"Another point'which has been in controversy is the national obligation of the religious covenants euteied into in this land. The doctrine of the New Testimony is that 'religious covenanting is entirely an ecclesiastical duty;' that persons enter into it 'as members of the Church, and not as members of the State;' that 'these in- vested with civil power have no other concern with it than as Church members;' and accordingly it restricts the obligation of the coveinmts of this land to peisous of all ranks only in their spiritual character and as Church members. But it cannot admit of a doubt that the Na- tional and Solemn League and Covenant were national oaths in the most proper sense of the word ; that they were intended as such by those who framed them, and that they were thus interpreted by the three kingdoms; the civil rulers entering into them, enacting them, and setting them forward iniheir public capacity, as well as the ecclesiastical. And the uniform opinions of Presby- terians from the time they were taken has been that they are binding in a national as well as ecclesiastical point of view. I shall only produce the testimony of one respect- able writer (principal Forrester): 'The binding force,' says he, 'of these engagements app-ears in the subjects they aflect; as, first, our Church in her representatives, and, in Iheir most public capacity, the general assemblies in both nations: second, the state representatives aud parliaments. Thus all assurances are given that either civil or ecclesiastical laws can aflbrd ; and the public faith of Chnich and State is plighted with inviolable ties, so that they must stand while we have a Church or State iu Scot- land. Both as men and as Christians, as members of the Church and State, under either a religious or civil consid- eration, we stand hereby inviolably engaged; and not only representatives, but also the incorporations (or body) of Church and State are under the same. On this broad ground have Presbyterians stated the obligation of the covenants of this kind. And why should they not ? Why should we seek to narrow their obligation ? Are we afraid that these lands should be too closely bound to the Lord ? If religious covenanting be a moral duty, if oaths and vows are founded in the light of nature as well as in the Word of God, why should liot men be capable of entering into them, and of being bound by them in every character in which they are placed under the moral government of God, as men and as Christians, as members of the Cluirch and of the State, whenever there is a call to enter into such covenants as have respect to all these characters, as was the case iu the covenants of our ancestors, which se- ceders have witnessed for and formally renewed? In the former Testimony witness was expressly borne to the na- tional obligation of these covenants.' In speaking of the National Covenant, it says, 'By this solemn oath and cov- enant this kingdom made a national surrender of them- selves unto the Lord.' It declares that the Solemn League
ORIGINAL BURGHP:RS
438
ORIGINAL BURGHERS
and Covenant was entered into and is binding upon the tliree kingdoms ; that both of them are binding npon the Church and lauds, and tlie Cliurch and nations. The deed of civil constitutions is said to have been settled in consequence of the most solemn covenant engagements, and the rescinding of the law in favor of the true religion is testiiied against as an act of national perjury. Yet, by the New Testimony, all are bound to declare that relig- ious covenanting is entirely an ecclesiastical duty, and binding only on the Church and her members, as" such; and that ' those invested with civil power have no other concern with it but as Church members.' Is it any won- der that there should be seceders who cannot submit to receive such doctrine? The time will come when it will be matter of astonishment that so few have appeared in such a cause, and that those who have appeared should have been borne down, opposed, and spoken against. It is not a matter of small moment to restrict the obliga- tion of solemn oaths, the breach of which is chargeable upon a land, or to explain away any part of that obliga- tion. The quarrel of God's covenant Is not yet thor- oughly pleaded by him against these guilty and aposta- tizing lands, and all that have any due sense of the invio- lable obligation of them should tremble at touching or enervating them in the smallest point."
At the request of the brethren Dr. M'Crie drew up and published a paper explanatory of the principles in- volved in the controversy which had led to the breach. This work appeared in April, 1807, and was regarded by those who took an interest in the subject as exhibiting a very satisfactory view of the principles of the Consti- tutional Associate Presbytery. But, however able, this treatise attracted little attention at the time, although copies of it were eagerly sought many years after, when the Voluntary Controversy engrossed much of the pub- lic interest. The Constitutional Presbytery continued steadfastly to maintain their principles, along with the small number of people who adhered to them, and from all who sought to join them they required an explicit avowal of adherence to the principles of the secession as contained in the original Testimony. For twenty- one years the brethren prosecuted their work and held fast their principles in much harmony and peace with one another, and to the great edification of the flocks committed to their care. In 1827 a change took place in their ecclesiastical position, a cordial union having been effected between the Constitutional Presbytery and the Associate Synod of Protesters, under the name of the Associate Synod of Original Seceders. See Original Seceders (Associate Synod of).