Mr. Marshal and Mr. Clarkson, with three elders, had dissented from this proposition in 1779, "judging it to be ambiguous, and such "as consisted with the opinions of those who hold, that scripture "qualifications are necessary to the being of magistracy, where they "have been made so by the people; that the kingdom of Providence, "as it respects the natural ordering of things to their natural ends, "abstracting from their subserviency to the good of the church, be"longs to Christ as Mediator; and that the Bible is formally the rule "of magistrates in the execution of their office, in the same sense in "which it is the rule of ministers in the administration of gospel or"dinances; Popish and Erastian tenets, which have been a source of great distraction and ruin in the world." It may therefore be observed, that the proposition agreed to in 1779, was a declining from the principles of the associate body on the head of the civil magistrate; and so was this article, in which that proposition was approved, in place of the proposition on that head, agreed to as the basis of an union between the two bodies, the preceding year; the words of which proposition, I shall now read:

66

"As long as magistrates in the administration of government, do "not violate the fundamental articles of the constitution; that is, "while they protect the lives and property of subjects, and do not "exercise tyranny over their consciences, though these officers of "government do not profess the true religion, we ought to be subject to their lawful commands for conscience sake; or, in other words, "protection and allegiance are reciprocal. Therefore all men, whe"ther heathens or christians, whether professors of the true religion, "or apostates from it, have a natural right, to form themselves into a "body politic, and to elect officers to rule and govern them. The "apostacy of Britain from the covenanted reformation, does not de"prive them of a right to civil government; and the want of scrip"tural or covenanted qualifications in their rulers, does not absolve "the people of God from an obligation to be obedient to the civil ma"gistrate in lawful commands; as the whole of the magistrate's power ❝lies within the compass of natural principles."

In short, with regard to the articles in general, that were carried in the associate presbytery in 1782, they had either the same meaning with the propositions which were agreed to by that presbytery the year before, or they had a different meaning. If they had a different ineaning, then, an agreement to them was a departure from the principles of the secession: for, it could not be denied, that the principles stated in the propositions agreed to in 1781, were those of the secession. But if they had the same meaning, the proposal of them to the members of the reformed presbytery, as if they were different from the propositions which they had rejected, (for they had solemnly rejected these propositions,) was dishonest and insiduous. It may be added, that if the agreement of the members of the associate presbytery to the articles carried in the presbytery in 1782, was a declining from the principles of the secession, as it was a receding from their own former propositions; it was much more so, as it was a receding from the ample exhibition of the principles of the secession in the Judicial Testimony, in the act concerning the doctrine of grace, in the act for renewing the covenants national and solemn league, in

the declaration concerning civil government, and in the act against a new scheme of universal redemption, to all which these members had vowed adherence.

In the second place, that this union made a change in the public profession of the Seceding ministers, appears from the change which it made in their relation to the associate synod, and other religious bodies in Scotland. Before the union, they stood in a peculiar relation to that synod, as maintaining a testimony both against the established church there, and against other parties; particularly, against the burghers and the reformed presbytery, on account of errors in their public profession. Of the various religious societies in Great Britain, it was only the associate synod that the members of the associate presbytery of Pennsylvania were, before this time, connected with in church communion. But now, according to the design of this union, those who joined in it, and their followers, were to have no more connexion with that synod, than with the other bodies now mentioned; or rather, that connexion was to be dissolved for the sake of new connexions. When the articles, which we have considered, were carried by the casting vote of the moderator, Mr. Marshal and Mr. Clarkson, with three elders, protested against any farther proceeding in this union on the ground of these articles, and appealed to the associate synod. They, who were the majority, refused to admit the protest, on account of the appeal it contained. In the very act of refusing this protest and appeal, it appeared, as Mr. Marshal justly observes, that they had changed their ground. We may warrantably infer the change of their public profession, from the change of their ecclesiastical connexions.

