Letter on the Relations of Covenanters to the Civil Government of America

[from the Albany Quarterly, No. 5., pp. 34-48.]

New-York, March 26, 1833.

To the Editor of the Albany Quarterly.

Dear Brethren,

This day has fallen into my hands a pamphlet written by the Rev. Dr. McMaster, entitled “A Brief Inquiry,” and addressed “to the Reformed Presbyterians in the United States.” Its general aspect is so mild the statements seem to be made with so much candor the expressions of deep felt interest in the welfare of the Ref. Pres. church are so explicit, and it closes in such a fearful and affectionate manner, that it seems rather a painful task to oppose any of the statements made or inferences drawn therefrom. To many it must appear like blowing up the dying embers, and adding fuel to produce a flame. I recognize this in all its force, yet feel constrained to expose some of the fallacies therein contained, believing that no such insidious publication has ever been emitted in the Ref. Pres. church since we became a distinct people.

The Dr. commences with a declaration of his affection for the church and her cause, and the honesty of his public ministry. He next proposes to remove from the minds of good men some misapprehensions that may exist concerning the civil institutions of our country, and the judicative deeds of the church upon that subject. He recommends harmony, absence of passion and violence fears a domestic broil says he will not enter into it, and thinks the church will not countenance it.

Before proceeding finally into the discussion, he requests that his inquiry may not be judged by the private opinion of individuals, doubts, or silence of good men on certain points, sentiments expressed, under circumstances no longer existing, or repealed enactments. The Bible, and the subordinate standards of the church, and as sustained in her standing authoritative adjudications, he admits as the test by which his work shall be tried. This is all fair. He has appealed unto Caesar, and unto Caesar shall he go.

It is true that his own writings could be brought forward, Mr. McMaster against Dr. McMaster, to show that there was a time when, if he wrote honestly, he believed the opposite of this pamphlet ; but it is evident that the expression, “sentiments expressed under circumstances no longer existing,” is intended to parry this thrust, and as there is enough without calling in the Mr. against the Dr. it is waved, with merely expressing astonishment, that if these were his views as the acts of legislation were in progress, he should preach and print in a sermon called “the duty of nations,” sentiments calculated to induce Christians to believe the American government anything but the ordinance of God. If anyone doubt of the correctness of this hint, all that is requested is that the reader will turn his attention to the “Duty of nations,” page 16th, 5th line from the bottom, 22d page from the middle page, 38th foot note, and page 41st foot note.

The Dr.’s pamphlet is embraced in an answer to four questions; the first of which is—“what is the question at issue among a few of the brethren of the church?”

In reply to this question he pauses to state what is not the question at issue; and then what is in dispute. As to the former, what is not the question at issue.

The question, whatever it is, it appears only concerns “a few of the brethren.” From the interest taken in it by the whole church, it was apprehended that all were really interested in it. But it seems we were mistaken! The Dr. specifies several topics on which he says there is no dispute, viz:

The whole subject of the principle of Presbyterial order, as settled by our reforming ancestors—the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms—the Declaration and Testimony—peculiar aspects of certain truths, so far as these forms of peculiarity have been settled by public authority. These forms are specified.

In every christian land christian influence should be exerted to subserve the interests of moral order, in bringing the nations to confess Immanuel as Lord of all—that the principles of God’s moral law should be the supreme standard of national policy—that one measure of scriptural qualifications is essential to the legitimacy of magistracy—that covenanting ecclesiastical and national upon proper occasions, is the ordinance of God, and that such moral deeds when formed, have a descending obligation till the ends of them be accomplished—and that all the benefits of life flow to the heirs of grace in the channel of the everlasting covenant.

