YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE COVENANTER'S
NARRATIVE AND PLEA.

NARRATIVE AND PLEA.

THE

COVENANTER'S
NARRATIVE AND PLEAj

EXHIBITING

THE ERROR, SCHISM, RADICALISM, AND SLANDER

DR. PAUL,

AND OTHER SEPARATISTS FROM THE REFORMED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

EEV. THOMAS HOUSTON,
KNOCKBIIACKEN. PART I.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, they would no
doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that tbey
were not all of us.'' — 1 John ii. 19.
"¦Turn not aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart. And turn
ye not aside ; for then should ye go after vain things which cannot profit nor deliver ; for tbey
are vain. For tbe Lord will not forsake bis people for his great name's-sake : because it hath
pleased the Lord to make you his people." — 1 Sam. xi). 20, 21, 22.

BELFAST:
PUBLISHED AT MR. WM. MOORE'S 109, NORTH STREET; AND
MR. WM. POLLOCK'S, BOOKSELLER, 62, NORTH STREET.
SOLD BY MESSRS. M'COMB, PHILLIPS, AND DBUITT, BELFAST; G. DUGAN, G. WHITE,
ballymena; D. m. BLEAKLY, 35, LOWEB SACKVILLE STREET, DUBLIN; CHAS.
ZIEGLEB, 17, SOUTH BBIDGE, AND T. NELSON, EDINBURGH ; WM. MARSHALL,
5, MAXWELL STREET, GLASGOW; A. GARDNER, PAISLEY; AND JAMES M'cOlD,
STEANRAEK. MDCOCXLI.

KELSO, PRINXEB, BIliASt.

PREFACE.
When introducing another pamphlet to public notice, it will not be considered
out of place, briefly to refer to the circumstances which have called it forth, the
materials which it contains, and the objects which it contemplates. The con
troversy respecting the magistrate's power, circa sacra, and other collateral sub
jects, which has agitated the Reformed Presbyterian Church in this country for
a number of years, has been managed by the party that has recently separated
from the Reformed Synod, by constant appeals to popular prejudice or passion.
And by means of certain portions of the newspaper press, and latterly by nume
rous small, but virulent pamphlets, which have been pushed off in all directions,
and among all kinds of society, valuable principle has been opposed, and cha
racter assailed and maligned. The writer of this pamphlet has been a principal
butt of the assaults that were made upon the Covenanted Testimony, either by
those who have withdrawn from the church, or by such as hailed their defec
tion, and cheered them on in courses of innovation and declension. To those
w-ho have attended to the progress of the controversy, or whcrtjhave looked into
the publications to which we refer, it is unnecessary to point out the bitterness
of these assaults, ascribing as they did to the object of them, almost every thing
odious and abominable in sentiment, and every thing hateful in character and
conduct. The .only defence of principle or character which the writer made from the
press, in opposition to repeated attacks, was in the pamphlet entitled the " Re
viewer Reviewed," which was published in the summer of 1833. Through
respect to the decision of the Reformed Synod in that year, he has refrained,
from that period till the present, to offer any vindication from the press ; and he
permitted innumerable perversions of his writings, and misrepresentations of his
principles and conduct to pass without reply, rather than appear to keep alive
with those who were brethren in the ministry, a controversy which was calcu
lated to injure the church in public estimation, and which the Supreme Judica
tory had earnestly desired to have terminated. Although, well aware that he was
thus exposed to be condemned without a hearing at the bar of public opinion,
and chiefly grieved at the injury which was done to important and precious
truths, he would still have left his cause with Him who pleads for the oppressed,
satisfied himself with contending against innovation in the courts of judicature,
and persevered in withholding defences or replies from the press, had his op
ponents continued members of the Reformed Synod, or remained in the fellow
ship of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
The act of the Eastern Presbytery, in July, 1840, in declining the authority
of the Synod, and relinquishing their standing in the Church, obviously changed
the whole aspect of the case. Those who withdrew were no longer to be regarded

VI. PREFACE.
as brethren, bound together in the same Covenant, or amenable to the same
ecclesiastical tribunal, which was to judge in relation to differences of sentiment or
conduct. And when, in communication after communication, in the Newspapers,
and in Pamphlet after Pamphlet, along with the writer, the Synod was held up
to public abhorrence, — the principlesof the Church's testimony were misrepresent
ed and vilified, — the honoured names of the Reformers and Martyrs of Jesus were
aspersed, and honest witnesses for the doctrines and approved practices of the
Scottish Reformation were covered with reproach, silence appeared to be no
longer a duty, and forbearance seemed to be no farther justifiable.
The separating party and their allies, turning to their purposes of delusion
the pacific course pursued by their opponents, boasted that they were unable to
answer. The writer has been repeatedly called upon by name in the public
prints, — and when he did not respond to these rude invitations, or disorderly
challenges, his cause has been pronounced indefensible, and adversaries, with
abundant self-sufficiency, have shouted a triumph. In one of the numerous
petty pamphlets of the Eastern Presbytery,— and this is only a specimen of such
boasting as occurs frequently in publications from the same quarter, — it is said, —
" They" (the Editors of the Covenanter) " are quite unable to defend their prin
ciples, — they have been driven from the press. — They have been driven from the
platform," (Communication, &c, p. 3.) On what grounds these assertions rest,
they best can tell who made them. To speak in editorial style,— -we have had
uninterrupted possession of the periodical press, now for a period of nearly Eleven
Tears, to the no small grief or annoyance of those who dislike Covenanting princi
ples, and love innovation; and we are neither yet frightened from our post, nor
disposed to relinquish it to the abettors of error and disorder. And as for the
" platform," we have not yet tried it, and we could not therefore be' driven from
it. If the Separatists refer to the Synod, they themselves best know who have
been " driven " from their position by the power of truth, after having found the
strong and unequivocal sense of the Church against them.
But although the writer came to the resolution of defending principle and
character, and the scriptural order of the sanctuary, from the time that
the Eastern Presbytery broke the staff of bands, and separated from the
Synod, he deferred for some time to enter again the arena of controversy.
He was unwilling, by replying immediately to tlie Declinature, and other
abusive pamphlets, to leave any ground for the allegation that he was widening
the breach, or driving even adversaries to extreme courses; and it was not till
after one vehement philippic after another had been launched against him and the
Synod, that he began to digest the materials for a defence. Besides, a Com
mittee had been appointed at the last meeting of Synod, to watch over the inte
rests andprotect the character of the church; and he waited for some time, in the
expectation that they would defend, not him or his writings, for this he neither
needed nor desired, but the testimony of the Church and the character of Synod,
and repel the rude and reckless attacks that were made on both. The Committee,
however, having emitted nothing of this kind, the writer was strengthened in
the conviction, that it would be prejudicial to the cause of truth to withhold
such statements and arguments as he had prepared, for placing the disputed
topics in a proper light before the public, and for exhibiting the position of those

PREFACE. Vll.
who have occupied the one side or the other of the controversy. A multiplicity
of other important duties, and many consequent interruptions, prevented the
publication of the pamphlet so soon as could have been wished ; and this too, it
is trusted, will be taken by candid readers as an apology for a few instances of
defective arrangement, or repetition, which may be eaBily corrected.
The plan adopted, after mature consideration, is that of a connected narrative
of proceedings from the commencement of the controversy till the present time,
interspersed with such remarks, and such a defence of principle and order, as
may tend to dispel prejudice and clear away misrepresentation. A historical
detail seemed necessary for the members of the church, in order to judge of
matters numerous and complicated, and of movements that extended through a
period of ten or eleven years, and the effects of which may yet extend to a period
much more lengthened. In submitting such a narrative to the church and to
the public, the author cannot expect that the same facts, however strongly mark
ed, will impress different minds in the same way,— and the conclusions deduced
may, therefore, in some instances, be such as may not be clearly seen, or fully
acquiesced in, even by these who have been concerned in the discussions that
have agitated the Synod, and interested the community. This, however, he may
be permitted to say ; — according to the best of his judgment, he has stated no
thing but fact, not having intentionally concealed or exaggerated any matter ; and
he has deduced no inference, and employed no argument under the impulse of
feeling or prejudice, but with the earnest desire that the truth might be exhibited
and defended, with its only appropriate weapons,— those of truth and righteous
ness. That the terms employed in speaking of those who have abandoned their pro
fession and vilified the Church", are always so smooth or respectful as could be
desired in religious controversy, the writer will not pretend to allege. But when
the language and spirit of opponents, — the ruthless character of their attacks, —
and the manner of expression of any of their pamphlets that have been published
since their separation, as for example the "Declinature" — are duly consider
ed,— this will plead our apology for speaking out bluntly. With those who have
outraged the common decencies and courtesies of civilized society, in opposing
the testimony for truth, and assailing character, it is difficult to manage a con
troversy, so as to avoid the appearance of asperity, or the use of terms that
sound harshly. The writer, can only say for himself, that it was far from his wish
to requite others as they had done to him. While he considered it incumbent on
him to characterise principles and proceedings plainly, he is conscious of no feel
ing towards those whom he believes to be in error, but that which would earnest
ly desire that they may be speedily convinced of the evil of their ways, and re
claimed from backsliding, and would rejoice in their welfare, in connexion with
their acknowledgment of the truth, as it is in Jesus.
Well persuaded that the cause of a faithful testimony may not be expected to
be popular, during the day of Antichrist's power, we can hardly expect that the
community at large will accord a favourable hearing to this vindication, or that
the timid within the church will approve of a defence which may seem to keep
alive controversy. But we believe -it will hereafter be found', as it has been iu
times past, that attacks upon any article of a Scriptural Standard, draw upon

viii. PREFACE.
other great principles ; and those who hope to enjoy their ease, and are uncon
cerned about the afflictions of Joseph, may, ere long experience, amidst the
present singular shakings of the churches, that neutrality is a course far from
safety, and that to hold fast a scriptural profession without wavering, though oc
casionally exposing to the strife of tongues, and subjecting to other trials, is the
true path to substantial comfort, honour, and felicity. -
To the principles of civil and religious liberty, in the scriptural sense of the
phrase, the writer is sincerely and ardently attached ; and therefore he regards
it as a duty to expose pretenders, who are at once the flatterers and favourites
of slaves and despots, and to exhibit the proper foundation and security of men's
rights and liberties, as laid in the recognition of God's rights, and in the- purity,
independence, and prosperity of the church of Christ While, in some parts of
this pamphlet, we have had occasion to point out the aid rendered to the cause
of radicalism by some of the movements or writings of those who have declined
the authority of Synod, we wish it to be distinctly understood, that we are un
connected with, and protest against, the political parties of the day, of whatever
name, believing that none of them aim at a scriptural standard of government.
Our attitude is, that of defence. The history of past proceedings will show that
we have all along stood on the defensive; and whatever other representations
may be obtruded on the public, we can, in all good conscience declare, almost
in the words of the venerable Dr. M'Crie, in reference to opposition to defection
innis day, — "We have never taken any step which had the tendency, to produce
separation, but as we were compelled by some active procedure on the other side,
some new measure importing innovation or imposition, which, if yielded unto,
would have driven them, with the body to which they belonged, from the ground
which they formerly occupied."
The present is the first, and comparatively a small part of our defence against
attacks which,if collected into one, would more than equal the size of this pamphlet.
If spared and enabled, in Divine providence, as more pressing duties will per
mit, we shall continue the exposure of the sentiments, spirit, and conduct of
those who have long discovered hostility to a faithful testimony, and embittered
enmity to the Covenanted church. Our design is to vindicate truth,— disprove
unfounded allegations, and exhibit the judicatories of the church entitled to con
fidence and submission in the Lord. Taking our stand hy the Reformers, Mar
tyrs, and Standards of the church, we entertain the, hope, that we shall enjoy an
interest in the prayers of many that have learned lo weep for the desolations of
Zion, and that these labours shall subserve the advancement of the best oi
causes. To the Reformed Presbyterian Church especially is this Narrative and
Plea offered, as an humble attempt to vindicate the Supreme Judicatory, to de
fend truths for which the martyrs of Jesus contended unto blood, which have
been handed down from pious parents to their children through succeeding
generations, and for which, in the day of coming trials, the witnesses of Christ
may yet be required to deliver a blood- sealed testimony.

NARRATIVE AND PLEA,

PART I.

Divisions in the Church of Christ are always to be lamented.
However her glorious Head may overrule them for good, there
can be no doubt that they originate in the evil principles of the
human heart, and that the great enemy employs them, as a grand
means of perpetuating his empire of darkness, aud of obstructing the
progress of truth throughout the earth. Among the most unplea
sant circumstances connected with the controversies that issue in
separation in the church, may be mentioned, the alienation of
spirit engendered among those who were bound together in the
same brotherly covenant ; and the unscrupulous use of the same
weapons as the world employs to vilify the character of the wit
nesses of Christ, and assail the testimony whieh they hold.
In the history of past cpntroversies in the church, it will gene
rally be found, that those' who make defection from received prin
ciples ahd order, have had recourse to vituperation and calumny
against such as adhere steadfastly to the standard which both were
pledged to maintain inviolate. They labour to conceal their de
parture from principle by dealing in negatives, without committing
themselves to any full or clear statement of their views; and it is
found to be a more convenient method of damaging a good cause,
to excite odium against those who advocate it, than to oppose di
rectly the great truths which it embraces. Thus acted the Arians
in the early ages of Christianity, — thus did the Remonstrants of
the seventeenth century conduct the warfare against those who
held the doctrines of grace ; — and it were easy to adduce numerous
instances of the same spirit, from controversies that have in recent
days agitated the church, and from the conduct of those who have
been ambitious of the honour of being leaders in division.
The truth requires no such weapons in its defence. " The
wrath of man workethnotthe righteousness of God." The "strange
fire "of human passion or prejudice can never be accepted on God's
altar. Towards misguided brethren we desire to entertain feelings
of compassion, while we may be called strongly to condemn their
divisive courses, and the painful necessity is laid upon us of expos
ing their'disitigenuity, errors, treachery to their former profession,
and bitter hostility to faithful men, whether of a former or later
period. If in defending truth, and obeying a divine injunction,

— " we rebuke them sharply," we will endeavour to cherish an
earnest desire that those whose measures and sentiments we con
demn, may be restored to soundness in the faith, and led to the
acknowledgment of the truth from which they have grievously
departed. While it were easy to trace the opposition to certain principles
of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in this
country to their remote causes, and to show that a leaven had
been working for a number of years, which had a natural tendency
to produce results such as have taken place,* we confine ourselves
to the consideration of such matters as have been subjects of public
notoriety, or of ecclesiastical procedure. For satisfaction, we shall,
first of all, present a historical statement of the late controversy in
the Reformed Synod, from its commencement till the time when
some ministers and others openly raised the standard of rebellion
and seceded from the Reformed Presbyterian Church. This sketch
must of necessity be condensed ;— but we shall aim to state facts,
setting down " nought in malice," and concealing nothing that is
of importance to a proper understanding of the various matters
in dispute. SECTION I.
Measures for originating a Periodical. — Commencement of ihe
1 Covenanter.' — Hostility to the Editor by the Eastern Presby
tery. x
In the year 1830, the Reformed Synod, at its Annual meeting,
held in Coleraine, being favoured with the presence of Delegates
from the sister Synods in Scotland and America, f adopted
various measures for the advancement of truth and godliness.
Among these was the proposal to commence a Periodical, to be
devoted to the edification of the church, in the illustration and
vindication of the great principles of her profession. The Synod's
resolution respecting it ran in these terms : —

* This ungodly leaven, which continues to corrupt principle and deteriorate
practice, may, in a great measure, be said to have been working, at least since the
political disturbances of 1798. About that time, and soon after, a number of indi
viduals entered the membership of the church, distinguished by little else than their
hatred of the British Government, rt is worthy of special observation, that Dr.
Paul's late controversial writings, and his efforts to injure the character of Synod,
and to thrust out a Covenanting Testimony, have been eagerly hailed by this class
of persons, and by those who, whether within the church or not, approve of the
anti-covenanting views of the United Irishmen. The influence of the confederation
to which wc have alluded upon the membership of the church, together with the
brow-beating and tyranny that ministers of the Eastern Presbytery exercised for a
number of years in Synod, by which some of its members were either forced to re
frain from attending its meetings, or were intimidated by a knotof violent men, ready
simultaneously to bear down any man who expressed opinions different from their
own ;— with some instances in which Dr. Paul, in preaching and otherwise, manV
years ago, propounded his lax views, though guardedly, may be more fully noticed
in a future pamphlet, for which copious materials are at hand.
f These were Rev. William (now DK) Symington, and Rev. Dr. M'Leod of New

" Moved and agreed,— That the Synod, regarding themselves
called upon, by the state of the churches, to take measures for a
more open maintenance and advocacy, and for a wider extension
of the principles of the Covenanted Reformation, and regarding
the public press as a powerful instrument, which may be rendered
subservient to the high advancement of the cause of truth, recom
mend to such of its members as may be able to give attention to
the matter, to make arrangements for the publication of a periodi
cal, to be circulated throughout the bounds of our religious com
munity ; and the members hold themselves engaged to use endea
vours in order to obtain sufficient support for the undertaking from
the several congregations."*
This unanimous agreement placed the matter on the footing on
which it could alone stand with propriety. It pledged no Synodi
cal responsibility, either for the mode of conducting the proposed
periodical, or for the sentiments which it might contain ; but sim
ply declared that the commencement of such a work was desira
ble, — left it with any of its members to set it on foot,— and offered
a general recommendation to the people to encourage the under
taking. The motion was brought forward in Synod by Mr. Thomas
Houston, who had previously consulted with several esteemed
brethren in the ministry, concerning the necessity and importance
of such a measure, and it was seconded by Dr. M'Leod, who
warmly approved of the object.
A considerable period was suffered to pass, after the meeting of
Synod, withottt any farther steps being taken towards the com
mencement of the proposed periodical. The motion respecting it
was made in Synod, with no desire on the part of the mover to
assume precedence of any of his brethren ; but solely with the
earnest wish to see a work originated that might be of extensive
and lasting benefit to the church. Believing that there were many
•others better qualified than himself for conducting a Periodical,
he would gladly have hailed the announcement that any father or
¦brother in the ministry had taken steps for accomplishing the
Synod's design, and he would cheerfully have furthered, to his
utmost ability, the undertaking. After waiting for more than three
months, he printed and circulated a prospectus of a periodical
which had received the approbation of some fathers and brethren
in the ministry, chiefly with the view of ascertaining whether the
¦church would furnish sufficient encouragement to a work, which
proposed to assign a prominent place to the elucidation and defence
of Reformation principles.
It speedily appeared that the church took a deep interest in the
proposal. In a few weeks, upwards of fifteen hundred subscribers
were obtained, on the ground, of course, that the magazine should.
be conducted on the principles announced in the prospectus, and
various letters of encouragement were received from brethren in
the ministry, and from public spirited individuals throughout the
church. So far as is known to the writer, the design was hailed with
satisfaction by the whole Covenanting community in this country,
with the sole exception of Dr. Paul, and some of his friends of the
* Minutes of Synod for 1830.

Eastern Presbytery, and perhaps a very few others with whom hehad
influence in other quarters. Even they at first manifested no special
apathy or hostility to the undertaking, however they were after
wards led, through Dr. Paul's misrepresentations, to oppose it.
Whether from the desire to foster a delusion that he alone in
the Synod could write any thing worthy of publication, or that he
thought a work in which the distinctive principles of our Testi
mony would be exhibited, must contrast unfavourably with his writ
ings, in which nothing whatever of this kind had been displayed,
or from a spirit which need not now be characterised towards
those who were most active in the commencement of the periodi
cal, a systematic and ungenerous opposition was set on foot in the
infancy of the undertaking, "which has been persevered in with
increasing virulence for nearly eleven years. Even before depart
ing from the place of the Synod's meeting, Dr. Paul, in the pre
sence of a number of ministers and elders, scoffed at the proposal
of a periodical,— he and some of his friends afterwards did not
subscribe,-^— and, when the prospectus was issued, he went about,
by petty criticisms, to depreciate it, — talked of the attempt mis
carrying, and did every thing in his power, by low gossip, and
mean artifice, to smother the design in its birth.
At a meeting of ministers held in Belfast, for consultation,
which' had been convened by the author of the prospectus, on too
short a notice, and at a season which was unfavourable for the
attendance of distant brethren who were friendly to the design,
Dr. Paul and his friends residing in or near the place of meeting
attended in a body, and their conduct on the occasion plainly evin
ced that their object was to secure the entire control over a work,
which it now appeared would be supported by the church, and
which they had hitherto 'endeavoured but in vain to oppose and
strangle. Here the party acted in the most unbrotherly manner,
and precluded all prospect of conducting the periodical with har
mony or satisfaction. Dr. Paul repeatedly insulted the writer, gave
him the lie direct, though he offered to produce documentary evi
dence fully confirmatory of the statement which he had made, —
depreciated all his past exertions in behalf of the work, — read a
paper of captious criticisms on the prospectus, proposed to pub
lish a new one, — aud throughout seemed to have no other object
in view, than to secure the entire management of the magazine
for himself and his friends, and, by every means in his power, to
oppress and. degrade one whose only fault was an anxious desire,
in accordance with the resolution of the supreme judicatory, to
see a valuable undertaking commenced, and an overweening
concern to obtain the friendly co-operation of all the members of
Synod, in-carrying it forward. In this course of rude and waspish
conduct, Dr. Paul was countenanced either by the silence of his
friends, or by their joining with him in insult and evil surmisings.
Such treatment was entirely unmerited, but not wholly unexpected.
Mr. Houston was obviously under no obligation to convene the
meeting, and had clearly the right to originate and conduct the
periodical on his own responsibility. His wish in convening bre
thren, previously to commencing the work, was to act in a friendly
spirit towards all the members of Synod, and to secure, if possible

their co-operation. But surely it would have been utterly unrea
sonable to expect that he would surrender, all at once, his inte
rest in a concern which he had planned, and by a laborious cor
respondence originated, and in the extensive patronage and support
which the church had freely accorded to him. Few persons,
either within the church or without it, would have entertained
such an expectation, or would have taken such a course to realize
it, save Dr. Paul and his associates of the Eastern Presbytery.
Though the only two persons present, who had, from the first,
taken any interest in projecting the periodical, reluctantly
consented to certain arrangements at this meeting, it was alto
gether apparent that the prospect was most forbidding of be
ing able to conduct any undertaking, which would require fre
quent consultation and friendly conference, with brethren who
could wantonly outrage feeling, and thus early discover that their
darling object was not co-operation in a good work, but unlimi
ted control in a matter in which, of proper right, they had no
just interest whatever. A statement, too, made at the close of
the meeting; by Dr. Paul, in which his friends appeared to acqui
esce, respecting the character of the work contemplated, excited
at the time considerable alarm. Dr. Paul delivered a caution
about bringing forward in the periodical certain peculiar princi
ples, alleging that there was a difference of opinion respecting
them ; and when reminded that there could be no difference
among genuine Covenanters on such articles, as they had received
them as defined in the Act and Testimony, and other standards, he
said we might differ about the definition itself. This appeared too
like a design to keep back the distinguishing- principles of the
church, or to dilute them to please those who disrelish and oppose
them ; and when viewed in connexion with statements in Dr.
Paul's then last pamphlet, it tended to awaken a just suspicion, that
a periodical in the hands of such men could only prove treacher
ous to the cause which it was proposed to advocate. When the
members were about to retire, and the clerk read over the arrange
ments thathad been agreed upon, Dr. Paul proposed, and of oeurse,
succeeded, his friends being a majority, to make a certain altera
tion, which tended to bring the periodical still farther under their
exclusive management. He and his party were repeatedly warned
that the course which they were pursuing, would have the effect
of breaking up the agreement, and marring altogether the prospect
of future harmony ; nevertheless; presuming upon their numbers,
and trusting to sheer effrontery to carry the point, they persisted
in it to the last, without manifesting the slightest regard to the
feelings, or character, or rights of their young brother.
Erom this specimen of harsh and intolerable treatment, and
such a declaration of loose views in relation to the testimony, it
appeared completely evident that nothing like harmony or good
feeling could be expected, in acting" with Dr. Paul and his friends.
As the design of the publication could not be honourably aban
doned,— proposals having been issued, and a large number of sub
scribers having been obtained, it was judged to be the only course
in which the publication could be issued, with the least prospect
of punctuality and comfort, and of a faithful exhibition of Refor-

0
mation principles, to dispense at once with the co-operation of
men who had evinced nothing but a malignant and intolerant spirit.
Accordingly, soon after the meeting, * Dr. Paul and his friends
were informed that their aid in the management would be dispensed
with, — while, at the same time, their contributions were solicited,
and the offer was frankly tendered to them of similar co-operation,
in case they should commence a periodical of their own. In seve
ral pamphlets and speeches, Dr. Paul aud his friends have endea
voured to produce an unfavourable impression against the Editor
of the Covenanter, for dissolving a Committee, which, as they al
lege, had the only right ofmanaging the publication,— and the im
pression in some instances among their friends seemed to be that the
Synod had appointed such a Committee. It is sufficient to reply
to these allegations, that by means of a majority at the meeting, the
enemies of the periodical had secured to themselves a control in
its direction, to which in common justice they had no right, — that
the Editor of the Covenanter had reluctantly consented to certain.
arrangements, — that a chief part of the injurious treatment already
mentioned, took place after these arrangements had been agreed
upon,— that Dr. Paul's loose statement respecting principle was
made when the members were on their feet to retire, and that re
flection on the unfriendly and tyrannical conduct of Dr. Paul and his
party, served to show that it would be entirely impossible to act
with such men, without being subjected to continued maltreatment,
and without excluding from the periodical no small portion of
what would render it useful and interesting to the Covenanting
community.f No Committee was appointed by Synod, and that
which was named' at the meeting in Belfast was self-appointed.
In these circumstances, the Covenanter commenced : and al
though from that period to the present time, it has enjoyed the
countenance and support of the friends of truth, to an extent almost
unparalleled in the history of religious periodical literature, it and
its conductors have met with nothing but misrepresentation and
abuse from those who, from motives too plain to be misconceived,
attempted to usurp its exclusive management. Through it they
* Before this circular was forwarded, a brief note, announcing the arrangements
which had been made, was sent to various ministers throughout the church. This
note was written in his simplicity by the editor of the Covenanter, a day or two
after the meeting, before he had sufficient time to reflect on the matter. When
the co-operation of Dr. Paul and his friends in conducting the magazine was after
wards declined, this was duly notified to the different parties who had promised
their support. s
_ f In none of Dr. Paul's pamphlets had there ever been exhibited or defended a
single covenanting peculiarity; and from his conduct for a number of years since,
it is evident that he would have sought occasion against the doctrine of a scriptu
ral magistracy, however guardedly expressed. Witness his voluntary and radical
pamphlet of 1835, and his most scurrilous and violent attack on the New Scottish
Testimony in 1840. Theimpression that was then entertained respecting his trea
chery to the Testimony of the church, has been confirmed and strengthend by his
-subsequent conduct. The fears of the editor of the Covenanter and his numerous
friends have been more than realized, and his determination to cast him off has
been proved to have been substantially well-founded. The Synod afterwards found
what the editor of the Covenanter did at the first,— that co-operation with such a
person in the faithful maintenance of a covenanted testimony was impracticable
Those who knew Dr. Paul best were early aware of this: those who were not or
who were unwilling to believe it, have found this and more to their cost. '

have assailed the principles of the church's testimony, and of the
reformers and martyrs of Scotland, and while tbey have put forth
unsparing efforts to degrade the Reformed Synod and the Cove
nanting Church in public opinion,— their constant aim has been
to arrogate for themselves pre-eminent wisdom and liberality.. We
shall afterwards have an opportunity of estimating the merit of
these claims ; and meanwhile, we cannot better exhibitthespiritand.
conduct of the parties in the discussions which followed, than by
continuing the detail of the proceedings.
SECTION II.
Disorderly and injurious conduct of members" of the Eastern
Presbytery towards the Editor of the ' Covenanter. ' — Dr.
Paul's attacks in the Newspapers. — His pamphlet entitled ' The
Covenanter reviewed, and Persecution condemned, &c.'
To thebrief note in which they were refused a part in the manage
ment of the periodical, Dr. Paul and his coadjutors made out a
long and laboured reply, which, instead of being sent to Mr. Hous
ton, was circulated in manuscript throughout the church, wherever
the writers thought they could excite prejudice against the Coven
anter or its editor. This letter was never sent to Mr. Houston,
and he only saw it, for the first time, about twelve months after it
was written, when it appeared in Dr. Paul's pamphlet, styled the
" Covenanter Beviewed." In it, the Editor of the Covenanter
was treated in the most unchristian manner. He was repre
sented as self-willed and contentious, and his conduct as arbitrary,
tyrannical, unpresbyterial, and Independent. At the same time,
the men who thus stabbed a young brother in the dark, made trial
whether the church would support them in a scheme of establish
ing a rival periodical, and laboured assiduously to prevent persons
from subscribing to the Covenanter, and even endeavoured to
induce, others to withhold subscriptions to it that had been
promised. Comment on such conduct is unnecessary, — it was as
low and base as it was unpresbyterial and disorderly. The object
was evidently to disseminate slander in a way in which it could
not possibly be met and refuted,— to condemn unheard, and then
tp impale their unsuspecting victim, having previously deprived
him of all claim upon the sympathy of the community. NotwithT
standing these strenuous and persevering efforts to vilify character
and sow dissension, Dr. Paul and his friends met with no counte
nance from the church, to the project of a counter-periodical, and
they were compelled to abandon the design. Whatever impression
their misrepresentations and slanders may have produced upon
their own retainers and admirers, the Christian feeling and good
sense of the church frowned upon their disorderly proceedings.
Mortified that their divisive schemes had met with so little en
couragement, while the periodical prospered beyond the most
sanguine expectations, Dr. Paul and his friends watched their
opportunity, and at the close of the first year of the work, when
subscribers were to be called upon to renew their pledge of support,
a letter from Dr. Paul was published in one of the Belfast news-

papers, * in which, in a covert and insidious way, the Covenanter
and its Editor were held up to public odium ; and an attempt was
made to exhibit the Editor as inculcating bloody and intolerant
doctrines, and as opposed to the whole Reformed Church in his
views. A few months after, a large pamphlet, also from the pen
of Dr. Paul, appeared, bearing the invidious title, "The Cove
nanter Reviewed, and Persecution Condemned," thus attempt
ing to identify the magazine with persecuting sentiments, and to
exhibit its Editor as a persecutor. In this pamphlet, while not a
single sentence in commendation of the periodical was uttered by
the reviewer, every thing was done that ingenuity, sophistry,
and malice f could direct, to distort and blacken the character of
the sentiments taught in the work, and to draw upon it and the
Editor the odium of all classes throughout the community. And
besicles, the discipline of the house of God was opposed and turned
into contempt ; several articles clearly taught in the standards of
the church were openly impugned ; and the whole was pervaded
by the latitudinarian views, which have' since occupied so promi
nent a place in Dr. Paul's controversial pamphlets.
It must now be completely evident to every lover of Zion's peace
and good order, that the course which Dr. Paul adopted was from
the first disorderly, and directly calculated to produce confusion
within the church, and to excite prejudice from without. It be
trayed the feeling that the sense of the church was against him, —
that he held views opposed to her standards, and that it was only
from those who had an interest in depreciating an honest testimony
that he could hope for favour or approbation. Had the Editor of
the Covenanter been chargeable with all that the gentlemen of the
Eastern Presbytery alleged against him, — had the periodical been
the vehicle of errors even more numerous than its good-natured
Reviewer pretended to have discovered, it was clearly a violation
of all order to remove the matter from the proper ecclesiastical
court to the bar of a public, which has never yet regarded with
any favour the faithful advocacy of covenanted principles. Mr.
Houston never shrunk from investigation by the proper eccle
siastical judicatory to which he was amenable. On the contrary,
in a brief reply to Dr. Paul's Newspaper communication, he ex
pressed his purpose of appealing to the Church's Discipline, and of
abstaining from discussion in the public Journals ; notwithstand
ing, his assailant followed in a scurrilous rejoinder. He was willing
for a time to stand condemned without a hearing, rather than follow
the example which Dr. Paul had set, — a course evidently subversive
of all discipline and order. The matters chargedagainsttheEditorof
the Covenanter, were among the most weighty that can be advanced
against a minister of religion, — they concerned moral character, and
related to alleged errors in doctrine. Dr. Paul and Mr. Houston
were members of the same ecclesiastical judicatory • and they had
* The Newsletter.
+ Dr. Paul may call the imputing of malice to his attacks upon the Covenanter
and its editor, judging the heart— scanning motives. We have only to reply that
we judge his spirit by his conduct, just as we say a man is benevolent or selfish
from the tenour of his actions, and apply our Saviour's rule,—" By their fruits ve
shall know them.'' • . . " "

taken a solemn vow of adherence to the same ecclesiastical stand
ards.. Even had Dr. Paul been justifiable in neglecting, as he did,
the least attempt for private brotherly conference on the sub
jects in dispute, it is clear that his carrying the case all at once to
the bar of the public, was at variance with all orderly procedure,
and tended to introduce irremediable confusion, so as to lead ulti
mately to division in the church, and to excite against Covenanters
odium and opposition throughout the ' community. The Synod
afterwards explicitly condemned this mode of procedure, for in
its Resolutions of 1833, it declared, — " That in case one minister
feel hurt by statements made by another minister, he should have
recourse to the method of redress prescribed in Scripture : and we
therefore most decidedly disapprove of members of Synod writing
in opposition to each other, as calculated to introduce confusion,
and to bring church government and discipline into contempt,"*
Notwithstanding this pointed rebuke of the Supreme Judicatory,
this has been the course which Dr. Paul has, since 1833, as well
as before, been uniformly pursuing ; and we shall afterwards have
frequent occasion to remark, that by reason of such irregularity,
the matters in dispute were rendered more and more complicated.
It is, moreover, now too evident that on system Dr. Paul adopted
this course, as that alone which could effectually accomplish the
purpose which he seems to have kept steadily in view. He be
trayed, from the first, the consciousness that his latitudinarian
sentiments were in opposition to the doctrine of the Standards,
from which the courts of the Lord's house had no inclination to
depart; and that the discipline of the church, and the piety and
good sense of the people, stood equally opposed to his disorderly
procedure, and to his ungenerous attacks upon a youthful brother.^
He was aware that the Covenanter was still a favourite with tbe faith
ful covenanting community, both in this"and in other countries,
notwithstanding his ferocious attempts to ruin its character and mar
its usefulness ; and he therefore adopted a method, which amoun
ted, from the first, to a virtual declining of the Synod's autho
rity, and proclaimed his desire and intention of having the matter
determined by newspaper readers, rather than by the authorised
courts of the Lord's house.
That this was no inadvertent course, is apparent from repeated
statements in several of Dr. Paul's pamphlets, in which he discovers
the utmost anxiety to have the influence of the public press, — by
which he means chiefly the irreligious or infidel newspaper press,
introduced as a determining power in the question, J rather than to
have the matter judged of by ecclesiastical office-bearers, and in
* Minutes of Synod for 1833, p. 16. Resolutions of Committee, 2d Series, — Re
solution 2d.
f The disputes in the Reformed Synod might have been long ago and easily set
at rest, had not every successive movement of Dr. Paul, and his party,- tended to
throw an additional obstacle in the way of solemn judicial investigation and of a
righteous settlement.
% For a considerable time before the Eastern Presbytery left the Synod, several of
its members were in the habit of threatening the Synod and its members with tbe
Newspapers, as often as they (the Eastern Presbytery) attempted to introduce their
anti covenanting novelties, or to coerce their brethren into their disorderly measures.
Ja this unpresbyterial course, Dr. Paul took a leading and very conspicuous part.
B

