympathize with yourdestitute state, as to send over a supply of ministers to dispense to youthe ordinances of salvation, we can assure you, that they are ready todo every thing in their power for your edification; and sincerely wishthey may be enabled to grant you the prayer of your request, in sendingover a mission of faithful laborers into our vineyard, if future informationexpected from you shall discover this to be our duty; but they would wishto wait the issue of their judgment of the union upon the ministers whohave left you, and also your return, both of which may tend to throw morelight upon their duty in this particular. And now, dear Christian friendsand brethren in the Lord Jesus, we recommend you to the care of theChief Shepherd, in whose hands Jehovah hath entrusted both the concernsof his own glory, and the salvation of his people; nay, he looks upon yourafflictions, and sends seasonable help to you in your extremity; and, whenit would have been no hard thing for his Almighty power to have raisedIsaac out of his own ashes, may he raise up to you a faithful priesthood,that will execute all his pleasure. May the spirit of wisdom be given untoyou, to know the times and your own duty therein. Farewell, dearly belovedin the Lord."The observations of the Committee upon the articles ofunion being read before the Reformed Presbytery, were approved by them;and the Presbytery order them to be printed, and to be transmitted, withall convenient speed to America."Extracted by ARCHD.MASON, Cl[erk] Pr[esbytery]." Footnote:[1] See page 27of the Constitution of the Associate Reformed Synod, when treating on thesubject of rules. [back]Return to Homepage |
|