On all these the Dr. asserts that we are in perfect harmony; that in the ministrations of our respective churches there is the same tone that distinguished them forty years ago [ca. 1793]; that the conditions of ordination to the sacred ministry, without deductions, additions, or changes, are such as they were in other days, and that “the application of the principles thus recognized, to the public evils of the land, whether civil or ecclesiastic, is such as it used to be”! He admits the existence of slavery; but considers it a matter of small account where the calamity and crime of slavery is; yet he is careful to inform us upon the same page that it is not in New-York, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, though, according to his own statement, it is of small account where it is. He then rather triumphantly asks, in page 6th, “what is the matter at issue”? And if the foregoing is true, well may he put the question, and find none to answer. Yet the Dr. directs the attention of his readers to the positive side of the question, and says, “it is however alleged, that some put in a plea for a connection with the government of the land, inconsistent with sound morality, the principles of our standards, and the ground which the church has taken upon the subject.” To this he replies that if the above allegation is well sustained, those who make such plea should abandon it speedily; for a fundamental principle of our church is that no sanction should be given to immorality in civil deeds. He states that all our people hold connection with the functionaries of the United States in what is properly political—says he will not plead to urge covenanters to form such connection; but pleads “for those who choose to act the part of orderly citizens in the discharge of the various duties to which they are called in the state.” He adverts to cautious legislation; individual opinion; the embarrassing difficulties in which the church was placed after the American revolution; states that members of the church were known all along to hold political fellowship with the institutions of the land; that the majority of the members “through delicacy to a few who had scruples on the subject,” refrained from political fellowship with the above institutions. The occasion of these political scruples he accounts by our ministry in their public discussions, not viewing the subject as a practical thing, but describing an ideal perfection, the hearer often forgot that man is an imperfect being!

Such a picture of unskillfulness on the part of the ministry, and more than Roman Catholic ignorance and prejudice upon the part of the covenanter hearers, has never been daubed by the worst painter. If covenanters can admit this description of their forgetfulness that man was an imperfect being, they are a different race of men from what their fathers were in times of trial and persecution.

The examination of the second question, and the Doctor’s assertions concerning it, will go far to settle the truth or falsehood of his, allegations.

The second topic is, “upon the question of our civil relations, what are the existing authoritative acts of our supreme judicatory”?

Dr. McMaster attempts to show that all the acts passed by our supreme judicatory recognize the morality of the American government.

And 1st he refers to the acts of 1806 respecting the giving of testimony under oath before an unqualified administrator, and serving as jurors. The former of these, he says “at once became a dead letter.” He does not condescend to tell how, or why, it became so. The reason that has been given in and out of the church courts for not requiring our members to act upon it, was that our testimony was emitted. The community had an opportunity of reading it. By it every person knew that as a church we did not recognize the American government as the moral ordinance of God, and that, if they were ignorant of our views, it was their own fault, not that of our people: and, besides, that our people were not all able to enter into the argument so as to do justice to the act, and might thereby do injury to our cause. We ask any intelligent man if this was modifying the act?

As to the latter (the Jury act) the Dr. says, “that which gave accession to the latter was the existence of slavery, at that period, in most of the states where covenanters resided. The Juror, it was apprehended, might be called on to pass between the slave-holder and slave, under the direction of an immoral law. The jury law had such a case in view, and prohibited the church member from acting in it. It would then follow, that where this evil did not exist, or where it had ceased to exist, this act would be without object, and consequently void.” He farther states that “by some oversight the jury act was never entered upon record”—that “an unknown statute can be no rule of action—the law was thus null.” He argues from the specification of these two cases that “all the rest of the system remained untouched,” and informs us that “the historical notice of supposed or alleged immoralities in the system, refers to the opinions formed of it in 1789 rather than to those of 1806.” And the. Rev. Dr. farther adds that “they presumed not to pronounce the system immoral.” The notice of it in their historical narrative comes the nearest to doing so; but they declared that narrative to be no term of communion, and this part of it they subsequently expunged from their records.”

The above sentiments (strange indeed considering the source whence they came) are easily set aside by plain facts and documents.

Why require covenanters at any time to explain, before taking an oath? Explain what? That our church received the government as the moral ordinance of God, himself God’s vicegerent, having a moral right to demand our testimony under oath, and that we could freely hold communion with him in his official capacity? Hear the testimony of our church upon this subject, it is worth at least as much as that of Dr. McMaster.