10
which he labours to turn the discipline of the church into ridicule
and contempt. Thus in the ' Covenanter Reviewed,' (Pref. p. iv.)
he talks of ecclesiastical discipline contemptuously as a ' rod only
fit to frighten a child.' Again, in a foot note of the same publi
cation, p. 94, he speaks of discipline, instead of arresting the
progress of error, as a method of allowing it to " spread iu geome
trical progression ; " and in page 95, it is represented as a means
of drowning the voice of reason !— as " fit only for the ninth,
instead of the nineteenth century," — as a "masked battery," re
sorted to in a bad and indefensible cause, — and a subterfuge " dis
honourable and inglorious "- ! ! The candid reader, after such
statements thus early made by Dr. Paul, and concurred in by his
co-presbyteis, will cease to wonder at the difficulty which the
Reformed Presbyterian Synod had to encounter, in dealing with
men who set out with trampling under foot all order, and spurn
ing ecclesiastical control, and whose every measure tended to
weaken the bands of authority, and to break in pieces the brotherly
covenant. He will cease to wonder at the reproach which those
had to endure, who were called at once to defend the standard
of sound doctrine, and to repel assailants who attempted also to
make breaches in the wall of the church's scriptural discipline and
order. Convinced that Dr. Paul had acted in a manner the most disor
derly,— had grievously misrepresented and perverted the senti
ments and statements of the Covenanter, and published doctrines
entirely at variance with the known principles of the Covenanted
testimony, the Editor of the Covenanter sought redress from the
ecclesiastical courts. As Dr. Paul never took, and, so far as we
know, was never inclined to take, any private, or pacific, or Chris
tian method of adjusting the differences, and had contemptuously
refused a friendly conference, to which he was respectfully invited
by brethren in the ministry, deeply concerned .for the peace of
the church, Mr. Houston saw that there was no course left
to him but to proceed by libel against those who had violated
order, avowed the disposition to spurn discipline, and plainly pro
claimed their departure from principles taught in the church's
solemn covenants, and doctrinal standards. This he felt to be a
painful duty. He knew the men with whom he had to deal, and
he was fully aware of the disagreeable attitude which he was called
to assume in prosecuting a libel for irregularity and error against
ministers of long standing in the church, and of acknowledged
abilities. But however responsible the position, he felt that there
was no alternative, but either to suffer character and order and
discipline to be trampled down, and dangerous error to spread or
else to apply to the thrones of judgment in the Lord's house, that
confusion might be put away, and injured truth might be vindicat
ed. In what merely concerned himself, he was ready at all times
to forbear and forgive ; but he could not thus deal with matters that
immediately concerned the Redeemer's honour. He could not
permit truth to be run down, and the order of the sanctuary to be
set at nought, and remain silent, without criminality. He felt
persuaded from the beginning,— a conviction which subsequent
events have only served to strengthen,— that the only proper way

11
for a church court to deal with a case of this kind, and to termi
nate the evil, was to receive and investigate charges, and to proceed
to censure, instead of allowing parties to indulge in vague allega
tions, or to mislead the public by appeals to prejudice or feeling.
And he always professed his entire willingness to submit to what
ever censure the proper ecclesiastical court might inflict, in case
any statement in his writings were shewn to be at variance with the
Standards of the church, or any point of his conduct in the matter
in dispute were found to be censurable. It deserves to be men
tioned, that, as far as the writer remembers, Dr. Paul never,
throughout the whole course of the controversy, made any
offer to have his writings judged by the Standards. There was
reason for this significant silence. He could not but know that
the Standards and he were completely opposed in several articles ;
and it was good policy, rather to talk loud of free discussion, and
to appeal to passion or prejudice, than to bring the cause for judg
ment to such a tribunal.
At the meeting of Synod held in Belfast in 1832, which was at
tended by Delegates from the Reformed Presbyterian Synods in
Scotland and America, the Editor of the Covenanter exhibited a
libel against Dr, Paul for slander, misrepresentation, error, and dis
orderly procedure ; and against Messrs. Alexander, Henry, C.Hous
ton, and R. G. Orr, who had taken part with him in defamation or
irregular procedure. This paper was received by Synod, and read
publicly, with other documents bearing upon the subject; but from
a regard to the circumstances of the members, and perhaps in the
hope that the lapse of some time might bring parties nearer to an
accommodation, it was agreed that the whole matter should be
held in retentis till the next annual meeting of SynodL
After a boisterous though unsuccessful attempt, before the final
adjournment of Synod, to get the court to swerve from its resolu
tion, Dr. Paul and his friends set themselves, almost immediately
after the dissolution of Synod, to counteract the measure that had"
been adopted, and manifested the same disposition as they had
uniformly done, — to be held by no agreement of the ecclesiastical
courts to which they had vowed subjection, if it ran counter to
their own designs. The pretext which they offered for attempting
to violate the agreement of Synod was the publication of the heads
of the libel in the report of the Synod's proceedings which was given
in the Covenanter. Representing the Editorof the Covenanter as an
object of deserved odium in a public'rneeting of the Eastern Pres
bytery, and elsewhere, as far as their influence could extend, they
applied to members of Synod who had not been present at the last
meeting, and others, to join them in a demand for a. pro re nata
meeting of Synod, to be held in Belfast, for the purpose of inves
tigation. This was in plain and palpable contravention of the
Synod's decision, by which it had been agreed that the whole
matter should be held under consideration till the next annual
meeting. No new matter had arisen to justify the call ; and after
every attempt had been made to induce the ministers and sessions
to concur in the demand for a special meeting of Synod, a majority
of the members of Synod, refusing to sign the requisition, showed
that they did not approve of the attempt to disturb the peace of

12
the church, and increase confusion ; and a great majority of those
who were not parties in the quarrel, showed in the same way that
they disapproved of the measure. The Moderator of Synod for
that year, who was the Editor of the Covenanter, refused to sum
mon the meeting, on the ground of a requisition thus procured :
and because he stood forward in support of the Synod's decision
to resist irregularity, to preserve the church's unity and peace,
and to consult the advantage and convenience of the members of
Synod, he was, as might have been expected, abused in the church
courts, from the pulpit, and otherwise, by Dr. Paul and his friends;
and the odious appellations of tyrant, persecutor, and other terms
which the vocabulary of abuse and slander plentifully furnished,1
were unsparingly applied to him.
Failed in this barefaced attempt to embroil the church, ' the
movement party were not idle. As the sentiments of the Cove
nanter had been grossly misrepresented, and, through them,*
the principles of the church's testimony, on the subject of Civil
Magistracy, had been virulently, though not formally, assailed,
Mr. Houston, at the request of some of the most esteemed fathers
in the church, and many faithful members, published a Discourse
on Christian Magistracy, which he had preached first to his
own congregation, and then by request to two others. In it he
had aimed merely to state the doctrine of Christian Magistracy,
as it had been exhibited in the doctrinal symbols and most ap
proved writings of the Reformed Churches ; and to vindicate
the truth on this article against the perversions, errors, and lati-
tudinariah tenets, by which it had been assailed in former or
later times. To avoid all offensive personalities, he had purposely
refrained from any mention of those who had attacked himself
or the Covenanter, and he noticed their sentiments or cavils no
farther than they had identified themselves with the opponents of
the_doctrine of a Scriptural Magistracy, as it is held forth in the
testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.*
Against a discourse thus prepared, it could scarcely have been
anticipated that there would have been any objection, at least
from those who were resting under a solemn vow to hold the doc
trine of the Standards on the article of Magistracy. But from the
beginning, this was the grand object of opposition and attack by
Dr. Paul, and those who thought with him ; and any faithful state
ment respecting it could not fail to be particularly obnoxious to
those who had become tired of a despised testimony. Accord
ingly, in the interval from the meeting of Synod in 1832, to that
in 1833, and after the scheme of a pro re nata was defeated, Dr.
*None of the articles in the Covenanter against which Dr. Paul had directed his
invectives were written by the Editor; and although he helieved that the sentiments
taught in them were id accordance with the Standards of the Church, there were
modes of expression and illustration, which he would not for himself have adopted,
Occasionally too there were quotations from eminent divines ofa former neriod, in
troduced in the papers of correspondents, which Dr. Paul, after his peculiar manner,
represents as the very senHments and words of the Editor, but in relation to which
no candid critic would ever have thought of attaching so minute and extensive a
responsibility to the Editor. S and cxtenslve a

13
Paul published a review of the Christian Magistrate, in four parts,*
at different times, which altogether extended to 182 pages. In these
four pamphlets which were issued, from month to month, till the
time of the meeting of Synod, the Reviewer gave full scope to his
powers of distortion and perversion, — deduced the most mons
trous consequences from the doctrine of magistratical coercion as
declared in the testimony of the church, — assailed the Fourth
Term of Communion, as it is held by the church in this country,—
and exerted himself to the utmost to heap all kinds of reproach
upon the author of the Christian Magistrate. Acting upon the
old maxim, — " Throw dirt in plenty, and some of it will stick," —
from the beginning to the end of the review, he dealt in misrepre
sentation and personality.! Scarcely a single point for commenda
tion was found in the Christian Magistrate ; and although disinte
rested and able reviewers had expressed their cordial approbation
of it, Dr. Paul could only view it as worthy of unsparing condem
nation. It had brought forward the old doctrine of the Reformed
Church on the subject of Civil Government, and had adduced
such a multitude of quotations from the confessions and testimonies
of the Reformed Churches, and the writings of the Reformers, Mar
tyrs and eminent witnesses for truth, that all could judge whe
ther the doctrine taught was in accordance with the uniform testi
mony of the church. Therefore was the Christian Magistrate pecu
liarly obnoxious to the liberal Reviewer ; and while he had not
the candour or honesty to assail at once the confessions and testi
monies of the Reformed Churches, and among these the Westmin
ster Standards and the Testimony of the Covenanting Church, he
attacked with special bitterness a publication which only reiterated
their doctrines, and illustrated and defended them. Well knowing
that these doctrines were not popular, he had recourse to the most
effectual method of having them condemned without a hearing.
Representing the Discourse as containing the most absurd, con
tradictory and extravagant sentiments, without one redeeming
quality, deducing from isolated expressions the most hateful con
sequences, he held up both the Christian Magistrate and its author
as objects of detestation to the whole religious community, and so
vehemently and frequently reiterated his allegations, that it was
assuredly none of his fault that the author was not expelled from
society, or subjected to the fury of the mob.
To meet this unprovoked abuse, so actively and unceasingly
persevered in, and to vindicate principle and character thus reck
lessly assailed, the Editor of the Covenanter prepared and pub
lished, shortly before the meeting of Synod, in 1833, the " Re
viewer Reviewed," a defence of the Covenanter and Testimony
of the church, in reply to Dr. Paul's review of the Covenanter.
* This mode of publication'was adopted, in all probability, as a trial of the extent
of support which might be expected for the darling scheme of a rival periodical.
If so, it was a miserable failure, for the public were so nauseated with the perso
nalities, calumny, and reproach contained in the first parts of the Review, that the
two last parts were allowed to lie on bands, with a very limited demand.
f In one of the parts of the "Review of the Christian Magistrate," Mr. Houston's
name occurs upwards of 130 times, and almost always connected with something
revolting in principle.

14
The object of this publication was not to withdraw the appeal
from the ecclesiastical courts, but to dispel prejudice, and remove
misconception respecting important truths lhat had been misrep
resented and caricatured ; and to place before those who were to
judge in the matter, a full view of the questions at issue, and of
their bearings upon the church and the nations. We shall after
wards have occasion to refer to the method which Dr. Paul has
taken to bring this work into discredit. But it is worthy of spe
cial remark, that in all his outcry about untruths and errors in
the " Reviewer Reviewed" he has neither attempted a refuta
tion of the arguments by which his sophistry, perversions, arid
errors are exposed, nor once referred to the contrast which we
exhibited towards the end of the pamphlet, between his published
sentiments and the principles taught in the standards. There can
be but one conclusion respecting this omission. He felt that the
arguments were too strong for him ; and he could not fairly look
such a contrast in the face. Let him do what he has never yet,
in any instance, attempted— first, shew plainly what are his senti
ments on the article of the magistrate's power circa sacra ; and
then show how these accord with the Standards of the church.
If he cannot do this, as we feel persuaded he cannot, let him
drop the mask and openly impugn the Standards at once, as some
of his admirers have done, and he will at least earn the praise
of candour and manliness, in his opposition to what he affects to
consider pernicious error. section iii.
The discussion before the Reformed Synod in 1833.— Resolutions
of Synod respecting the dispute on Magistracy.— Systematic
attempts of Dr. Paul and his party to violate the settlement of
Synod. The general expectation of the church in this country was, that
the whole matter in dispute between Dr. Paul and the Editor of
the Covenanter would come under judicial cognizance, at the
meeting of Synod in 1833; and both parties came before the su
preme court, prepared to submit their published sentiments and
conduct to its inspection. Subsequent events have showed that
their views m submitting the case to Svnod, and in relation to the
result, were far different. While the Editor of the Covenanter
professed his entire willingness to have his principles and conduct
judged by the Standards and discipline of the church, and to sub
mit to censure, in case they should be found blameable, there is
evidence that Dr. Paul and his friends never intended, on their
part, such a reference or submission. At the time, the terror of
division m the church was artfully employed to prevent the mem-
\T\ ffe'T inducting the process to censure ; and it was
declared that if Dr. Paul's principles or proceedings were publicly
condemned, this would be the result. Every means was resort J
to, to prevent the matter from taking the course of judicial inves
tigation and censure. The constant watchword of Dr Paul and
his friends was "Free Discussion," which with them was but

15
another expression for trampling under foot the discipline
of the sanctuary. They, "too, brought to Synod those agents
of the public press, who had shown unmasked hostility to tho
Westminster Standards, that still1 greater odium might be heaped
upon the church, by misrepresenting the state of the question,
and by partial reporting.
At this meeting of Synod, the papers which had been held in
retentis since last meeting, were taken under consideration. The
chief of these was the libel preferred by the Editor of the Cove
nanter against Dr. Paul and his co-presbyters. The Synod agreed
not to take up the paper as a regular libel, on the ground that it
had been served upon the parties libelled by the accuser, instead
of by the court that was to judge of its relevancy ; but to proceed
with it as charges against Dr. Paul and his friends, allowing them,
of course, opportunity of defence. This step in the commence
ment of the investigation must always be a subject of regret,
as it introduced the practice of consuming the time of the judi
catory with interminable discussions, instead of applying the rod
of discipline for the correction of error and disorder. Even ad
mitting that the manner of serving the libel was not accordant
with usage, — for in every other respect it was a libel prepared
in due form, — it had clearly been the most orderly course, as the
matteis contained in it were found relevant, by being admitted to
be charges which ought to be entertained, lo have ordered the
proper steps to be taken, and deferred investigation till this should
begone. The Synod, however, were sincerely anxious to pre
serve the peace and unity of the church ; and, in all probability,
influenced, in some degree, by the threat of division, they adopted
a course in which they hoped to maintain inviolate the testimony
to which they were pledged, and to reconcile parties at variance.
The charges embodied in the libel of the Editor of the Covenanter,
against Dr. Paul, as principal, and Messrs. Alexander, Henry, C.
Houston, and R. G. Orr, aiding and abetting, were the follow-

I. " Gross irregularity in his conduct towards Mr. Houston, as a
minister and member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, —
in charging him with error in doctrine, and impeaching his
moral character in various publications extensively circulated,
without process before the proper judicatory ; and in impugn
ing the discipline of the church, and setting up a public plea
for departure therefrom."
II. " Endeavouring to violate the unity and peace of the church,
— in sending a letter, quoted in the " Covenanter Reviewed,"
p. 80, to some ministers, elders, and members of various con
gregations of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Ireland,
with an accompanying note ; in publishing two letters in the
Belfast JVervsletter, respecting the magistrate's power circa
sacra,- in refusing a conference before the members of the
Northern Presbytery, at their meeting inBallymena; and in pub
lishing sentiments at variance with the basis of our Covenanted
Uniformity."

16
III. " Error in doctrme,— in denying the right of the Christian
Civil Magistrate to interfere for supporting the true religion,
and the suppression of heresy and idolatry, and to employ civil
pains and penalties in any case for suppressing heresy and ido
latry ; in pleading for the extension of Passive Toleration to
heretics and idolaters beyond the limits assigned in our Stand
ards ; in misrepresenting the character of the former Economy ;
and in mis-stating the doctrine of a. particular providence.''
IV. " Charging the Editor of the Covenanter wilh error in
doctrine, and with holding detestable principles — represent
ing him as holding erroneous views relative to magistracy,
adoption, &c. — as advocating the application of capital punish
ments in- all cases, for the suppression of heresy and idol
atry, and as the abettor of persecution ; and exhibiting the Co
venanter as teaching error, by publishing garbled extracts from
that periodical, and distorted vie«s of the statements therein
contained, and adducing extracts from other writings in oppo
sition to them, that do not bear upon the subject of the magis
trate's power in matters of religion, or that relate not to the
particular exercise of it referred to in the extracts from the
Covenanter."
V. " Casting contempt on the subordinate Standards of the
Covenanting church, — keeping them out of view in the
discussion, and substituting for them unauthorised publica
tions, as if they were not to be fully maintained by those who have
vowed adherence to them ; gainsaying especially a statement
of the Second Book of Discipline, and denying those parts of
the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism,
and the National Covenant, which speak of the Magistrate's duty
in suppressing heresy and idolatry.
VI. " Numerous slanders, gross perversions and misrepresentations
of facts in his (Dr. Paul's) publications against the Covenanter,
declaring that its Editor holds opinions opposed to those of the
Reformed Synods in Ireland and Scotland, and that his princi
ples are bloody and exterminating, and such as justly expose
him to the resentment of different religious communities,— re
presenting him as violating the sanctuary of the dead, and charge
able with the unpleasant consequences of this controversy,"
&c. &c.
VII. " Endeavouring to injure his (Mr. H.'s) literary propertyin
the Covenanter, and diminish the circulation of the work."
In evidence of each charge, specific, and in some cases numer
ous references were given to Dr. Paul's writings, which need not
here be quoted.
The arguments and proofs in support of these charges were pa
tiently listened to by the court. Dr. Paul was heard at consider.
able length in reply ; but it must be admitted that, his defence
was a failure. He never attempted to meet the grand allegation
advanced by the Editor of the Covenanter,— that his published
sentiments were in full accordance with the doctrine of the
Standards, while those of Dr. Paul were in several points dia-

17
metrically opposed to them. The utmost length to which he
ever went on this article, was attemptirig to show that his views
were sustained by certain explanations of the Standards, which,
however, did not bear upon the article in dispute. He . thus
Virtually admitted, that the plain and unambiguous declarations
of the Standards were against him. He took the course of
arguing the point de novo, as if the Standards had said nothing
authoritatively on the subject, or as if he was under no obligation
to hold with them on the question. And he even went so far in his
defence as to declare that " He would defend the Standards as far
as they were defensible," and to affirm that " he was not acting
inconsistently, when he opposed what he conceived to be error in
them!" Although he afterwards withdrew these expressions, at
the instance probably of some of his more cautious friends, it was
quite evident, at the time, from the line of defence which he assum
ed, and from his subsequent conduct, that these declarations in re
ality expressed the views which he entertained of theStandards. And
surely there can be but one opinion in reference to such an avowal.
Every member on entering the church, and every minister at his
ordination, solemnly declares that he believes every part of the
Standards to be Scriptural, and vows to maintain every article
contained in them. It is on the faith that this vow is kept, that
the one enjoys the privileges of the church, and that the other is
recognised as a watchman in Zion. To" hold afterwards that some
parts Of the Standards are not defensible, and that they contain
error, is a complete abandonment of them as standards, and a
plain declaration that the vow is no longer binding. Yet what shall
we think of pe'rsons,who, while they have adopted such sentiments,
from year to year exact from intrants into the churoh a vow of un
reserved adherence to the Standards, — and who yet have the ef
frontery to declare that they have not in any particular departed
from the principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church ? Such
declarations for a time deceive the simple, and serve a party pur
pose ; but taken in connexion with the views of the Standard's put
forward by Dr. Paul in the expressions which we have quoted, they
can be considered as nothing else than a violation of a solemn
covenant, and an insidious way of opening the door to the loosest
principles, under the guise of still holding by a scriptural stan-
. Sard. After a lengthened hearing of the charges, and defence, the
Synod appointed a Committee to draw out a declaration, expres
sive of its judgment respecting the whole matter. The report
contained two series of resolutions, — the one relating to doctrine,
and the other to the conduct of the parties. In the first, were a
number of propositions concerning the Redeemer's Headship, — the
duty of nations to submit to his authority,— the qualifications and
duties of Christian rulers, &c, a declaration of "continued and'
Stedfast adherence " to the subordinate Standards of the church,
and an explicit condemnation of persecuting principles. In the
second series,,the Synod expressed the opinion that the< Editor of
the Covenanter had acted " injudiciously" in the steps taken at the
commencement of the periodical, while they "decidedly disap
proved" of the method to which Dr. Paulhad resorted, in over-
c

18
looking the method of redress prescribed in. the Scriptures, and of,
thrusting the dispute before the public by means of the press, " aS
calculated to introduce confusion, and to bring church govern
ment and discipline into contempt."*
It is unnecessary to offer any lengthened comment on the course
which the Synod adopted upon this occasion. As we have already
expressed regret that a firm and faithful application of the discipline
of the church was not made from the commencement of the contro
versy, so at this distance we cannot but feel,— -what some of the
most intelligent and devoted members of' the church at the time
declared, — that had the Synod, instead of bringing in a number of
resolutions,- -good as far as they went, but leaving various points
in dispute untouched, — clearly marked and condemned the instan-.
ces of departure from the Standards in the publications that had
been issued, and censured irregularity in conduct, where it had
been proved, the progress of the evil had been much better ar
rested, and much of the confusion that followed might have been
prevented. General declarations of ecclesiastical courts, how
ever excellent, where an explicit Standard of doctrine is already
held, can never safely be taken as a substitute for the faithful ap
plication of discipline; — and resolutions, liable to some latitude
of interpretation, can in no wise be so effectual to reclaim offend
ing brethren, or to prevent further offence and disorder, as the
spjemn judicial sentence of a court of Christ. However, the Reso
lutions of the Synod of 1833, were, as far as they went, good ; and
they went nearly as far as we expected, considering that those
who would have taken part with the Eastern Presbytery were then
much more numerous than when the standard of rebellion was
hoisted, and war against the church proclaimed, in 1840. Had
the resolutions been properly adhered to afterwards, the intentions
of the court had, in a great measure, been realised. Actuated by
the love of peace, desirous of preserving the unity of the church,
and of terminating unseemly collisions between brethren ; and in
all probability, not suspecting at the time that the party who have
recently declined the Synod's authority, had so lar abandoned the
distinctive principles of the testimony, as they afterwards discover
ed they had done, the Synod adopted a moderate pacific measure.
• In the excess of that lenity which the Synod showed to Dr. Paul and those
who followed his divisive courses, his name was not mentioned here, but Mr. Hous
ton's was put forward in connexion with acting injudiciously,— a charge which is
often brought against the most faithful men, and those parts of their conduct which
have been of eminent benefit to tlie church. The Synod's indulgence towards Dr.
Piiul, was not owing to any leaning towards his principles ; but we cannot help
thinking that while the committee calculated on our dutiful submission, the threat
of separation and apprehensions of injury to the congregations of the church from
the recklessness of the separatists, were not wiikout their effects. It is quite evi-
dent that the "decided disapproval" expressed by the Synod plainly referred
to the course whi, h had been taken by Dr. Paul, as it was he who had disre
garded the scriptural mode of redress, and had applied, through the press, to
a public not inclined to relish covenanting principle?. All that the Editor of the
Covenanter had written, in reply, was purely in self-defence. It was a heavy sen-
tence of disapprobation upon the first attempts of a ringleader in defection, that
his eonduct was calculated "to introduce confusion, and to bring church govern
ment and discipline into contempt." How singularly ha* his subsequent conduct
in this dispute verified this statement ! .

19
If, in some points, as simple-minded Covenanters averred, the
watchmen were less explicit than might have been expected, they
did, at the same time, declare their unwavering attachment to all
the truths of the Testimony, and avowed those principles respect
ing civil government which plainly implied the restraint and correc
tion of public offences against the precepts of the first table of the
Decalogue. Thus the Synod declared, in the first series of resolu
tions—" It is the duty of a Christian and scripturally enlightened
nation, in their national capacity, to employ all scriptural means to
support and promote true and undefiled religion, and to discounte
nance and suppress error, ungodliness, and immorality:"* And
again — " It is the duty of the Christian magistrate, ruling in a Chris-*
tian nation, to execute the wholesome and scriptural laws established
by the community, and according to the power vested in him as the
minister of God for good, to exercise his office and employ his autho*
rity, in a scriptural manner, for the good of the church of Christ,'
and in support of the authority both of the first and second tables
of the Divine law."f In both these resolutions, the duty of civil ru
lers, in their official capacity, to support and promote the truth, and
to suppress error and ungodliness, is plainly asserted ; and in the
second, the employment of official power and authority in vindica
tion of both tables of the Divine law, is inculcated as a solemn duty
of the Christian magistrate. It is clear, moreover, that other me
thods for advancing truth and repressing error, than mere precept
and example, are implied in the Synod's statement ; for these are not
so much means competent to nations or magistrates in their official
character, as to individuals. True it is, these duties are to be per
formed by " scriptural means ; " but lest any should allege that
civil restraint and coercion are not amongst the means warranted'
by Scripture, these declarations are immediately connected with the
Resolution in which, — " a continued and steadfast adherence to the
subordinate Standards of the Reformed Presbyterian Church " is
affirmed. The connexion obviously implies, that by these Standards
we are to be directed in relation to what is the way in which civil
rulers are to employ their official power and authority in maintain
ing the honour of the Divine law. Others may claim a liberty to'
dispute whether civil coercion and restraint of gross heretics, ido
laters and blasphemers, be an exercise of civil authority sanctioned
by Scripture: — but to those who have received the Standards of
the church as scriptural, and are resolved honestly to maintain
them, there is no room left for discussion on this article. These
Standards do most plainly and unequivocally teach the doctrine of
magistratical coercion, and the proofs which they exhibit from sac
red Scripture show that they regard this principle as authorised by
the word of truth. A few quotations at present may suffice to con
firm a statement which the uniform testimony of all the authorised
documents and approved writings of the church, on the subject,
verifies : —
" The Civil Magistrate may and ought to suppress, by corporal
or civil punishments, such as by spreading error or heresy, or by
* Minutes of Synod for 1833, p. 15. f Ibid-

20
fomenting schism, greatly dishonour God, dangerously hurt re
ligion, and disturb the peace of the kirk. Which heads pf doc
trine (howsoever opposed by the authors and fomenters of the
foresaid error respectively), the General Assembly doth firmly be
lieve, own, maintain, and commend unto others, as solid, true,
orthodox, grounded upon the word of God, consonant to the judgj.
ment both of the ancient and the best reformed kirks." — Eighth
Head of Doctrine, Acts Assembly, 1647.
" And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaimng of
such practices, as are contrary to the hght of nature or, to the
known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship,
or conversation ; or to the power of godliness ; or such erroneous
opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the man
ner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the ex
ternal peace and order which Christ hath established in the church ;
they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by
the censures of the church and by the power of the civil magis
trate." — Westminster Confession, chap. xx. art. 4.
" As also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship;
and according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all
monuments of idolatry."— Larger Catechism, quest. 108.
Among the sins forbidden in the Second Commandment is men
tioned, "tolerating a false religion."— Larger Catechism, quest.109.,
".No less wicked is it for a magistrate to protect, by a promis
cuous toleration, all heretics, heresies, and errors ; yea, it is a ma
nifest breach of trust, and plain perverting the end of his office j
seeing he is appointed to be custos et vindex utriusque tabulae,
intrusted with the concerns of God's glory, as well as the interests
of men. " Act, Declaration, and Testimony of the Reformed,
Presbyterian Church,— p, 83.
" W^ich power magistrates are especially to exert for the out
ward defence of the church of God, against all her external ene
mies, restraining, or otherwise punishing, as the case may require,
all open blasphemers, idolaters, false worshippers, obstinate here
tics, with all avowed contemners of the worsliip and discipline of
the house of God; and by his civil sanction to corroborate all the
laws and ordinances of Christ's house, providing, and enjoining,
that every thing in the house of the God of heaven, be done, ac
cording to the law of the God of heaven." — Act, Declaration, and
Testimony, — p. 164,
" It is his (the magistrate's) duty to see that the violation of the
moral law,— in open contempt of the being of God,— in gross and
public idolatry ,— in open blasphemy of the name of God, — or in open
profanation of the Sabbath, as well as by injustice, licentiousness
and violence, be duly restrained, as scandalizing to religion and the
church of God, as hurtful to the peace and good order of society,'
and as provoking the displeasure and rebukes .of the Almighty
against the nation."— New Scottish Testimony,— p. 99.
_ From these quotations, which clearly express the sense of the
Standards on the point in question, it must be completely apparent,
that when the Synod speak, in their resolutions, of promoting true
religion and suppressing error and ivngodliness « jy authority"

21
and by " scriptural means," and couple this with a full appro
val of the subordinate Standards, they can mean nothing else
than to maintain, as do these Standards, the authoritative coercion
of gross heresy, idolatry and blasphemy, as a doctrine accordant
with the Scriptures of truth. How far Dr. Paul and his party are
from holding such a sentiment, need not here be told ; and of con
sequence, his real opposition to the Synod's resolutions of 1833,
even when professing to approve of them, and his utter contrariety
to the Standards, must be apparent to a demonstration.
We are aware that an expression in the Eighth of the Synod's
doctrinal resolutions has been adduced by some, who wish to pre
serve the character of holding the Standards, while they affect the
praise of excessive sagacity and liberality, and love ofunity and peace,
to prove that it is improper, at the present day, to teach any thing
respecting magistratical coercion of idolatry, blasphemy, &c. It is
declared that " the Synod consider that it would be injudicious and
unwise, at the present time, to attempt entering into detail of the
several things which ought to be done by the Christian magistrate at
that happy period to which we look forward, believing assuredly that
such matters will be easily determined at that future period of light
and love." The first glance must satisfy any candid person that
this statement cannot be understood as denying the propriety of
teaching the doctrine of magistratical coercion ; for this is expressly
taught in the Standards to which the Synod had just before re
newed its solemn pledge of adherence. It cannot for a moment
be taken as forbidding to enter into detail, as far as the Standards
have entered into detail on this subject ; for such a prohibition would
be utterly at variance with the vows which are required of the office
bearers and members of the church, and with one of the Synod's own
resolutions, already recited. But it does most properly debar, what
New Light innovators so loudly and frequently demand, — all details
as to the mode of restraint and punishment to be applied to gross,
violators of the first table of the Divine law. The principle it leaves
untouched, or rather takes for granted, — the various modes and de
grees of itsapphcation it leaves undefined, till the arrivalof the period
when the testimony of Jesus shall be universally ascendant, and when
magistrates shall be generally, what they ought to be, "ministers,
of God to men for good," a " terror to evil doers, and a praise to
them that do well." The Synod's disclaimer of persecuting and
intolerant principles was a proper sequel to the assertion of the
doctrine of the exercise of magistratical authority in religion, and
to the declaration of continued adherence to the Standards ; as, not
withstanding all the clamour and reproach of men of latitudinarian
sentiments, the principles of the Standards, and of those who most
firmly maintain them, are entirely opposed to all that can justly be
called persecution. If conduct be a proper exposition or expression
of principle, then a triumphant and, unanswerable appeal may.be
made to those who, both at a former and later period, have most
firmly held Scotland's Covenanted Standards, to prove that their
sentiments were opposed to persecution. While on the other hand,
the spirit and conduct, of the men that have belied the Standards,
and slandered those who hold the doctrine taught in them respect
ing civil government, though misnamed liberal, are in reality most
intolerant.

*2
On the whole, the Resolutions of 1833, as far as they went, weft
worthy of being embraced and maintained. Rightly understood^
they held forth the same views of magistracy as the Reformed
church had always maintained; they left the ultimate appeal where
it must ever lie,— with the Standards supreme and subordinate ; and
while they explained away no sentiment contained in them, they left
full liberty to ministers and people to declare, propagate and de
fend any truth contained in them. Not a single principle that had
been brought forward in the Covenanter, did these resolutions call
in question, much less, even by implication, condemn ; while it is
perfectly apparent that in more than one instance they contained a
condemnation of the New Light doctrines.
Believing therefore that the Resolutions of Synod were in accor
dance with what he had taught on the article of magistracy, and
that in no particular did they prevent him from inculcating and
vindicating any article contained in the testimony of the church,
the Editor of ihe Covenanter had no hesitation in acquiescing in
them, and Dr. Paul likewise expressed his concurrence. From
the view which We have taken of the doctrines to which they testi
fied, as contrasted with Dr. Paul's published sentiments, whichhe
has frequently reasserted, we are forced to come to the conclusion;
that either he did not see the proper bearings of the Resolutions ;
or perceiving that the sense pf the church was against him, and
that he had utterly failed in his defence, he made a merit of neces
sity ; and not then being prepared to break with the Synod, and
probably hoping that he might yet be able to lead away the church
from some of its avowed principles, he deemed it wisest to ac
quiesce in resolutions which condemned his principles and con
duct, rather than to come to an open rupture with the Synod.
Of ihe policy of such a course there can be but one opinion, — of
its honesty, the reader will be better able to judge, when he shall
have perused the detail of Dr. Paul's future proceedings.
It is manifest, that if his concurrence in the resolutions of 1 833
had been given in good faith, Dr. Paul would have felt himself
bound not to re-assert on the article of the Christian magistrate's
authority, any sentiment that militated against the doctrine
of the Standards, and to refrain from writing in opposition
to his brethren in the ministry, and from every thing calcu
lated to introduce confusion, and to bring the government'and
discipline of the church into contempt. His whole course since,
has, however, been in palpable opposition to the Synod's pacific
settlement ; and we are compelled to conclude, that either he did
not embrace the resolutions in sincerity, or that afterwards, while
professing to hold them, he found it more accordant with his in
terest to act in complete contravention of them, and this course he
adopted, reckless of the character, peace, or unity of the church.
At the final adjournment of the Synod in 1833, the ministers
and elders separated in apparent harmony and good feeling. On
the part of the Editor of the Covenanter, the settlement which"
had been come to was viewed as an adjustment of the subject in
dispute, to which he was solemnly bound to adhere ; and he sin
cerely desired to preserve it inviolate. Although some of the
most experienced and faithful members of the church, who were

23 v
s.teadily attached to the periodical, blamed the Synod for not
bringing to censure Dr. Paul and his friends, and for vagueness
in the resolutions, the Editor of the Covenanter, even at the
risk of incurring a diminution of attachment and support, dis
countenanced such allegations, and always declared that he con
sidered himself bound to adhere to the deed of Synod. From
this resolution he never afterwards swerved ; and even when
placed in the painful dilemma of having his principles and cha
racter misrepresented and reproached, or of violating the agree
ment of 1833, he permitted repeated attacks to pass in silence, rather
than, by defending himself before the public, trench, or seem to
trench, upon any part of the Synod's settlement. Did the other
party keep faith with the Synod,* and testify regard to the
unity and peace of the church ? Their whole conduct, from lhat
day till the time when they declined the Synod's authority, and
undisguisedly erected the standard of rebellion, declares otherwise.
It proclaims that they regarded the settlement of 1833, no farther
binding than it suited their interest ; and that nothing would satisfy
them but ascendency for their latitudinarian sentiments, or rending
the church. For a time, it is true, they acted covertly,— but still
the darling scheme was carrying forward, and every succeeding
measure served more fully to dev elope it.
section iv.
Misreporting , and vilifying the Synod, and the principles of the
Church, in Liberal and Radical Newspapers, encouraged by
Dr. Paul and his friends. — Synod of 1834. — Attempt of Mr.
John JVevin, Licentiate, to embroil the Church, in which he was
countenanced by Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery. —
Synod of 1835. — Lnconsistency and gross anti-covenanting
sentiments of Dr. Henry, on the American Question, Sfc.
From the meeting of Synod in 1833, may be dated the com--
mencement of attempts to contravene the decisions of the
Supreme Judicatory, and to prejudice the public against the
church and her Standards, in relation to the points in dispute, by
means of a certain portion of the Newspaper press. The course
taken was a systematic following out of the disorderly method,
of removing the whole matter from ecclesiastical inspection to the.
bar of a public, ill prepared to form a right judgment on the ques
tion, and was consequently a manifest infringement of the Synod's
settlement. It was doing indirectly what the court had prohibited
being done in any shape. Feeling that all their advantage lay in,
appeals to popular errors and prejudices, they sisted the matter.
before a tribunal that had already condemned faithful Covenanters;
and when they could not move the Synod and the church at large
from their, avowed principles, they tried to sink both the Church
and her Standards in public opinion.
At the Synod of 1833, there was present as a special reporter of
one of the Belfast newspapers, — the Newsletter,— a gentleman who
once professed to hold Covenanting principles, but had long since
abandoned them, and had on more than one occasion, con amore, la»

24
boured to prevent, among the large Presbyterian body in this coun
try, any nearer approach to theWestminster Standards. Report said
that this gentleman was specially engaged and paid by Dr. Paul and
his friends, for the purpose of repotting' for them the proceedings of
Synod. Be this as it may, the report' of the Synod's proceedings "
in the Newsletter was well calculated to serve their purpose'. By
misstating the question before the Synod,— by suppressing much
of the reasoning in favour of the doctrine of the Standai-ds; and
misrepresenting those who opposed innovation, and exhibiting Dr.
Paul and his friends in the most favourable light, and by editorial
comments, in which prejudice was attempted to be raised both
against the Synod and the testimony' of the church, the public was
misled, and reproach was plentifully heaped Upon those who
stood forth to maintain the truth.* This report, which, as
being from the editor of one of the principal Presbyterian News
papers of the North, was duly copied into other provincial papers,
was so manifestly unfair, that honest Covenanters were gene
rally dissatisfied with it, and a number of those who had pre
viously preferred the Newsletter, ceased to subscribe for it. The
Editor of the Covenanter, and other members of Synod who valued
the truth, considered that any communication from them in the
newspapers, even in answer to misrepresentation and abuse, would
have the appearance of following the disorderly course which
Dr. Paul had adopted, might protract disputes which they trust.
ed were now settled, and lead to a violation of the Synod's
agreement ; they therefore suffered the matter to pass in si
lence, and allowed their character and principles, and those of
the church, to be misrepresented before the public, rather than
continue a controversy which appeared to be happily set at rest."
Whether this was the best course, —whether some of the members
Of Synod, who were not so directly concerned as parties in the dis
pute, might not have advantageously exhibited the true state of
the question in the newspapers, and thus have cleared the charac
ter of the church when aspersed, we will not pretend to determine;
but one thing is now certain, that, owing to this silence, mis
representation and prejudice were circulated to a great extent.
While Dr. Paul and his friends received, from the unprincipled
and malignant conductors of newspapers, abundant praises for
their liberality, their brethren were represented as narrow-
minded bigots and persecutors, and the Synod and the Standards
of the church were declared, to be most intolerant. Such repre
sentations were spread in many quarters, without any means being
left for those who desired to walk in the good old way of their
fathers' testimony, of having their case cleared before the public.
A number of individuals, mostly members of the church, and of
good standing'in society, who were present at the sessions of Synod,
* In the report of the Synod's proceedings, by the special reporter of the News
letter, the question before the Synod was represented to be the "burning or drown
ing oj lusretics," &c. The Editor of tbe Covenanter was, of course represented
as pleading for such punishments. Astonishment was expressed at the intolerance
and fatuity of the Synod, for permitting the subject of magistratical coercion to be
argued before them, and for allowing any thing to be surmised respectine the or
thodoxy of so distinguished and liberal a divine as Dr. Paul.