In the third place, it appears that those ministers, who joined in this union, changed their public profession, because, in consequence of that step, they ceased to exhibit any particular testimony or declaration of the grounds of their separate communion, or to require of their people any adherence to such a declaration, as a part of their public profession. Mr. Wilson informs us, that, in his time, the associate presbytery required such as acceded to them, or came under their inspection, to signify their approbation of the Judicial Testimony; and Mr. Gellatly assures us, that the same thing was one of the terms of communion, which he and his brethren used to declare to the people on preparation days, before the administration of the Lord's supper. The associate reformed synod said, in the first edition of their constitution, "that it was their intention to avail "themselves of every call to bear a pointed testimony against the ❝errors and delusions which prevail in this country." These words led some people in their communion to expect that the synod intended to publish a testimony similar to that of the associate presbytery in the year 1736. But after these people had waited several years, they were given to understand, that no other fixed testimony was intended to be exhibited by this synod, than the confession of faith, the larger and shorter catechisms, the directory for worship, and the form of church government; and in 1797, the synod published an act assigning

* Vindication, &c. page 36. † Continuation of the Defence, chap. v.

+ Mr. Gellatly's Observations on the Detection Detected, page 198.

reasons for this determination. This was manifestly a departure from the public profession of the secession church. For that profession acknowledges that several even of those churches, which own these composures of the Westminster assembly, are still going on in such a course of obstinate and increasing defection from reformation attained, as requires the faithful who are in a state of secession from them, to continue, as yet, in that state. This acknowledgment, which is certainly asked of all who join in the communion of the secession church, is not made by a simple assent to the Westminster assembly's confession, catechisms, form of church government, and directory for worship. For these compositions, however excellent, give no description of the present state of the visible church; and without such a description understood and assented to, the acknowledgment now mentioned cannot be made. Those therefore who, after they have been members of the secession church, have discarded a testimony describing the errors and other evils of the present day, and hold an assent to the confession of faith, and the other compositions, now mentioned, of the Westminster assembly to be a sufficient profession in the present state of the church, are no more adhering to the peculiar profession of the secession body: they have changed their ground; and join themselves. to those who both own that confession and openly reject the secession testimony.

In the fourth place, the occasional communion, acknowledged to be a duty in the first constitution of the associate reformed synod, indicates a departure from the public profession of Seceders. The occasional communion meant is not the sacramental communion to which persons are occasionally admitted in one part of the church, while their usual place of abode, and of attendance on public ordinances, is in another part of it. The warrantableness of such occasional communion is not disputed. But what is intended is a communion sometimes in public, and even sealing ordinances with pious people of other denominations, who obstinately reject some part of our public profession; and therefore have not fixed communion with us. It is the catholic or latitudinarian scheme of church communion, which we formerly considered, and against which the secession church has uniformly testified ever since its erection.

Other things might he mentioned to this purpose; but what has now been advanced is sufficient to shew, that the ministers of the secession who joined in this union changed their public profession: they relinquished a purer witnessing profession; and adopted one that was laxer, more accommodating and congenial to the ruling principles and manners of the times.

§ 85. Alex. The plan of the associate reformed synod tends to union; whereas the testimony of the Seceders is used by many of them as the rallying point of party; and tends to inflame the wounds in the body of Christ, which it should be our study to have speedily and thoroughly healed.

Ruf. In order to determine whether the plan of the associate reformed synod be preferable to that of the associate body, two or three things ought to be considered.

In the first place, it ought to be enquired, whether the rallying of Seceders, or their uniting in one body under the banner of a Testimo

ny, be only for propagating the knowledge and profession of the truth as it is in Jesus, and the practice of the duties he has enjoined ? If this be the whole design of their testimony, it ought rather to be esteemed the rallying point of all the friends of Christ, than that of a party. On the other hand, if any assert that something else is the design of their testimony and association; the assertion must either be proved; or it must be considered as no better than the calumnies that were cast by the heathens upon the primitive christians; and by the followers of the papal antichrist upon those that appeared as faithful witnesses against their abominations.