“Presbyterian covenanters perceiving immorality interwoven with the general and the state constitutions of government in America, have uniformly dissented from the civil establishments.” Act. and Tes[timony]. page 134, 1st edition, N. Y. 1807.

“Anxious not to impede the execution of justice, and yet to maintain a consistent Testimony, they declare in that act, that an oath may be made before the constituted authorities, if these authorities are given to understand that it is not made as a recognition of their official right of administration.” Same edition, p. 135.

Same page. “Let it be perfectly understood, that the oath is an act of homage performed voluntarily to the Supreme Being, and by no means a recognition of the Magistrate’s authority, or an act of communion with him in his official capacity.” But we are told that “they declared that narrative to be no term of communion, and this part of it they subsequently expunged from their records.” Admit that the history is no term of communion; yet it does not follow that the acts referred to in that history are no terms of communion. It, however, proves distinctly the opposite of Dr. McMaster’s unfounded assertion, that “they presumed not to pronounce the system immoral.”

As to the expunging from the records, the Dr. introduces it as if the design of expunging was to abolish the acts. The Dr. knows better than this. What some men designed thereby is not asserted. Nearly five pages were stricken out of the historical part of the Testimony. Let the foot note from page 125, 2d edition, explain the reason. These are the words of the note:

“It is deemed proper, by Synod, in this edition, to omit the insertion of the acts, and to reserve them together with the act abolishing slavery in the church, and other acts since passed, for publication in a statute book hereafter to be prepared.” There are some important facts going far to destroy almost every part of the Dr.’s argument.

1. The Synod informs the people that some things are omitted in the edition of 1824, which it terms acts. Not history, as Dr. M. now says. How omit them in the 2d edition if not in the first? They viewed the part stricken out as containing the very spirit of the acts.

2. These acts are put upon the same standing with the act abolishing slavery. It is also expunged. It is to be feared that before long the Dr. will urge upon us, that as it is expunged, covenanters may hold slaves.

3. These three acts are classed along with other acts since passed, and all appointed to be published in a statute book.

4. If the oath, and jury, and slavery acts were not law abiding before, by this declaration of Synod they were so declared, being, in 1824, put out of the history for the purpose of publishing in a statute book.

It is unnecessary to turn back and examine some of the statements made by the Dr. It is fully admitted that slavery was one reason for passing the Jury act. It was considered a positive immorality. It is so still. It is also admitted that whenever slavery ceased to exist, the act would be without object, so far as slavery is concerned: but there are other evils besides slavery in our land, and so this same history declares that our church knew. Moreover, the Testimony and these acts were made for covenanters in the United States, not in any one particular state. Thus the ones who formed it say, “Presbyterian covenanters perceiving immorality interwoven with the general and the state constitutions of government in America, have uniformly dissented from the civil establishments.” Slavery and all the other evils mentioned in page 136, Testimony, 1st part, ed. 1807, still exist in the land—in the United States as such; are sanctioned by law; and even the state of New-York, is compelled by law to give up the runaway slave to his master. The restoration of such person is secured by law. No wonder the church said in the above quoted page, “there are moral evils essential to the constitution of the United States, which render it necessary to refuse allegiance to the whole system.”

But the Dr. says “by some oversight the jury act was never entered upon record”—“an unknown statute can be no rule of action.” It really does appear as if some men had overseen the jury act. Perhaps they prefer the 2d edition, because it is not found there. It was expunged from the former to be put in a statute book. Let this fact not be forgotten.

But again. “All of the rest of the system remained untouched.” So Dr. McM. says; but so did not say the fathers when they passed the two acts. They said it was necessary “to refuse allegiance to the whole system.”

The Dr. also intimates that the “supposed or alleged immoralities, refer to the opinions formed of it in 1789, rather than to those of 1806.”

How admirably this kind gentleman pleads for the fathers of our church? The old ministers in 1787 [1789?] refused allegiance to the whole system. In accommodation to their false estimate of the American government in 1789, those who knew better in 1806, charitably made a law to prohibit the people from sitting on juries, recognizing magistrates, &c. But it is necessary to pass on to the second enactment.