25
in 1833, indignant at the perversions and misrepresentations of the
special report, offered to the editor of a provincial paper, which
had copied from the Belfaslpaper, the account of the Synod's pro
ceedings, a brief and impartial statement of the subject in dispute,
pledging their character "for its, correctness; but this was refused
insertion, with the remark of the editor, that he had confidence iu
the accuracy of his friend, the specia1! reporter of the Newsletter.
W hat concern Dr. Paul and his friends had in these garbled and
unjust reports, it is easy to relate. They did not openly gind hon
estly come forward, and authenticate them with their names : they
did not publicly acknowledge the responsibility of authorship ; but
they did every thing else that served to show that they had a main
hand in their preparation and circulation. They were known to
be in the confidence of the special reporter, and infrequent consul'1
tation With him : they circulated the reports in a pamphlet form
throughout the church, pushing them, by means of disaffected and
troublesome individuals, into congregations where the pastors
wished to preserve peace : they were, in some cases, represented
as the Minutes of Synod ; and the effect was increased^ in 1836, by
the accidental (shall we call it?) detention of the published Minutes
of Synod,* till after these ex parte reports had time to circulate
throughout the church. The New Light party in America,
who had abandoned the principles and fellowship of the Re*
formed Presbyterian Church, and with whom Dr. Paul and
his friends were known to be in intimate correspondence, re
printed the special report of the Synod's proceedings of 1833;
accompanied with ^preface, in which, as a matter of course, pecu*
liar pleasure was expressed in the progress of liberal sentiments in
"the Irish Reformed Synod, accompanied with disapprobation of
the bigotry of those who opposed innovation; and implied censure
was cast upon the Synod for not following the new lights of
liberality and universal toleration. Such proceedings were mani
festly opposed, equally to the spirit and the letter of the re
solutions of Synod. They aimed directly to subvert them, and
exalt the principles and conduct of Dr. Paul and his friends, on
the overthrow, as far as public opinion was concerned, of the
church's testimony, and of the character of the Synod, The cur
tain was too thin to conceal from discerning persons, either within
or without the church, the principal actors in this work of dishon
est misrepresentation. Dr. Paul and his friends plainly lent
themselves to this treacherous warfare ; if they did not manufac
ture .the newspaper reports^ they, received them, in a pamphlet form,
from the printers, and they and their reckless agents scattered them
throughout the church; and they are thus justly chargeable with
contributing to propagate immense prejudice and misrepfesehtaT
tion, both in relation to the church's principles, and to the subjects
that were in discussion before the ecclesiastical judicatories.
,,* The Clerk' of. Synod, whose duty it was to get the Minutes printed and circu
lated, as soon after. the meeting of Synod as possible, was the Rev. C. Houston, a
member of the, Eastern Presbytery, one of Dr. Paul's seconders, whom he has fre
quently bespattered with loathsome flattery, and aperson who has Occasionally lint
or procured a, willing hand for the newspaper slandering- of the church.

26
Honest Covenanters very generally felt indignant at these
misrepresentations. They nave no wish to conceal their prin
ciples, nor do they see any reason to be ashamed of the pro
ceedings of the courts which have been entrusted with the admin
istration of the government and discipline of the sanctuary. Let
impartial accounts be given, and they have no objection that
these be published and circulated as widely as possible. But they
consider that they have just ground of complaint when matters of
fact are suppressed or perverted, when principles are misstated,
and odium is raised against them for simply endeavouring to walk
by the footsteps of the flock, while desiring to cherish feelings of
good-will towards all men. They have not failed to observe the
unmeasured commendation which the manufacturers of these gar
bled reports, and the author of every spiteful paragraph, in news
papers or magazines, against the church, have uniformly bestowed
upon Dr. Paul and his co-presbyters ; and as they must be well
aware of the active part which Dr. Paul and his adherents have
taken in circulating such publications throughout the church, they
have learned to connect them with the whole of these unmanly and
dishonourable attacks, and to ascribe to them, as authors or insti
gators, the prejudice and persecution which have of late been
directed against the covenanted cause, by means of the liberal
press. At the meeting of Synod in 1834, little was done, during the
public sessions, that had a tendency to keep alive the late discus
sions, and, in general, public business was conducted with a con
siderable measure of harmony. Dr. Paul and other members of
the Eastern Presbytery indeed discovered the , same disposi
tion that had, for a long time, actuated them, — to prevent
or retard any measures that tended to a decisive exhibition of
covenanted principles ; and they acted together as a party or faction,
seeking incessantly their own pre-eminence, and having interests
and objects different from those, to the advancement of which the
Synod considered themselves pledged.
When the subject of the division in the American Covenanting
Church was under consideration, Dr. Paul and his party had a
principal hand in preventing the full recognition, as brethren, of
those who continued honestly to adhere to the Covenanted Testi
mony, and the rejection of those who had given up some parts
of that testimony, while they still claimed the name of Covenan.
ters.* * Dr. Henry, wjio had been sent as a delegate to the American Synod, at a
large expense to the church, attended the meeting of that court, which was held
previously to that in which the division took place ; and there and during his
sojourn in America, he could not but have had opportunities of perceiving the
workings of the leaven of New Light innovations, and the crisis that was approach
ing. Had he informed the Synod, on his return, of these important matters, their
timely interference in the way of advice or remonstrance might have had some
effect in preserving the unity of the American Church. But he gave not the most
distant hint on this subject in his report to Synod, but instead,, delivered a speech
full of egotism and personal compliments, from beginning to end. There was rea
son for the Dr.'s silence on the affair of the American division. The New Light
innovators in America, from the beginning calculated on their party in the Irish Sy
nod. Drs. Paul and Henry could boast, even from the pulpit, of their correspon
dence with them ; and it was as little as they could do to plead their cause, when
the state of the American Church was under the consideration of Synod.

27
Towards the close of the Synod's proceedings, the innovating
party showed, that although they had not considered it prudent,
at this time, to bring forward their latitudiuarian sentiments them
selves, they made no scruple of allowing others to do it for them,
and of embroiling the church by discussions, which, according to
the. settlement of last year, should have been completely at rest.
The missionary station in Liverpool had offered a call to Mr. John
Nevin, licentiate, to become their pastor, which was presented
at Synod and accepted. The Synod appointed the Missionary
Board as a committee to take the necessary steps for Mr. Nevin's
settlement, and pledged the church to make an annual grant for
three years, to a large amount, for the support of a minister in
Liverpool. Before the final adjournment of Synod, Mr. Nevin
requested and obtained leave to address the Synod in private,
on certain matters which it was necessary to adjust to his
satisfaction, before he could accept ordination as a minister of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church. He then proceeded to
occupy the attention of the court for not less than two hours,
pointing out what he. called scruples, in relation to his sub
scribing the formula; but which were discrepancies, contra
dictions, and misstatements of facts, which he alleged he had
discovered in the Acts of Assembly, Act and Testimony, and other
approved documents of the Reformed Church. It was very ob
servable that the passages quoted and commented upon, had
chiefly an immediate reference to the subjects that had been in
dispute respecting the magistrate's power, toleration, &c. Mr.
Nevin went so far as to state, that had he fully considered these
matters before receiving license, or entering the membership of
the church, he might have hesitated giving unconditional assent
to the Testimony, and that he could not receive ordination till his
scruples on these points were removed. The Synod generally
evinced disapprobation of this attempt, as it seemed to them, to
cast in the apple of discord; and although they never refused to
give explanations to satisfy tender consciences, yet as Mr. Nevin
had denied some of the statements of the Testimony, they consider
ed him unworthy of being dealt with as a candidate for ordination
while he persevered in such views. On the other hand, Dr. Paul
pleaded with all his might in behalf of Mr. Nevin, the force of
conscientious scruples, as did others of the Eastern Presbytery.
The subsequent proceedings in this painful affair, — the close al
liance which Mr. Nevin has, ever since he came into Synod, main
tained with Dr. Paul and his party, occasionally even shooting be
yond them in tbe proposal of sweeping changes, — and his joining
with them under the standard of rebellion, can now leave little
doubt on any reflecting mind, that he was a fit tool to promote the
cause of innovation, and perpetuate strife in the church. The
Synod, earnestly desirous of maintaining peace, and at the same
time of showing tenderness towards Mr. Nevin, agreed that he
should present his scruples or exceptions in writing, at the next
regular meeting, that they might know how to deal with him, and
advised him to confer with some of the most aged and experienced
of the ministers, with a view to the removal of his scruples.*
* There are few that know Mr. Nevin who will accord to him the praise of ori
ginality in the exceptions which he advanced against the Testimony of the Church.

28
During the interval, till the next annual meeting of Synod, the
Missionary Board, although not directly charged with any concern
on the subject, endeayqurepl to do all in their power t<? obviate
Mr. Nevin's objections, and to bring him to a right view of his
duty as a Licentiate of the church. They held several conferences
with him, and appointed a sub-committee to converse with him
on the subject. These measures proved in a great degree fruit
less ; and the matter remained unsettled till the next meeting pf
Synod, the gentlemen who acted behind the scenes well knowing
how to employ a simple but obstinate young man tp accomplish
their darling scheme of sowing dissension, and of sapping and un
dermining the received basis of ministerial and ecclesiastical fel*
lowship. Synodical Meeting of 1835>
At the meeting of Synod held in Londonderry, in 1835, the in
novating party persevered in their design to break in upon the es
tablished order of the sanctuary, and to weaken the bonds of faithful
discipline. The course taken by several members of the Eastern
Presbytery, and the arguments employed by them, were entirely
new in a Covenanting Synod, and such as betrayed a wide departure
from sound principle, Thus, in the discussion on the American ques
tion, not only did they oppose the Amendment, which sought a fra
ternal recognition for those who still held the Testimony of the Re
formed Presbyterian Church, but in pleading for the adoption of the
Resolutions of the committee, Dr.Henry, who seemed to be thelead-
er of the party, actually argued on the anti- covenanting principle,.
which has been assumed as fundamental by the American NewLights,,
— that the United States Government has claims to be regarded,
as a proper Christian Government, and to be recognised as the
moral ordinance of God.* Although Dr. Paul did not in direct
terms put forward the principle, he expressed no dissent from the
sentiments avowed by Dr. Henry, and he demurred against re
presenting the United States Constitution as atheistical, as the
committee in its Resolutions, and the American Reformed Church
in its Testimohy had done. He dwelt chiefly on what has always
been a favourite mode with him, — misrepresenting the character and
designs of those whom he viewed as opponents, — persons concerned
to maintain the integrity of the testimony, and to resist innovation.
He tried to show that the object of the supporters of the
amendment was to cut off at once or excommunicate from the fel
lowship of the church a large number of ministers and people,—
A pamphlet greatly trumpeted by the enemies of the church, had been published in
Scotland some time before the meeting of Synod in 1834, by a person who had been
an elder in the Reformed Presbyterian congregation of Paisley, but who had em
braced Millennarian views, and had given the Church Courts in Scotland immense
trouble for a number of years. Many of the pretended scruples of Mr. Nevin
were offered in the very words of this pamphlet, and, even in one or two instances,
its gross historical blunders were adopted by him. His exceptions respecting the
Acts of Assembly, also, were frequently presented to Synod afterwards in an en*
larged form, by Messrs. Paul, Alexander, & Co.
• See Dr. Henry's speech at Synod, as reported in tbe Newsletter.

29
than which nothing could be more distant from the words and spirit
of the amendment. Dr. Henry, however, was the chief advocate,
of American defection. With singular but characteristic incon
sistency, he argued in favour of the Christian and moral character
of the United States Government, even while moving the adoption
of resolutions which explicitly condemned the American constitu
tion, as " atheistical, infidel, unchristian, and immoral." This in
consistency, so apparent as to be matter of observation and laugh
ter, even to some who were friendly to the New Light views, served
a double purpose. It served to deceive the church here, in lead
ing them to imagine that, by supporting resolutions, which in point
of doctrine exhibited a faithful" testimony against unscriptural aud
immoral civil constitutions, Dr. Henry and his friends were sound
in the faith. While to the innovators and schismatics in the Ameri
can church, it discovered that their own lax and liberal sentiments
in relation to the United States Government, and their aspersions of
the faithful brethren in America, met with strenuous support, or de
voted imitation by their friends in the Irish Reformed Synod. To
show how far liberal views had gained ground in the Covenanting
Churchin this country, and to gratify the American New Light allies
with a specimen of Irish eloquence, Dr.Henry's speech, which moved
the adoption of a declaration, that was in express opposition to the
sentiments it put forward, was carefully reported in the newspa
pers.* It is unnecessary to comment upon such proceedings. The
man who could thus set up a plea for a civil system, which both in
its constitution and administration is glaringly opposed to the
scriptural model, for which our church has always contended, —
the man who could argue for a government being entitled to be
considered Christian, which the church had all along condemned
as unscriptural, infidel, and immoral, surely gave evidence suffi
ciently clear, that he had abandoned the testimony of the church;
and the only wonder now is that he was allowed to utter such
New Light novelties on the floor of Synod, without reprimand or
rebuke. Never before had there been proclaimed in open Synod '
such an obvious abandonment of Reformation principle ; and we"
believe the only reason why the sentiments uttered by Drs. Henry
and Paul were not at once condemned, was the overweening desire
of the court to avoid disputes, and their unwillingness to infer that
any among them had so widely departed from principles to which
they had vowed solemn adherence.
The case of Mr. Nevin again came before Synod at this meeting.
Instead of entering into a judicial investigation of his exceptions
against the Testimony, through tenderness towards him, and to pre
serve, if possible, good agreement in the church, and among the
members of Synod, the matter was considered in private: and much
time was spent in hearing his statements, and receiving and giving
explanations. The fathers and brethren, who were anxious to pre
serve the testimony inviolate, and at the same time to prevent dange
rous innovation, proposed to Mr. Nevin Various questions, carefully
* The theatrical gestures and rhetorical flourishes with which the Dr. delivered
this memorable speech, were in good keeping with the line of reasoning which he
employed, and the whole matter and manner of it formed a curious illustration of
the powers conferred by a newly obtained American D.D. through the influence of
new light friends.

30
prepared, on several articles of the principles of the church, for the
purpose of ascertaining what were his real sentiments, before they
would agree to take any steps towards his ordination. It may suffice
to eay, that these inquiries were answered with more or less expli- ''
citness. While Mr. Nevin did not openly avow any thing contra
dictory to the doctrine of the Standards, he was careful on some
points either to offer vague replies, or to refer to explanations,
which were themselves understood in different senses on subjects
that had been in dispute. It deserves to be mentioned, that the
ministers of the Eastern Presbytery addressed no question
whatever to Mr. Nevin ; and though his former conduct had
given just reason of suspicion, and they were bound, as much
as any member of Synod, to prevent the entrance into the minis-
stry of a person who made exceptions to the Testimony, and
offered a loose subscription to the formula, they appeared to be
perfectly satisfied with his principles and conduct. The other
members of Synod, still acting upon the principle of putting the
most candid construction upon every statement, and desirous of
preserving peace and unity, after the replies and explanations given,
either professed themselves satisfied, or said they were not dissatis
fied with Mr. Nevin's statements and explanations ; and it was
therefore ultimately agreed, without any marked dissent, to autho
rize the taking of steps for his ordination,— it being expressly
Understood, and indeed declared, that after what had transpired,
he should, at the time of ordination, receive the formula in the
usual way. We shall afterwards see how this agreement was ob
served by Mr. Nevin, and the part which members of the Eastern
Presbytery took in defending his violation of the compact with the
Synod. Meanwhile, it must be apparent, that at the meeting of
Synod in Derry, Dr. Paul and his friends gave plain indication of
the spirit for which they have long been distinguished, — oppo
sing the testimony of the church, — disregarding its order,— and
under the mask of gentleness and liberality, attempting to pave
the way for disunion and disorder, in relation both to the ministry
and fellowship of the church., section iv.
More open attempts of Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery to
promote innovation and propagate their New Light sentiments.
— State of Civil and Ecclesiastical Society at this period, —
Voluntaryism. — Violent attacks upon the Westminster Confes
sion, and upon those who pleaded in its behalf.— The pamphlets
entitled, " The Dens' Theology Humbug," and " Persecution
Sanctioned by the Westminster Divines,"— their approbation of
Dr. Paul's principles and contendings, and his concern in the
circulation of ihe. latter.— "The Signs qftheTimes," or " Causes
of Fasting and Thanksgiving," published by Dr. Paul and the
Eastern Presbytery ,-— this anti-covenanting, politico-religious
and flippant pamphlet, briefly noticed.
Thus far, since the Synod of 1 833, the attempts of Dr. Paul and his
friends against the testimony and order of the church, were in a great
measure covert or indirect. But from the meeting of Synod in 1 835,

31
they commenced a series of movements, which must be regarded ag
systematic and virulent attacks upon the principles of a Covenanting
profession ; and which, had they been successful, or unresisted, must
have speedily issued in the removal of the church from her former
basis of fellowship. It should seem that the innovating faction now
began to be sensible that, in a peaceful state of the church, their
schemes could not succeed. The elders and people who attended
the two last meetings of Synod, were more and more persuaded that
their object was to undermine the church's profession; and they
themselves must have felt that the members of the church generally
had no relish for their new light sentiments. Some creatures, it has
been said, are born to live in the fire, or to delight in muddy waters,
and if they are removed from their proper element, they either be
come extinct, or they sink into visible decay. Whether there be any
thing analagous to this in the temperament of those that have re
cently declined the authority of Synod, and maligned the church,
we wait not to inquire ; but certain it is that about the period of
which we are speaking, they began to give clear indication that they
felt, that by adhering openly to the pacific settlement of 1833,
their hopes of success in the church were very faint, and they ac
tively commenced such a course of procedure, as they must have
known would lead to collision of sentiment, embroil the peace,
and break the unity of the church.
Certain recent political events and consequent excitements fa
vourable to the Innovaters.
There were various movements, at this period, in political and
religious society throughout the land, that indicated to persons
like Dr. Paul and his liberal brethren, who could watch their op
portunity, and turn to their own advantage the follies or passions
of others, that the time was favourable for the avowal of loose
principles, and for attempting to draw the church into the vortex
of political partizanship, — and should any resist this temptation, of
exposing them to public reproach and indignation. The Popish
Emancipation Act pf 1829, and the Reform measure of a later date,
soon produced their genuine fruits. The government of the na
tion was in the hands of men regardless of scriptural principle, but
pretending great respect for freedom and equal rights. Popery
and Infidelity were on the increase. The mass of the people ap
peared to be actuated by an insatiable desire of change ; — ancient
principles and institutions were regarded as ill-adapted to the genius
of an age of inquiry and freedom ; — and men unscrupulously laid
aside the profession which they had once solemnly made ; while those
who pleaded forgood old Protestant principle on ascriptural ground,
were sure to be exposed to unmeasured opposition and reproach.
Some years, also, before the period of which we are speaking, the
Voluntary agitation commenced in Scotland, and the attempt was
made about this time to import it into the North of Ireland, as a
grand remedy for purifying the church, and curing the disorders of
civil society. Fixing upon acknowledged and manifold evils in ex
isting ecclesiastical establishments, the abettors of Voluntaryism
aimed at something far beyond the mere correction of abuses, or

32
the removal of state-endowments from the church. They denoun
ced all connexion between church and state as unjust and oppres-
sive. They represented governments and rulers, in their official
capacity, as having nothing to do with religion. They never at.
tempted to exhibit the unscriptural nature of the systems of doc-
trine or order, from which they would withhold state support, in
asmuch as they urged its withdrawment from all, and evidently
made no account of the distinction between truth and error. In
fact, their reasoning ultimately led to infidelity, however some, who
ranged themselves under the Voluntary banner, were unconscious
of a tendency so disastrous.
A party of this character, aiming at the subversion of the present
order of things in church and state, were naturally disposed to en
courage innovation, and to court alliance from any quarter, — and
especially to hail defection from the Westminster Standards and
the British Covenants, which, beyond all question, hold forth pro
minently the duty of civil rulers to afford national countenance and
support to the true religion. Both political and ecclesiastical
movements in society, 'therefore, afforded encouragement to
schemes of innovation ; and the abandonment of principle, to-
gether with the spirit of rancorous opposition to those who
held fast their profession, seemed a sure passport to popular fa
vour and applause. Of these circumstances, Dr. Paul and his
coadjutors well knew how to avail themselves, and the prin
ciples and character of the church were held by them in small
estimation, when weighed against the reputation and Other ad
vantages which they might gain, by pandering to the taste of the
parties to which we have alluded. It is not necessary to affirm
that they proposed this as their only or principal object, in the"
course which they adopted. It is sufficient to state, that their
writings and proceedings gave high satisfaction to those who un
scrupulously vilified the Westminster Standards, and spurned at a
scriptural basis of civil government, and received their warmest
praises, — while it is presumed that they themselves were sagacious
enough to anticipate that this might be the result of their perse
vering exertions to remove the ancient landmarks.
Attacks on the Westminster Confession.
The year 1835, and part of 1836, were signalised in the North
tff Ireland by various keen and embittered assaults On the West
minster Standards, their venerable Compilers, and all who honestly
adhere to them in the present day ; and by several active move-i
ments for the purpose of holding up to indignation some great prin
ciples taught in them, especially respecting thenational countenance
and support of true religion, and the duty of civil rulers with regard'
to religion and the church of Christ. These subjects, it will readily*
be perceived, have an intimate bearing upon the profession of the^
Reformed Presbyterian Church. Although not at liberty to iden.
tify themselves with either of 'the great political parties, nor with
thoSe, on the one hand, who plead for the continuance of existing
ecclesiastical establishments, or with those who, on the other,
detty that nations and civil rUler^S are under any obligation to ex-

33
tend special official favour and support to the Church of Christ';
Covenanters, as holding the principles of the Second Reformation,
and maintaining the perpetual obligation of the British Covenants,
.could not view with indifference these movements. To a person
in any degree acquainted with the history of the Scottish Refor
mation, it must be completely evident that the Reformers laboured
strenuously to establish, as an essential part of their system, the
harmonious co-operation of a reformed State with a reformed
Church, in maintaining truth and piety, and repressing falsehood
and irreligion. This principle, after countless struggles and costly
sacrifices, willingly tendered for its attainment, became ascendant
at the memorable era of the Second Reformation, from 1638 to
.1649, .and was embodied in the solemn vows of the nation. These
Federal Deeds assume the doctrine of an Establishment so funda
mentally, that lay it aside, and they are deprived of half their mean
ing. They tender the national faith for the upholding of a pure
establishment, which, through the good hand of God, had been sot
up ; and they most unequivocally bind men, in civil authority, of
whatever class, to employ their official power and resources to
sustain the true religion professed, and to discountenance and
eradicate dangerous error and false worship.
The attacks upon the Westminster Confession, and-the Volun
tary movements, evidently aimed to remove a principal corner
stone of the glorious fabric of the Reformation, and besides con
tributed to help forward the latitudinarianism and insidious infi
delity that mournfully characterise the present age. The sharp
whichDr.Paul and other members of the Eastern Presbytery had, in
some of these movements, and the notorious reciprocation of
kindly offices between them and the assailants of the Westminster
Standards, discover their treachery. It is to us wholly inconceiv
able how any Covenanter, honestly determined to hold fast the stand
ards of the church, could regard the efforts of the avowed ene
mies of the Confession, and the declared principles of the Volun
taries, otherwise than with marked detestation and abhorrence.
And such an alliance as at this time existed between them was but
too plain a proof, that those who have declined the Synod's
authority were mightily pleased with the virulent attacks made on
the principles and character of our Reforming fathers.
The pamphlets entitled, " The Dens' Theology Humbug" and
"Persecution sanctioned by ihe Westminster Divines."
A pamphlet was issued from the Belfast press in 1835, entitled,
" The Dens' Theology Humbug" purporting to be by " a mem-
her of the General Synod of Ulster," the object of which was, to
show that the Westminster Standards, the Church of Scotland, in
her reforming and purest times,— John Knox, Samuel Rutherford,
and other, distinguished reformers, the leading Divines of the
Synod of Ulster, who were contending for reformation, and the
ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod, who were op
posed to Dr. ' Paul, were all chargeable with intolerance and
persecution as well as Peter Dens and the Church of Rome.
Some time after, another pamphlet, also by a " member of the

34
Synod of Ulster," arid bearing evidence of being from the sanrS
pen, was published, with the title, " Persecution sanctioned
iy the Westminster Divines." In this the writer attempted,
by perversions and forced constructions, — by confounding truth
with error, — and by ex parte historical statements, to prove
not only that the Westminster Standards teach persecuting &QR-
trine, but also that their compilers, and those who sanctioned
them at first, actually exemplified persecution in their conduct!
A principal design of these pamphlets was, by exciting abhorrence
against the venerable Westminster Confession and eminent Refor
mers, and those who wished to hold fast the truths once attained,
to counteract the powerful effect likely to ensue on the full adop
tion of- the Westminster Confession by the Synod of Ulster.
Besides, in entire keeping with the well-known policy of Je-
suits, the writer laboured to represent those who at present
maintain the principles of the Westminster Confession in" so
odious a light, that their principles would at once be rejected;
and their characters regarded with indignation by the commu
nity. Dr. Paul and his party were praised for their enlighten
ment and liberality, while, of course, the Reformed Synod and
the Editor of the Covenanter came in for a full share of obi
loquy and vituperation. Only they had this satisfaction, that
the dishonest reviler placed them in such good company as Knox,
-Rutherford, the Westminster Divines, the Reforming Assemblies
and martyrs of a former day, and such distinguished men as Chal
mers, Cooke, and others, who had been instrumental in freeing
the Church of Scotland from the tyranny of Moderation, and the
Synod of Ulster from the incubus of Arianism. We would not be
understood as asserting or even insinuating that Dr. Paul or his
friends instigated or lent any aid to the composition of these slan
derous pamphlets ; but certain it is, that by their conduct, ihey
seemed to regard the author of them as an ally in. the war of exter
mination against their brethren, and in their boasted attempts to
banish bigotry and persecution from the world. Dr. Paul's keen.
est partisans within the church, have not hesitated openly to re
iterate the groundless charge of the anonymous pamphleteer, and
to declare that the Westminster-Divines not only taught persecut-
ing principles, but actually persecuted. The pamphlet entitled
" Persecution sauctiqned by the Westminster Divines," had con
siderable circulation amongst them; naymore, evidence can be pro-
duced that the Doctor himself engaged in the dignified avocation of
hawking it,and that he actually sold, after recommending, it in Bel
fast! j it deserves to be observed, moreover, that in all the newspa
pers, periodicals, and pamphlets, which noticed the discussions in
¦the Reformed Synod, and which permitted no opportunity to pass
without a thrust at the Westminster Standards, Dr. Paul was lauded
for his liberality, and that he was claimed by the writers'as on their
side. As far as we know, he never in any instance refused the
incense of their adulation, nor offered a single disclaimer in vindi
cation of the aspersed standards of the church.* With thosewho
* From Dr. Paul's, fondness of figuring in the newspapers, this silence was th«
more significant, showing at least that he did not spurn the alliance of those whosj
trade-was to con.ign the doctrinal symbols of the Reformed Churches to eternal
infamy.

35
had ah opportunity of knowing Dr. Paul's sentiments, or of nott-
cmg his proceedings, this conduct excited no surprise. The mal
hgnant pamphleteer, who is generally suspected to be a certain in
timate associate of Dr. Paul, had only done openly what he had been
labouring to effect under a cover. He charged the Reformers and
Westminster Divines directly with intolerance and persecution,
and Dr. Paul had done the same; with this difference, that he had
deemed it more convenient, for obvious reasons, to assail those
Who hold the doctrine of the Westminster Divines on the sub
jects of the magistrate's power than the Divines themselves. As
he proceeded, however, in his attacks upon the distinctive ar
ticles of the Scottish Reformation, he has waxed bolder, and has
spoken out more plainly ; and in the Declinature and other papers
issued since they seceded from Synod, Dr. Paul and the Eastern
Presbytery have actually represented the Reformers as persecutors
on principle, — and have thus fully and undisguisedly adopted the
reasoning of the pamphleteer to which we have referred. Cher
ishing, therefore, similar views with this reviler of the West
minster Standards, it was not strange that they should lend a
helping hand to exhibit the venerable doctrinal symbols of
the Presbyterian Church in these countries in the most odious light.
But the fact of such assistance being rendered by men who were
resting under the most solemn vows to retain these symbols, and
who still wished simple people to believe that they held fast the
doctrines of the Westminster Confession, must, with all candid and
conscientious persons, stamp their character and conduct as deser
ving of the strongest reprobation.
'* Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving, or ' Signs of the Times,'
emitted by the Eastern Presbytery."
At the close of 1835, Dr. Paul and his co-presbyters favoured
the public with another specimen of their reckless disregard of thei
peace of the church, of their departure from Covenanted principles
and usages, and of their attempts to precipitate the church into
the arena of low party politics. This was the publication of a
pamphlet, entitled, " causes op fasting ahd thanksgiving," or,
" Signs of the Times," by the " Eastern Presbytery," which,
whether we consider the occasion that called it forth, or the senti
ments contained in it, is as remarkable a production as any that
the annals of innovation can furnish. For a number of years they
had prevented, as tbey did afterwards till the period when they de
clined the Synod's authority,the publication of Causes of Fasting and
Thanksgiving, although various members of Synod remonstrated on
this subject, and the members of the church earnestly desired the
emission of such documents.* The ostensible reason offered by
* There is too much reason to ascribe the opposition in Synod to the pub! ication o f
Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving, to the circumstance that Dr. Paul and his liberal
brethren ofthe East, felt hurt at the full and faithful exposure of the evils of Roman
Catholic Emancipation, which was made in the Committee's Causes of Fasting for
1830, which were prepared by the Rev. James Smyth. When the proposal was
made and carried in Synod in 1829, to introduce tbe subject of Popish Emancipa
tion, as a cause of fasting, into the summary,'Mess.rs. Paul and Alexander stoutly

36
members of the Eastern Presbytery against the publication of
Causes, was, that if they were prepared and published by a com
mittee of Synod, ih the interval between the annual meetings of
the supreme judicatory, they could not be considered the Synod's
causes. It is evident that this objection furnished no sufficient
reason for keeping back such summaries, however it may have af
fected the mode of their preparation. We shall afterwards see how
the Eastern Presbytery practically refuted their own argument,
when they had ends of their own to answer. Was the objection to
Causes, published under the sanction of a committee composed
of members from the four Presbyteries, really put forward on con
stitutional grounds, or did it not rather arise from the feeling that
the intimidation and tyranny which the Eastern Presbytery had
once exercised in the Synod, and throughout the church, were
now at an end ? The candid reader will judge, when he is inform
ed. that the same members who put it forward had themselves, for
many years, acted on committees, who had in this way emitted
Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving ; and that one of these sum
maries, that for 1823, is, with the monotony of the cuckoo note,
perpetually brought forward by Dr. Paul, as the deed of Synod;
and what is more amazing still, a deed of Synod renouncing one
of the doctrines of their own Standards ! But of this contemptible
and dishonest shift, more again.
At the Sypod in Derry, when the subject of the publication of
Summaries of Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving was under con
sideration, it was agreed that, — " For the present year, Presbyter.
*ies and Sessions may prepare Causes for the use of the people in
their bounds,"* — it being generally understood, as in former cases,
that such Summaries might be used, but not published. The rea
son for such a restriction is obvious. If unity and uniformity were
to be preserved, then clearly the representative assembly of the
whole church, or at least a limited committee, to which they
would delegate powers for this purpose, required to be consulted
in a matter of this kind ; and whatever specialities in particular
plapes might furnish reasons of humiliation or thanksgiving, which
it might be proper for Sessions or Presbyteries to notice in Sum
maries for the use of their own members, it is evident that these
could not, with propriety, be published, or circulated throughout
the church, without being likewise submitted for a similar sanction.
The present divided state of the church required particular cau-
opposed it, and an elder, who was a near relative of one of these gentlemen, and
who argued on the same side, said that there were some present who might think
the measure of Catholic Emancipation rather a cause of thanksgiving than of fast
ing! Notwithstanding this opposition, tbe general voice of Synod was that a full
exhibition of the evils o( the measure should be made in the Causes, which was ac
cordingly done. This honest and seasonable protest against a great step of na
tional defection, rendered the Causes peculiarly acceptable throughout the church,
and more copies of them, it is believed, were circulated than of any causes of fast
ing or thanksgiving that had preceded them. However, an open and honest decla
ration of covenanting principle, such as this, could not but be disagreeable to per
sons of such liberal sentiments as Dr. Paul and his friends, as it was most obnox
ious to the political partisans with whom they associated. •
* Minutes of Synod for 1835, p. 6.

