ORIGINAL SECEDERS
442
ORIGINAL SECEDERS
lowship ami co-operation, and to prevent, through the blessinj^ of Hod, the recurrence of any similar difference in future: 1. 'That when the Church of Christ is in danger from adversaries who hold persecuting prin- ciples, or who are employing violence or insidious arts to overturn it, the legislature of a country may war- rantably exact an oath from those who are admitted to official and influential stations calculated for the secu- rity of the true religion; and that, in these circum- stances, it is lawful and jjroper to swear. 2. That no Christian, without committing sin, can on any consider- ation swear to maintain or defend any known or ac- knowledged corruption or defect in the jirofession or establishment of religion. 3. That a public oath can oidy be taken according to the declared and known sense of the legislature or enacting autliority, and no person is warranted to swear it in a sense of his own, contrary to the former. 4. That no Church court can warrantably give a judicial toleration or allowance to do what they declare to be sinful, or what there is suf- ficient evidence from the Word of God is sinful.' "
Those who hold high Antiburglier views maintain that the ruling element of the Original Secession Tes- timony of 1827 involves the decision come to by the Antiburgher party of the secession in 1746, viz. that " those of the secession cannot safely of conscience and without sin swear any burgess-oath with the said re- ligious clause while matters, with reference to the pro- fession and settlement of religion, continue in such cir- cumstances as at present; and particularly that it does not agree unto or consist with an entering into the bond for receiving our solemn covenants." So strong- ly did the Antiburgher Synod of that time regard this decision as virtually comprehending the whole seces- sion clause, that they declared that the Burghers who had opposed this decision "had materially dropped the whole Testiraonj' among their hands, allowing of, at least for a time, a material abjuration thereof." Thus it is plain that the Antiburgher Synod made the de- cision of 174G, in regard to the burgess-oath, the ex- ponent of the judicial Testimony, as well as of the de- clinature and the act of renewing the covenants. Hence the Original Seceders, in uniting with the Original Burghers, and adopting the Testimony of 1842, might be regarded as acting in opposition to the decision of 1746, which was the ruling expository element of the Testimony of 1827. Another peculiarity which dis- tinguished the secession Testimony was the formal recognition and actual renewing of the covenants. To this peculiarity the original secession body steadfastly adhered, allowing no student to be licensed and no pro- bationer to i)e ordained who had not previously joined the bond, or solemnly promised that he would do so on the very first opportunity that offered. The descend- ing obligation of the covenants was distinctly main- tained according to the Testimony in 1827, and the same doctrine as avowed also by the United Original Seceders in their Testimony of 1842. In this respect they were only following in the steps of the first se- ceders, who had no sooner broken off their connection with the Established Church of that day than they fell back upon the Church of the former [leriod, and pro- ceeded to identify their cause witli tliat of the He- formed Covenanted Church, and this they did by actu- ally renewing the covenants. By their act relating to this subject, puldished in 1743, "they considered the swearing of tlie bond was called for and rendered nec- essary by the strong tide of defection from the Kef- ormation cause which liad set in,'-and that by so act- ing they would make tlicmselves heirs to the vows of their fathers. Dr. jM'Crie accordingly, in referring to this ))art of the history of tlie first seceders, tells us in the historical part of the Testimony of 1827: "The ministers having entered into the bond, measures were taken for having it administered to the people in their respective congregations; and at a subseijuent period (1744) they agreed that all who were admitted to the
ministry shoidd previously have joined in renewing the covenants, while such as opposed or slighted the duty should not be admitted to sealing ordinances." Thus both the formal recognition and the actual renewing of the covenants came to be necessary terms of fellowship in the early Secession Church. The work of renewing the covenants had, in the siniimer of 1744, been gone through in only two settled congregations, when a stop was put to it by the synod having forced upon it the settlement of the question, " Whether those in com- munion with them could warrantably and consistently swear the following clause in some burgess -oaths: 'Here I protest, before God and your lordships, that I profess and allow with my heart the true religion pro- fessed within this realm, and authorized by the laws thereof.' " The question involved in swearing the bur- gess-oath respected the character of the Revolution set- tlement or legally authorized profession of religion. It was on this point that the secession body became di- vided into two conflicting synods. From the Testimony of 1827 it is plain that the Original Seceders regarded both the principle and practice as inherited by them from the first seceders. Nor does there seem to be any moral difference between the Testimony of 1827 and that of the United Original Seceders in 1842, in so far as regards the question as to the descending obliga- tion of the covenants. But in the latter Testimony a clause occurs which seems to indicate a somewhat mod- ified view of the necessity of actually renewing the covenants. The clause in question reads thus: "It is also agreed that while all proper means arc used for stirring up and preparing the people of their respective congregations to engage in this important and season- able duty, there shall be no undue haste in those congre- gations where it has not been formerly practiced^ The clause marked in italics is not found in the Testimony of 1827, and must therefore be considered as one of those alterations in the Testimony of the Original Se- ceders which was deemed necessary in order to the ac- complishment of the union of the Original Burghers.