6. We testify against the tyranny exercised upon James McKinney, of Coldenham, who was not allowed to read his vindication and justification, when he asked permission to do so, from the published sentiments of some of those who condemned him!!! Also the cruelty practiced toward Miss King, an absent member, whose representation of her case to the Synod, could not so much as be heard. We bear testimony against those who in that Synod would interrupt, call to order—in violation of order—those members who were appearing in defense of injured truth, and who were often silenced by tumult, or the call of order by an obsequious moderator. Especially do we testify against the dishonesty and unfaithfulness of that body, displayed by them in disposing of the paper inserted (see p. 132), calling Synod's attention to what we firmly believe to be the source of all the error, guilt and distractions incident or attending to that body for many years.
On the practice of confederating with the enemies of God, we testify against this party, not only for the fact of so confederating, but also, and chiefly, for resisting the evidence of God's word, often adduced in condemnation of the practice—refusing to hear the testimonies, experience, and reasoning of Christ's witnesses and martyr's when cited from the Cloud of Witnesses, Informatory Vindication, Gillespie on Confederacies, &c; and for obstinately going on in this trespass, in the face of manifold convictions from living witnesses and providential rebukes.
As it respects ecclesiastical relations, we testify against these former brethren for having wittingly, perseveringly, and presumptuously fostered schism in the visible church, manifestly for carnal ends, during many years. It is notorious that five Synods are in organic fellowship, while hardly two of them will hold ministerial or sacramental communion! What a picture does this state of things in the professing church of Christ present to the infidel; how hardening to the self-righteous and the openly profane! And although conventional regulations be lightly looked upon by many, not being based upon express words of scripture; yet when framed and engaged to, according to the general rules of scripture, much sin is the result of violating them, and trampling them under foot, as has often been done by this body of people. This has been the case in Presbyteries, subordinate Synods, and especially in the general Synod. Subordinate Synods have been dissolved by the action of the general Synod after they had ceased to be; and without consulting the Presbyteries, who alone were competent to decree or dissolve the delegation form of the general Synod, that court dissolved itself, after having many years trampled upon the law of Presbyteries fixing the ratio of delegation. Against such reckless, disorderly procedure we testify as being the cause or occasion of much sin against Zion's King, and much suffering to his precious people.
Finally—We solemnly enter our protestation against this church, as having taken the lead of most others in razing the very foundation stone of the covenanted structure. All the evils that have befallen the professed friends of a work of reformation on both sides of the Atlantic are traceable to a setting aside the footsteps of the flock from being terms of ecclesiastical communion. It is now more than ten years since this important matter was expressly submitted to the Old Light Synod's consideration, and during the subsequent period, in various forms, the same has been pressed, but without effect; except as manifesting more fully their obduracy. They refuse still to return, Ephraim-like, going on frowardly in the way of their own heart.
That uninspired history ought to be incorporated among the terms of communion in the Church of Christ, is a proposition which we firmly believe, on the evidence both of reason and Scripture, although denied, condemned, and rejected by all pretenders to reformation attainments. That history and argument are so rejected by all parties affecting to be reformed churches, will appear from the following citations from their own authoritative judicial declarations: "Authentic history and sound argument are always to be highly valued; but they should not be incorporated with the confession of the Church's faith." "The Declaratory part is, the Church's standing Testimony."—Ref. Prin. Exhibited, preface—edition, 1835. Here history and argument are both excluded, not only from the Church's testimony but also from her confession! This is the declared sentiment of Old and New Light Covenants, together with the Safety League people—evidencing to all who are free from party influence, that however they differ in practice, on this all important point they perfectly harmonize in principle. East of the Atlantic, among the three Synods professing to follow the footsteps of the flock, the declared sentiment is the same, but then they differ from their brethren in practice—mingling with the heathen and learning their works without scruple. In this respect they are more consistent than the other parties, though more visibly corrupt.