37
tion.; * and least of all was it to be expected that such a course of
procedure would be taken by the Eastern Presbytery^ whose mem
bers had for a number of years argued against the emission of
Causes, under the sanction of a committee composed of members
from each of the Presbyteries, If such a committee were incom->
petent to perform this task, much more a body, from which repre
sentatives from more than three-fourths of the Synod would of course
be excluded, and which were known to differ in sentiment in some
important pomts from their brethren. Was not the course which
the Eastern Presbytery adopted, like an open declaration, that they
were sensible that the sentiments which they were about to obtrude
on the church,, and the public, could not receive the sanction of the
Supreme Judicatory, and that they would act for themselves, and
seek applause or gain, from the liberal or irreligious throughout the
community, spurning proper ecclesiastical control, and in violation
and contempt of the brotherly covenant ?
Whatever objections lay against the manner of publishing these
Causes, the matter contained in them was much more objection
able. f Nothing at all resembling this production, either in lan
guage, or sentiment, or spirit, had ever before been emitted by any
Judicatory of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, or we might al
most say, of any other church in existence. It was truly a publi
cation sui generis; and the infamy of desecrating a solemn
occasion, by employing it for the pastoral direction and guid
ance of the flocks committed to their care, and of sending it forth
for Voluntary political purposes, will perpetually belong to the
Eastern Presbytery. In a sketch like the present, it would be
inexpedient to offer a full analysis, or review, of the " Causes of
Fasting, or Thanksgiving," of which Dr. Paul was the writer, and
which appeared bearing the imprimatur, and high ecclesiastical
sanction of the Eastern Presbytery. In another pamphlet, for
which we have been preparing materials, which will embrace a
variety of matters, that must now necessarily be altogether omit*
ted,, or but briefly touched at, we may advert more fully to this
subject; meanwhile, a few specimens of the sentiment, language^
and spirit of the pamphlet will suffice to show our readers with
* It is easy to see what disorder and confusion would have followed the adoption,
by other parties in the church, of the course which was pursued in this instance by
the Eastern Presbytery. What if some Sessions had prepared and published Causes
of Fasting, and had introduced what they felt to be principal grounds of confession
and lamentation,— Dr. Paul's errors, — his vilifying theehurcb, — representing Knox,
ltutherford, the Westminster Divines, our fathers at Auchinsaugb, not to say living
witnesses, as persecutors, bigots, intolerant, &c, — and this without censure or re
proof ! fiow would this have appeared ? And yet it must be obvious that they had
just as good a right to do tbis, as tbe Eastern Presbytery had to publish separate
Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving on this occasion — with this difference too, that
they would have been maintaining the truth and opposing, defection, whereas Dr.
Paul was giving currency to slander, error, and party politics,
f The " Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving " by the Eastern Presbytery, were
read from the pulpits of the. different congregations under the care of tbe Presby
tery, with the exception of Baliesmill. The reading of some parts pf, them excited
smiling and even laughter in portions of the audience,— and this in the house of
God, and in a worshipping assembly convened on a very solemn occasion ! The
more pious members, we have reason to If now, heard the document read with a mix
ture of surprise and sorrow.

38
what kind of light the innovators of the East designed to reform
the Church, and illuminate society.
It is always to be remembered, that this pamphlet came before
the public as an Ecclesiastical document, emitted by a court con
stituted in the name of the church's glorious Head, and that it was
provided as a hejp to one of the most solemn services of the sanc
tuary, to be used by the members of the church, when they were
to be employed in confessing their sins before God, when they
were called to rend their hearts, and not their garments, or when
engaged in rendering a tribute of thanksgiving to the Lord for all
his benefits to the church or the nation. These " Causes," the
slightest inspection will convince any person, were wholly unbe
fitting such an occasion. Instead of being a summary cither of
reasons for fasting or thanksgiving, they are, in truth, a politico-
religious pamphlet, issued to support the cause of Volutaryism and
Radicalism ; and being the judicial document of an ecclesiastical
court, they cannot be regarded otherwise, than as a prostitution of
its powers, to serve a low party purpose. Seasons of annual fast-
¦ing and thanksgiving, in the Covenanting Church, have usually
been regarded by her members as times of peculiar solemnity, -in
which congregations^ and families, and individuals have felt them.
selves called upon to mourn apart, or have brought spiritual sac
rifices to God's altar, in thankful acknowledgment of temporal and
spiritual mercies. A principal design of these institutions is, that
the assembled worshippers may review the Lord's dealings with
themselves, and may be humbled, or grateful in the Divine pre
sence, according to the chastisements, or benefits, which they have
received from the Lord's hands. When, at such a season, public
evils or national sins are enumerated either in causes of fasting, or
in the services of the sanctuary, they are viewed in the light of the
the word of God and the testimony of the church ; and there has fre
quently been put forward a faithful protest against the present civil,
or ecclesiastical constitution and administration, such as is becom
ing witnesses for the Scottish Covenanted Reformation to offer.- In
vain do we look for any such views in the " Signs of the Times."
They contain abundant declamation about Tithe and Regium Do-
num ; they pourtray in the darkest colours real or imaginary evils
that flow from these imposts ; they eulogise, in the most unquali
fied terms, the measures of the present Whig-radical administra
tion ; — but they contain hardly the least acknowledgment of indi
vidual or relative sins. They bring forward nothing that has a
tendency to produce contrition in the worshipper. They deal al
most exclusively with certain evils, about which Voluntaries, and
Infidels loudly declaim, while the great matters of practical god
liness are overlooked, and the " law and testimony " that were left
in Israel are scarcely ever mentioned.*
• We have already observed that in none of Dr. Paul's writings, as far as we
know, is there brought forward a single distinctive principle of the Reformed Pres
byterian Church. Is this silence to be ascribed to the circumstance that the Dr;
had ceased to bold the principles of the Reformation Testimony, before he became
an author ; or to his desire to retain the favour of certain parties, political or ecclc
siasiical, with whom, he well knew, the principle! of a faithful testimony are pe-
•nliarly offensive ?

39
The whole strain of the pamphlet is moreover ungodly, and tha
language employedis often low and degrading. Thus, speaking of
Episcopalians, and of the royal supremacy, in page 5, Dr. Paul and
the Presbytery say, in a style worthy of Cobbett, but how suitable
to a day of 'fasting the reader will judge,— "The Apostle Paul
says, ' I suffer not a woman to speak in the church.' Nay, but
say the advocates of prelacy, we will suffer her to speak in the
church. We will suffer her not only to speak but to rule in the
church ; aye, and we will suffer her to be head of the church," &c.
In the same page, we have another choice specimen of Dr. Paul's
dignity of style : — " One year has only elapsed, since ten mitres
were blown away by one puff of the British Parliament .'" (The
italics are ours.) Again, in page 11, perverting the Scripture
statement about " Kings being nursing fathers to the church," he
illustrates the injustice of civil rulers supporting one sect, while
others are denied state emoluments, by a father distributing a por
tion to some of his children at the expense of the others, — and
uses the following classical and tasteful expressions : — " Were we
to heap clothes on these favourite sons, and muffle them so that
they would neither be able to work nor to walk, nor to bear
the slightest puff of wind ; and were he, for this purpose, to strip
the younger children naked, and expose them to all the inclemen
cies of the weather, — what kind of a nursing father would he be ?
And were such a father to exhort these children to live in love and
peace, could any thing be more absurd or preposterous ?" * In
page 15, we have the following eloquent pun : " The Established
Church of Ireland has been usually denominated the High Church,
but this is a gross misnomer, — she is the low church. There never
was a church so low as she is at present."
At page 20, the Tories, a political party, are thus spoken of: —
" Good, pious souls, how conscientious they are ! " (1 he italics
are ours./ And in the note, p. 86, they are again honoured with
the same derisive epithet. In p. 36, they are said to have been
" mute as fishes," when expensive wars were carried: on, on the
continent ; and in the same passage, the unworthy motive of re
taining the "golden cup " is represented as all that actuates Protes
tants in sounding an alarm against the inroads of Popery. We hold
the statement to be entirely unfair. It may suit the purposes of ra
dicals and Voluntaries, who seem to regard with special pleasure
those political measures, which contribute to the advancement of
the empire of Antichrist, to give such a representation; but its injus
tice must be apparent to all who are acquainted with the movements
of the day, and who value scriptural truth. However some mere po
litical Protestants may be led on such aground to raise the no- po
pery cry, it is utterly unfair to represent this as the only or principal
ground of alarm to the Protestant community in general. Is this
in reality all the reason of the present opposition of Protestants to
• It were easy to shew tbe inapplicability of the low ludicrous image of a father
muffling his children to suffocation, to the case under consideration, but our con
cern at present is with tbe style, — and how low ths taste of those with whom Dr.
Paul's writings are favourites, when such reasoning can please tbem, need not be
told, is the last sentence of tbe above extract an apology for civil disturbance, in
order to get rid of slate endowments ? — if it is not, what can be its meaning i

40
the advancement of Popery ? Is there no cause of alarm to genu
ine Protestants in the rapid and unheard of progress of Antichria.
tian delusion ? If Dr. Paul thinks so, he is in strange ignorance, of
the present workings of the mystery of iniquity ; if he knows other.
wise, he must stand convicted in this instance of dishonesty, em
ploying the same language as infidels and liberals use, in helping
forward the schemes of the interested partizans of Rome.
In page 38, the Dr., in his zeal to apologise for the present
British rulers, appears to us to use language that is profane.
" Will you tell your Maker," he asks, " that if he had em
ployed Covenanters, Seceders, or orthodox Presbyterians, you
would have thanked him ; but because he has employed Infidels
and Papists, you feel yourselves under no Obligations?" And
not to multiply examples of vulgarity in language, which would
scarcely be tolerated in the veriest political pamphlet, in p. 35,
an interpretation is offered of a Scripture passage (Psalm lxvi. 3),
which is nothing less than a reckless misapplication of Sacred
Scripture. Dr. Paul having explained the expression, — " Through
the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves
•to thee," to mean, " Shall lie unto thee," applies it to what he
¦terms the lying and hypocritical professions of attachment to
reform of those whom he calls " the enemies of civil and religious
liberty ; " by whom he understands those who cannot co-operate
in carrying forward the measures of the present unprincipled Whig-
radical administration. One can hardly contemplate without a
shudder the impiety- and blasphemy involved in this interpretation.
It puts the Whig ministry in the place of Christ, — and for the Gos
pel substitutes the Reform Bill ! The ablest expositors, it is
hardly necessary to remark, have referred this prediction to the
effect of the Gospel in the first ages of Christianity, when, through'
the power of miracles, and the judgments of God on Jews and *
Gentiles, numbers feigned submission to the Redeemer without
any change of heart. The new lights, however, of Dr. Paul and
the Eastern Presbytery, have dispelled the obscurities of former
.expositors, and the radiance of the Nineteenth Century* has re
flected from ancient prophecy a halo of glory upon the doings of a
band of semi-popish, infidel and immoral statesmen, while it has
covered with midnight gloom all who protest against their wicked
and headlong measures ! To be serious, the perversion of Holy
Scripture in this instance, and in others that might be adduced
¦from the " Signs of the Times," is so gross and awful, that it can-
.not fail to be matter of sincere sorrow, and can only be accounted
for on the principle, that those who make light of solemrt vows,
and pursue a course of defection; readily pervert the word of in
spiration itself in furtherance of their divisive and innovating
practices.
, The pamphlet throughout deals in misrepresentation and exag
geration. In it the truth is either suppressed, or stated in con-
• Dr.' Paul'has always been accustomed in his speeches, pamphlets, newspaper
communications, &c. to boast of the light of the nineteenth century; some of hii
own, interpretations of Scripture, and his lax and crude views of the church's testis
inotij^ furnish a curious exemplification of this ignis fatuus illumination.

41
nexibn with priuciples that are essentially wrong, or applied im
properly ; and measures are unsparingly praised, which, tried by a
scriptural standard, are radically defective, and of mischievous
tendency. Thus Tithes and Regium Donum are' represented
as occasioning the poverty of Ireland,— causing a large portion of
the country to remain uncultivated,— corrupting the church by
errors and heresies, and the principal barriers which have pre
vented the progress of the Reformation in Ireland, &c. Regium
Donum is spoken of as the main pillar of the tithe system, ahd as
causing the crimes and bloodshed in the South of Ireland. The
established clergy are spoken of as " one day hunting a fox, and
the next hunting their own parishioners, and shooting them as
dogs for non-payment of tithes."
Now, almost all the statements made on this subject arc palpably
and grossly exaggerated. Exceptionable as are Tithe and Regium
Donum, we must demur against their being charged with all the evils
which Dr. PauLhas enumerated. There are other causes more po
tent than either Tithe or Regium Donum in operation, causing the
poverty of Ireland, preventing its cultivation, and producing the
assassinations and wholesale murders of the South and West,— and
Dr. Paul cannot be freed from the charge of bearing false witness;
when he has overlooked them. Popery, with its numerous holidays,
heavy exactions and priestly domination, is far more intimately con
nected, with the oppression and degradation of Ireland, than any of
the causes which have been assigned ; and yet Dr. Paul never bints
at this overwhelming evil. The reason is obvious. Those for
whom he seems chiefly to have written, see little evil in Popery, —
they are indifferent to scriptural truth ; and because the abettors of
Romish idolatry and delusion help them to the attainment of their
selfish ends, they studiously keep out of view the enormities of the
system to which they are pledged, and readily contribute their aid
to its political ascendency. Where, we may be permitted to in
quire, has a single instance of the fine-drawn picture of " hunting
a fox, and shooting their own parishioners," been exhibited ? If
the Dr. cannot show one, then we must set down his well-turned
period as an unfounded slander on the established clergy of this
country, not a few of whom are devoted and godly men.*
The Scottish Voluntaries,, attacking the Presbyterian Establish
ment, are spoken of in terms of commendation ; whereas their
principal aim, as Dr. Paul well knows, is to overthrow Ecclesi
astical Establishments altogether, and thus to uproot a funda
mental principle of the covenanted reformation.
. The instances of gross misstatement and misrepresentation, con
tained in this pamphlet, are indeed so numerous, that our space
will hardly admit of the most passing notice. Thus, at p. 23, the
Writer speaks of some " reformed churches reviewing their creeds
* There could be no accusation more weighty brought against ministers of reli
gion, than their " one day hunting foxes, and the next hunting their own parish
ioners, and shooting them as dogs.'' Men that could act thus would be monsters
in human shape.— Not even the priests of paganism are chargeable with crimes
more heinous. Dr. Paul, in bringing forward this foul charge against the estab
lished clergy of, this country* bias equalled in virulence and slander popish priests
and demagogues, who have urged on infuriated mobs for their assassination.

42
every year," and as altering and amending them, and offers this as
a plea for innovation. We ask, when and where was this frequent
review, and alteration of creeds exemplified in any reformed church ,
after a scriptural standard had been adopted, and the church had
come into a settled condition ? In our researches in ecclesiastical
history, we have not been able to discover an instance of this kind ;
—some rays of Dr. Paul's new light might assist our optics in the
investigation. Civil and Religious Liberty is, throughout these
"Causes," used as a watchword, which the most unscriptural par
ties, — Papists, Arians, and Infidels, employ, and even the assassins
of the South of Ireland are said in one place to be " fighting its
battles."* Papists are generally termed throughout the pamphlet
Xi Catholics," a name to which they have no proper claim ; and not
withstanding all that is said of the evils of State endowments, there
is no protest raised against the iniquity of the present Government
in liberally endowing Popish Bishoprics, Romish Seminaries, and
ihe Popish Priesthood in the Colonies. It is unnecessary to remark,
that a fraternization -of this kind is entirely alien to the spirit and
principles of the Whigs of oldentime. The Covenanters of Scotland
and the Puritans of England utterly rejected such a confederation ;
and the myrmidons of Antichrist are so far from fighting the battles
of liberty, that it is not many years since even an eloquent Arian
leader:)' publicly declared, that if the Popish Demagogue obtained
•his object, he with his family would speedily leave the country, as
he would consider it no longer safe for them to remain. Dr. Paul
speaks of " Fasts being lately appointed previous to the third cen
tenary of the Reformation. "% We ask, when or where?- We
know of commemoration services having taken place, but we have
not heard of any fasts having been observed. We believe none
took place ; but the liberal Doctor of the East can coin facts which
have no existence, as he can readily ascribe to an old light Coven
anter, sentiments which he never dreamed of entertaining.
In proof of the suppression of facts, and the praising of evil
measures, we. might refer to the second part of the pamphlet: — the
" Causes of Thanksgiving;" — passim. This is, in truth, a laboured
apology and defence of various public acts of the present cor
rupt government. It contains little else, and the other matter
is plainly secondary to this as the principal design. No hired
political pamphleteer could have laboured in the service with
more devotion. The unscriptural, anti-covenanting character of
the present British rulers and administration, is entirely kept out
of view ; — their measures are warmly eulogised — a jubilee and na-
tional thanksgiving are called for, on account of the success of their

* See "Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving," p. 31. With as much reason
might the Indian savage, with his tomahawk and scalping knife, slaying or tortur
ing his victim with savage delight, or the Thugs in India, who make murder their
trade, be said to be fighting the battles of civil and religious liberty, as those who,
in the south and west of this unhappy country, are the dupes of an interested and
intolerant priesthood, and of aspiring demagogues, and who are the implacable
enemies of every thing Protestant.
f Dr. Montgomery. J Causes, p. 23.

43
administration.* They are spoken of as almost introducing the
Millennium, establishing peace and liberty throughout the world,
and proclaiming "justice between church and church, nation and
nation, as well as between man and man."f Reform in Parhament
— Corporation Reform— Retrenchment— Free Discussion, includ
ing, of course, full freedom to the Atheist, Deist, Socialist — these
are measures that are praised in the highest terms— and yet it is no
torious, that none of those changes called Reforms were adopted on
scriptural grounds, while several of them have operated, and will ope
rate, to give power to popery and infidelity. The Whigs of the pre
sent day are represented as almost immaculate, and they are spoken
of as identified with the Whigs of the olden time, whereas they are
entirely opposed to them both in principle and spirit. Roman
Catholics are said to be ashamed of persecuting principles. We
ask, — where is the evidence of this, either in the writings or con
duct of those who direct the policy of Antichrist ? Political de-
claimers or Jesuits axei- this to serve a purpose, but the proof has
yet to be submitted ; though often demanded, it never has been
E resented, while the motto of Rome — " Semper Eadem,"— and
er unrepealed statute book, bear unequivocal evidence that the
allegation is without a foundation. Throughout the whole inspired
volume, we never have the slightest- intimation of Popery being
reformed, and in the book of Revelation, Antichrist is always re
presented as unchanged and unreformed, from its. rise till its final
overthrow. The great system, with its abettors and supporters, is
exhibited as the " Mother of Harlots " — having a whore's forehead,
refusing to be ashamed, and as continuing to war against the truth,
and drink the blood of the saints, until desolation from the pre
sence of the Almighty shall overwhelm her. It need not be told
how opposed are all such views to the dogmas of those who de
claim about the altered and improved spirit of Popery.
Dr. Paul even identifies himself with the class of Radical Re
formers. He is not a finality man. Like the Irish agitator, whose
cause he faithfully serves in this instance, he regards reform mea
sures already past, as valuable chiefly because they are "instal
ments of still more sweeping changes."}
It is needless to pursue this exposure farther, or offer comments
on the extravagant panegyrics which the writer bestows on an in
fidel, popish, and truckhng ministry. We might ask, — is there in
this pamphlet the least hint that scriptural qualifications are indis
pensable to civil office in a Christian nation ? Is there any attempt
to apply the measuring rod of the divine word to political men and
measures ? Is there a word said about the utter neglect of legis-
* See Causes of Thanksgiving, p. 37.
t If the present British rulers are renowned for doing "justice between church
and chureh," why do they not re-establish the covenanted constitution as it existed
from 1638 to 1649. This is the system whieh, according to the late venerable
Dr. M'Crie, has the " proper claim by every right, divine and human, to be pre
sently professed by all classes in these lands." Would Dr. Paul like to see the
Covenanted Church re-established and endowed as it was under the Second . Refor
mation ? If so, one would find some breathing of the wish in some part of his writ
ings. If he would, some of his modes of reasoning against endowments, and against
magistratical coercion, would never have appeared before the public.
| See Causes of Thanksgiving, p. 35.

41
M^ng to prevent Sabbath profanation, or even of the present Bri-
C ,? rulers passing enactments, as in the railroad bills, to author
rise extensive desecration of the Lord's day ? * On these and
other topics of similar importance, Dr. Paul is entirely silent ; and
it is but too evident that the design of the writer was to gam the
praises and support of a political party, by the deliberate exclusion
of scriptural principles. The enemies of truth knew well how
to appreciate the sacrifice. In this country, the ministers of thej
church were grieved, while Popish priests rejoiced, and engaged
in the active circulation of " The Signs of the Times." The
Voluntaries and Radicals had a large impression of the pamphlet
printed and circulated, and they honoured the author with special
marks of favour. Its appearance was hailed with joy by the VoT
luntaries of Scotland, and afforded them grounds of triumph in their
war against the doctrine of a national establishment of religion,
It was represented as the production of the Irish Reformed Pres
byterian Synod ;\ and employed at public meetings, and on other
fit occasions, in opposing important articles of the Westminster
Confession. On the other hand, the faithful adherents of a cove-
nanted testimony, in Scotland as well as in this country, regarded
the publication of this pamphlet with feelings of alarm, and sorrow,
and shame. They were grieved that any who were called breth
ren, should make common cause with the declared enemies of re-
f formation principles. The ministers of the Reformed Synod in
i Scotland, generally and strongly disapproved ©f the "Causes of
Fasting and Thanksgiving," and it all but escaped a public judicial
condemnation, in one of the Presbyteries of that judicatory. It
was felt to be deplorable throughout the church, that such a me
lancholy sample should be given of the decay of practical godli
ness, among the ministers and people of the Eastern Presbytery,
and, at the same time, of their readiness to take part in the politi
cal strife that was dividing the nation, in which both parties were
sufficiently far from a scriptural standard. Never was the adage
of the Latin poet more applicable, than to the conduct of the East
ern Presbytery, in relation to the " Signs of the Times" — "Quern
Deus vult perdere prius dementat." The publication of such a pam
phlet by an ecclesiastical body was downright infatuation, and it was
doubly so, coming from the Eastern Presbytery, occupying the
position that they did at this juncture. The writer speaks what
he knows to have been the feehng of many of his brethren hi the
ministry, in relation to the " Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving."
They considered themselves disgraced by being in connexion,
with a Presbytery that could prostitute its powers in pub.
lishing such a pamphlet,— and they felt it a stain on the
whole church, that it did not instantly receive judicial condemna
tion. That the " Causes " were received by Congregations of
the Eastern Presbytery, or by any of the members of the church,
* In allusion to the clause in the railway bills about carrying the mail on tho
Sabbath day.
t This appeared a natural enough inference, as it was sanctioned hv a Presbr-
tery ; and persons at a distance could hardly understand how a Presbytery would
venture on issuing a document, containing sentiments of which the Synod diiap.

45
without marked disapprobation and disgust, is a melancholy in
stance of the progress of declension. The time was when no Pres*
bytery, or minister, would have dared to present such a docu
ment to a congregation of Covenanters. The religious spirit,
however, of the people had degenerated with the defection of tha
ministers, otherwise they would never have suffered such an out.
rage upon sound principle and devotional feelings, — such a bur-
lesque upon a solemn rehgious ordmance. The publication of
this pamphlet, at this particular time, was fraught with more
than ordinary danger to the adherents of a covenanted testi
mony. A large portion of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
America had, in an hour of temptation, been led to abandon their
former standing, by approving of the United States Government,
and by taking part in electioneering politics. From the enlarge
ment of certain political rights, which the measures of Government
had granted in recent years, there was danger nearer home, both in
this country and in Scotland, of members of the church being led
away from former steadfastness. The "Signs of the Times," in
stead of raising a barrier against the threatened evil, served,
to help forward pohtical agitation, and was actually employed
in some quarters for this purpose. Its whole spirit and ten--
dency were to draw Covenanters into connexion, and active co
operation with one of the evil pohtical parties of the day. In it,
Dr. Paul overlooks altogether the reformation attainments of
a former period,— hallowed in the remembrance and affections
of every genuine Presbyterian, — and talks in high sounding terms
of a " Third Reformation " approaching, more glorious than the
second ; and he and the Presbytery seem to consider themselves
as distinguished instruments for its introduction. We have only.
to observe, in conclusion, that if the " Signs of the Times " be a
specimen of this third reformation, then, indeed, we may look for
ward to it, as an era of radical aud singular changes. Our seasons
of fasting, and thanksgiving will be greatly different from what they;
were in our fathers' days. The worshipping assemblies, instead
of being affected with the exhibition of the Lord's controversy
for their own sins, and for the abommations ' that are done in
the land, will be excited to laughter by the low sarcasms and vulgar
flippancies contained in Summaries of Causes. Instead of contrition.
for their own sins, they will indulge in derision of others ; and in-'
stead of protesting against unscriptural systems and rulers, they
will associate with the worst pohtical parties, and become the ready
panegyrists of their measures. The church, in short, will as
sume a position in relation to political parties and principles, such
as her testimony never contemplated. But whether the piety,
faithfulness, and zeal of her members will be increased under tha
ascendency of the new principles, is very problematical.

46

SECTION V.

Farther attacks upon the Testimony of the Church. — " Christian
Liberator," a Voluntary, Independent Periodical.— Concern of
Members of the Eastern Presbytery in its publication and cir
culation. — Its ignorant, malevolent assaults upon the Westmin
ster Confession. — Voluntary movements in Belfast. — Share
which Ministers and Elders of the Eastern Presbytery had in
these attempts to overthrow the fabric of the Reformation. —
Synod of 1836. — Memorial of the Congregation of Knock-
bracken, and proceedings of Synod thereupon.
Next in order of the systematic attacks upon the Covenanted
Reformation, to which the gentlemen of the Eastern Presby
tery lent themselves, may be mentioned the Voluntary publi
cations which about this time issued from the Belfast press, and
Voluntary movements in the North of Ireland, which attracted
considerable notoriety. About the commencement of the year
1835, a periodical, bearing the plausible and pompous title of the
" Christian Liberator," designed " to advocate, on scriptural
principles, the cause of civil and rehgious liberty," was started, for
the purpose of aiding the cause of Voluntaryism, which in Scot
land and England had been putting forth the most violent efforts
to overthrow ancient established institutions. The Editor of
this magazine was an Independent minister, — an agitator in
politics on the radical side, — and one whose conduct did not
endear him to the well disposed of the community. Its con
tributors and supporters were chiefly Independents, and Volun
taries in religion, and radicals in politics. The first year of the
existence of this periodical passed, without its attracting almost any
notice.. In literary execution, and as a professedly religious journal,
it was w°rse than contemptible. It scarcely ever contained a
single article, however small, in which any of the great articles of
the Gospel was exhibited, or vindicated. It was entirely devoid
of matter that tended to promote practical religion, and although
it promised to record the progress of Christian benevolence, it was
all but exclusively taken up with putting forward Independency, and
Voluntary principles ; and like magazines of the same species, pub
lished in other places, it was pervaded by an ungodly spirit, and
by perversions and misrepresentations of the principles of the
founders, and confessors of the Reformed churches. Feeling that
their labours were not attracting the publicity which they coveted,
the conductors of this periodical, and others who wished to intro-,
duce the reign of Voluntaryism, at the commencement of the year
1836, enlarged their plan, and endeavoured to draw in new auxiliaries
in their crusade, against the principle of an Establishment of reli
gion, and other collateral doctrines of the Reformation. A public
meeting was held in Belfast, in the evening, designated a soiree,
which was attended by a considerable number of radicals and Vo
luntaries of different religious names, and at which were present
Drs. Paul and Henry, and Rev. Mr. Alexander, with several elders
»nd members of the Covenanting church, who were of kindred

47
sentiments with them, and who were friendly to the importation of
Voluntaryism into this country. At this meeting, inter alia, the
proposal for enlarging the " Christian Liberator " was brought
forward, — an introductory paper for the second volume was read
and approved, containing anti-establishment, and otherwise er
roneous doctrines,— and a Committee was appointed to take
measures for diffusing these principles, and for conducting the peri
odical. The ministers of the Eastern Presbytery, who were pre
sent, made speeches on the occasion ; the measures proposed were
reported to have received the concurrence of the whole assembly ;
and it was declared in the public papers, and afterwards in the
" Liberator, " that members of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod
were members of the Committee. *
It is not necessary that we should, at any length, consider the
sentiments, and reasoning that were advanced in the monthly ef
fusions of the "Liberator." Suffice it to say, that they were
directed against what the writers termed the " compulsory princi
ple, " and were in favour of the voluntary theory. They were
distinguished by hostility to the Westminster Confession, and
and to those who maintained its doctrines; and were not less
remarkable for their bitterness, than for the flippancy, and ig
norance which they betrayed. Thus the pamphlet entitled the
" Dens' Theology Humbug," already noticed, was lauded in the
highest terms, and represented as "having proved to a demon
stration its leading position," — " showing from the Westminster
Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and other authorised
documents, that John Knox and our Protestant Reformers, toge
ther with Assemblies of the Kirk, and even the National Kirk
of Scotland itself, have all sanctioned the intolerant principles as
cribed to Peter Dens." j The words of the Confession are quoted
elsewhere, and directly contradicted in terms of contumely and
reproach. Thus the " Liberator " declared,*— in reference to the
sentiment of the Westminster Confession (ch. xxiii. art. 3.), " In
opposition to this sentiment, we maintain that a civil ruler hath not
authority from God to take order that unity and peace be pre
served in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and en
tire, that all blasphemies be suppressed, — all corruption and abuses
in worship and discipline prevented and reformed, and all the or
dinances of God duly settled, administered and observed." As a
specimen of the ignorant ridicule and contempt which the writers
in the " Liberator," or its sapient editor, attempted to pour upon
the Confession, the following remarks, contained in a note on this
passage, deserve to be mentioned : —
"Could any of our readers ' guess' what scriptural proof in
favour of this position (the Magistrate calling Synods, &c.,) is
produced by the venerable Assembly of Westminster Divines ?
Some commandment from the lips of the King and Head of the
* See Christian Liberator, No. 4, vol. ii.
•)• See cover of No. 4, vol. ii. of the " Christian Liberator." It is added, " This
pamphlet will produce in certain circles no ordinary sensation, and will tend to
prevent the enlightened members of the Synod of -Ulster from committing them
selves to, all and every part,of tlje Westminster Confession."
% Christian Liberator, No. 5, vol. ii. p. 107.

4S
church ? Some express intimation of Jehovah's will ? No, verily";
Theonly proof, they could find in the New Testament, was Matt.
ii. 4, when, Herod is said.to have convened the magicians to. as*.
certain where. Christ should be.born ! An ungodly King had po
litical power td assemble his infidel magicians, ergo, magistrates
have authority from God to call Syiiods, of Christian ministers!'*
The utter ignorance of Scripture, and the stupid incapacity for
apprehending, the plainest argument betrayed in this passage, need
no exposure;* With such writers, it was easy to see that the
Westminster Confession had little to fear; but this did not
excuse their malevolence towards its doctrines, or the duplicity
land treachery of those who co-operated with .therA, or who sup.
ported them,' while they still professed to' hold the sentiments of
the Confession.
We might easily adduce a number of other passages from the
" Liber dtjor," £o. show the reckless manner, in 'which the
Voluntary organ endeavoured to overthrow the grand principle
.pf the Westminster Standards; and of the British Covenants,
respecting a national establishment of, religion ; but this is unJ
necessary. From the specimen we have given, the spirit of-the
whole may be ascertained. The " Liberator'' was character.
isgd, by similar ignorance, petulance, and self-Conceit throughout j
-and < by the most barefaced perversions of arguments in favour
of National Establishments, and by the continual exhibition of
bitterness, and rancour against those who employ thom-, the con
ductors aimed.to raze to the ground the costly fabric which our
forefathers erected, and to raise upon its ruins their own system
of anarchy, and national infidelity. To a person who knew any
thing of the principles, or usages of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church, it must have appealed not a little singular, that with such
a publication, or its conductors, any who professed adherence td
the Covenanted Standard should be, in any way, connected, It
was' an alliance into which an honest Covenanter would not
have thought for a moment of entering. Yet, as we have
said, three Covenanting ministers, all of the Eastern Presbytery;
sanctioned by their presence the introductory paper of the " Li*
berator ,-j- and members of the Covenanting Synod were said to
* Jn a subsequent number, the editor attempted a correction- of the gross and
ridiculous blimder about tbe " magicians," but without withdrawing the sneer
ngainst the Confession, and- he only exposed still farther his confirmed ignorance,
and envenomed hostility to the: Westminster Standards.
f In the " Liberator " (Vol. If. p. 23.) it is said' concerning the Introductory
paper,—" the principles embodied in that article obtained the warm and unanimous
approbation of the gentlemen present," — and among the " gentlemen present,?
who addressed the meeting,, were "Rev. John Paul,, of Carrie kfergus, Rev. W.
Henry, D.D.; Newtownapls ; Rev, John Alexander,, Belfast,"— and in the same
place it is farther said, that before .the meeting was closed, the following re
solutions were passed: — "That a periodical, conducted on the principles stated
in the leading article of the forthcoming number of the ' Christian Liberator,1 this
evening read to us, merits the support of all-the- frienrts'of oivil and religious lib
erty; qnd we pledge ourselves to promote the extensive circulation of that jour
nal." (The italics.are ours.), f'That tbe most cordial thank* of this mee'ting be
presented to the Rev. John Paul of Carrickfergus, and the Eastern Presbytery of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church, for their -able- and unanswerable pamphlet, *«•