In page 1st Dr. McMaster refers to the second enactment of Aug. 14th 1812. He quotes the act in full. I do not attempt to follow the Dr. in all his reasoning upon this act. I have neither time nor room: and without this tedious course it is hoped that the fallacy of the Dr.’s reasoning can be shown.

The first clause declares the wishes of Synod. “Messrs. Gibson, Wylie, and McLeod, were appointed a committee to inquire what security can the members of this church give to the constituted authorities of the United States, consistent with their avowed principles, that they are not to be considered, whether aliens or citizens, in the character of enemies, and report thereon.”

It will be remembered that this transaction took place in 1812. The new Testimony was emitted in 1824, consequently, the first edition [1807], without expunging, was in full force. In it were to be seen our avowed principles, the aspect of which might lead the government to suspect that we were not merely dissenters from the government but open enemies. In the meantime they throw in the caution that this “security” is to be given in consistency with their avowed principles.

The first item in the report of the committee every covenanter could subscribe fully, with the exception of Dr. McMaster’s construction of the words, “domestic factions,” which they never can admit while they know it to be a sin to hold unoffending men in bondage. The Synod never proposed giving a pledge to leave their homes, and assist southern slave-holders to subjugate the negroes in case of a revolt. In this article they declare “that they approve of the republican form of the civil order of the United States, and the several states; that they prefer this nation and its government, to any other nation and its government; that they will support to the utmost, the independence of the United States, and the several states, against all foreign aggressions and domestic factions; and disclaim all allegiance to any foreign jurisdiction whatever.”

The second article declares “the duty of nations to recognize formally the sovereignty of Messiah over all persons and things, and to construct their system of government upon principles, which fully recognize the authority of that divine revelation which is contained in the scriptures, as the supreme law; their disapprobation of the presently existing constitutions, and that it is with them a matter of conscience, and wholly founded upon the omission of the duty.”

Many could cheerfully recognize this article were it not for the Dr.’s explanation of the expression “wholly founded upon the omission of their duty.” From this item it appears that covenanters could not take the common oath of citizenship.

They have been long in the habit of considering sins of omission as immoralities, and of greater magnitude than the pamphlet before us seems to represent them. To omit christian profession—the reading of the Bible—attendance upon divine ordinances—the recognition of God and his government, &c, Covenanters have viewed as gross sins. Thus teach their catechisms. See under the questions of what is forbidden in the fourth and fifth commandment? Christ taught this doctrine in Matt. 25:42, 45. “For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat,” &c.

With all the remarkable reformation of this land, has it yet as a nation recognized the sovereignty of Messiah—constructed its government on Bible principles—publicly recognized divine revelation as the supreme law—abolished slavery in the District of Columbia and the slave-holding territories? In all these respects, and many others, how much better is our government than in 1812, when our members could not take the common oath of citizenship? When the new oath was found to be as strong and unqualified as the other, the committee had not the hardihood to go to the seat of government to have it granted; for if they had obtained it few Covenanters would have adopted it.

The third article refers to emigrants from foreign nations. They are instructed “when required” (not when they wish to run to the ballot-boxes) to take a certain prescribed oath, as follow: “I, A. B. do solemnly declare, in the name of the Most High God the searcher of hearts, that I abjure all foreign allegiance whatsoever, and hold that these States, and the United States are, and ought to be, sovereign and independent of all other nations and governments, and that I will promote the best interests of this empire, maintain its independence, preserve its peace, and support the integrity of the Union, to the best of my power.”

Setting aside the Dr.’s construction of the words “integrity of the Union” (and it is not said that he has not construed them as a civilian would) any Covenanter would take the above oath in consistency with those pages stricken out of the new edition of the Testimony, and with the 28th chap. 4th section, and the testimony against the last two errors mentioned in said chapter. Whatever might have been the design of the committee in using this expression, or of the person who framed the document, it is certain that the people who could not conscientiously take the common oath of citizenship, could not have taken this. Why then all this trifling by three of our oldest ministers, if they meant that we could consistently swear to maintain what they pronounced an immoral constitution! The very fact that they did not go to the seat of government speaks a volume upon the subject. They did not go, because upon reflection they considered the oath as fundamentally opposed to our testimony. In other words; it was the same in substance as the oath prescribed to any alien.