In the next place, it ought to be enquired, Whether the plan of the associate reformed synod in relation to our communion be not more schismatical and irregular, than that of the associate body: Both these bodies keep up a separate communion but there is one obvious difference between them; which is, that, whilst the former in their testimony, deal plainly with us, declaring the reasons of their separate communion, the latter are silent on that head. It is schismatical and disorderly for any to keep up a separate communion, when their declared reasons are not sufficient. But it is still more so, to keep up a separate communion, without any declared reasons at all. In this respect the plan of the associate reformed synod appears to be an inexcusable violation of the peace of the church. Their separate communion, if they have nothing of importance to offer as the ground of it, is very sinful; as it promotes groundless prejudices and calumnious misrepresentations: it makes a division in the church of Christ without shewing how it may be healed. The people that belong to such a separate communion, if they are not furnished with solid and scriptural reasons, are apt to take up with any uncertain report or factious opinion that occurs, as an apology for their party. How many at this day are keeping up separate communions ignorantly, or from a regard to old or local customs received by tradition from their fathers; that is, they are perpetuating unreasonable divisions in the church of Christ, in which there ought to be no divisions at all.* But if the members of the associate reformed synod have important reasons for their separate communion, they ought to declare plainly what they are. While they neglect to do so, they neither act a faithful part towards God, nor a friendly part towards us: they ought not to suffer sin upon us: in doing so they evidence, in the scripture sense, not love, but hatred to us.t

Alex. However the associate reformed synod stand affected to us, they are plainly enough against the Seceders. How excellently do they reason against the seceding scheme of having another standing testimony than our confession of faith!" Unless the synod," say they, "should emit a testimony which would be an immense work, of which "the very bulk would defeat the intention, it would scarcely give a "correcter view of the principles of the synod, than is already given " in their received confession; because it could scarcely hold forth any truths, which are not therein held forth, or state them upon the "whole with more luminous precision. The opinion, that such a tes"timony is needful to ascertain the synod's principles, is a direct im"peachment of the confession itself; since, if they are not sufficiently

66

* 1 Corinth. i. 10. † Levit xix.

"ascertained by this, it must be either lame or ambiguous; and then "the church demands, not a separate testimony, but an amended con❝fession. If any parts of it are differently interpreted and abused to "the promotion of error, these ought to be explained in detached acts; "and such explanation belongs strictly to the province of occasional

"testimonies."

Ruf. What the associate reformed synod seems to intend in these words is a work of a quite different kind from the Secession Testimony first published by the associate presbytery in Scotland, and since that time by the associate presbytery of Pennsylvania. The testimony described by the associate reformed synod has no reference to the event of a secession. For what they say about illustrating the truths of God held forth in the Westminster confession; about supplying what is defective, or explaining what is obscure, might be proper in any state of the church; or upon supposition, there was no more divisions in it than when the Westminster confession was compiled. The immediate and peculiar design of the secession testimony is quite different: it is to enumerate those corruptions in doctrine, worship, discipline and government; which, considered complexly, were the ground of a secession; the continuance of which corruptions occasions the continuance of a separate communion. Thus some articles of their testimony, as it is stated by the associate presbytery of Pennsylvania, respect the corruptions that had taken place in the church of Scotland. Some articles refer to the tenets of Messrs. Simson and Campbel; such as, those testifying against the opinion of an obscure, objective revelation of grace made to the heathens, which is sufficient for their salvation; and against the denial of the necessary Existence and Supreme Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ; against the denial of Adam's representation of his natural descendants in the covenant of works; against the scheme that makes self-interest or happiness the chief end and motive of all virtuous and religious actions. Other articles refer to an act of the general assembly condemning some doctrines said to be taught in the book, entitled, the Marrow of Modern Divinity: such as, the articles testifying against those who teach the following erroneous opinions, namely, that men in their natural state are not under the law as a covenant of works; that the gospel is a new law having commands and threatenings peculiar to itself, which do not belong to the law given to Adam; that the offer of salvation in the gospel is made to none but awakened and penitent sinners; that no particular assurance or confidence, that we, in particular, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, shall be saved, belongs to the nature of saving faith; that believers are still under the command of the law as a covenant of works; and that the fear of punishment and hope of reward are their chief motive to obedience. Other articles refer to the latitudinarian scheme of church communion; the influence of which was a principal cause of the secession in Scotland, and of the separate communion of Seceders being kept up both there and in this country; such as, the articles testifying against those who teach the following erroneous opinions; namely, that we ought not to separate from a church because of its corruptions and its obstinacy in them, till we are assured, that it is become wholly a synagogue of Satan; that the matters, about which men reputed wise and pious differ, ought