49
belong to the Committee of the " Belfast Voluntary Church
Society," which was appointed to diffuse the principles of which
this periodical was the avowed organ.* Dr. Paul wrote several
papers in the " Liberator," which were published under his
signature.! He and his. writings and party were always praised in
posing < the Evils and Dangers of the present System of Tithes and Kegium Donum
iu Ireland.' '' And in p. 22, of the same number of the " Liberator," in a fulsome
notice ot the " Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving "by the Eastern Presbytery, it
is declared, — "To the influence of this pamphlet (the ' Causes,') do we owe the
large and influential Committee, under whose auspices this periodical now appears."
The reader will now be prepared to judge for himself, without comment from us,
what part Dr. Paul and other members of the Eastern Presbytery had in tbe pub
lication, and " extensive circulation " of the malignant slanders of the "Liberator'1
against the Westminster Confession, the Refoimers, and those who at present
maintain their principles and vindicate their character.
The sentiments of the Introductory paper, although cautiously expressed, were
in many points objectionable, and such as no sound Covenanter could subscribe.
Our space only admits, of the most passing notice. The " gentlemen present" say
(p. 2.), " We rejoice to think that the sentiment is spreading through the world with
the rapidity of light, that man is no more accountable to his fellow for the article!
of his religious belief, than for the height of his stature, or the colour of his skin."
Then, according to this sapient doctrine of the Independent minister, Voluntaries,
and members of the Eastern Presbytery, a minister is not accountable to his con
gregation for tbe doctrine he preaches, — ecclesiastical courts can take no cognizance
of the religious belief of ministers, elders, or people, — and civil rulers are in no wise
accountable to the people for the profession of religion which they make, or whether
they make any profession at all. This sentiment may do for Infidels or Volun
taries of the present day, — but it sounds strange indeed from the lips of professing
Covenanting ministers. Throughout this paper, the " gentlemen present " deny
entirely the propriety or duty of giving state-endowment to the church in any cir
cumstances,— arguing, that thus the church will be "encumbered and fettered,"—
that rulers may, out of their private resources,- that is, not as rulers at all, — bestow
endowments,— and that to " tax a divided community for the support of a sect," as
contrary to " the fixed and settled laws" of the Christian dispensation. That all
this pure Voluntaryism in in utter opposition to the principles for which our Re
forming forefathers contended, both under the First and Second reforming periods,
and to tbe plain declarations of the Second Book of Discipline, need not be told, to
any person acquainted, in tbe smallest degree, with the history of the reformation
in these lands.
" * The Committee includes Episcopalians, Presbyterians of the Synod of Ul
ster,— of the Secession Synod,— of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod, and the ori
ginal Seceding Synod ; also Independents and Wesleyan Methodists." — Christian
Liberator. Vol. ii. No. 4. p. 83. The names of the Committee, however, were
never published. Was this concealment intentional, that when the courts of tbe
church would take cognizance of the matter, they might not readily obtain proof?
However this be, the fact shows that the abettors of Voluntaryism in the Reformed!
Synod were ashamed or afraid publicly to declare their confederation with the
avowed enemies of tbe distinctive principles which the Synod maintained, — and at
the same time, their readiness, in a treacherous, underhand way, to advance a sys
tem which aimed undisguisedly to overthrow utterly the costly attainments of the
Reformation. f In a paper, in the first number, vol. ii. of the " Liberator," on the " Patriarchal,
Levitical, and Christian Tithe Systems," by a Presbyterian Minister,"— which the
Northern Whig, a good authority, ascribes to Dr. Paul, — and in another paper, to
which the name of " John Paul '' was affixed, containing reasons why " Covenan
ters object to Kegium Donum," the statements are unfounded and absurd, the ar
guments sophistical, and the reasoning weak. The reasons against accepting Re
gium Donum are political party reasons, and tbe Covenanters' reason is altogether
left out. In the first of these papers (p. 9, at the foot), tjie giving of State-sup.
port .to. the church, in any case, isr-depried as contrary to the law of tbe New Testa
ment This is just the grand Voluntary assumption, as destitute of all solid proof
G

so
the most fulsome terms ; while those who differed from him in the
Reformed Synod enjoyed the honour of its vituperation.* And
this was not all. The " Christian Liberator " was circulated- in
congregations of the Eastern Presbytery, and recommended to the
unsuspecting people from the pulpit, quite in accordance with the
pledge gi\ien by Messrs. Paul, Henry, and Alexander, at the meets;
ing in Belfast, "to promote the extensive circulation of this jours-
nal,"t and simple-minded persons of some note, and members of
the church at a distance, were entrapped to become agents for its
circulation. Alarmed afterwards by the unmasked and.scurrilous
attacks of this low organ of Voluntaryism upon the Westminster
Standards, and aroused by the exposure of its principles which
was made in the Reformed Synod, J to which we shall hereafter'
advert, some of thes"e acknowledged they had been misled, and
gave up the work of circulating slanders on the church's testimony,
not, however, till the steadfast members of the church had seen
their weakness, and deplored their inconsistency. Now, what are
we to think of the part which Dr. Paul and his friends of the East
ern Presbytery took in the publication and circulation of the
" Christian Liberator?"^ Did it not unquestionably discover a
disposition to abandon the testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian
as other pans of tbe Voluntary theory. — And besides, the Dr. makes such asser
tions as these, — " The Jews paid tithes, but paid no rents," — "Tbe Jewish dis
pensation was a severe dispensation, but no such severity in this. If the Jews were
negligent in paying tithe, God, and not the Civil Magistrate, redressed the grie
vance." These, and other specimens of crude assertions which might be given,
contain statements which Dr. Paul can readily make at any time, and which his
admirers can easily swallow,— but a satisfactory proof he will find a much more
difficult matter.
* When the venerable Dr. Symington^ the Theological professor of the Scottish,
Reformed Synod, appeared as a delegate at the Irish Synod in 1836, he delivered'
an address, exceedingly admired by all right-headed men, in which ihe question of
Establishments and Voluntaryism was referred to in a masterly manner. He was
abused afterwards in the Voluntary Church Magazine, in a style of indecent vul
garity, bis speech commented upon, and the principles of the church, which he
' powerfully advocated, were belied and represented as intolerant, and as "meeting
jn the most harmonious brotherhood " with the dogmas of popery. The Liberator
duly copied apart of this article from its Scottish coadjutor into its pages, and while
jt spoke of Dr. Symington's rcmaiks as "peculiarly offensive to every candid and
impartial mind," it entitled " Drs. Paul, Henry,'' & Co. "noble-minded men/1
and exempted them from all participation in Dr. Symington and the Synod's in
tolerance apd bigotry.
f See Christian Liberator, No. 1, vol. ii. p. 23. + In 1836.
||When thesubjectof the Foiuniary mowments in Belfast and of the Liberator**!
mentioned in the Synod of 1838, Dr. Paul alleged that all the concern which he
had in the matter was accepting an invitation to drink a "cup of tea" with an
evening party in Belfast ! ! ! And this was to cover the sanction which he gave to
the liberalism of the introductory paper whieh was read, and warmly and unani
mously approved ; and the pledge which, with others, he gave 'Mo promote the
extensive circulation" of the Liberator ! O shame, where is thy blush ? O truth,
honesty, candour— how little are such virtues esteemed by innovators and Volun
taries ! Dr. Paul, on ariother occasion, said the Covenanter had misrepresented
him, in saying be was " checked in his Voluntary movements," and he alleged he
had Dot been checked in movements Voluntary, or involuntary, for that he had ho
concern with the Voluntary movements referred to. After the quotations which
we have given from the liberator, we leave the public to judge of the truth of flfflj
declaration. " ' ,:>r»a

51
Church, when they lent the sanction of their names and influence
to parties who were engaged in attacking it in the most virulent
and undisguised manner ? The Christian public will know, after
this, how to appreciate the declarations which the gentlemen of
the Eastern Presbytery all along made in the ecclesiastical courts
and elsewhere, of their unwavering attachment to the church's
Standards.*

Voluntary Discussion, in Belfast, in 1 836.
Soon after the steps which we have noticed had been taken for
the circulation of the " Christian Liberator," a grand attempt was
made for commencing the Voluntary crusade on an extended scale,
in the North of Ireland. A public meeting was proposed to be
held in Belfast on the 16th and 17th of March, 1836, for this ob
ject, and several distinguished Scottish clergymen of the United
Secession body, who had taken a leading position in the Volun
tary agitation, were invited to attend. Accordingly, a meeting was
held, many of the active promoters of which were known to he
ultra-liberals in politics, — of very different and opposing senti
ments in religion, — and some of them little given to any defined
religious profession ; and it was addressed by Dr. Ritchie of Edin
burgh, a gentleman who sought, as he obtained considerable no
toriety by his advocacy of Voluntary principles, and by his conflicts
and defeats in this cause ; and it was also harangued by several
other ministers, of different religious denominations.: As we are
only concerned with this meeting, so far as it had a leaning upon
the profession or conduct of members of the Covenanting Church,
or upon discussions which had been carried on, for some time,
within the Synod, we forbear to make any particular mention of
the proceedings, or of the signal defeat which the champion of
Voluntaryism, and all his associates, Covenanting and others, su&-
tained. It may suffice to state that this victory was complete, as
it was unanticipated by the promoters of the meeting, and its effects
were so felt by the abettors of Voluntaryism in this country, that
they have never since discovered much inclination to court pub
lic discussion. The Rev. ; John Alexander, who has all along
been the faithful ally of Dr. Paul, appeared on the platform, in
company with the advocates of Voluntaryism, and delivered a
speech upon the occasion. While he spoke of not being opposed
to the doctrine of Establishments in the abstract (as he termed it),
he argued, that maintaining the right of the civil ruler to establish
the truth, would go to establish the right of a Mahometan or Arian
ruler to establish their system ; and he contended against a legal
ised support being given to the church, as implying compulsion. in
religion, which he regarded as unscriptural and anti-christian.
We offer no remarks upon these arguments, strange indeed, as com-
* It is even alleged, and we have heard that Dr. Paul himself beat up for sub
scribers for the Liberator, and importuned persons connected with the Reformed
Presbyterian Churcb, ii! Belfast, to become members of. the Voluntary. commiliee.
This need not be wondered at, when he was pledged by a previous resolution *U«*
promote tbe extensive circulation " of the Libtrator.

5*
ing from the lips of a professedly Covenanting- minister; Mr.
Alexander, we believe, complained afterwards that his speech had
been, in some points, improperly reported in one of the newspa
pers,— yet the sentiments which we have noticed, were put forward.
in reports manufactured by his friends of the Voluntary partyf '
With the sentiments which Mr. Alexander uttered, however, we
have at present less concern. The fact of his coming forward on
the occasion, proved his friendly leaning to the Voluntary move
ment. His co-operation was sought at the meeting for the purpose
of promoting Voluntaryism ; and it will hardly be pretended that
Mr. Alexander was so ignorant of what were the avowed principles
of the party, or of what was passing in society, as not to know
their anti-covenanting and unscriptural character. His presence,
and the part which he acted, enabled the Voluntaries, both here
and in Scotland, to boast that ministers of the Reformed Presby
terian Church were their faithful allies, in their warfare against the
grand principles of the Scottish Reformation. One of Mr. Alex
ander's elders, who generally attended the meeting of Synod,
and several other elders and members of the church, residing in
Belfast, who were avowedly favourable to Dr. Paul's views, also
contributed their active assistance to the advocates of Volun
taryism. Had even the sentiments uttered by Mr. Alexander been unex
ceptionable, how could he, and elders and members of the church,,
who' aided the Voluntaries, be excused in sanctioning, by their
presence and silence, the loose and dangerous sentiments which
the champion of Voluntaryism uttered at this meeting ? Here
the plea of ignorance respecting the nature and principles of the
Voluntary cause could not avail them. There were arguments em
ployed and statements made by Dr. Ritchie, which sounded not
a little strange in the ears of Presbyterians of sound principle.
Thus he gloried in the circumstance that he had not subscribed the
Westminster Confession on his entering the ministry, and boasted
of the manner of subscription in the Secession Church in Scotland,
namely, subscribing the Confession, except so far as it does contain,
or is conceived to contain, intolerant or persecuting principles.
He opposed the Solemn League and Covenant, — ridiculed the
idea of an Establishment in the abstract, and argued against an es
tablishment of religion as unscriptural, and wrong in any circum
stances,— and he plainly and strongly objected against a national
recognition of the Christian Sabbath, and against the Civil Magisr
trate doing any thing whatever, in his official capacity, to prevent
Sabbath desecration. It must appear not a little extraordinary that
such sentiments were listened to by professed Covenanters, who
sat on the same platform, or who contributed their aid to the Vo-
luntary cause at the meeting, and that they expressed no dissent
from them, nor afterwards, in any public way, their disapprobation
of them. Did not such silence afford grounds for the enemies of
truth boasting that the ministers and members of the Covenanting
Church were with them in their assaults upon established and valu
able principles? And what could the simple-minded and faithful
members of the church, who had not become enamoured of the
light of the nineteenth century, think, when they heard that stich

53
sentiments as we have noticed, were put forward at the introduction
of Voluntaryism, and that a minister of their own, and elders of the
church, had lenttheir active countenanceandsupport ? The conduct
of these persons was obviously calculated to bring a reproach upon
the whole church, to lead to a grievous misapprehension respecting
her profession, or to draw her members into an ensnaring con
nexion with a system which aimed to introduce national infidelity.
And the temptation was the more dangerous, that the Voluntaries
exposed the eviis and sought the removal of some public imposts,
such as Tithe and Regium Donum, which Covenanters held to be
wrong, and viewed as oppressive. It was quite natural to over
look the principles involved in the conflict, and the means em»
ployed to attain the end, in the anxiety to obtain deliverance from
evils, which have served to corrupt the church and mar her inde
pendence. Besides, the signal defeat which the abettors of Vor
luntaryism suffered at this meeting, considered in connexion with
the manner in which ministers and elders of the Eastern Presby
tery had identified themselves with them, served to sink the church,
in public estimation, and actually had this effect to a large extent,
especially in Belfast and the neighbourhood. This was painfully
felt by faithful members of the church in various places, and the
desire was expressed, from different quarters, that something
should be done to vindicate the church from misconception, and
particularly to prevent those who were still acknowledged as min
isters, elders or members of the church, from acting in a way that
was contradictory to their solemn profession, and detrimental to a
testimony for the truth.

Synod of 1836. — Memorial from Knockbracken, and measure*
taken thereupon.
It was under a feeling of this kind, and from no wish to retali
ate for past injuries that had been inflicted on them,* that the
Congregation of Knockbracken presented to Synod, at its annual
meeting in July, 1836, a Memorial, with the view of arresting the
progress of the evils that have been noticed, and of obtaining from
the court a solemn and public declaration of the principles of the
church, in relation to points in dispute, for the purpose of setting
at rest the minds of members, and of vindicating the character of
the church from unjust and injurious aspersions. In this paper,
the Memorialists -expressed " their deep concern to witness, in
some quarters, principles avowed, which are opposed to the great
doctrine of a National Establishment of the true religion, and
which have a tendency to draw the members of the church into
an approval of the men and measures of the present civil adminis-
* The history of the conduct of the Eastern Presbytery towards the congregation
of Knocltbracken, for a number of years before'they became a separate congrega
tion and obtained a pastor, furnishes a melancholy example of the neglect of pas
toral care, and of tyranny and oppression. But this, instead of being given in a
passing notice, would form the subject of a separate pamphlet- The materials for
such awork are at hand in abundance; and if the interests of truth appear to de
mand it, it may hereafter be given to the public.

¦64
tration in these lands." They greatly lamented moreover, " th<
prevalence of a report that ministers and elders of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church had, of late, joined hands with those who
impugn the doctrine of a National Establishment of Christianity :
and, moreover, ministers of the church had been publicly declared
to be engaged in conducting publications, in which portions of our
Westminster Standards are directly turned into ridicule, in which
sanction is given to gross libels on the Standards and practice of
the Reformed Church, and the article of a national establishment
of true religion is opposed." Memorialists, in consequence,
" earneptly requested Synod to make a public Declaration to the
church and the world, of the doctrine of the church respecting the
duty of nations and civil rulers, to whom the light of Divine revei
lation has come, authoritatively to establish the true religion, and
to protect and support the church of Christ. "
A|. those who have recently declined the Synod's authority, la
boured assiduously to misrepresent the nature and design of this
Memorial, and to found a plea for some of their own subsequent
gross irregularities, upon the step taken by the congregation of
Knockbracken, in presenting it, it seems necessary to make a re
mark or two, in vindication of the proceedings of the congregation,
and to show how little ground of complaint there was furnished
on this article.
The subjects referred to in the memorial were matters of deep
•importance, and such as could not be regarded with indifference
by any who valued the Covenanted profession. The publication
of the " Causes of Fasting," containing such sentiments as we have
noticed, — the circulation of the " Christian Liberator" through
out the church, — and the part that ministers and other member*
of Synod were reported to have taken in it, — the attempts for the
establishment of Voluntaryism,— and the public assistance which
members of the Eastern Presbytery and their adherents rendered
in the enterprise, — were quite sufficient to excite alarm among
those who were called to hold fast the truths to which the church
had already attained, and to walk in the liberty wherewith Christ
had made them free. The entrance of erroneous principles and
of loose practices into the church is like the letting in of waters.
If we would be safe from danger, and would not be carried away
with the overflowing flood, we must oppose the beginnings ; and
maintaining the high ground of an uncompromising testimony,' we
must resist innovation, from whatever quarter. It was in this spirit,
and with this design, that the congregation of Knockbracken me
morialised the Supreme Judicatory in relation to the matters that
have been specified. Besides the concern which they could not
but feel, in common with all faithful witnesses for truth, at mea
sures which had a threatening aspect upon the profession of tha
church, — from their position, near the centre of these movements,
they were exposed to assaults from those who were bent oir inno
vation, and were often represented as bigots and persecutors, be
cause they could not say a confederacy with the known enemiesof
our Covenanted uniformity, And it was, besides; particularly
distressful to them to be spectators of movements which threat.
ened the removal of the ancient landmarks, and to find it declared

55
in the public/prints,' that persons who were resting under the same
solemn vows as themselves, and whom they wished to regard as
brethren, had become active agents in promoting unscriptural
measures of government, and in disseminating within and without
the church, anti-covenanting and unscriptural principles. Injus
tice to the cause which they held, and in faithfulness to erring
brethren themselves, they could do no less than call the attention
of Synod to the matter, and ask them to take order that courses- of
innovation and defection should be arrested. They were actuated
by no vindictive spirit in this case ; they desired not even to find
the brethren, whom public report had represented as connected
with Voluntary publications and movements, guilty. They advanced
no charges against them, nor did they seek them to be censured.
All they desired was, that the staff of bands might not be broken,
and that the church might be freed from the aspersion of having
abandoned principle, and joined hands with liberals, infidels, and
others who were averse to the doctrines of the Standards and our
Covenants, and might be guarded against the insidious and repeated
attempts that were made to lead away her members from their dis
tinct standing as witnesses for the whole of the precious attainments
of the Second Reformation. This could not be considered, in
- any sense, as violating the Synod's settlement of 1833. The con
gregation was reluctantly constrained, in the discharge of a public
. duty, to call the attention of the court to the writings and proceed
ings of Dr. Paul and his friends, that were evidently opposed to
the resolutions which were then adopted. The Memorialists
brought not up a single point which had been in discussion in
1833; it was exclusively in reference to new matter,— new and
dangerous principles broached, — and divisive and irregular con
duct recently pursued,— that they called for the interference of
Synod. It is unnecessary to detail at length the discussion which took
place in Synod, on the presentation of the Knockbracken Memo
rial. It may suffice to say, that the matters to which it referred
were viewed as requiring special and solemn consideration ; and
the members of the court generally and cordially concurred in the
views- of the Memorialists respecting the necessity of adopting im
mediate measures for checking defection, and of satisfying the de
mands of the people for a public and plain declaration of principle,
on subjects that had been in dispute. The Eastern Presbytery la
boured with all their might to hinder such a design being carried
into effect. They endeavoured to fasten the worst motives on the
Memorialists, and to misrepresent the nature of the Memorial, as
if it contained slanderous charges against members of Synod, and
at the same time overlooked the proper' course of ecclesiastical
order ; while they themselves, in the course of the discussion,
threw, out such allegations as were directly calculated to injure
the character, not only of the Memorialists but of the whole Synod,
in public estimation. Thus, Mr. Alexander said that he had been
blamed, simply because he would not go " the length of a member
of the Synod, who declared that he would drive all Papists into
the fire with a pitchfork," and that -he -would " take a pistol. out of

56
his pocket, and shoot them on the highway, for the killing of pa
pists was no murder ;"— and he artfully connected this infamous
statement with the Memorial from Knockbracken, so as to make
the impression that some person connected with the congregation,
minister or elder, held such a detestable sentiment.*
Notwithstanding the Moderator and other members of the court
condemned such an allegation, Mr. Alexander persisted in it, and
Dr. Paul, so far from resenting the dishonour cast upon the
church, supported him in it, and said it could " be proved." It
is now unnecessary to relate how this statement, and others of a
similar kind, embodying low gossip, and inflicting a deep wound
on the church, made in different discussions by ministers and el
ders of the Eastern Presbytery, were eagerly seized hy an unfriendly
press, and employed to excite the worst kind of prejudice against
the Covenanting cause and people. This was indeed effected to a
considerable extent; and the gentlemen who brought forward
these unsupported allegations, never, in a single instance, seemed
to repent of the injury which they had done to the. church and
the character of their brethren ; but, on the contrary, seized every
opportunity to indulge in this vulgar and dishonourable mode of
attack, till the practice was publicly condemned by a resolution of
Synod, in 1838. Dr. Paul also, in his usual style of declamation,
and bravado, and boasting of his own productions, objected against
ahy defence of the principle of a national establishment of religion*''
at the present crisis, as injudicious, — apologised for the murders
perpetrated by Romish assassins in the South and West of Ireland,
— pleaded for union and co-operation with infidels and persons of
latitudinarian sentiments, even in schemes which threatened
the testimony of the church, — offered the usual plausible pleas in
favour of liberal measures, — threw out his hackneyed allegations
of intolerance, and bigotry, and persecution against his opponents,
and idly challenged members of the court to answer or discuss the
" Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving " emitted by the Eastern
Presbytery, when he knew perfectly well that it would have been
disorderly at that time to take such a course ; —and then, because
no person took up the gauntlet, he complacently shouted a triumph,
and pronounced his pamphlet unanswerable !f Dr. Paul, more-

• "The amount of the charge (in the memorial) was that he (Mr. Alexander),
was suspected of being a papist, simply because he would not go the length of a
member of that Synod, who declared that he would drive all papists into the fire
with a pitchfork." And again Mr. Alexander said to a member, who expressed indig
nation at the odious charge which he had advanced, that he was referring " to the ex
pressions about papists, the disapproval of which gave rise to some of the state-
ments made in that document ;" and when asked " what document he was refer
ring to," he answered, " The memorial from Knockbracken." — See Report of tbe
proceedings of Synod for 1836, by the special reporter of the Belfast Newsletter,'
circulated in a pamphlet form by members of the Eastern Presbytery, pp. 22, 24.
It afterwards appeared that the member of Synod to whom Mr. Alexander re
ferred, as having used the obnoxious expressions mentioned in the text, was the Rev.
William Gibson, who, at the meeting of Synod in 1838, declared, in the most solemn
manner, tbat he had never given utterance lo these statements.
f Report of Proceedings, &c, p. 22.

57
over, proposed an amendment* which contained a summary,
of some pf the principal statements that had been brought forward;
in the " Causesof Fasting and Thanksgiving ;" and this received
the support of all the ministers And elders of the Eastern Presby,
tery, who afterwards declined the Synod's authority. Notwith
standing the clamour thus raised, and the violent attempts that
were made to prevent an orderly course of procedure, the Synod
honourably and firmly did its duty. The various matters referred
to in the Memorial received due consideration, and the deliverance
of the court was as follows : —
"That our religious profession and ordination vows imperatively,
demand of us, in the preserit circumstances of the church, a dis-;
tinct and solemn Declaration, that while we decidedly disapprove
qf existing civil and ecclesiastical establishments in these lands,-
we cannot make common cause with any of the political parties of
the daj, or with such as deny and oppose the principle of a national
establishment of the religion of .Jesus Christ. That we refer this;
petition to a Committee of Synod, with an express injunction to.
endeavour to have in readiness a matured report upon the subjects;
to which it relates ; and that we affectionately beseech and warn
all members of this church to abstain from all acts contrary to
the spirit of the foregoing declaration."
This Resolution had the cordial support of the whole Synod,
with the exception of the members of the Eastern Presbytery, by
whom jt was violently opposed. Although Dr. Paul's amendment
was artfully framed, by mentioning prominently the evils of exist-,
ing establishments in Britain, and the burdens of Tithe and Re
gium Donum, and the Doctor in his speech appealed to the elders
in.his most pathetic style, the Resolution was carried by a major
ity of . thirth-one to eight, not a single minister or elder of any,
other Presbytery than the Eastern, voting for the amendment.
The Synod thus afforded another practical proof, that they,
regarded with disapprobation and alarm the new light measures
of Dr. Paul and his friends, and that they were resolved -faith
fully to maintain principle and check divisive courses, despite;
of ihe clamour and vituperation by which the Eastern gentle
men, and their satellites of the liberal press, laboured to ob-

* It.deserves to be noticed, that in the first resolution of Dr. Paul's amendment
he states, — " We believe that a nation, enjoying the light of Divine revelation, is
bound, in its national capacity^ to embrace and protect the true religion, and to ex
tend to it legal sanction and support. " At Hist sight, thij would seem to inculcate
what the advocateiof Establishments andof a Covenanted Testimony maintain; and it
would even seem to involve the authoritative restraint of the Church's open enemies,,
such as gross and obstinate heretics and idolaters ; but it is only in appearance.
The sentiment is artfully expressed, so as to deceive the simple. Dr. Paul pleads,
for the. authoritative protection of tne grossest heretics and idolaters, as
may be seen by referring to the " Exposure of Persecution," by the Eastern-
Presbytery, in their remarks on the Synod's Declaration in overture, and in
Dr. Paul's letters tp the Rey. John Stott. Quere, — Js authoritative protection
the same as the " simple forbearance " of the " Explanation and Defence of. the
Terms of Communion," so often idly quoted by the Dr.? And farther, how can
Dr. Paul maintain tbe authoritative protection, and deny the authoritative tole
ration of heretics, idolaters, &c. ? It is now quite evident that the first resolution
of the amendment was a mere blind, brought forward to serve a purpose.
H

58
struct a course of orderly procedure. From the decision of
Synod, Dr. Paul and seven other members of the Eastern Pres
bytery dissented, and afterwards assigned reasons, which we may
notice in a subsequent place.
As illustrative still further of the spirit of reckless innovation
by which Dr, Paul and his party were actuated, may be mentioned
the case of the Rev. John Nevin, which led to some discussion at
this meeting of Synod. We have related the different steps taken
by Synod, to obviate what were put forward as the " scruples " of
this gentleman, but which were, in reality, his exceptions againsi
Several points of the testimony of the church. We have stated,
that at the previous annual meeting of Synod in Derry, a length of
time was spent on his case ; and at the conclusion, the clear
understanding was, that he would, at receiving ordination, give
his "assent and subscription to the Formula in the usual man
ner. Whether Mr. Nevin distinctly remembered this agree
ment, and afterwards saw reason to depart from it, or deter
mined from the first not to regard it as binding upon him, we pre
tend not to say ; but at his ordination in Ballymoney, in the Autumn
of 1835, which was conducted by members of the Missionary
Board, as a Committee of Synod, assisted by other ministers, he
utterly set it at nought. On the questions of the Formula being
proposed to him, to that respecting the Acts of Assembly, and ihe
Testimony of the Church, he did not, as in the olher parts, give
a silent assent, but said publicly before the audience, that he was
to be understood as assenting to these portions, according to the ex
planations which he had offered to Synod, oraccording to the views
given in the " Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Commu
nion."* Several of the more aged and venerable ministers of the
church, who took part in the ordination, were much dissatisfied
with this unprecedented subscription, and a considerable number
of well-minded members of the church, who were likewise present,
expressed their dissatisfaction, and regarded it in no other light
than as a dangerous innovation. The Committee of Synod,
in presenting their report, adverted to the manner in which
Mr. Nevin had assented to the Formula, and expressed their re
gret on account of it. For this they were furiously assailed in the
court by Dr. Paul, who argued that the expression of regret in the
report should be expunged, and an implied censure be thus cast
upon the committee. He and Messrs. Alexander and C. Houston
pleaded in favour of Mr. Nevin's mode of receiving the Formula;
and Dr. Paul represented subscription without explanation, as it
was usually made, and as it had been made, from the organization
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church till the present time, as
* It will be borne in mind that one of Dr. Paul's favourite positions, is that tbe
" Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion, " explains away,—m
other words, denies the doctrine of magistratical coercion, as clearly taught in the
Westminster Confession, and the Aet and Testimony. Mr. Nevin, by introduc- ,
in« the Explanation and Defence, showed how faithfully be followed his leader, •
while he-conveyed the impression, in, all likelihood, not unwillingly, to simple-
minded auditors, that the Explanation and Defence contained a different vie" J
on some articles of the Testimony, from that which had been usually held by can-'
didates hitherto, in entering into tbe ministry.

59
leading to implicit faith, and the requiring of it as intolerance, —
and, with the classical elegance for which he is remarkable, he
likened the ordinary mode Of subscription to the bed of Procrustes,
as "screwing up candidates to their length (of course of church
rulers, whom he thus compared to cruel and unnatural tyrants), if
he were too short, and cutting him down if he were too long for
its specified dimensions!"* Dr. Paul, moreover, stigmatised as
Popery the sentiment that had been advanced in the Covenanter,
that after having made vows, a person can claim no right to make
inquiry how he may break them ! ! The Synod sustained the re
port of the committee, and this condemned Mr. Nevin's mode
of tampering with the Formula, agreeing,— at the suggestion of
Dr. Symington and Mr. M'Lachlane, Delegates from the Scottish
Reformed Synod, who both strongly deprecated the innovation
that had been made, to insert the very words that Mr. Nevin had
employed in giving his assent before the public,
section vi.
Dr. Paul and ihe Eastern Presbytery's attempts to vilify the
fathers of tlie Church. — Synodical Meeting of 1837. — Petition
from Linen-Hall-Street Congregation, Belfast.— Attempt to
alter the Terms of Communion by the Eastern Presbytery. —
Their odious slanders upon the Covenanters at Auchinsaugh,
and upon the Church since. — Discussion on the Auchinsaugh
Renovation.— Independency, division, and anarchy, proposed to
be licensed by Dr. Paulin his amendment. — Faithful and Judi
cious Decision of Synod. — Unpresbyterial and Violent measures
of Dr. Paul, and ihe Eastern faction, to trample underfoot the
Settlement of 1833, by the introduction of the Loughmourne
Memorial. — Adjourned Meeting of Synod at Cullybackey in
1837. — Farther aggressions on the basis of fellowship by the
Eastern Presbytery. — Their conduct in relation to'the Synod's
Overture, entitled a " Declaration on Civil Government, " Sfc.
In passing on to the record of transactions in 1837, it seems ne
cessary to notice briefly the effect of the decisions of the Synod of
1836, on Dr. Paul and his friends. Finding their progress in some
measure arrested, — and their conduct virtually condemned, they
displayed mortification and chagrin ; and instead of acting after
wards in a brotherly manner, they adopted a cour/"} which was
calculated to trample all order under foot, an/ which ren
dered it wholly impracticable to conduct the busir jss of Synod,
so as to promote the edification of the church, d : to secure the
continuance of its unity. Dr. Paul and his adherents were no
doubt vexed, and disappointed that the Supreme Judicatory had
shown so much attention to the Knockbracken Memorial, especi
ally as they had all along acted, as if they considered the Memo
rialists as their enemies, and they seemed bent on revenge. This
disposition, and a reckless disregard of the received basis of fel
lowship and order of the church, and of the feelings of its pious,
* See Report of Proceedings,, &c, p. 8,

m
and devoted members^ characterised their proceedings from thi»
period till that of their separation.
Among the first matters that claimed the attention of Synod at
its regular meeting in Moneymore, was a petition from the Linen-
Hall-Street (Mr. Alexander's) Congregation, Belfast, pleading for an
alteration oftheFourth Term of Communion, orin other words, for
the expunging of thelast part of it, which contains an approval of the
renovation of the Covenants at Auchinsaugh. The grounds on which
this alteration was ostensibly sought, werethat the Scottish Reformed
Synod had left out the mention of the Auchinsaugh Deed in the
Terms of Communion, some years before, — that it is not named in
the terms of communion used in the American section of the Re
formed Presbyterian Church, and that consistency required the
Irish Synod to adopt a similar modification.
It deserves here to be remarked , as illustrative of the growing spirit
of innovation of Dr. Paul and his party, and of their increasing
disregard to the brotherly covenant, that at this time, and for some
time before, they refused to take friendly counsel with brethren on
this article, or to listen to considerations of expediency or peace.
Their object was evidently to bring the more delicate and dif
ficult matters respecting the doctrine, fellowship, or order of the
church, into public discussion, that they might thereby expose
to unpopularity and reproach, brethren, who were opposed to their
loose and innovating opinions and practices,— that they might ex
hibit parts of the received testimony of the church in the most un
favourable light, and that there might be furnished for the caterers
of the newspaper press, with whom Dr. Paul was a favourite, mat
ter to misrepresent and vilify the church. The expunging of the
item in the fourth term of communion by the Synod in Scotland,
had led to many heartburnings in the Covenanting church iu that
country. One venerable minister had, in consequence, withdrawn
altogether from the Synod, and a number of people scattered
throughout several congregations, adhering to him, refused
to hold communion with the Synod, or with those who agreed
with them respecting the propriety of the alteration in question.
The Synod in Ireland, to prevent the occurrence of such unplea
sant divisions among their people, and not considering that they
had a call in providence to alter or modify the received basis of
fellowship, agreed, at an early period, to make no alteration in the
fourth term of communion. When this topic, in one shape or
other, was presented to Synod, at several subsequent periods, the
matter was taken up in the way of friendly conference, in private,
and there was a general agreement to make no alteration. All
seemed anxious to avoid an expression of sentiment, that would
tend to disturb the harmony, which existed between them and the
sister Judicatory in Scotland. While they held it inexpedient to
make the change, they were satisfied that there was little difference
of opinion upon the article in question between them and their Scot
tish brethren ; and by retaining the terms of communion as they had
been hitherto used, they gave confidence tonumbers of well-affected
meinbers of the church, who earnestly desired to walk in the foot
steps of the flock. But, for some time previous to this meeting
of Synod, Dr. Paul and his friends showed that they were disinclined
any longer to follow this pacific course.

61 '
In the controversy respecting the power of the civil magistrate^
the Editor of the Covenanter had adduced the evidence of the
Auchinsaugh transaction, to show that his views were accordant
with the Covenants National and Solemn League, and with the
views of those who had renewed them, and that those of Dr. Paul were
plainly opposed to both. Dr. Paul, in his pamphlets or newspaper
communications, did not attempt to meet those important allega
tions, but instead, satisfiedhimself with resorting to his usual weapon,
of reproach, while he virtually acknowledged, in one of his pub
lications, that the evidence was clearly against him, by assailing the
Auchinsaugh Renovation, and pleading that it should be re
moved from the terms of communion. The inconsistency and dis
order of a minister thus writing against a part of the declared ba
sis of fellowship in the church, to which he himself, as well as
others, were at the time pledged, must be apparent to the most
inattentive observer. It was, however, a part of the same policy
which he had for a long time past been pursuing, — professing to
hold the testimony of the church, while he was labouring by every
possible method to unsettle the minds of church members, and to
exhibit in the most obnoxious light, certain -gBrts of the church's
profession. As a piece of the same policy, congregational peti
tions were got up to urge Synod to make alterations ; and instead
of showing a willingness to confer on the subject in private,
Dr. Paul and other members of the Eastern Presbyteiy would
be satisfied with nothing but public discussion.
The petition from the Belfast congregation had been presented
last year, but could not be taken up, for want of time, before the
final adjournment of the court.* According to mutual agreement,
it received attention at an early stage of the proceedings. Into
a full view of the arguments employed in the discussion it is un
necessary to enter. Suffice it to say, that while the elder and
commissioner from the congregation spoke like persons who knew
little of the matter, but who were well disposed to follow their teach
ers, the Four Ministers of the Eastern Presbytery, with Mr. Nevin j
discovered every disposition to asperse the names of the faithful and
devoted men who covenanted at Auchinsaugh, and to represent
the principles of the document, and the spirit and conduct of those
who held it fast, in the most disagreeable and abhorrent aspect.
They adduced isolated passages respecting the restraint and pun
ishment of idolatry and heresy, and charged upon these intolerance
of the worst kind; they referred to the views of ihe Covenanters
of that period about paying taxes, — overlooking altogether
the explanations which the church had offered on these points,—
* As a curious illustration of the way in which many of the people who followed
their pastors in these innovating courses were blindly led, it deserves to be men-
tijned, that while the Commissioner from the Linen-Hall-street congregation laid
claim to superior enlightenment, the Petition contained several gross blunders.
Tbus the fourth terms of communion was incorrectly quoted, and it was said in it
that the 23d chapter of the Westminster Confession is limited in the Aet of Assem
bly of 1647, whereas that Act speaks only of a clause in the 81st chapter, and not
a word of the 23d chapter! How easily do people believe in the infallibility of
tbe doctors of liberality, even though the plainest facts stand in opposition to their
innovating courses !

62
they laboured to identify the retaining of the clause, with
the extreme views and practices of the Active Testimony
men, — they represented the expunging of the clause as the remo
val of rubbish from the landmarks, — Dr. Paul charged the whole
church, ministers and people, in holding the Auchinsaugh
Renovation among the Terms of Communion, as sworn to
kill Papists, Arminians, Quakers, &c, every time they sat
down at the Lord's table ; and he persisted in this foul slander,
even after several members had pointed out its injustice, and re
jected it with indignation. Throughout the discussion, it was
quite apparent that the doctrine of magistratical coercion of gross
idolatry, and heresy, in a reformed land, which is clearly taught
in the Auchinsaugh Deed, was the grand object of attack, — and
the assailants seemed to think that no imputation was foul enough
to cast upon those who held this principle.
The measure, too, proposed by Dr. Paul, discovered the pro
gress of new-light doctrines among the party, and the disorder and
irregularity in the church which these doctrines and their abettors
would license. The motion proposed by Mr. Dick and seconded
by Mr. Smyth, was, — " That this Synod do not judge it expedient,
at this time, to make any change in the fourth term of communion."
To this, Dr. Paul moved an amendment, which was seconded by
Dr. Henry, to the effect that " Each congregation be left to their
own discretion, whether they adopt the Scottish alteration, Or re
tain the Irish form of the fourth term of communion." This was
plausibly proposed as the means of producing harmony and recon
ciliation, while in reality it required the Synod to license division,
and to give countenance to conflicting views, and discordant
practices. By aspersing the memories and vilifying the prin
ciples and spirit of the fathers of the church, men full of faith,
who had contended unto blood in behalf of her chartered rights,
the innovators aimed to erect a trophy to a false and spurious libe
rality, and to conform the policy of the church to the course of a
declining age. The object of the amendment was, under a false
mask, in reality to expunge the Auchinsaugh Renovation, and to
license a principle essentially Independent, if not worse. In op
position to the attempt of the Eastern Presbytery to alter the
church's basis of fellowship, it was argued that the Scottish Synod,
who had had experience of the bitter fruits of agitating the sub
ject, had pronounced the discussion "unnecessary and unprofitable,"
— that nothing would be gained by the proposed alteration, while
it was evident it would be attended with injurious effects in many
instances, — that the passages excepted against in the Auchinsaugh
Deed were few in number, and were sufficiently explained by the
church in the " Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Com
munion," so as to leave no just roomfor the allegations thathad been
made against them,*— that the arguments for laying aside this deed,
* "What we chiefly intend by introducing the Auchinsaugh Bond into our
Terms, is the approbation of renewing our Covenants, as it was then done, without
overlooking any of the Reformation attainments, either in church or state ; and
by giving' a faithful testimony against all the defections and prevailing sins in
both. But we do not reckon ourselves responsible for every unwary expression
which our forefathers have used." — Explan. and Def. of Terms, fyc.,p. 54.