The Reformed Dissenters "prefix a Narrative to their testimony," thus rejecting history from testimony. Some advocates for union in conventions of reformed churches, have plead for a historical introduction to their proposed testimony; but they have carefully assured the public that this introduction shall constitute no term of union or communion. Thus, it is evident, that all the professed followers of the British Reformers around us, have cast off this reformation attainment from the standards of their professions severally. We condemn this church-rending and soul-ruining sentiment, and testify against all who maintain it, for the following reasons:
First, on their part it is inconsistent and self-contradictory. They all say they are following the footsteps and holding the attainments of the Scottish Reformers. But how do they discover these footsteps, or how ascertain these attainments? Are they recorded in the Bible? No. Are they to be found elsewhere but in uninspired history? Certainly no where else. Yet all these parties absurdly reject uninspired history from their bonds of fellowship! and still venture to tell the world, they are holding fast these attainments!! This is solemn trifling, profane mockery. Second. This position is unsound and false in the light of reason. All civilized nations, as well as the Jews, have it written in their laws, "That the testimony of two men is true." The witnesses do not need to be inspired to be credible. "We receive the witness of men," although a "false witness will utter lies." No society can exist without practical recognition of the credibility of human testimony; and this is especially true of the "Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth;" for, Third. In the light of Scripture, her members cannot perform some of their most important duties, either to God or to one another if they irrationally and wickedly relinquish this principle. God's people are charged "not to forget his mighty works;" Psa. lxxviii. 7. Are these works all written in the Bible? They are required to confess their fathers' sins, as well as their own. Since the divine canon was closed, many sins have been, and now are chargeable against professing Christians. Are these recorded in the Scriptures? And thus the reader may ask himself of sin and duty to any extent, in relation to God as a party.
And the same is true of the second table of the moral law. For example: in reference to "the first commandment with promise," should the Christian minor be asked as the Jew did his Lord, "Who is your father?" How shall he answer? Is he warranted to appeal to God to manifest his earthly sonship? No; but he is required by God's law to "honor his father;" and his obedience to this command is grounded on human testimony as to the object to whom this honor is due. Thus consistency, reason and scripture combine, to accuse and fasten guilt—the guilt of apostasy upon all who have renounced that fundamental principle of our glorious covenanted reformation—that history and argument belong to the bond of ecclesiastical fellowship. With any who hold the theory here condemned, however exemplary or even conscientious in morals and religion they may appear, we can have no ecclesiastical fellowship; for, however ardent their attachment or strong their expressions of affection to Confession, Catechisms, Covenants, &c.; they give no guarantee of competent intelligence or probable stability; as alas! we see in the present declining course of many in our day.
We would earnestly and affectionably beseech all well wishers to a covenanted work of reformation: that they would take into their serious consideration whether these things are, or are not connected inseparably with the wellfare of Zion. Especially would we expostulate with such as have any regard for the Judicial Testimony adopted at Ploughlandhead, Scotland, in 1761: that they conscientiously compare it with the book called Reformation Principles Exhibited, and also with the new Scottish Testimony, where it is practicable, and all these with the supreme standard, the holy scriptures. They will find on examination, that these are wholly irreconcilable in the very form of testimony-bearing. Particularly, let the reader notice that our fathers in 1761, considered history and argument as constituting their testimony: and did not look upon doctrinal declaration as formal testimony at all. Look at the very title page of their Testimony; where you read, "Act, Declaration and Testimony," plainly distinguishing between declaration and Testimony. Now, all innovators make doctrinal declaration their testimony, reversing our fathers' order; yea, we would add God's order, for he distinguishes between his law and testimony; Ps. lxxviii, 5-7; cv, 42-45. God's special providences toward his covenanted people constitute his testimony by way of eminence; Exod. xx, 1, &c., and their conduct under his providences constitute their testimony, which must consist of history; and by this and the blood of the Lamb, Christ's witnesses are destined to overcome all anti-christian combinations.
In attempting thus to follow the approved example of our covenant fathers, whose practice it was to testify not only against the corruptions of ecclesiastical, but also of civil constitutions, where their lot was cast, we deem it incumbent on us to continue our testimony first published in 1806, against the immoralities incorporated with the government of these United States.