The fourth item confirms these remarks, while it presents the same idea found in the design of synod in appointing a committee. The words are these, “with a view to obtain the protection of the laws, in maintaining their present Testimony.” What was this delegation instructed to ask of the government? Citizenship? No. A place and right at the ballot and jury-boxes? No. Offices under government? No. To do what they had always done viz. to hold communion with the United States in the truth of politics? No. Not a word of all this in the whole document, nor one word like it. What then were they instructed to ask? Let the document itself tell. Merely “the protection of the laws in maintaining their present Testimony.” It is hard to believe that the Dr. has not willfully perverted the meaning of the whole document. Certain it is he has perverted it.

The third enactment to which the Dr. refers is that of Oct. 19, 1821. In reply to a letter of Mr. James Willson of Kaskaskia it is said “that no connection with the laws, or the order of the state is prohibited by the church except what truly involves immorality.” From this the Dr. argues that the system at large was considered as moral, that exception was only taken in particular cases, and that this act was the same in spirit as that of 1812.

It has been shewn that the act of 1812 did not even hint at a liberty to recognize the morality of the government, or the plea for any privilege in the matter of oaths, juries, and elections. This act appears to me to have been an evasion of the question of Mr. Willson. The church received it in this light. The system which is now developed, was then working secretly. Here I am constrained to refer to the Testimony that was at that time unmutilated [1807], to show that Mr. Willson need have had no difficulty in settling the question in his own mind, and, if he had a Testimony, no need of information from Synod. See pages 136 and 137, first edition.

There they declare. 1. That there are moral evils essential to the constitution of the United States. 2. That these rendered it necessary to refuse allegiance to the whole system. Specifications are given to prove the above. (1.) No acknowledgment of the authority of God. (2.) Nor of the christian religion. (3.) No submission to the kingdom of Messiah. But (4.) It gives support to the enemies of the Redeemer, in admitting to its honors, and emoluments, Jews, Mahommedans, Deists and Atheists. (5.) Establishes that system of robbery by which men are held in slavery, despoiled of liberty, and property, and protection. And (6.) Violates the principles of representation [i.e., in enumerating slaves as 3/5 persons], &c. They go on to say that they have maintained a constant testimony against these evils—have refused to serve in any office which implies an approbation of the constitution—have abstained from giving their votes at elections for legislators or officers who must be qualified to act by an oath of allegiance to this IMMORAL CONSTITUTION. They state that some persons, who in other things profess an attachment to reformation principles, considered serving on juries as consistent with their Testimony. To expose the inconsistency of this practice the Presbytery (then our highest judiciary) were determined to publish a warning against it, and in the meantime deemed it expedient to pass a prohibitory act. They then proceed to show the impropriety of serving as jurors.

The question is not whether their views were correct or the reverse. It has nothing to do with the present question. It would be of importance if there was a proposal to alter the act, or disannul it; but Dr. McMaster rests his argument on the basis, that our church did not, in her judicial character pronounce the whole system immoral, and refuse to permit her members to identify themselves with the government. The above abstract shows that the Dr. makes a statement unsupported by the declarations and acts of our church, yet he has appealed to them, and professes that he will abide by their decision. Let him not attempt evasion by urging that this part of the Testimony was expunged, and that it never was a term of communion. It was not expunged at the time of passing the act under present consideration, nor of passing the act which follows—and if the history was not a term of communion (which it was not [herein was the failure of the “Old Light” party to secure the testimony of the church—history must be a term of communion; ED.]) yet the act itself was as much so as the act upon slavery which is also expunged from the history in the 2d edition. But to settle all dispute on this question, hear what the 28th chap. Sect. 3d, says upon the subject.