63
on the ground of its teaching magistratical coercion, apply equally
to the Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Act
and Testimony, — that the grounds on which the Eastern Presby
tery sought the change were altogether different from those on
which the Scottish Synod had made the alteration, as they had
never objected against a great article running through the church's
Standards, nor would they suffer the memories of their forefathers
to be vilified, — that the Auchinsaugh deed, rightly understood,
taught nothing but what was substantially held forth in the origi
nal Covenants, and that we only held it iu consistence with ac
knowledging their perpetual obligation, as the Term of Commu
nion states,— that the conduct of our forefathers at Auchinsaugh,
in the circumstances in which they were placed, is susceptible of
satisfactory vindication, &c.
The members of the Synod, — elders as well as ministers, —
seemed to be fully aware of the injurious nature and dangerous
consequences of Dr. Paul's amendment ; and after a lengthened
discussion, in which all present appeared to take a deep interest,
the motion was carried, and the amendment rejected by a majority
of twenty-nine members against eight, the minority being, as on
former occasions, the ministers and elders of the Eastern Presby
tery.* Another striking proof was thus afforded, that Dr. Paul
and his party were alien in principle and spirit to the testimony
and practice of the church, and that they were resolved to leave
no stone unturned, either to break down the structure, which fa
thers of deathless memory with holy hands had reared, or if this
could not be accomplished, to sink the profession, ministry and
membership of the church in public estimation. It is cause of
gratitude to Him who walks amidst the golden candlesticks, that
these attempts were met by Synod with a firm and faithful resist
ance, and that the church representative evinced their readiness
to endure the opposition and reproach to which their renowned
forefathers were subjected, rather than surrender the least article
of their invaluable testimony.

Introduction of the Loughmourne Memorial.
It was not alone in the public proceedings of Synod at this meet
ing that Dr. Paul and his party discovered their intention of no
longer maintaining, in good faith, fellowship with their brethren
on the church's established basis of doctrine and discipline, or of
preserving any regard to the pacific agreement of 1833. Documents
were presented to the Synod in Committee, and notices of future
proceedings were given, which plainly indicated their design to
trample on all proper Presbyterian order, and to rend the church,
in case they could not move the Supreme Judicatory into an ap-

* The minister and elder of Bailiesmill congregation, then in connexion with the
Eastern Presbytery, in these discussions always voted against Dr. Paul aud his
faction. In this case Mr. Nevin voted for the amendment, so that of the elder
ship of their own Presbytery, they had only three votes, and not one from any other
Presbytery.

64
proval of their New Light sentiments and proceedings- Thus*
Mr. Nevin, in the course of the discussion on the Fourth Term of
Communion, declared that he meant to propose that the question
in the Formula for ordination, which requires Licentiates to ap
prove of the Acts of Assembly from 1638 to 1649, should be ex
punged for ever, and before the close of the proceedings, he entered
on the books a notice of a motion to this effect, to be brought fori*
ward at the next annual meeting of Synod.
In the Committee of Bills, Dr. Paul presented a Memorial from
his congregation, which shall be afterwards more- particularly no.
ticed, in which almost all the doctrinal matters, that had been al
ready discussed before Synod in 1833, were brought forward in the
shape of charges against the Editor of the old series of the Covenan
ter, and against^his writings ; and with the exception of a few mat
ters, manifestly frivolous,, there was no allegation in this paper
against the new series of the Covenanter, ,then in existence for nearly
four years. This Memorial itself was a rare specimen of the powers
of its reverend author in perversion, and in exciting popular odium,
It distorted passages in the works of Mr. Houston, — left out expla
natory, or qualifying clauses, — in several instances entirely mis-,
stated the facts, and, as a matter of course, represented the doc
trines. taught in the pamphlets referred to, as most odious and
abominable. And one thing most worthy of notice was, that
several of the passages thus quoted, and always referred to, as
exhibiting the intolerant ultra opinions of Mr. Houston, were
the. very words of the venerable reformers, — Knox, Rutherford,
Durham, &c, or of the Standards of the Reformed Church, or
expressed their well known sentiments.
Against the licensing of this paper by the Committee of Bills,
and its introduction into openSynod, strong objections were offered
by. those members who were desirous of maintaining the church's
testimony, of sustaining Presbyterian order, and of preventing
confusion, and the degradation of the church in public estimation.
They clearly foresaw, that to open up a discussion which had been
already closed, and which theSynod had pronounced "unprofitable
and injurious," besides its plain violation of Presbyterian order,
would tend to divide the church, alienate members of Synod from
each other, and produce evil effects throughout the, religious
community. It was a plain and palpable breach of the Synod's
own agreement ; and thus to trample under foot a decision ma.
turely framed, could only have the effect of lessening confU
dence in the wisdom and firmness of the Synod, and of opening
the way to interminable agitation and confusion. The views of the
reformers, and of the testimony of the church concerning civil
government, cannot be expected to be popular, while the reign of
Anti-christ continues, and evil systems are prevailing. Discussion
before the public on such topics, among members of the same
church, or of the same ecclesiastical court, could only be pleasing >
to those who rejoiced in the divisions of Reuben, while it could
not fail to wound the feelings, and grieve the hearts of such as valued
truth and peace. If this were the case generally, much more might
it be anticipated that the renewal of a discussion which had already
served to draw much odium upon the church, would be attended

fi5
by pernicious consequences. Accordingly, several members of
Synod, who were called all along to take a prominent part in
resisting innovation, strongly opposed the introduction of the
Loughmourne Memorial. Dr. Paul and his friends pleaded for
it on very slender grounds, but with all tenacity ; and, indeed,
some such disorderly course was their only hope for success,
in their favourite project of gaining popular applause, at the ex
pense of the character and peace of the church. In vain it was
argued against them, that it was irregular to renew the discussion
of 1833, in the teeth of an express resolution of Synod, in which
all parties had acquiesced,- -in vain were the injurious conse
quences, that must result from the measure proposed, and that
were afterwards fully realized, pointed out, — in vain were Dr.
Paul and his friends solemnly urged to desist from a course
which could not fail to expose themselves and injure the church.
They remained inflexible;— at one time alleging that the admission
of the Knockbracken Memorial last year required them to adopt
this course in self-defence,* — again threatening separation, in case
the Memorial was rejected, and speaking of the public press doing
them justice, if it was refused them by the Synod. Theonly instance
in which Dr. Paul alleged the shadow of a pretext forrenewed dis
cussion was, that a notice on the cover of one of the numbers of the
newseries had spoken of the views advanced on magistracy in the for
mer series, with seeming approbation, and that some of Dr. Paul's
arguments, in his speeches or pamphlets', had been apparently re
ferred to in some of the papers of the new series. The Editors
showed, convincingly, that the Resolutions of 1833 did not require
them to renounce their sentiments, which they firmly held as in
accordance with the testimony of the church, but that, through re
gard to the peace of the church, they had brought forward nothing
new on this subject. The notice on the cover was given with the
avowed intention of excluding, instead of reviving the contro
versy, and it related merely to the principle of a religious esta
blishment. The arguments to which Dr. Paul alluded had been
advanced by others ; one especially was a foolish remark, which
radical politicians thought very wise, that had been made by the
Lord Chancellor; and nothing had been brought forward in the
periodical which could fairly be considered as contravening the
resolution, that prohibited ministers from writing against each other.
Notwithstanding, at the close of the second lengthened sitting
of the committee, the Loughmourne Memorial was, by a very
* The futility of this plea need hardly be noticed. The cases were in every re
spect wholly different. The Knockbracken Memorial referred to matters, all of
which had occurred since 1833; — to plain cases of irregularity and defection,
and to publications in opposition to the standards of the church; yet it asked for no
discussion, nor required any censure to be inflicted. It only sought to arrest the
progress of disorder and innovation. The Loughmourne Memorial, on tbe other
hand, almost exclusively referred to matters on which the Synod had alr-ady
decided. It aimed to exhibit principles taught in the Standards of tbe Church in
"the most unfavourable light, and its plain and undisguised object was to draw
condemnation from the Synod, and mush more from the public, upon those mem
bers who were opposed 'to Dr. Paul's tenets and disorderly courses, — to destroy
their reputation, and through them to asperse the character and principles of tbe
Reformers, and of tlie whole church. "• *
I

66
small majority, licensed to come before Synod, — several members,
even of those who had determinedly opposed it, not voting, lest
they should be thought afraid of discussion, or of wishing to pre
vent Dr. Paul from obtaining the fullest hearing, and some other
members voting for its introduction, in the hope of arresting un
profitable discussion at a future stage; or, as they said, foreseeing
separation aimed at,* they would allow Dr. Paul every opportunity
of showing his case, and thus take away the ground of complaint,
that he cOuld not obtain justice.
It is greatly to be regretted that any members of Synod should
have been misled by such views. Bitter experience afterwards
proved them to be completely illusory; and the members who
either by their votes, or by silence, contributed to license disor
der, have themselves to blame for the confusion and reproach which
thereby. Occurred to the church. The subsequent events in Con
nexion with the Loughmourne Memorial served to show, that the
only proper course to be taken with those who are bent on inno
vation, is to adhere closely to scriptural order, despisihg• clamour
and reproach ; and any other course only leads to confusion, and
is followed by other disastrous fruits. 

Adjourned Meeting of Synod at Cullybaekey.
As a considerable portion of the ordinary business of Synod was
left unfinished at the time when it was necessary for the court finally
to adjourn, it was agreed to hold an adjourned meeting of Synod
at Cullybaekey, on the 10th of October, this year. The expense;
and difficulty of ministers and elders attending a second meeting of
Synod in the same year, must, in all justice, be laid to the account
of those who were bent on their darling object of advancing their
own selfish ends, by opposing and running down the principles and
usages, which the Reformed .Presbyterian Church had long firmly
and invariably maintained. It was, in other words, one of the
sacrifices which honest and faithful witnesses were called to make,
while resisting an insidious but insatiable spirit of change.
' Soon after the constitution of the adjourned Synodical meeting,
the, remaining matters referred to in the Memorial from the Linen-
Halhstreet Congregation, came under discussion. Besides the
alteration of the Fourth Term ofCommunion, the petitioners sought
that the question in the Formula for ordination, relating to the Acts
of Assembly, should be altered according to the Scottish form, al
though they could not give a correct statement of it; andithey
moreover inquired whether the twenty -third and thirty -first chap
ters of the Westminster Confession are to be received according
to the words of the Confession, or according to limitations' men-
. * At the close of the discussion on the Auchinsaugh Renovation, Mr, (now Dr.)
Stavely observed, in reference to Dr. Paul's allegation, that, by holding the Audita?
saugh Deed, the church, for 150 years, had been swearing to murder Papists, Ar
minians, &c, every time they went to the Lord's table,' that, "If we andjour fa
thers are charged with holding persecuting .principles, anil if tbjese,,charges t^J»
be reiterated, it 'would be better at once to turn our backs on each other and
rate. There could be no union or co-operation in this way."

67
tioned in the Act of Assembly of 1647.* While petitioners sought
an alteration in one pf the questions of the Formula, in itself of
little consequence, Dr. Paul and his party clearly discovered their
ulterior design, — to vilify the character and proceedings of our
covenanted ancestors, and by assailing one article of the received
basis of ecclesiastical fellowship after another, to thrust out
a definite subscription, and to provide for the introduction
of their own loose and deceptive interpretations. They held
up to reproach some of the Acts in which the doctrine pf
magistratical coercion is declared,f — represented the church a»
requiring candidates to approve of acts which had not been printed,
and which consequently they could not have seen,— and Dr. Paul
declaimed, as his manner is, about implicit faith, and tyranny ex
ercised over young men's consciences. Againstrthese allegations,
those who valued the character of the Synod, and were desirous
of holding fast the Standard which had been committed to them,
showed that the question in the Formula had always been under
stood to refer to the printed acts that had been published in a
collection, which is in circulation throughout the church, and that
these are the acts confirming and approving, the reformation, But
to show that they were resolved not to be led into hasty and ill-
digested measures of change or innovation, — while they desired to
make such improvements as, not affecting principle, were seen to
be desirable, — in order to secure accuracy and uniformity in the
expressions of the Formula, it was agreed,— "That a committee be
appointed to revise the phraseology of our Formula, proposed to
ministers and elders at ordination." The inaccuracy, of the last
statement in the petition, which related to the Westminster Con
fession, having been pointed out, if followed as a matter, of course,
that in adopting the Confession, the twenty-third chapter is to be
taken in the plain and obvious sense of the words, and not accord
ing to a limitation pf it which had no existence.
The Declaration respecting Civil Government iand National
Establishments, the preparation of which was entrusted to a com
mittee in 1836, in the deliverance on the Memorial from Knock
bracken, was introduced to Synod on the second day of the pro
ceedings. Dr- Paul and his brethren vehemently opposed the
taking of the Declaration under consideration. Their objections
Were of the most frivolous kind, brought forward evidently for the
purpose of protracting the business; and when their futility, and
irrelevancy were shown, Dr. Henry proposed, as a dernier resort,
* Did not the terms of the Memorial imply that tbe adherents of Dr. Paul felt
that tbe Confession, in the plain and obvious meaning of the expression, was di
rectly opposed to their New Light sentiments ? The delusion, too, of representing
the limitation in the Act of 1647, as explaining away tbe doctrine of magistratical
coercion, taught in the 23d chapter, to which it does not refer, is another
acknowledgment that that doctrine, as propounded ih the Confession, was
too hard to be digested, and that its opponents could only hope to succeed by de
ception and abuse. . . . .
•j- In approving of the Acts of Assembly, the church never required more than
an.approbation of the Acts ratifying and approyingof tlie Reformation, as they
have been printed and collected into a volume; and this approbation refers "to the
great principles held forth in these Acts, and does not apply to particular modes
of application. It is moreover.to the Acts of Assemb)y,,no$ of the Parliament, that
the question in the Formula refers. '

68
" That the Declaration should be sent to the sessions of the diffe
rent congregations, in connexion with the church, for considera
tion." The object in this manmuvre was to get rid of the Decla
ration at once, and by sending itto the inferior judicatories, contrary
t$ all precedent, previously to its being considered by Synod, to
increase the confusion, and unsettle still farther the minds of the
people. The SynOd, however, were not, by clamour, to be led
into a violation of the plainest principles of Presbyterian order, or
to neglect an important duty to which they were loudly called, at
this crisis; and accordingly, notwithstanding the dissent of Drs*
Paul and Henry, and Messrs. Alexander and C. Houston, the Synod,
on the motion of two worthy elders,* agreed to consider the Dec
laration, with the view of preparing it as an Overture, to be after
wards transmitted to the different Sessions, and to the sister Synods
in Scotland and America.
As the Declaration had been carefully framed, after a minute
and diligent inspection of the Standards, and other approved docu
ments of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Britain and Ame
rica,— embracing those subjects, and those subjects alone, that the
Synod had directed to be noticed, and was, in many cases, ex
pressed in the very words of the authorised writings of the church,
it might have been expected that there would be little diversity of
sentiment among the members of Synod concerning it. Intended
to declare, in an abstract form, the doctrines which the Reformed
Church had always held on subjects that had been in dispute, it
was hoped that the members of the court, by taking friendly coun
sel, and contributing their aid in maturing the Declaration, might
fee-brought to see, eye to eye, that having found a common ground
of agreement, they might afterwards go forward, exhibiting to the
church and the world, the lovely aspect of brethren acting together
in fin ity.
These reasonable expectations were speedily doomed to disap
pointment, Dr. Paul and his friends refused to take any part in
the consideration of the Declaration, and notwithstanding the re
peated invitations, and even entreaties, of some of the • aged
and venerable members of Synod, they persevered in this resolu
tion,' and kept entire silence during the time, — in all, two or three
Sessions, that the document was under consideration by the court.
They thus exhibited themselves more fully, in their true light as a
faction, who had no common interest with the Synod; and asievi-
dencing that they were wholly unwilling to have their sentiments
judged by the Standards, and other received writings of the church.
The Declaration, as was stated by several members of the court,
when urging Dr. Paul and his friends to co-operate with their bre
thren, furnished a ground in which all personalities could be
avoided ; and if the members of Synod could come to agreement
in this case, other points that had led to collision might be easily ad
justed. This course did not, however, suit the views of those who
had, from the first, done little else than deal in low personality and
abuse. The careful preparation or emission of any document re-
• These were William Gibson, from the congregation of Knockbracken, and
James Oliver, from the congregation of Ballylaggan. -

6!1
specting civil government, in accordance with the Standards of the
church, was far from their intention, inasmuch as they could'not
but know that such a paper must condemn the sentiments which
they had taught. It was therefore their wisest and safest policy to
remain altogether silent. Thus only could they hope to keep up
tbe delusion that they held the Standards of the church, while
they were sapping and undermining them, or labouring to expose
to the worst species of odium the principles which they inculcate.
Their conduct in this instance was plainly factious, and clearly
led to the conclusion, which even some who had been formerly
favourable to their views deduced from it,— namely, that they were
opposed in principle to the Standards of the church, and afraid or
unwilling to have their sentiments respecting the different subjects
contained in the Declaration, exhibited in connexion with the ap
proved statements and reasonings of the Church.
Notwithstanding this factious-procedure of the Eastern Presby
tery, the Declaration received the serious and lengthened attention
of Synod, the elders and people who were present from a large
number of congregations, apparently taking the deepest interest in
the proceedings. The harmony of views and fraternal concord
displayed by the other members of court, without exception, in
their remarks, inquiries and explanations, were most gratifying ;
and when the different statements had been considered in order,
and alterations and additions made, the Declaration was unani
mously, and with much apparent cordiality, adopted as an over
ture. At the meeting of Synod in the fo^owing year, a majority of
the Sessions sent forward their approval of the Declaration, and
their earnest desire to have it finally passed into a law of the
church. None, save those of the Eastern Presbytery, offered any
objection to the grand principles contained in it. That a few
ministers or others, — and they were very few,.— should have hesi
tated about issuing it as the declaratory law of the church, need
not be wondered at, after Dr. Paul, by his own peculiar powers
of distortion, had exhibited it in the most obnoxious light, and had
been heaping reproach, to an incredible extent, by means of the
liberal press, upon those members of Synod who stood upindefence
of the testimony of the church, and the order of the sanctuary.
At this meeting of Synod, the reasons of dissent of Dr. Paul and
his three brethren, from the decision of Synod upon the Memo
rial from Knockbracken, were read, and " in compliance with their
wishes," engrossed in the minutes, — the answers by a committee,
on the part of the Synod, were also ordered to be inserted. The
" Reasons of Dissent " are given in the published Minutes of the
adjourned meeting, and it is unnecessary to give them here,— but
they are truly a curiosity in their way. They are just the quint
essence of the " Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving," by the East
ern Presbytery, — they contain allegations, such as were never be
fore presented to an ecclesiastical body, as grounds of dissenting
from its decisions, — and they are so " extravagant in thought
and language, that the document would be merely ridiculous, were
it not to be taken as a part of the systematic attempts of Dr. Paul
and his party to destroy the principles and character of the rfhurch,

70
and to throw. all things into utter confusion.. Let the paper be
read, and the question must, rise in every unprejudiced mind,—
" Did any man compos mentis ever write such stuff before? ".. The
person who penned the Reasons of Dissent, and those- who adopted
them as their own, some of them having ordered their names tp be
signed to them', who had not seen or heard them,— acted, in this in
stance, like men thoroughly infatuated, reckless alike of their own,
character, the reputation of Synod, and the common decencies
of life. The Synod's answer seems to have been [prepared in ac
cordance with the maxim of the wise man,—" Answer a fool ac
cording to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit;"* — it is a
calm, condensed, comprehensive statement, exhibiting the true
characteristics of the paper of the Eastern faction, and vindicating
with ability the Synod's procedure.
Towards the close of the sessions of Synod, the Loughmourne
Memorial, which had, as before related, passed the Committee of
Bills at Moneymore, was read in open court ; but upon.it and some
other papers, no order was taken, as the Synod had already con
tinued as long in session as it suited the convenience of the greater
number of the members to remain together. The reading of this
document, however, in public, served one of the purposes of which
its author and his friends never lost sight, in their contendings
with the Synod. It was employed as a means of blackening the
character of the church before the public. Immediately after
the adjournment of the court, contrary to all order and decen7
cy, it was published in different liberal newspapers of the north
of Ireland, such as the Northern Whig and Belfast News
letter; it was duly copied into some popish journals in Dublin,
and it, found its way into newspapers of the same character in other
parts of the empire. Its garbled and false statements were as
sumed as incontrovertible facts ; the Editors of the Covenanter,
were of course held up to execration as monsters, and the Synod
was represented as an assemblage of dark-minded and intolerant
bigots and' persecutors. Such was the honourable way in which
Dr. Paul and" his faithful allies conducted their warfare against the
Synod, and the testimony of the Covenanted reformation. The
Synod's documents were irregularly, and in a garbled form, ob
truded on the public, with numerous typographical blunders, while
the papers of the faction were carefully printed ; matters pending
and untried were brought into the newspapers ; and long beforp the
Synod could enter upon their judicial consideration, a verdict had
been found against them by the liberal newspaper press, on ex parte
evidence and garbled testimony, in a case where it was clearly im
possible for the Synod to advance anything in their own vindication.
It is believed that few instances, even in the annals of ecclesiastical
controversy, can be produced of such Gothic warfare. The
men who acted thus, showed that the common decencies and
courtesies of life were as little regarded by them, as the carved
work of the sanctuary, which they set themselves, with axes and
hammers, utterly to undo. Loud and reiterated as was their out
cry for discussion, they took an effectual method to foreclose all
* * Proverbs xxv-i. 5,

71

proper discussion ; and the object to which they tenaciously clung
was evidently to erect, on the ruins of the church's testimony,
and of the character equally of their opponents, and of the whole
Synod, a trophy to their own unprincipled liberality.

Attempt of Rev. Clarke Houston upon the character of several
Ministers and Elders of Synod.
An incident, which had some connexion with the proceedings
of this meeting of Synod, will serve to shew, still farther, the spirit
which the gentlemen of the Eastern Presbytery cherished towards
their brethren, and it cannot, therefore, be omitted in this place.
In a case which came before Synod by petition, from the Second
Reformed Presbyterian Congregation^ Belfast, the late Dr. Ma-
whinny appeared as commissioner from the congregation, and
made some statements concerning an interruption of public wor
ship, which differed from the statements made by the minis
ter of the congregation (Mr. Boyd). As Dr. Mawhinny's obser
vations, made in Synod, were grossly misrepresented in the account
of the proceedings which were given in the Northern Whig, so
as to exhibit him -in a light injurious to his character, he addressed
a communication to the editor of that paper, complaining of the
injustice which had -been done him, and demanding a retractation.
A person signing himself Reporter, acknowledged the justice of
four out of six of the Doctor's objections to the report,- represent
ing them, of course, as of no material consequence. Ih relation
to one instance of which Dr. Mawhinny complained as totally false,
and which was indeed a most impudent falsehood, in which he
had been represented as expressing regret that he had inter
rupted public worship, the Reporter re-iterated the allegation,
but offered to withdraw it, -if any six members of Synod would
sign their names to a document, purporting that Dr. Mawhinny
had not in Synod expressed such regret. To this call, the Doctor
promptly yielded, and a brief attestation was published in the Whig,
signed *by four ministers and two elders, declaring that Dr. Ma
whinny did not express in Synod regret for having interrupted
public worship. The names affixed to this paper were those of
Rev. James Dick, Wilham Toland, Thomas Houston, and Arthur
Fullerton ; and those of the elders, William Gibson and Wilham
Wylie. At the first meeting of ,the Northern Presbytery, which
was held after the meeting of Synod, the Rev. Clarke Houston
presented a paper, purporting to be a libel, against the first three
mentioned ministers, who were members of Presbytery, on the
ground that they had published a falsehood ; and in his anxiety
to obtain his base object, overleaping the bounds of orderly proce
dure, he summonedvor procured the attendance of, a number of his
own congregation, and others, as witnesses, and gave such notoriety
to the matter, that a very numerous assembly was convened on the
occasion. The animus of such a step is too evident to require
comment. But the reason of venturing upon it, is not so apparent
to persons unacquainted with other circumstances. The meeting
of Synod at Cullybaekey had told a sad tale upon Dr. Paul and

72
his friends, among the sagacious and discerning members of the
church, who were present. The principles and spirit of the Edi-
tors of the Covenanter, and of those who acted with them, in plead
ing against defection and innovation, were seen in a different and
not unfavourable light, iu a place where they had often before
been misrepresented. The displays of temper which the Rev. C.
Houston had made, during the sessions of Synod, certainly did not
tend to prepossess the audience either in favour of himself, or the
cause which he had espoused. In the same spirit and temper, he
endeavoured to hold up the ministers and elders who had signed
the paper in defence of Dr. Mawhinny's character, as having pub
lished a deliberate falsehood, and all at Once to bring them to trial
for such a serious delinquency. Besides, the reporter in the Whig
was believed to be the eldest son of Mr. C. Houston, a youth whose
manner of hfe was too well known to require description ; and to
contradict his report could not be tolerated by a father, who ¦
had employed him to misrepresent, and vihfy the ministers of
the church in the public papers, or had at least connived at such
conduct. By misrepresenting the point in dispute, and telling sim
ple people of newspaper statements which they, probably, never
read, some were brought to credit the tale, and were induced
to offer to give testimony in the case. Some of these after
wards confessed they had been misled ; and when, before the
Presbytery, the matter was explained in its true light, a very dif
ferent impression was produced on the portion of the community
who were present, from what they had formerly been led to enter
tain. When. the paper of the reverend libeller was found to be
informal, and he was directed afterwards to prefer his charges as
a regular libel, he deemed it more prudent not again to come for
ward as a prosecutor, satisfying himself with disseminating, as far
as he was able, the allegation of unfairness against the Presby
tery.* The whole of this proceeding shews, to a lamentable de
gree, the animosity cherished by members of the Eastern Presby
tery against their brethren, who stood up to plead for truth, or to
vindicate aspersed character, and how unscrupulous they were as
to the means employed to ruin their reputation, and mar their
usefulness. * The members of Presbytery, having been attentive witnesses of the proceed
ings at Synod, were amazed at the madness of the attempt to criminate the brethren,
in a matter in which their innocence was so'manifest; and the moderator, tbe Rev.
Samuel Carlile, who was moderator of Synod in Cullybaekey, was constrained to
declare that Dr. Mawhinny had been very guarded in alleging that the irregularity
of interrupting public worship was caused not by him, but by the minister; and
that he would not believe any number of oaths, contrary to the evidence of his own
senses.

73

SECTION VII.

Synod. of 1838.— Violent attempts of Dr. Paul and tlie Eastern
Faction. — Sessions of Synod unusually protracted, through the
uproar and confusion which they occasioned.— Resolutions of
* the Committee of Synod, respecting the matters in dispute. —
Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery utterly reject the paci
fic measures. — Dr. Pauls Amendment. — The Synod forced
,.' to break up before concluding tlie business. — Proceedings of
Dr. faul and the Eastern Presbytery, in connexion with Li
berals, Radicals, Sfc, after the meeting of Synod-
It will be evident, from the preceding narrative, that Dr. Paul
and his friends of the Eastern Presbytery had, for a length of time,
ceased to act in friendly co-operation with their brethren in the
Synod,— that they not only differed from the church ou important
principle, but that, on all great questions, they acted in close con
cert to prevent them from being settled, according to the received
testimony, and order of the church. Such a mode of procedure
¦was manifestly factious and schismatical. The members of the
Eastern Presbytery were plainly the movement party, assailing
the principles of the church, violating her order, and pursuing
courses diverse from, or opposite to those which she had hitherto
followed. They were nowise scrupulous in the choice of the
means to which they had recourse for accomplishing their designs ;
•and when they were foiled in their projects, their conduct disco
vered any thing but a disposition to bow to the authority of the Sy
nod, to respect its character, or to preserve the unity and peace
pf the church. The Synod, and the Editors of the Covenanter,
acted on the defensive all along, being called to stand up in support
pf valuable principles, or to vindicate their own character against
reiterated, insidious, or open attacks, made by Dr. Paul and mem
bers of his Presbytery, or by his faithful allies of the liberal press.
The Synod simply desired to hold fast all the truths which they
had espoused, and to walk in the way in which their illustrious
forefathers had travelled ; and if they erred in dealing with those
who sought to turn them aside from this path, it was assuredly on
the side of forbearance and love of peace, rather than of justice
or severity. Had Dr. Paul and his friends been desirous of fol
lowing the things that make for peace or edification, when they
perceived that the unequivocal sense, and feeling of the church were
against their new-light sentiments, and innovating courses, they;
would have ceased from agitation, and satisfied themselves with
recording their dissents from acts of Synod, without continually
endeavouring to retard its business, and embroil its peace, and with
out lending their countenance to heap reproach upon the profes
sion, ministers and members, of the church, through the medium
of the newspaper press. Such a pacific course was, however, quite
foreign from the designs of these gentlemen ; and through their
disprderly, factious, and violent proceedings, the Synod and the

74
whole church, in this country, were called to endure a great fight
of afflictions, in the period that intervened between the meeting of
Synod in Cullybaekey, and the time when Dr. Paul and his party
tabled their declinature.
Shortly before the meeting of Synod in 1838, in perfect keeping
with the disorderly course which they had hitherto pursued, Dr.
Paul and his brethren of the Presbytery endeavoured to stir up the
members of the church, and to excite the public mind against the
Synod, on subjects which were expected to come under consider
ation. On the Mondays after the communion, at Cullybaekey,
Linen-Hall-Street, Belfast, and Newtownards, in the presence of
the congregations and strangefs who were assembled, Dr. Paul
brought forward a paper, purporting to be observations on the Sy.
nod's Declaration in overture, exhibiting this document in the
most odious hght, as teaching the worst species of bigotry, in
tolerance, and persecution, and distorting its expressions, while
¦applying them to Roman Catholics, Arians, &c, so as to draw
the keenest hostility of these parties upon the church. Andy
as if this were not publicity sufficient, the Eastern Presby
tery adjourned its meeting at Cullybaekey, on the communion
Monday, to one of the Meeting-houses of the Synod of Ulster in
Ballymena, to be held the next day ; and there, before as many
pf the community as his friends could collect together, Dr. Paul
read his paper, and held up to public abhorrence the Synod's
monstrous, bloody, persecuting, Overture, by which gentle epU
thets he was pleased to designate it. And to disseminate stiE
more widely the exposure, and, as far as possible, to bring the
Synod under the execration of public opinion, and the terror of
Romanists and others, a report of the proceedings of the Presby
tery in Ballymena, of which the writer was understood to be th.8
eldest son of the Rev. Clarke Houston, was published in one or
two of the Belfast liberal newspapers ; in which, of course, all
praise was awarded to that enlightened liberal divine, Dr. Paul, and
to his co-presbyters, while the Synod was represented as narrowr
minded bigots, entertaining the most persecuting and revolting
principles. In this report also the barefaced falsehood was
put forward, that the Scottish Reformed Synod had disapproved
of the Declaration, a statement to which one of the Delegates
from Scotland, at the Synodical meeting, referred, and whichhp
flatly contradicted. Yet all this, and much more, was unblushingly
done to serve the ends of faction and violence.
. Dr. Paul's remarks on the Synod's Declaration, which the
Eastern Presbytery adopted as their own, and which they have
published, with the Dr.'s usual bravadoes about his own " unan
swerable " writings and Wonderful exploits since he seceded from
Synod, will come under consideration in a subsequent part of this,
or in a future pamphlet. Meanwhile, it may' suffice to state, that
the principal butt of his attacks, — the great object on which he ex
pends his strength in his " Exposure " of persecution, — is the lan
guage" of the New Scottish Testimony, which the writer of the
^Declaration brought in to displace his own, in the hope that
Dr. Paul would shrink back from perverting,, and holding up to

75

public execration, the Scottish Testimony, as he had done the
Covenanter, — a hope, unhappily, and in a short time, completely
blasted.

Synodical Meeting in Ballymena, in 1838.
. From such conduct as we have narrated, it was not to be ex
pected that the Synodical meeting held in Ballymena in 1838, would
be a scene of harmony and peace ; and yet we are confident that
few of the members of Synod had any idea that Dr. Paul and
his friends would so outrage all decency, and manifest such
opposition to the . Covenanted testimony, and such enmity to
their brethren, as they did upon this occasion. The Synod of
1838 will long be remembered, and will be mentioned in the an
nals of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Ireland, in future
generations, as a mournful era, notorious for the display of lati-
tudinarian doctrine, of the mad intolerance of liberality, and the
triumph of disorder and clamour over all discipline and authority,
leading to nearly complete disorganisation. Dr. Paul and his
friends have boasted of this meeting, as the time when the
cause of liberty, of which they are the monopolists, was dis
played to advantage, and when they prevailed over bigotry and
intolerance. Let them enjoy the undisputed honour. As long as
the memory of honest Covenanters shall recur to the sayings and
doings of Dr. Paul and his allies at that period, we feel assured
that their separation from the church will be regarded as a bles
sing, rather than as an event in any way, save for their own sakes,
•and for the sake of the misled people who have followed them, to
be deplored.
The meeting of Synod of 1 838 was protracted to nearly two weeks, at
a serious expense, and inconvenience to many members, especially
the eldership of the church; and this, as in the case of the ad
journed meeting of the preceding year, may be considered part of
the price, which honest witnesses are called to pay, in maintaining
the testimony of their fathers against disorderly and violent
attempts to put it aside, or to trample it under foot. Dr.
Paul and his friends enjoyed means of living in Ballymena, with
out being subjected to the expense to which most other members
of the court were exposed ; and in the true spirit of modern libe
rality, they evinced not the smallest disposition to sympathise
with brethren, who were unexpectedly detained from their families
and flocks, double the length of time that was usually occupied
with a meeting of Synod.
According to an arrangement made at the meeting at Cullybac-
feey, — of the wisdom of which we always had serious doubts, — to
which, we believe, the Synod was led by a perpetual clamour
about free discussion, the Memorials from sessions and congrega
tions, which had been in the clerk's hands, and others bearing on
the disputed points, which were now brought forward, had prece
dence of all other business. Of these papers, the principal wa«
the Memorial from Loughmourne, the nature and contents of which

7d
we have already noticed. Petitions from many sessions and
cotgregations were presented,, and commissioners were heard
on the floor of Synod, in their support. These papers referredy
in general, to -the discussion on -the subject of the magis-
trate's power, and were either in support of the Loughmourne
Memorial, of were condemnatory of the sentiments and procedure.5
of Dr. Paul and his party, or they related to the Declaration _in
overture. With the exception of the congregations of the Eastern
Presbytery, nd congregation under the care of Synod, offered thef
slightest approval of Dr. Paul's new-light views and disorderly
conduct. And though the Synod's Declaration in overture waft-
caricatured and opposed in papers from the sessions and congrega
tions of the Eastern Presbytery > almost all the other sessions'
and congregations that memorialised Synod; spoke of it in-
terms of Commendation, and earnestly urged that it Should be
forthwith adopted, as the law Of the church, — only two, or threer
asking for some slight alterations in the language or arrangement,.
or expressing doubts of the expediency Of bringing it forward,
in the present circumstances of the church. All other matters-,'
however, had to give way, that a controversy, which had been set
to restfvee years before; might be renewed, in express violation of
a law of Synod, unanimously passed at that time ! We have already
noticed the way in which the Loughmourne Memorial was licensed;
by the Committee of Bills, at Moneymorein 1837, and the noto--
riety which it obtained, after it was read publicly at Cullybaekey.;-
and we have expressed regret that the Synod, in this case, suc-
'cumbed to intimidation, or gave way to expediency, in the hope-
of maintaining peace with men, whose every thought and desire^
breathed interminable war. ^S
The delegates from the Reformed Synod in Scotland had been-1
appointed to attend this meeting, with the express recommendation
that discussions respecting the magistrate's power should, if pos
sible, be avoided. Not so, however, thought Dr. Paul and
his friends. They had chosen their ground ; they had mustered.
their supporters and satellites ; and they well knew how to turn
to their own account, the passiveness; and love of peace of mem".
hers of-Synod, who were not so immediately concerned as parties
in the dispute. Dr. Paul appeared to keep steadily in vie w the praises
and rewards of parties political and ecclesiastical, who hailed his
attacks upon ancient scriptural principle, and who cheered him ont
and accordingly he did exert himself to the utmost, approving
himself a thorough champion of liberalism, and a true knight-errant
of toleration. To those who are, in any measure, acquainted with
his method of dealing with the testimonies, and other formularies
of the church, and of treating those who hold these symbols, there
was nothing very new in his reasoning on this occasion. But
certainly he far outdid himself iu distortion and misrepresentation,
— in deep malignity towards the Editors of the Covenanter^
in aspersing the memories and principles of covenanted witnesses,
and martyrsof a former time,— and in gathering odium fromevery
Quarter to cast upon his opponents, and upon the whole church,
because they would not abandon their testimony, or explain-it away*
according to his liberal scheme.

