“Form of Covenant Renovation.”
James Dodson
[in The Reformed Presbyterian, Vol. XX. No. 3. May, 1856. p. 88-91]
[For the Reformed Presbyterian.]
This document having been framed and published, and it being calculated, and, doubtless, by its framers designed, to make an impression on the faith and practice of other communities, is deserving of consideration. The Reformed Presbytery, at their last meeting, feeling an interest in any attempted exemplification of covenanting, and especially when this solemn work is proposed by the party known as Old Light Covenanters conceived it their duty to lay before the public, and the ecclesiastical body more immediately concerned, some of the impressions on their minds resulting from an inspection of this document. And as this object could not be conveniently reached during their sessions, the business was referred to a committee of their number, with instructions to point out the redundancies and defects in the instrument, which constitute a barrier in the way of the Presbytery’s co-operation. In doing so, the committee remark:
FIRST. The Presbytery are gratified to find that this party own the doctrine of public social covenanting as being of divine institution and perpetual obligation: and in this sentiment the said Presbytery cordially concur.
SECOND. They are also pleased to notice, that this party propose shortly to engage in the observance of this divine ordinance; and joyfully would the committee and their brethren concur with former ecclesiastical connexions in any scriptural measure which would give promise of healing breaches, restoring unanimity, and recovering uniformity. But alas! the existence of TWO BONDS,[1] at the same time, greatly differing in matter and form, affords no promise of healing. Nay, it would seem that one of the choice means which our gracious God has appointed for re-uniting his dispersed children, is about to be employed as a dividing wedge—verifying the maxim, that “the best things, when corrupted, become the worst things.”
THIRD. The “form of covenant renovation” is redundant: First, in recapitulating the tyranny, heresy, idolatry, &c. of popery, all which had been, at least, as well done already in the National Covenant; and the same is equally true of prelacy, in the light of the Solemn League. Such repetition tends rather to supersede than to renew our solemn covenants. To have noticed the late papal dogma of the “immaculate conception,” and the Puseyite phase of prelacy, would not have been out of place. Second. It is redundant, if not inconsistent, in recognizing other communities, without distinction, (“the whole visible church throughout the land, of every denomination,”) as integral parts of the Church of God; eulogizing their “efforts to circulate the Holy Scriptures as great and commendable—missionary efforts as great and noble;” while these same churches, “of every denomination, give all practical and efficient support, by oath and otherwise, to a system of civil government which takes no notice of the Word of God, and in many forms infringes his law.” God will have “no fellowship with civil thrones of iniquity,” much less with such thrones assuming an ecclesiastical form or name. Ps. 94:20; Rev. 3:9; 2 John 10, 11. Third. The defects in this instrument are still more numerous and palpable. In a solemn confession of sin, the Church of Christ ever looks to the law and the covenant. Neh. 9:26, 34; Dan. 9:5, &c. But the reader will look in vain for an acknowledgment of any breach of covenant in the whole compass of this document. Individuals, as members and office-bearers in the church, and even judicatories, are introduced as confessing sins; but nowhere does the whole organic body utter the language of self-accusation. And even where “courts of judicature are introduced as someway guilty, there is nothing tangible—nothing but general, not to say unmeaning, verbiage: yet this is the nearest approximation to the confession of organic sin. It is not simply courts of judicature that prove the absence of Zion’s King;” nor is this the writer’s meaning. If he, and those concurring with him in the adoption of this instrument, meant anything to their present purpose, and studied Christian candor, why not say in these, or equivalent terms: carnal policy, sinful ambition, sensible tyranny, open violence, &c., “have too often proved (as they have caused) the absence of Zion’s King.” The omniscient God knows, and many of his children, dead and living, do assuredly know, these to be real sins, justly chargeable to those courts. Fourth. In this “Form,” &c , there is no approbation given to the first public, faithful action of our covenanted ancestors, who survived the persecution in Scotland, and who were honored in the face of civil and ecclesiastical defection and tyranny, to renew their covenants at Auchensaugh, in 1712. True, “the devotion and faithfulness of pious ancestors, who renewed these sacred bonds, is approved;” but the overt public and concurrent action by which our fathers’ devotion and faithfulness were demonstrated, is, and alone ought to be, the object of approbation. Phil. 3:17. Fifth. In this document we find neither recognition nor approbation of the judicial testimony first emitted in Scotland, 1761, as a summary of the attainments of Christ’s witnessing remnant in the British Isles, the colonies, and the United States of North America. A s a substitute for this scriptural and time-honored document, “Reformation Principles Exhibited,” is embraced; for this is the book which is dignified with the name and style of the “Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America!” Now, perhaps, there is little or no agreement among the jurants, whether the whole [i.e., including the Historical portion] or only a part of this book is embraced as testimony. This omission is a vital defect; for unquestionably the Scottish testimony has been the means, more than any among the subordinate symbols of our profession, of preserving union and uniformity among the covenanted witnesses of Christ. And the substitution of Reformation Principles for the Scottish Testimony in this “Form of Covenant Renovation,” is a stumbling-block to many who would gladly concur in renewing our covenants—a stumbling block insurmountable. Sixth. There is no confession of the sin of violating the sixth article of the Solemn League by many, both ministers and members, who joined in a sworn association with papists, in the close of the last century, for the purpose of overthrowing British rule in Ireland; nor of similar and manifold breaches of the same article, by confederating in this land with “persons of all religions, and no religion,” for political, ecclesiastical or moral reform, although such combinations, for such ends, are contrary to scripture, reason, experience, and the common sentiments of Christ’s witnesses in all ages. Especially is this practice contrary to the known sentiments of our ablest and most faithful divines, such as Binning, Gillespie, &c., and the Informatory Vindication. Seventh. In this confession of sins, no notice is taken of the defection of 1833. This omission may be deemed charitable or pronounced politic, as different individuals may be affected; but will it consist with faithfulness.
Other remarks might be made of like import, but of less weight, but we forbear, and conclude these strictures by assuring those more immediately interested, that while we can approve much that is contained in their “Form of Covenant Renovation,” we yet deem it too prolix as a whole, its solemnity diluted by verbosity, its provisions essentially defective, and, should it he embraced and sworn as it stands, without material alteration, it will make our breach, already wide as the sea, a great gulf impassable; for we know that public covenanting is the efficient and ultimate instrumentality which God has devised, ordained and revealed to unite or to divide the children of Adam in time and in eternity.
FOURTH. On the “Draught of a Covenant and League,” [the New Light’s document] the Presbytery’s Committee consider it inexpedient to enlarge, as it has neither the shape nor the substance of a scriptural bond. It is preceded by no confession of sin! Such a covenant suits not the condition of the Christian Church while militant, and in her triumphant state she will need such appliances no longer. Most readers will find it a difficult task to discover what is meant by “highly appreciating the binding obligation of the covenants!” And some may be disposed to view the document as a burlesque on covenanting. “Viewing with due respect,” and “highly appreciating” the symbols of our covenanted profession, are phrases familiar to our ears—well understood for more than a quarter of a century. “The earth is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” Is. 24:5.
On behalf of the Reformed Presbytery, by their Committee.
March 12th, 1856
NOTE:
[1] The New Lights have their “Draught of a Covenant and League.”