“But no power which deprives the subject of civil liberty—which wantonly squanders his property, and sports with his life—or which authorizes a false religion (however it may exist according to Divine Providence,) is approved of, or sanctioned by God, or ought to be esteemed or supported by man as a moral institution.”

See also the 8th error mentioned in the same chapter. The church condemns the error. “That a constitution of government which deprives unoffending men of liberty and property is a moral institution, to be recognized as God’s ordinance.”

These are not yet expunged. The narrative above quoted, and the acts referred concerning oaths and juries show plainly that the 28th chapter has a direct reference to the American government.

The fourth act to which the Dr. refers is that of 1823, while the published (not expunged) views of the church were as formerly. It purports to be a reference of all such questions to the local judicatories. Refer to the local judicatories! For what purpose? To make law for the church as it respected our intercourse with the State? To disannul an act binding all, and never yet re pealed? This were a strange mode of conducting business! No. The sole object was evidently to store the business aside, as it was perceived to be a very delicate subject. What would, what must the local judicatories do if they had any respect for their standards and the acts of the superior judicatories, but apply them? This was the full amount of their decision. It admits of no other construction except that some men wished to have full liberty to act as they pleased without any respect to former decisions or existing law. To dwell longer upon this act would be useless, for the next act settles the whole question. That of 1825.

Complaints had come up from the different parts of the church, that the Synod was abandoning its former ground, or seemed disposed to do it; or, at least, that the former act produced confusion in different churches. That there was no uniformity. The church was not fully ripe for incorporating with a slave-holding nation, and one that had not acknowledged Jesus as Moral Governor, nor the law of God as its rule [i.e., they were seeking what is now called 501c3 status and state recognition as a registered charity]. It was then decided “that this Synod never understood any act of their’s, relative to their members sitting on juries, as contravening the old common law upon that subject.”

What was the old common law ? It has been quoted already from page 157 of the Testimony, where speaking of their conduct, even before the act of 1806, they say that “they have refused to serve in any office which implies an approbation of the constitution”—and farther that Ref. Presbyterians “have abstained from giving their votes at elections,” &c. The oldest formal enactment appears to be that of 1806; and the common law, as every person knows, was to abstain from the ballot and jury boxes. Is it not remembered that about three years since Mr. McCrie stated in Presbytery, in Albany, that a report existed against some of Dr. McMaster’s congregation voting and sitting on juries, and the Dr. treated it as a slander?

The next legislation upon this subject, it appears, was the appointment of a committee to report on our civil relations. The committee reported—it was thought inexpedient to publish it, and it was referred to another committee, with the power added thereto, to examine the report, and if thought proper, publish it during the interim of the Synod. The next committee reported the in expediency of publishing the document at that time; but did not say a word about its contravening the common law that formerly existed.

Thus, my dear sir, it appears that while the original act has never been repealed, there has for some time existed a secret disposition to have it done away without the formality of acts. My own deliberate conviction is, that there never has been but one formal, and direct act upon the subject. That is, the act of 1806. All the legislation upon the subject of our civil relations, are either directly confirmatory of that act, or intended to shove aside the subject, and let it die a natural death, by our people incorporating with the governments of the land—the ordinance of God—the ordinance of Satan, or something else I have not inquired; it is merely to the acts of the church upon the subject, and her views of the American government to which I have directed my attention; which acts and views are in my opinion very different from those stated by Dr. McMaster. To the third and fourth questions proposed by the Doctor, no attention has been paid, as the second is the great burden of the pamphlet; should you allow me a place in your columns at some future period, I may avail myself of it, to make more plain, a subject that has been much obscured by false colorings. The peace of Jerusalem, I trust that I wish as ardently and sincerely as Dr. McMaster or any other person; but if our jury and oath acts are improper, and our views of the American government false, let us, like plain, open-hearted, honest men, and Christians, have them annulled. My earnest desire is, that mild and christian measures be adopted in all bur judicatories, and that the history of excommunications unnecessarily inflicted may never disgrace our public documents.

Yours, most affectionately,

ROBERT GIBSON.