77
" By numerous quotation* from ,th& Covenanter and Christian
Magistrate, ho endeavoured.to exhibit the doctrine of magistrate
cal coercion, taught therein, as sanctioning intolerance, and thft
Worst species of persecution. He alleged that Mr. Houston, iflt
these writings, had taught the extirpation of persons and not of
principles, — that capital punishments are to be applied to herg-f
tics and idolaters, and also to those who differ from us in opinion
qn religion, — that dominion is founded in grace, — and that the;
judicial laws, in their modes of punishment, are still fully obliga-r;
tory,— all of which Mr. Houston has solemnly and frequently de-;
nied.* He affirmed that the Editors would cut off Roman Catho-
lies, if they had the power,— offered to prove, on any platform,-,
that the Covenanter was ten times worse in what it taught about,
the restraint and coercion of gross heretics and idolaters, than ' Dens'
Theology,' and laboured to refute the 'Reviewer Revien-ed,' by al-'
legin'g that it contained a vast number of untruths, the proof, how- '
ever, resting only on his own bare assertion. And,as discovering the
spirit by which he was actuated from the beginning of this contro
versy, he declared that he would sooner believethe liberal press, —
the Arian, Socinian, and Deistical press, — than the Editors of the-
Covenanter; and, in conclusion, he expressed his fervent wish that-
the Covenanter, and other pamphlets of Mr. Houston, were made
a' bonfire of ! +
Of the arguments employed by Dr. Paul and his brethren, we
merely observe, for the present, that they contained hardly any
reference to the Standards of the church, supreme or subordinate,
and that their reasoning would go to exhibit the Reformers' con
fessions and declarations, and the approved writings of the church,
as intolerant and persecuting ; nay, even their tendency was to *"
fasten upon portions of the Scriptures themselves the same char
ges, and their statements on several occasions raised the laugh,:
from giddy hearers, against the laws of the Bible. The subordU >
nate actors in this drama, in some instances neglecting the caution:
or policy of their leader, represented the eminent Reformers and
their writings, relative to this subject, as worthy of marked con
demnation. Thus^one of the commissioners on Dr. Paul's, side J
declared, in Synod, that the Reforming Assembly of the Church "N
of Scotland, that sanctioned the Westminster Confession, not only
* These allegations are brought forward in the " Declinature " of the Eastern
Presbyterj' ; the reader is referred to our remarks on that document, in a subse
quent part of this pamphlet, for a refutation of these oft-repeated calumnies.
. f In former periods of the history of the. church,- the burning of their writings
was frequently connected with the burning, or otherwise pulling to death of faith.
ful witnesses for the truth. The spirit discovered by Dr. Paul, when, he spoke of
the bonfire of Mr. Houston's writings, was certainly net very unlike that which
was shewn by some who embrued their hands in tbe blood of the saints, or who
urged en the persecutor. One of his dupes observed afterwards, lhat Dr. Paul's
name and achievements would go down with honour to posterity, while Mr. Hous
ton would be burnt in effigy. So much for Dr. Paul's liberalitst and tole- i
Ration !
% The commissioner was from Cullybaekey coflgfegattdn.

78
taught persecuting principles, but actually persecuted, *-r-*!j|
alleged that the illustrious martyr James Renwick, denied toe
doctrine of the Mediator's Headship over the nations! ' When
the Synod generally marked with disapprobation such statements,
and refused to allow the commissioner tp proceed in this course;
Messrs. Alexander and C; Houston pleaded that he should have
liberty to misrepresent the principles, and dishonour the character
of those, whom the church had along been accustomed to revere ;
aUd Dr. Paul, in advancing the same plea, seemed to have peculiar
acquaintance with the object of the commissioner, which, he said,
was to show that the Reformers were in error in some points ; and
assuming his unfounded allegation concerning Renwick, he argued
that if they were in error on the article of Messiah's Headship,
" they might be supposed capable of falling into mistakes on the
Magistrate's power circa sacra."f As it was the Westminster
Standards and Divines that were expressly mentioned by the com
missioner, was not this apology of Dr. Paul a plain declaration^
that these writings and their venerable compilers were in error on
the subject of the Magistrate's power? Was not the allegation,
and the apology clearly calculated to shake all confidence in these
writings as Standards, and to pave the way for their rejection in
this character by the church?
After a patient hearing of the lengthened speeches of Drs. Paul.
and Henry, of the replies of the Editors of the Covenanter, and
of the rejoinders of the former gentlemen, — a part of the secoildj
week being consumed, — various methods were proposed to bring,
the matter to a settlement. That in which all parties concurred,-.;;
was the appointment of a committee, who had liberty to re
tire, or to meet from time to time, during ihe different recesses of
the sessions of Synod, in order to digest a measure which might
bring matters to an amicable adjustment. This committee con
sisted of Messrs. Gamble, Stavely, Alexander, and Hawthorne, with
Mr. Anderson, one of the Scottish Delegates; and as elderSj
Messrs. Torrens, Jackson, M'Neely and Macklin. After several
meetings and much consultation, this committee presented a re
port, embodying a number of resolutions, which were designed to
embrace the whole subject in discussion, and fo bring the matter
to a final settlement, so as to secure the unity and peace of tho
church, and the harmonious co-operation of all the members of
Synod, in the maintenance of a common testimony for truth.
These resolutions affirmed the Synod's resolutions of 1833, ex
pressed regret that controversies had arisen to violate the arrange
ment then made,— lamented the ground of the disputes, while
other great articles of the church's testimony were overlooked®
and her energies in spreading the truth were restrained,— con*"5'
demned all persecuting principles, while they declared that the open
enemies of religion ought not, in a Christian land, to be admitted
* Thus was the leading position of the pamphlet entitled " Persecution Sanc
tioned by ihe Westmins-ter Divines, &c," already noticed, brought forward on the
floor of Synod, by one of Ur. Paul's party. -
f See Report of Proceedings, &c, which was circulated with great zeal by Dr.
Paul's party and friends', both in this country and Scotland. '

79
to places of power and trust, but that nothing ought to be done,
affecting the life, property, common liberty, or peace of persons
differing in opinion, who are otherwise inoffensive members of so
ciety, —expressed deep concern that any should attempt to fasten
on Covenanters the odious charge that they are bound to extirpate
persons, while erroneous system? and doctrines are expressly men
tioned in the Covenant, and enjoined all the members to avoid
statements, in public and private, calculated to disturb the peace
of the church.
The committee, besides, recommended a private friendly con
versation among the members of Synod, before the adoption of tho
resolutions should be proposed. To this recommendation all par
ties acceded ; and three several meetings of the Synod in private
were held, with a view, by mutual explanation and friendly con
ference, to obviate difficulties, and, if possible, restore union and
confidence. These interviews were productive of no beneficial
results. On the contrary, Dr. Paul and his friends showed
not the least disposition to go forward with their brethren in the
maintenance of the Covenanted Testimony,— and their- departure
from the Standards, and their unwillingness to abide by them as
the basis of government or unity, became still more manifest.
Thus, in answer to an inquiry by a member of Synod, Dr. Paul
said he considered it wrong for the Christian civil ruler to do any
thing in his official character to restrain or punish the open pro
pagation of sentiments, by which the very existence of magistracy
is denied. And on the senior Editor of the Covenanter proposing
that doctrinal differences between him aud Or. Paul should be un
derstood to be at an end, on the latter agreeing to publish, as the
basis of agreement in sentiment, a statement respecting the power
and duty of the Christian Magistrate, from one or other of three
Testimonies of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, — namely, from
the old Act and Testimony, the New Scottish Testimony, or the
American Testimony, he refused, alleging that parties might not,
after all, be agreed in their views of the meaning of these passages.
The object of the private conferences not being effected, it was
evident that Dr. Paul and his friends aimed to protract the business,
and to prevent the Synod from coming to a decision on the com
mittee's resolutions. At one time they alleged that sufficient
opportunity had not been allowed for private conference ; and
when they were indulged in this particular, ^heir own anti-pacific
spirit only became the more apparent. Again, it was stated as a
reason of delay, that the Eastern Presbytery wished a copy of the
j committee's resolutions for consideration. This also was conceded ;
and when no other subterfuge served, and Dr. Paul and his friends
had sufficient time for preparing their measures, the Synod was
suffered, at last, to proceed to the consideration of the commit
tee's resolutions.
To evince his desire to promote the peace and unity of the
church, and his willingness to make any sacrifices, consistent with
the maintenance of a faithful testimony, Mr. Thomas Houston at
once concurred in the resolutions, and moved their adoption by the
Synod* This motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Porter, one of
the most .intelligent and venerable elders of thechurch,.and-was re-

ceived with geheral satisfaction by the Synod. There mighthavfr
.been reason to expect, that a measure which was unanimously re
commended by a committee, composed of those who were esteemed
fathers in the church, would not have encountered much opposition
•irom any quarter; and certainly, if the object had been to continue
-and strengthen the brotherly covenant, or to advance, by harmo
nious co-operation, the church's welfare, this would have been
rthe case. But Dr. Paul and his party had other ends in view;
and they soon showed that the judgment of Synod's committee,
and the peace of the church, were esteemed by them of little im-
rportance, when they stood in the way of their attainment.
After assailing the committee's resolutions, an account of their
alleged vagueness and unfaithfulness,— declaring, in his own pe
culiar style, that it would be easy to drive a coach and six through
such resolutions, — and hecause they appeared to regard his own
charges against the Covenanter and its Editors, as frivolous and
groundless,- Dr. Paul proceeded, as usual, to declaim about
intolerance, persecution, &c, — and concluded by moving, as
an amendment, which was seconded by Rev. Dr. Henry, that
after the words, " holding different opinions " in the com,
mittee's resolutions, there should be inserted the words, " or
avowing or defending them," — that the' persecuting princi
ples which he alleged to be taught in the Covenanter, Christian ,
Ajogislra/e, and the Reviewer Reviewed, be judicially condemned;
¦as also the untruths and calumnies which he said were contained in
4he last named pamphlet, — and that the Eastern Presbytery be al.
lowed to adopt the Scottish form of the Fourth Term of Commu.
¦nion. This amendment speaks for itself, and we are therefore
spared the necessity of much comment. It not only declared that
Dr. Paul and his friends utterly despised the labours of the commit.
tee, and spurned with indignation any measure, that contemplated
a continuance of brotherly concord and co-operation. It showed all
the other members of Synod, how fruitless were their attempts at
agreement with ihe Eastern Presbytery, on any other ground than
that of adopting Dr. Paul's new-light views, and of condemning
the principles and stigmatizing the memories of their forefatheri
as persecutors on principle. The disorderly course of requiring
the alteration of the Fourth Term of Communion, after the de»
cision of Synod last year, need not be pointed out, only as
it serves to show that the Eastern Presbytery evinced, by it,
their determination never to cease from agitating subjects in
dispute, however repugnant to the feelings of Synod. And if
a doubt remained on the minds of any before, respecting the con-
trariety of Dr. Paul and the Presbytery's views, to the Standards
of ihe church, they seemed resolved, in the closing act, to dispel
that doubt completely, by requiring the Synod to declare, in ex.
press opposition to the doctrine of the Westminster Confession,
(chap. xx. art. 4.) that the Christian civil ruler should do nothing
towards restraining persons from "avowing and defending"'
opinions, however irreligious, immoral and abominable. Ttt
was equivalent to requiring the Synod to give a direct con.
tradiction to the statement of the Confession! The bask,
whieh Dr; Paul and his friends had long attempted to wear,, wa*

81-
plainly thro WnaSide.-^-Snd (Jhey practically declared ; that it was riot
against Mr. Houston aftd "the Covenanter alone that they were
contending, but against the intolerance and bigbtr'y of a portion
of the Westminster-Confession ! After" such ah avowal, common
honesty should have restrained them from striving to delude their
simple-people, by persuading; thfem that th1 Ay still held the doctrines
taught in the' Standards of the church. r-' •
- -Finding that- all hopes of an amicable settlement with persons
avowing such sentiments, and manifesting such a spirit, were for the,
present at an end,— feeling that; in fact, they were unable to carry
any measure, the Synod agreed to adjourn the farther considera
tion of the subject till the next annual meeting. Thus nearly a
fortnight was consumed in unprofitable discussions. The regular
business of the court was almost wholly neglected. Scenes Of up
roar and confusion, such as had never before occurred, since the
SynOd had been constituted, were introduced, — and the Synod
and the whole church were made the scorn ahd derision of their
neighbours round about. . Throughout all his speeches, and his
Whole conduct, at this memorable meeting, Dr. Paul seemed to
have his eye to a certain portion of the audiefice, and to have Utile
or no regard to the court ; and every thing was done that it was
possible for him and his party tp do, to trample on its authority,
and render it a mere nullity. The Synod was certainly wanting to
itself, in not arresting such contumacious and rebellious conduct,
-—and still more, in allowing, without rebuk^-pfinciples to he de
clared in court, which were' directly opposed to the testimony of the
church, and in permitting the memories of the Reformers to be'vilifi-
ed. The love of peace, the idle hope of retaining those -who were
pushing on the most violent measures, and the fear' of consequences,
diminished its wonted spirit and vigour. Rut, . as in all Such
eases,- passiveness and lenity only emboldened the advocates' of
innovation and error; and hastened arid increased, instead of avert
ing evils that were dreaded. The friends of religion, of whatever^
name, beholding the confusion that was introduced, ahd the injury
that was done to the church; pitied and deplored ; while the infi
del, the irreligious and the profane, and others of better principles,
and practice, but who disliked a Covenanted testimony, rejoiced.
The reports of the Synod's proceedings in the Sim^newspapers,''
manufactured so as to exhibit Dr. Paul as the champion of civil
and religious liberty, and to set off his speeches, and those of his
friends, in the most advantageous light, 'were actually read by po
pish "priests to their flocks ih the chapels, on the Sabbath,; and in
Some parts of the kingdom, there can be little doubt, that/persOnal
violence Would have been resorted to, against those who had stood
forward, in defence of the testimony and character of our forefa
thers. The Lord stills' the tumults Jof the people, and makes the
wrath of man to praise him ; and therefore were his servants pre
served in safety. But certainly no thanks are due to Dr. Paul and
his friends, who did every thing in their power to excite against
their brethren, the worst passions pf the erroneous and immoral
throughout the community.' Well might one of the fathers in the'
ministry, who was a member of the committee, with tears ;ih' his
eyes declare before Synod, when alluding to these attempts,

that", the worst species pf persecution to which, the Covenanting
Church had been exposed for the last 150 years, had been on the
floor pf the Synod." '¦ .,,..,;
There can now be no question that the Synod stumbled,
in first licensing, by ; the admission of the Loughmourne-
Memorial, the renewal of a dispute on which they had
already deliberately adjudicated ; and afterwards, in permitting
such, attacks upon the church's testimony, and upon character,
to be made in court, to the exclusion, in, a great measure, of proper
business. It is justice, however, to state, that it was through a de.
sire tp promote peace and preserve unity, and.intfae.hopc of effecting
an accommodation, and not from the slightest leaning to Dr. Paul's
new-light doctrines, or the slightest approval of his disorderly pro
cedure, — that many of the members of Synod suffered the time to be
wasted, and the gentlemen of the Eastern Presbytery to spue out
their liberalism, and venom against the reformers, and their breth
ren in Synod. Dr. Paul's treatment of the cpmmittee'a resolutions
at the close, must haye shown these members of court, on what a
weak foundation were built all hopes of a right peace with those
who had slighted a Covenanted testimony, and who courted
and secured the favour and applause of its inveterate enemies.
But the. church and the religious commuuity will, by this time,
have learned sufficiently, with what kind of a party ihe Synod had
to do ; and will have little hesitation in ascribing the honour or
infamy pf all the turmoil, irregularity and confusion that took
place in the meeting of. 1838, a»d the reproach that from it was,
heaped upon the. Covenanting cause and church in this; land, to
Dr. Paul and his party. The Editors of the Covenanter, who,
were the principal butt of the attack, and whose character and
writings were exhibited, both in the Synod and in the newspapers,
in every light that could render them odious, exercised all for,
bearance. They had warned the Synod of the evil consequences,
of opening the discussion on Magistracy, and of allowing Dr. Paul;
to make his reckless assaults upon the principles and character of
the Reformers. When, notwithstanding, the discussion was. admit
ted, and in the worst possible form, involving the most vulgar
and offensive personalities, they suffered themselves to be held up,
asagazing-stock and reproach,— even enemies who were present at
Synod, cpuld not allege that they discoyered'any disposition to re
taliate, or any vindictive spirit. They siniply endeavoured to, vjn.
dicate valuable principles that were assailed, and left their own
character and writings in the hands of the, church, aud with Him
who judgeth righteously. And when ^measure was, introduced. by
the committee, which had for its object, the restoration .of peace
and harmonious, co-operation, though.it did not directly censure
the error and irregularity of the revilers of the testimony, they
offered it their ready support ; and departing from, their original
intention, resolved to abstain from farther discussion, lest it might
impede the settlement pf the case, and concluding that Dr. Paul's
malignity and extravagance would thus produce a more decidedly
salutary reaction. They defended precious truth, and resisted error
an4 innovation : they stood forth to maintain good order; and tbey.
always evinced a readiness to make sacrifices for the sake of unity and

83
peace. They manifested little concern about their own honour or
reputation, and they carefully abstained either from displaying
excited feelings, or from seizing advantages; which thej- could
easily have taken, of treating Dr. Paul and his co-presbyterS as
they treated them. Their study all along was, to maintain a spirit
and deportment, amidst assaults of the most virulent character,
that they might in some measure say with the Apostles of the
Lamb,—" Being reviled, we bless ; being persecuted, we sutler
it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as the filth of tho
world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day."*
And, in looking back to this painful period, we are truly
thankful to Him who keeps his servants from the strife of tongues,
and gives internal peace and comfort, that we weTe preserved, from
saying or doing any thing that could afford just reason, even for
calumniators, to say that we were, in any way, instrumental in
preventing the Synod from coming to a righteous settlement. We
have now the satisfaction of knowing, that the spirit and de
meanour which the Editors of the Covenanter discovered,
when exposed to scorn and reproach and contempt, as contrasted
with that of Dr. Paul and his allies, at this meeting of Synod* did
much throughout the church, and the community, to rescue them
from undeserved odium, and, with many candid and honourable
persons who were inclined to favour Dr- Paul's views, to lead- to
disapprobation both of his principles and spirit.

Favours and Gifts of Radicals and Voluntaries to Dr< Paut.-
Although Dr. Paul must have felt that he had no hope of
obtaining from the Synod an approval either of his principles
or conduct ; and that his proceedings, both in Synod and out
of it, only served to alienate still farther from him the af
fections of" the pious and devoted members of the Church,:
he was well aware, at the same time, that he took the fair way of
succeeding in an, object which appears to have been more dear
to him than the maintenance of Reformation principles. The
Liberals in politics, — the Voluntaries, and the opponents of the
Westminster.Confessipn-i — and even Papists, Arians, and Infidels,
had cheered him on in his attempts to root out the testimony, and
destroy the reputation of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. T/hat
Dr. Paul was not indifferent to the favour of these parties, was evi
dent from his never bringing forward, either in his speeches or
writings, any Covenanting peculiarity, which might give them
offence,— '-from his entering no caveat against their commendations
of himself,- even when they were joined with the most unsparing
and abusive attacks upon the British Covenants, and the doctrines
and measures of the Covenanted Reformation; — and from the
close intercourse and consultation with leading men of some of the
worst of these parties, which he was known to maintain during the
sessions of Synod and afterwards. Soon after, he obtained there-
ward, for which, if he did not anxiously wish, he had at least
faithfully laboured, by vilifying the Reformers, and exciting odium
* I Corinthians iv. 12, 13.

4
and hatred againslt.Jus own , Church.: . Immediately* after, the
meeting of Synod,;his friends, -4 who were, invgeneral, persons that"
gave little evidence pf rega'rd to practical religion, and were, in
some pises,, the openly erroneous and irreligious, exerted them
selves,, in all directions, to procure him a splendid Testimonial for
his transcendent services ; and a Soiree,* which was numerously
attended, was, held in Belfast, to compliment him and his brethren
of the Eastern Presbytery, on their liberality, their freedom from
the higofry and intolerance, of : their own Church, and their
glorious achievements in the cause of civil and religious liberty.
Some time after, a purse, . containing one hundred and fifty sove
reigns, — the, fruit of' contributions, which were raised throughout
many parts of the province, and in other places,-; — was presented
.to Dr. Paul. Jt may suffice to state, that the persons who
were mOst active in raising the contributions were either persons
in the church, who were distinguished by their loose views
of 'its testimony and order : or those without, who had abandoned a
Covenanted profession, or were noted for their hostility to it. The
principal actors at the Soiree, and at the subsequent meeting for
presenting the testimonial, were leading radical politicians, Arian
ministers, Independents, Romanists, active agents of the new na
tional system of education, &c* - •
Among these were the. Rev. James _Godkin, some time a Ro
manist, but now an Independent minister, who was editor of the
" Christian Patriot," — a voluntary, independent, and radical news
paper, which figured during its short day in defaming the West
minster Confession, the Reformers, and- Presbyterian principle and
order. This was the writer who, in the Northern -Whig, under
the signature of Q; E. D;; had been the rampant and rabid ma-
ligner of the Covenanting Church. In these communications,
he declared that the Reformed Presbyterian 'Church needed,
*-' a long robe to cover her hideousness;" — that " her eccle-.
siastical code is a mixture of Vandal barbarism and priestly
tyranny, that would have disgraced the darkest era of Pagan
superstition, —her laws are such as Dioclesian would have!
blushed to sign." He calls the Covenanting community " ai
* The peison who presided at thesoiree, was William S. Crawford, Esq., M.P.,
one of O'Connell's tail, who, for his exertions in behalf of universal suffrage,
and other such sweeping measures, well deserves the name of radical reformer ;
and who, on a former occasi on, at a meeting of the Remonstrants ih County
Down, denounced the Synod of tjlster; for those measures which led to the
separation of the Arians. Among the speakers were Rev. J-ohn Scott Porter,
the champion of Arianism, who was signally, defeated in his- controversy with
the Rev. Daniel Bagot, and. Mr'. Maurice Cross, secretary, of the Belfast
Radical Association, and now one of the secretaries of the New National
system of education. Such is a specimen of the company that assembled to,,
grace Dr. Paul's triumph over the bigotry and intolerance of the Covenanting
church. If report is;to be depended upon, some of the committee for the Testi-
^monial, were for carrying out their devotion to the cause of civil and religious
.liberty still farther, by inviting Dri Denvir, popish bishop, to the soiree; and
when others thought this might not have so good ah aspect with the; public,
these members retired in disgust, alleging that Dr. Paul and his friends were,
after all* but mongrel supporters of the cause 6f civil and religious liberty, be
cause they were, afraid to carry out their principles to .their legitimate, applica
tion

85
body of bigots, breathing, out threatening and slaughter against
the, aisciple,s of the Lord,"-*" a church having the damning
infamy of intolerance like a millstone round her neck,"— " men
to wfipm it is a consolation to Ipok through the grated windows of
an exchequer dungepn, and contemplate the emaciated tithe mar
tyr,"— " so .zeafou$ for truth, and so anxious for the spread of the
Gospel, that they bid. GpdT»peed to the ruffian that breaks open the
door at midnight with a sledge,"— a church "» whose principles
lead to the; consequences of converting the church into an acel-
dama, extinguishing all love and humanity, and changing all
Christians into "tigers ;"— -a " church Cradled in rebellion,"—" re
bels in creed," — "rebelsin the sanctuary,"— "rebels in society," —
" most levelling revolutionists,"—" most unrelenting destruction-
ists," who, would " root up and overturn every ordinance and insti
tution of the- land:" And the ministers of the Reformed Presby
terian, church , he characterised as "blockheads," who "stick to
the black-letter of bigotry ;" " give a. license to transgress;" and
instead of sacrificing a pig, would prefer as victims a Methodist or
Papist,, whose hairy scalps, would crown their land-marks," — " the
advocates of, persecution even to the death ;" who '*have not the
manliness, to. defend, nor the humility to disclaim their hateful
principles ;" " notorious for their pulpit impertinence ;" " bung
lers in theological diplomacy ;" " prodigies of bigotry " ! ! This
venomous, foaming, and ruffian railing, were ably exposed by a
" Layman m the Reformed .Presbyterian Chwrcn," in a pamphj
let entitled " Q. E. D. unmasked," &c, — and then the mean
and dishpnest reviler pretended, forsooth, that bis invectives;
of which the above are but a Fmall specimen, were only directed'
against the principles. 6f the Covenanting Church, and not against
its, ministers or. people! It deserves to be remembered, that
throughout all the; scurrilous and malignant abuse which this
writer cast upon the Synod and the church, he uniformly eulogised
in the highest terms Dr; Paul and his party, while he characterised'
the Editors of the Covenanter and the Synod as " prodigies of
bigotry." , The presence of such a wholesale slanderer as a speaker
at the Soiree tp, Dr. Paul, and the use which gentlemen of the
Eastern Presbytery made of the " Christian Patriot" newspaper;
of which he,wasEditor,.sii:ffieien>tly Bhow, without further remark,
the alliance which they willingly maintained, with those whose
every word and action seemed to. aim at nothing less than the"
utter subversion pf the Covenanting Church. Had the character'
or principles pf the church been, dear toithem, even in the slight
est degree, it need hardly be said, they would have testified their
abhorrence of such unprincipled revilers, and would' have spurned
from them, as vile and loathsome, their presents and applause.
That there were some others of better principles present at these
meetings, and who took part in the proceedings, we do not deny;
but some of them had written against the Westminster. Confession,
or were opposed tp its, subscription,, or were misled by' political
or voluntary pajtialities, or were utterly ignorant of the true stato
of the case. The general complexion of the meeting plainly declared.
the nature, of the, services, which, Dr. Paul and-hisparty had render
ed to the cause of civil and religious liberty. Where, we may-askj

8'6
had ever such persons shown favour to an honest Covenanter?
Could it, indeed, be expected that /they would do homage to
those, who pointedly condemned their own principles, political or
religious ? The supposition - is irrational and -absurd. Honest
Covenanters every where blushed for such an alliance. The
Testimonial, coming from such hands, was styled " the wages
of iniquity. ;" and we have reason to think that not a few,
who wish still to be considered Covenanters, though friendly
to Dr.' Paul, have been long since ashamed of the company, with
which the ministers of the Eastern Presbytery appeared in this
transaction.* SECTION VIII.
Synodical meeting of 1839. — Measures introduced to prevent re
newed Discussion. — Members of the Eastern Presbytery the
movers in the business. — Decision of Synod in relation to the
• Scottish Testimony. — Inconsistent conduct of the Eastern Pres- '
bytcry. — Renewed Attempts, of Dr. Paul to disturb the peace
of the Church. — Synod of 1810. — Rejection of Papers of the
Eastern Presbytery in the Committee of Bills. —Dr: Paul and
his faction decline the Synod's authority, and formally sepa
rate themselves from tlie Reformed Presbyterian Church.
.. At thenext meeting of Synod in 1 839, which was likewise held
in Ballymena, ft was expected that the Resolutions of the Com
mittee of last year would be brought forward, with a view to their
adoption; and various papers, referring to the' matter in dispute,
which. had passed the Committee of Bills, were also expected to be
taken under consideration. Several new papers referring to the
same subjects were presented. That from Dr. Paul and his session,
which was rejected, with marked disapprobation; by the Committee
of Bills, exceeded in virulence and malevolence any that he had
hitherto submitted to Synod; Had the Editors of the Covenanter
been desirous to continue dissensions, — had they been as anxious to
v.indicale their character or principles, as Dr. Paul was to assail them,
or as tbey were to maintain the testimony, and preserve the peace of
the church upon a proper foundation^ they would have stood upon
their right of, defending, themselves against the grievous charges,
and odious allegations which Dr. Paul had advanced against theni
at the close of the last Synodical meeting. As the appointment
of the committee was made, before the matters in dispute came
properly into discussion in Synod, and it had been arranged that
* We forbear to notice, at present, the speeches delivered at the soiree to
Dr. Paul, though they furnish several choice specimens of the latitudinarian
views and illiberal, spirit of the , newTlight gentlemen of the East, and of the
party with which they identified themselves. Nor is it requisite that we
should wait to expose the unchristian,' urigentlemanly, and virulent y attack
which the Rev. Clarke Houston; then clerk of Synod, made upon th'e cor^-,
gregatioii of Knockbracken^ for exercising its Undoubted rights, in relation to a
matter still pending before Synod'. , Such a pitiful attempt to excite prejudice
and odium, only exposed to marked abhorrence thespiritlhat actuated the man
who made it, and recoiled on his own head. It was, however, in^ keeping with
the man, combining together a large portion of characteristic haughtiness and
meanness. ¦,-,,,',.',.' ..::;;•'.¦>

87
the parties, namely, Dr. Paul and the Editors of the Covenanter
would, when the subject was taken up by the court , have the same right
with other members in) discussion!, and the deliverance of Synod, the
Editors of the periodical had reserved much that they had to advance
to such an opportunity, and for! reasons already stated had wilhheld
it entirely. But as Dr. Paul had, in a way utterly unprecedented
and disorderly, in his speech in Synod, in 1838, advanced' tho
allegation of numerous untruths and errors in the Reviewer Reviewed,
Mr. Houston, the writer of that pamphlet, said he would not fol-
lpvv the same disorderly course, by offering a reply at the time, —
but he had prepared for the Synod of 1839, and he had
calculated on being allowed an opportunity of submitting,
his defence against Dr. Paul's foul and false imputations,
and of exhibiting still farther the principles and spirit which Dr. Paid
had discovered, in advancing such charges. Butstill willing to leave
the clearing of their character to Him who judgeth righteously,
arid desirous, as they had been from the beginning, to keep out of
view, matters that appeared of a private or personal nature, in order
that a controversy, which was felt by the church to be irksome and
Unpleasant, might be terminated, and that peace might.be restored,
they readily acquesced in a proposal which was early brought
forward, by which all discussion, on the points in dispute, was
precluded during the meeting, of Synod.., , .
. This proposal, let it never be forgotten, was made by the
Eastern Presbytery and their friends. The men who were always
shouting for discussion,, till Mr, Houston had a long arrear, from last
Synod, aud during the recess, to bring up, now probably feeling that
they had obtained all the reward they could expect for the advocacy
of liberalism, and that their hopes of bringing the Synod round to
their views, were even more slender than formerly, came forward
with a motion, which of necessity prevented discussion, and which
was substantially adopted by Synod. We shallafterwardssee more
fully how little reason these gentlemen had to complain that they
were denied. the liberty of discussion ;-r- but meanwhile, it will be
clearly seen, that whether this complaint was well or ill founded,
it was they themselves that foreclosed the discussion, when Mr.
Houston had a large claim upon the attention and indulgence of
tfie Court. ¦ .'•!.¦. -
- On presenting the reports of Presbyteries, which is usually done
early on the second day of the meeting of Synod, the report of the
Eastern Presbytery, of which Dr.. Paul was Clerk, contained a
recommendation that the Synod should take measures for having
the Formula for Ordination, the Terms of Communion, and the
New, Testimony, which had received the Sanction of the sister
Synod in Scotland,, submitted to the subordinate judicatories in
Ireland,' with the view to their being adopted by Synod. A motion
in the terms of ;this recommendation, deviating from the Synod's
order, was presented immediately after the reading of the reports, and
consequently before any other business was entered upon, by Rev.
Clarke Houston, and seconded by Dr. Henry; and the Rev. Gordon
T. Ewing, who was known to be quite, friendly to the Eastern Pres
bytery, and who appeared to consult with Dr. Paul's friends in this
kwtance,; moved as an addition to the motiony— "That all discussion

83
on the papers, nowlyingonthetaible Of Synod, besuspendeduntil the
documents -mentioned, in> the1 motion be submitted for consideration
to our inferior judicatives* and; the result Of the- deliberations re-
turned to Synod, " :The members of the Eastern Presbytery
readily: acquiesced in i this addition; to their .motion , so that it was
at once appended .to, and may be regarded, in reality, as part of,
the1 original motion. This deserves to be particularly observed,
because of the outcry which Dr, Paul and his friends afterwards
raised, about the injustice of the Synod, in denying discussion- on
the points at issue, and because of the delusion, which is still as
siduously propagated on this subject, •*'.¦'. -.
. To '¦ the motion of the Eastern Presbytery, an amendment Was
proposed by the Rev. William Toland; and seconded by Mr.
Samuel Jackson, elder,— " That the- Synod fceeommend to the
consideration of the subordinate, judicatories, the historical and
doctrinal parts pf the Testimony of the Scottish Reformed Presby
terian Synod, with a view to their adoption by this- Ghurch ; and'
that the papers now lying on the Synod's table, he held in retenJ
tis till the reports. pf the inferior; judicatories be received and ad-!
judicated on." This amendment was carried, after discussion, by*
a considerable majority. ' It will be; seen that it embraced the
principal matter in the motion of the Rev. Clarke Houston and'
Dr. Henry, namely, submitting tbe> Scottish Testimony to the in
ferior judicatories of the church, ' with &, view to its adoption,
and deferring the consideration of papers bearing on the subjects
in dispute, till order should, be taken in relation to it. The omis-'
sion of the Formula and the Terms of Communion, as matters of-
reference to th© inferior Judicatories', was the only point in which
the amendment differed from the original motion. It is hardly
necessai'y to state reasons why these were left dut;— to ; those who'
have paid attention to what is related in preceding- parts of this
nanratiye, these will readily suggest themselves^ It was argued
in Synod, that it would be contrary to order -to send the Formula1
and Terms of Communion to the inferior judicatories,- as an over
ture, as it would imply that the Synod were not satisfied with'
their owri', — that a committee had been appointed at the meeting
of Synod ju:: Cuffiybackey, to revise the language of the For-*
mula, — and that to make, the Terms of Communion- an dpefe*
question, might disappoint the desired object, and produce
future division, instead of harmony and peace, especially/ 'as'
thei Synod had recently determined, by a very large majority;
that it was inexpedient at present to make any change in the
Terms of Communion. Dr. Pauh without replying to these rea
sons',- in his usual style, endeavoured to charge home intolerance
and. persecution upon the Acts o£ Assembly, and the Auchinsaugh'
Deed, — and.declared himself dissatisfied with the concluding part
,©f:both the motion and amendment, as its«ffect would be to arrest
discussion. In this objection, however, he was not joined, either
by- any of his brethren of the Eastern Presbytery, of by any other
member of- Synod. -. . . i , .. < i
The amendment having been carried, and arrangements; having
be^n-made for giving, it effect, the public business of the Synod,
till! .the close, was-doncUwted in an amicable manner. The only1

S9
matter that showed the workings of Dr. Paul's leaven of disorder
"and confusion, was that of the Rev. John Nevin, who had, in an
irregular way, forsaken his charge in Liverpool. This young man
had, from his first entrance into Synod, strenuously pleaded for
Dr. Paul's sentiments, and had even shot ahead of his master, in
proposing sweeping changes. The Synod haying adopted the re
port of the committee^ against which Mr. Nevin had protested
and appealed, unanimously agreed that he had " acted tmpresby1-
torially in leaving his, congregation, in a manner inconsistent with
his ordination obligations, and had also done injury to the Liver
pool congregation : ' in consequence, he was publicly admonished
at the bar of Synod by the Moderator. As the congregation
had been dispersed, if was also judged expedient, that the
pastoral relation between Mr. Nevin and the congregation of
Liverpool should be dissolved, which was accordingly done : — a
proof this, among many others of a similar kind, that pleading fot
new-light views, does not tend to build up congregations. —
This circumstance is mentioned, merely to shew how loose the
bonds of authority sit, and how lightly the sense of 'solemn vows
Tests, upon those who embrace latitudinarian tenets, or who plead
for innovation.
Immediately before the final adjournment of this meeting of
Synod, at a very late hour on Friday night, the Rev. John Alex
ander; o'f the Eastern Presbytery, offered a protest against the Sy
nod, for sitting so lite, and for not allowing opportiiliity of dis
cussion for him arid his friends. Leaving out of view the irregu
larity of protesting against no decision, this' step, with the outcry
raised by the Rev. C. Houston and' Dr. Paul, about entering on
discussion at so advanced a period, was truly foolish and ridicu
lous. - The plan pursued throughout the Controversy by' Dr. Paul
and his friends, was always to keep up an outcry for discussion,—
to represent their opponents as unwilling or afraid' to' discuss with
them the subjects in dispute, when all'they wanted was to'embroil
the Synod, or when they well kuew that discussion was inipracti-
cable. On the present occasion, the Synod had continued its ses
sion, merely for the convenience of members who wished to
return to their homes early the following day ; and they were pre
cluded from taking up papers, by their act about the Scottish
Testimony, and even by the motion which ernariated from, or was
adopted by, the Eastern Presbytery. Mr. Alexander's protest was,
therefore, an instance of the iuadvertency-which he frequently
discovered in Synod, during the progress of these discussions,
combined with the disposition which he manifested, in common
with his party, to keep matters in the Synod arid the church in a
state of constant turmoil and confusion.
To a person who had not beeri minutely observant of the spirit
and movements of the- party, who had been fighting 'against the
testimony, and peace of. the 'church, there would have appeared
the fairest prospect of harmony in the' Synod,-for a long time to
tome. : Ih the proposal to leave the papers that referred to
principles in dispute, and to the conduct of both parties, un
touched, until order should be taken on the Scottish Testimony,
both the motion and amendment coincided ; and as this proposal
M

90
may be considered as having been presented tp Synod by the
Eastern Presbytery, one would have thought that this was a bond
^^declaration, on their part, of their willingness to have a sus
pension of hostilities, at least till the Scottish Testimony had been
disposed of. And as this publication, it was acknowledged, em
braced the principal subjects in dispute, and offered explanations
on most of them, it might have been expected that the calm con
sideration of it, would have the tendency to reconcile disagreeing
parties, and to produce harmony and concord. Such reasonable
expectations, however, were not realised. It had been no part of
the policy of Dr. Paul and his friends, from the commencement
pf these unhappy disputes, to continue long quiet ; and, from the
expression given to the views and feelings of the church, at diffe
rent meetings of Synqd of late, tbey must have perceived, that
thejr only hope of succeeding, was by agitatiqn- and confusion in
the church. The subsequent proceedings of the party, till they
¦withdrew from Synod, plainly evinced, — what indeedwas, in some
measure, apparent all along, — that they were determined to be
bound by no acts of Synod, that opposed a barrier to their head
long courses, and that a calm consideration and settlement of the
disputed topics, from which jangling and personal invective would
be excluded, would not answer their purpose.
Accordingly; not many months after the meeting pf Synod, Dr.
Paul attended a meeting of the Northern Presbytery, which was
held in Ballymena, and presented three lengthened papers, pur
porting to be libels, against the Editors of the Covenanter, and rer
quested investigation. These papers contained nothing new, or that
had. not been already discussed in Synod, with the sole exception
of the allegation, that their author had discovered a number of
additional untruths in the " Reviewer Reviewed," and that his
speeches in 1838 had not been fairly reported in the Covenanter.*
The contents of the. first paper, designated a libel against Mr.
Houston separately, for alleged error respecting the punishment of
heretics, idolaters, &c., had been before the church courts and the
public, for many years, in Df, Paul's newspaper articles, speeches,
pamphlets, and papers to Synod ; and the other two papers had
been, in part, before the Synod in 1838, or in substance before it
at its last meeting, and were rejected in the Committee of Bills, as
falling under the case of papers which were to be held, in retentis,
till order should be taken on the Scottish Testimony, The Pres
bytery, considering that to take up such papers, wpuld be altOT
gether unpresbyterial, and also, a direct infringement of the Synod's
settlement, and would only perpetuate confusion, unanimously re
jected .them; and Dr. PauJ protested against this decision, for
reasons which he afterwards assigned, and appealed to Synod.
. Synod of '184,0. .-^Declinature of the Eastern Presbytery, fyc.
, When the SynodNmet at Moneymore, in 1840, it soon appeared
that Dr. Paul and his brethren, of the Eastern Presbytery had not
* When Dr. Paul first made the allegation, respecting the " Reviewer Re
viewed" in Synod, the "untruths were said to he 55,~now they were swelled iwt
to 152! This was a mode of conducting a controversy, which few per*on»
would'hav* adopted.

91
been idle in the business of agitation. It was evident they had
come prepared to prevent the Synod, as far as they were able,
from going forward in a peaceful and harmonious spirit, and re
solved either to renew, on the floor of the court, the former dis
cussions, which had been so perplexing and harassing, or to ac
complish a schism in the church. From four congregations Of
vthe ISastern Presbytery, whose pastors had been prominent in
new-light innovation, petitions were presented, all bringing
Forward the matters in dispute, respecting the magistrate's power,
&c, — and those from Dr. Paul and his session and congre
gation exceeded, in bitterness and virulence, against the Editors
oi1 the Covenanter and the Synod, any that he had heretofore
presented. These papers were so numerous, and some of them so
lengthened, that they occupied, almost exclusively, the time of tha;
Synod as a Committee of Bills, at different meetings, till the mid
dle of Friday, near the close of the proceedings.
Among the first of the papers presented by Dr. Paul was his
protest and appeal against the Northern Presbytery, with the ac-
feompanymg documents which had been rejected by that court.
The Synod in committee, after considerable discussion and a pain-
jful hearing of the matter, agreed, by a considerable majority, net
"to license the introduction of these papers into Synod. And it de-
» serves to be remarked, that the members of the Northern Presbytery,'
amounting to fifteen, had no vote on the occasion, so that the
decision may be regarded as a determined expression of the
judgment of those members of court who were, in no sense, inte
rested as parties, in opposition to Dr. Paul's attempt to renew for
mer discussions, and injure the character of his brethren and of the
whole church. The grounds on which the Synod rejected Dr.
Paul's Protest and Appeal, and other most scurrilous papers, and
those from the sessions, &c, of the Eastern Presbytery, were,
that, as these papers contained scarcely any new matter, but
were substantially the same as had been before the Synod at its
last meeting, which the court had agreed should not be discussed
in any form, till order should be taken on the Scottish Testimony,
the introduction of these papers into open court would be in direct
contravention of the Synod's own "agreement. To bring them for
ward on the present occasion, was evidently the attempt of a defeat-
ed,'dissatisfied minority, to trample down the Synod's deliberate de
cision. It was the work of a faction who felt they had lost ground
in the church, and that in a quiet state of affairs, their innovating
schemes would be more and more condemned ; and they therefore
endeavoured to throw all into complete confusion. The Synod
could take no other course than to reject the papers, with any re
gard to good order, or to the peace and welfare of the ' church.
They cOuld not permit their deliberate acts to be trampled upon,
at the dictation of a few members of a restless spirit. They had
had experience sufficient already, that to give way to Dr. Paul's
outcry for discussion, was the sure way of embroiling the Synod,
and hindering it from the transaction of all proper business.
And they were utterly at a . loss to perceive on what consistent
grounds the members of the Eastern Presbytery could claim that
, Wiese papers should be: taken under public consideration, when

93
they themselves had declared, by their motion of. last year, theiif
willingness that papers containing identically the same matters,
should be held over till the New Scottish Testimony should be" ad*
judicated on,,- For these reasons, the Synod in committee rejected!
the different papers from the Eastern Presbytery relating tothe;subr
ject in dispute, as they were successively presented,— evincing thu?
their deteruiin?ttion to maintain gopd. order, hold fast the testi
mony which they had espoused,, and secure, on. the footing of
truth, the unity and peace of the church, despite of the attempts
of faction. ¦ . ¦
. The spirit in which Dr. Paul and his friends met this firm ex.,
pression of the Synod's judgment, needs; not now to be particularly
Exhibited. Without offering any thing in the shape of substantial
reasons for requiring the court to trample' under, foot its deci
sion of last year, to which they themselves were, in some sor$
a party, they allowed themselves to displaly, throughout the whole,
proceedings, a querulous, contemptuous spiriti evidently looking
forward to the ulterior step which they took before the' close of the
proceedings* To a disinterested Spectator, this patty must have
appeared, almost during the whole business, both in committee and
in public, as persons labouring to find some1 shadow of a pretext
for breaking with the Synod, without being ahle to offer a single
satisfactory reason for the course which they adopted: *
l As another instance of what we, have so frequently noticed iii
this narrative, — the reckless attempts of the Eastern Presbytery to
violate all order, and their avowed determination to be bound by
no decision which did not come up to their Own loose views, majc
be mentioned the discussion which, most unexpectedly, they forced
on the "Synod,- at an early stage Of the proceedings. On the fore
noon session of Wednesday, Dr. Henry? moved, and Dr. Paul se
conded, — " That along with the Scottish Testimony, the Formula
of Ordination and Terms of Communion, as adopted by oUr bre
thren in Scotland, be submitted to the subordinate judicatories of
the church in Ireland, to be reported on at the next annual meet?
ing of Synod." This was precisely the motion which emanated
from the Eastern Presbytery last year, and which the Synod, after
a lengthened discussion, had rejected, by a large majority; Not. a
single new argument was presented by Dr. Paul, and his friends,
why the Synod should revoke its decision so recently passed;-1—
but the occasion was seized by several members of the Eastern
Presbytery, of exhibiting, (as they would have it), the intolerance
and persecuting spirit and principles of the Covenanters at.Auch-j,
insaugh, and of the General Assemblies of the memorable period
of the Second Reformation, and of declaring publicly, iii a tone of
defiance, that they and their congregations would no longer act
with the Synod, in holding the Formula and Terms of Communion
which had been in use in the church, for the last seventy or eighty
fears, even with the reasonable explanations which the Synods
ad, offered, and in which they themselves had formerly acqui
esced. . The other members of the court regarded this motion,—
so.atterly contrary to all received order, — with surprise and aston
ishment; and theSynod, in a firm and faithful spirit, simply agreed,
',* That the Synod abide faithfully by both parts of its decision.

M
contained in the,, §th minute .of last .year's; proceedings,— ^namely.
That they recommend to, the consideration, of the subordinate.
judicatories the historical and doctrinal parts of the Testimony
bf the Scottish Reformed Presbyterian Synod, with, a view tQ
fheir adoption by this church; and. that the papers now lying on \
tlie Synod's table be held in retentis, till the reports from the in- }
ferior judicatories be received and adjudicated upon."* The. >
majority in favour of this measure was larger than that, of last year j
'jna Drs. Paul and Henry, with Messrs. Alexander, C. Houston
and Nevin, as might be expected, protested, and offered tp assign
reasons, which, however, were never presented to the court.
To show how little these gentlemen now considered themselveg
pound by any deed of Synod, however frequently affirmed,; and
how reSoIutely they were bent on embroiling the church, if.they
could not succeed ih effecting changes in the basis of ecclesiastic
'pal fellowship, at the opening of the public business, on the
Very next day, Dr. Henry entered on the books, a notice of
motion for the next meeting of Synod,—" That the Formula pf
Queries for, Ordination, and Terms of Communion, as embraced
by the sister Synod in Scotland, betaken under deliberate consi
deration by the church in' Ireland, with a view to their being
adopted as a part of reformation attainments."-): The object of
'this movement was top apparent to be misunderstood^ ,1* was .a
proclamation of unremitting war. It. was telling the Synod,
in the most unambiguous terms, that, except they would adopt the
Measures which the Eastern Presbytery dictated, they might, bid
farewell for ever to peace. Here was a matter already twice de
cided by large majorities in Synod ; and one subject,— the Fourth
Term of Communion^— a third time, in opposition to the Eastern
Presbytery; yet, according to this notice, itwas again to be brought
forward as a theme of debate at the ensuing meeting of Synod.
proceeding in this way, it was evident that the business of Synod
faas completely arrested, .whenever a disappointed and factious
minority should choose to take their stand, for ihe introduction
of any new-light doctrine or innovating usage ; they might keep
up the agitation from meeting to meeting, and either the Synod
would be compelled to. yield to them, or, if not, the whole busi^
hess of the court would be regarded, and endless. heart-burnings,
and disputes engendered. It is easy, moreover, to discover
the objects aimed at by the Eastern Presbytery, in perpetually
bringing forward these particular topics,— the Formula and!
Terms of Communion. By pleading for assimilating them to the
Scottish form, they wanted to make it appear that they, were
one in sentiment with the Reformed Synod in. Scotland,, and that
their brethren, who were opposed to innovation, were hostile to
the Scottish branch of the Reformed. Presbyterian Church. And
by declaiming about unprinted .Acts of Assembly, and about
those Acts of Parliament which asserted, in strong terms, the
restraint and punishment of idolatry, and by raking together,
and throwing out before the public, disjointed expressions, in tha
¦¦¦, * Minutes of .Synod for 1840. .
,$ Minutes q£ Sjjrriod;for-1840.

94
Auchinsaugh Deed, they contriveid to aSperse the memories
arid contendings of the Reformers, and to represent their oppo
nents in Synod, as requiring implicit faith, as narrow-minded;
intolerant and persecuting. It were idle to comment upon this
mode of procedure; It must be apparent to the most inattentive
observer, that such a course was the sure way to disturb the peace<
and thwart the measures of an ecclesiastical court ; and that it waS
plainly impracticable for the Synpd to go forward with any pros
pect of comfort or efficiency, with men acting in such a spirit, and
pursuing such conduct.
Whether the Synod should not, long before, have adopted mea
sures for putting an end to such annoyance, and for vindicating its
authority, we wait not now to inquire ; but happily, , as furnishing
an effectual refutation of the calumny, that they acted with harsh
ness or severity towards Dr. Paul and his friends, there was no
measure taken or conduct pursued, during thd proceedings at this
meeting, that had even the appearance of severity towards those who
declined the Synod's authority. On the contrary, the court acted
towards them with singular lenity and forbearance. It was surely;
not right to permit contumacious members to despise the authority
of the court, and retard its proper business, without taking mea-;
sures for protecting itself, and censuring the offenders ; and it WaS1
Still less warrantable to allow sentiments to be Uttered on the floof
of the Synod, at variance with the standards of the church. YetDn
Paul and his faction were suffered to make repeated attacks Upon
portions of the basis of ecclesiastical fellowship, and to throw out the*
most odious charges against the principles and Spirit of the veinerable
Reformers, without, being called to order, or any restraint imposed
on the liberty which they claimed and exercised, to unsettle what
had been long established, and to misrepresent, ¦Vilify, and re
proach principles and characters which the church had been ac
customed to hold in veneration. Those members of Synod who
were the butt of the attack, — the Editors of the Covenanter and
a few others, suffered papers to be read, distorting their senti
ments, and maligning their characters, without standing upon
their undoubted • rights, or opposing any obstacle to the un
christian, or uhgentlemanly course taken by their revilers. If
they exercised their privileges as members of Courts to speak on
Subjects under consideration, they studiously abstained from every
thing that had the least tendency to irritate Dr. Paul and his
friends; and the whole business was conducted in so calm, pacific,
and orderly a manner, that a disinterested spectator must have
been constrained to admit, that there was no plea left to the mi
nority, to take the course by which they severed the bonds of bro.
therhood, and produced schism in the church. ^The Synod could
riot possibly take any other course, if they were to preserve any
•i-^the least regard to order ; and it deserves always to be repeated,
that -they were shut Up to this course, even by the motion which
emanated from 'the Eastern Presbytery itself, in 1839. Without
Stultifying themselves, by rescinding their deliberate acts, when-
ever a faction, bound by no regulations, not even by those to the
framing of which they themselves had been a party, and eagerly
bent on the subversion of Covenanting principle, and order, would,

95
for-ehds of their own, offer opposition, they could have taken n«
other course, and one more gentle and conciliatory, can hardly be
conceived. However, Dr. Paul and his friends had advanced so far in their
attacks upon the Standards of the church, had so blackened the
character of Synod, and cherished such a spirit towards their
brethren, that they felt themselves unable to recede. To tear
to pieces the brotherly covenant, and publicly to raise the
standard of schism and rebellion, was the step by which they
closed their connexion with the Reformed Presbyterian Synod,
and evinced their devotion to the oause of liberalism. On
thelast day but one of the Synod's sessions, immediately after
the Committee of Bills Had rejected thelast of the papers,
presented by the Eastern Presbytery, that referred to the subjects
in dispute, when the court had resumed puhlic business, Drs. Paul
and Henry, with Messrs. Alexander and Nevin,. with the elders
and commissioners from their congregations, left the place of
meeting without asking leave ; and the Rev. C. Houston, having
secured for himself and his party the Synod's records, requested
permission of absence, on the pretence that he had been busily
occupied, and required relaxation. The Synod having granted
his request, the usual business was proceeded with. Shortly be
fore the regular hour of adjournment, Dr. Paul, and four other
ministers * of the Eastern Presbytery, and elders and commisr
sioners from four congregations, re-entered the place of assembly,
and the Rev. Clarke Houston, having asked and obtained leave to
make a communication to the court, read in his own name, and
in the names of his brethren of the Eastern Presbytery, a paper en
titled a Declinature,^ which he afterwards laid on the table, and
then he and the rest of the party withdrew from the house. The
hour of adjournment being already past, the Moderator concluded
the session with prayer.
' On resuming business, the first notice which the Synod took of
the melancholy and scandalous procedure of Dr. Paul and his
friends," was to acknowledge the hand of God, in permitting the
staff of bands to be broken; and on the motion of.Re». William
Sommerville, itwas unanimously agreed, tfiat a day of fasting should
be observed, by the different congregations under the care of Sy
nod, as soon as practicable. The court shewed,' by this step, that
they regarded division in the church as of the Evil One, whatever
gracious purpose it might be overruled to subserve. They de-

* These were Dr. Henry, and Rev, Messrs. Alexander, C. Houston, and
Nevin. f This was just the memorial from Loughmourne,— -the Libel against the
Editor of the Covenanter, to the Northern Presbytery,-^-and the Petition to Sy
nod of Dr. Paul and the Loughmourne people, — divested of their headings, and
clumsily put into a shape, that might enable them to be called a Declinature.
So chary was Dr. Paul of his papers, that, Proteus- like, they could assume any
shape that suited the occasion, and multitudinous, indeed, have been the shapes
into which his stale materials have been cast, for the last ten years, and times
without number have his dupes been made to pay for the same matter, — and s6
implicitly did. the other sages of the East follow the ringleader in division, that
they seemed quite prepared to subscribe any paper which he penned !

plored the headlong measure adopted by Dr. Paul and othief i, as pp-
posing an apparently insurmountable^barrier to future agreement^
and they felt their need of divine direction and support, in relation
to the trials which they foresaw awajted them, in maintaining
faithfully their fathers' testimony. For these and similar reasons'}
they regarded it as their first duty to humble themselves before th*
¦God of their fathers, in the desire and confidence that He who had
heenwith his faithful witnesses in former days of suffering, would
Uphold, under every approaching trial. When the subject of
the Declinature was adverted to, the following resolution was
passed, — " That the Synpd disclaim and condemn all errors, slani
dprs, and misrepresentations, if any such are to be found in the
Tntblicatioh or publications of any who are,' or have been, mem
bers of this Synod ; and that we do not hold' ourselves responsible
for the principles or statements contained in publications referred
to, in the papers hold in retentis, or in those which have been re;-
jected ' at this time, by the Cpmriiittee of Bills." A deputation;
consisting of the Moderator, and the Rev. Messrs. Cameron and
Carlile, were appointed to wait On the Separatists, to lay this reso
lution before thera, and tp entreat them to return to their duty
and place in the Synpd, and in the event of their refusing, to
require the Synodical records from the former clerk. The depu
tation, as was to be- expected, failed in their object, with the ex
ception of obtaining a promise, that the papers and records of
Synod should be forwarded in due time. A committee was after-
¦Wards appointed to take charge of the Declinature; correspond
'with' the sister Synod in Scotland, in relatipn to the separa
tion, and watch over the concerns of the church generally, till
"ihe next annual meeting of Synod. This cpmmittee consisted
'pf the Moderator, with Dr. Stavely, of the Northern Prpsbytery,
Messrs. Brittin and Stott, of the Western Presbytery, and Messrs.
Graham and Cathcart (Ewing alternate), of the 'Sputhern Presby
tery. These measures were adopted ip the same pacific, conciliatory
'Spirit, as had characterised' the Synod's proceedings, throughout
all the trial? to which they had been- exposed. They still cher
ished the hope, that their irijsguided brethren would repent of
their sin and folly, and return to their duty. They therefore ab
stained from the exercise of even warrantable discipline towards
those whO1 had unfurled the standard Of rebellion. They were
desirous of keeping the door open for their return;-' so soon as
they would evince a disposition to walk in the path of a sound
testimony, and of scriptural order. The injuries which they
had received at their hands, they were willing to overlook or
bury in oblivion ; and they felt so deeply concerned that a tribe
should be missing in Israel, that they were willing, to the last, to meet
them on any ground but that pf a cpmprpiriise of the church's tes
timony, an da violation pf her established order. We may afterwards
notice how little salutary effect thislenity had upon the spirit and con
duct of the Separatists, and how it was abused, as had been the
Syhpd's forbearance in former cases, to propagate delusion, and to
#ubserve their interested purposes. Meanwhile we may be per
mitted to review the extraordinary document which they presented

.97

on withdrawing from Synod, and to refer briefly to its principal
allegations.* SECTION IX.
Review of the" Declinature " of Dr. Paul and other Separatists
from tlie Reformed Presbyterian Clmrch.
1. It deserves to be remarked, that the " Declinature of the
Eastern Presbytery " is altogether peculiar in its form and ar
rangement. No similar document, we believe, was ever present
ed to an ecclesiastical court. The subscribers to the Declinature
evidently either never properly considered what form such a paper
should present, or they were unacquainted with the simplest points
of ecclesiastical procedure, or, what is the most probable suppo
sition of all, they were so eager to exhibit Mr. Houston and the
Reformed Synod in a most odious a light,— so anxious to draw a
picture of both, that could not be looked upon without abhorrence,
that they set a't nought matters of order and arrangement, and
presented to the church and the public, a document which outrages
common sense and decency, and exceeds every paper of the kind in
malice and wickedness. Thus, though the Declinature professes to
be apaperof objections against certain judicial acts of Synod, it speci
fies no acts, as grounds of renouncing ecclesiastical connexion and
subjection. It is almost entirely taken up in misrepresenting the
sentiments of Mr. Houston, and holding him up to odium ; and
' the Synod is held guilty, for not condemning doctrines which Mr.
Houston never avowed, and of which it was impossible it should
have any evidence, if we except Dr. Paul's barefaced and always dis
claimed assertions, repeated so often, that he seemed determined
to make men believe them, by mere force of declamation. It is
not true, that the Synod ever refused to condemn any thing that
was proved to be erroneous ; but they refused to allow Dr. Paul
and his worthy allies to proceed in the course on which they were
bent,— of contemning all authority and trampling on all order ; and
they refused to condemn, as errors, principles taught in the Stan
dards of the church, supreme and subordinate ; Tind these were
the real grounds, on account of which the Separatists tabled their
Declinature, and abandoned the fellowship of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church.
In several instances, Dr. Paul and his friends seem to forget
that thO paper which they presented to Synod, and . afterwards
published, was a Declinature at all. As it even appeared in the
newspapers, in some parts of it, the singular pronoun / was
used, instead of we, the ringleader naturally enough, and quite
ih 'keeping with the egotism for which he is distinguished,
breathing forth his own malevolence, and making the others
who signed the paper with him mere puppets to grace his ex
hibition; and although this mode of speaking was altered, when
* The topics advanced in the " Declinature of the Eastern Presbytery,"" were
all brought forward,— most of them frequently, — in Dr. Paul's pamphlets, news
paper communications, and speeches and memorials in Synod. Many of them
have been already discussed in the "Reviewer Reviewed," " Christian Magistrate,"
See. ~N

98
the Declinature appeared in a pamphlet form, still the crudeness
and clumsiness of the form and arrangement are worthy of notice.
From the Eastern Illuminati, who were perpetually boastingxif
their superior attainments, surely something less absurd might
have. been expected. Sometimes they speak in this paper as if
humbly petitioning the court, and sometimes as if tabling charges
against the Editors of the Covenanter.
Thus in sec. 2, p. 3, they say, — "This charge is an awful one;"
and then they proceed formally to enumerate proofs. Again, at
the close of sec. 5, p. 10, they say,—" with these bloody princi
ples we charge Mr. Houston." At the end of section 7,, they ad
dress the Synod, in the style of humble petitioners, and say; " How
he could do this, without the extirpation of the whole human fa
mily, we leave your reverend court to determine." In the con
clusion of sec. 11, p. 13, they say, — "We submit them (charges
preferred against Mr. Houston) to the consideration of your reve
rend court, and entreat you to pUrge this leaven out of the Reformed^
Presbyterian Church." Again, sec. 12, p. 14, they assume the
attitude and language of suppliants,* — " We implore* your reve
rend court," say they, " to repel this calumny, and to wipe off
this foul stain from the Reformed Presbyterian Church." And in
sec. 15, p. 16, they say, — " these sentiments, we submit to your
reverend court, are downright Popery."
Here the inconsistency and irregularity Of the reverend agitators
and their followers, who issued the Declinature, must be apparent
to every reader. The paper professes, as its very name imports, to
cast off all subjection to the Synod, — all' acknowledgment of its
authority to judge and determine, and yet they submit to Synod
the questions at issue, and call for its decision. How blinded ate
prejudice and passion ! How inconsistent with themselves are the
abettors of error and unscriptural liberty ! The explanation of
this anomalous feature of the Declinature is perhaps to be found in
Dr. Paul's having before presented the same paper, in various
forms, to Synod, — sometimes as a memorial, and again as a libel,
with little more than the heading altered, f But certainly it
might have been expected, that ere the Eastern Presbytery,
asserting as they did peculiar claims to wisdom and superior
enlightenment, took the solemn and important step of declining
the Synod's authority, in a document that was to circulate far
and wide, and to descend to posterity, they would have shown some
respect to the ordinary forms of procedure ; and from regard to
their own consistency at least, would have evinced that they were
* Was this mode of address of the Eastern Presbytery,, to tbe Synod for which
they had long shown marvellously little respect or reverence an oversight ; or design
ed to be interpreted bythcruleof contraries, like the man who, in violation of alllaw,
divine and human, subscribes a challenge to fight a duel with the expression,—
" Your obedient humble servant '' 1
f An Aged and worthy Elder, at the close of the Synod's proceedings in 1838,
when manifesting some impatience at having been so long needlessly detained, and
at Dr." Paul's constant outcry for discussion, — properly characterized the Doctor's
mode of reasoning in his speeches, pamphlets, &c, when he said the ideas and ar
guments were " stereotyped, " and that were they to wait ever so long the types
would not alter I

• 99
not such slavish followers of Dr. Paul, as to adopt, without ex
amination, his ridiculous blunders on points of order.
2. It is of much greater importance to notice the matter of the
Declinature, as exhibiting the principles and spirit of its authors.
To attempt fully to analyze its contents, or to reply to its foul
charges, would far exceed the limits of the present pamphlet. In
another publication we may notice more particularly such topics as
have not alreadybeenansweredin former works bythewriterof this
narrative.* Meanwhile, we select a few topics for animadversion,
which will give a pretty good specimen of the whole document.
If we are compelled to employ, on some points, no very measured
terms, it will be borne in mind, that we have to deal with those,
who have, in the most reckless manner, and by the most unscru
pulous means, assailed the principles and character of the Refor
mers, Martyrs, and other witnesses for truth, and who have left no
stone unturned to destroy; in public estimation, the character of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church.
In the very opening of the Declinature, the Eastern Presbytery
show themselves perfectly reckless in their attempt to fasten
the most odious sentiments on Mr. Houston, and to vilify the Sy
nod. They charge Mr. Houston (p. 1.) with "calumniating our
reforming forefathers, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, by
representing Covenanters as sworn in the Covenants to extirpate
not merely principles but persons, — not merely Popery and Pre
lacy, but Papists and Episcopalians; the members of the churches
of Rome and EDgland." This may be fairly marked calumrty
No. 1 ; and if the maxim ofthe poet be applied, " ab uno disce
omnesi" — and -it is not inapplicable to the Declinature of the
Eastern Presbytery, — we may take this as a fair specimen of tbe
whole document. Dr. Paul and th eother Separatists forget to tell
us, that Mr. Houston repeatedly, solemnly, and indignantly disa
vowed any such sentiment, and declared, in Synod, that he held
the article in the Covenant about extirpation, according to the plain
meaning of the words, to intend principles only. Candour would
have stated, that such a disclaimer was made; but candour
has nothing to do with the proceedings of schismatics arid
backsliders. How is this foul charge attempted to be sus
tained in the Declinature ? Just by Dr. Paul's favourite mode
of proof, — that which would make the Bible itself teach the
most hateful sentiments,— by garbled extracts. There are senten
ces in the article in the Covenanter (vol. iii. old series, pp. 79, 80.)
from which Dr. Paul has quoted, in immediate connexion with
;those which he has given in the Declinature, that show that he
has entirely misunderstood, or wilfully perverted the passage.
Thus the writer declares the object of the paper, when he says,—
" We shall deal first with the advocates of unbounded passive to
leration, as a sentiment alleged not at variance with the present
* Although many of the grievous charges preferred against Mr. Houston, and his
writings, in the "Declinature of the Eastern Presbytery,'' have been already met and
refuted in the " Reviewer Reviewed," " Christian Magistrate," &c, it is Dr.
Paul's tact to take no notice of the replies, or explanations of the defenders of our
testimony, and to reiterate-the same absurd charges and calumnies, which have been
a thousand times met and refuted.

ioo
clauses in our Covenants,"— p. 78: And again,.—" That in the
view we have taken of the term extirpation, as implying more than
the use of moral means on the part of the civil magistrate, against
Popery, Prelacy, Heresy, &c, we are going forth by the footsteps
of the flock, &c. j" and then there is adduced a quotation from the
|,' Act, Declaration, and Testimony " of the Covenanting Church,
in which the sentiment, that magistrates should only employ moral
means in the coercion of gross heresy and idolatry, is protested
against as an error.* The plain and declared object of the writer
was to protest against an unbounded passive toleration extended to
all kinds of error or idolatry s— -and to rebut the voluntary princi
ple, that civil rulers should exercise no authority, but only employ
morjl means for the suppression of gross error and idolatry. - Dr.
Paul and some of his allies could not but be perfectly aware of
this ; yet with a disingenuity and dishonesty that have seldom been
surpassed, they make not the slightest reference to it. In order,
in the very outset, to excite the utmost indignation against the
doctrine of magistratical coercion, — a doctrine held by reformers
of different names, and embodied in the doctrinal symbols of the
Covenanting Church, they entirely suppress the truth, and repre
sent Mr. Houston, and the venerable writer in the Covenanter, aS
teaching a doctrine, which, they ever held in abhorrence.
As the charge is wholly false, so it is supported by similar
means. It has been said, one lie requires two to support it. In
the present instance, the adage is literally verified. At the
close of the first section, the authors of the Declinature repre
sent the Editor of the Covenanter, as publishing the sentiment
on which they animadvert, — " knowing it to be a calumny,''
and they add, " for on the floor of our Synod, in 1838, he publicly
avowed that he admitted it into his periodical, in deference to a
venerable member of our Synod, who is now no more." Now, the
plain intention here is to represent Mr. Houston, as admitting the
truth of Dr. .Paul's allegation, and as trying to escape from it, by
declaring, that though he was dissatisfied with the sentiment, he
had deferred to a venerable father of the church, by inserting it in
the periodical. This is a palpable misrepresentation. Mr. Hous
ton stated, that he was willing to admit that the mode of ex
pression, in that portion of the article in question, was not the
happiest, and that the writer's meaning was liable to be misunder
stood, but that he had not used freedom with it, because of the
deservedly high character pf the venerable writer. But at the same
time, he (Mr. H.) utterly repudiated the ccnstruetion which Dr.
Paul wished to force upon the passage,— and by quoting other
expressions in the paper, he showed that the subject was altogether
different from what he had represented.! And then, that a second
* This is the church's plain protestation against, and condemnation of, Dr. Paul's
avowed and oft-repeated sentiment.
f It was observable, when Dr. Paul, in his reply, in Synod in 1838, repeated'
the misrepresentation and distortion on this point, which have been transferred to the
Declinature, that his manner of referring to the venerable father (Mr. Stewart) de
ceased, was most savage, and that his envenomed arrows might have a double aim,
he turned round, and said, with gloated exultation,— ." Now Mr. Houston lays it on
a.de»d man."

101
falsehood might not be wanting to support the first, the owners of
the Declinature represent the obnoxious sentiment as raised from
the grave, and "widely and wilfully circulated " by the Editor of
the Covenanter. This takes for granted that Mr. Stewart held the
extirpation of persons, — if in fact charges him with it. But the
charge we know to be utterly groundless. That excellent man held
no such opinion, and nothing that he has written in the paper in
question, when candidly interpreted, will bear this construction.
Dr. Paul is the man who has invented, and " widely circulated"
the calumny, to injure the living and the dead, — the Editor
of the former series of the Covenanter, and a venerable father
of the church, now no 'more. To him, and to the other Se
paratists, may be applied, with a slight variation, their own
words, — " That such a foul calumny, and defamation of prin
ciple and character, should be raised from the grave, where it
had been buried with some of the former noted persecutors of
the saints, and that it should be widely and wilfully circulated by
persons formerly of the Covenanted church, but who have treach
erously abandoned her testimony, and held it up to the scorn and
derision of enemies, is most distressing."*
3. From a document which thus begins with a falsehood, no
thing like fair candid statement may be expected. Accordingly, in
the very next item, (article 2.) the Separatists endeavour to find
Mr. Houston guilty of holding that capital punishments are to be
. applied by the Christian magistrate for the suppression of idolatry,
and that the inhabitants of a city or town becoming Roman Catho
lics, are to be ' wholly destroyed, and the city or town made a
heap for ever.' To this horrible misrepresentation, it might suf
fice to say, that Mr. Houston has always disclaimed, both in his
writings arid speeches, the doctrine of capital punishments. He
always explicitly disavowed, making any statement of the particular
kind of restraint or punishment, which the Christian magistrate is
to apply to flagrant violators of the first table of the Decalogue ;
and for this simple reason, that the Standards of the church, while
they unequivocally declare the principle of magistratical coercion,
say nothing of the mode ; and he had no wish to go, in any point,
beyond the received symbols of the church. It would have been
a grand point for Dr. Paul to excite odium, if he could have pushed
Mr. Houston into such a Specification ; but, from first to last, in
the controversy, he carefully abstained from it : and nothing but
the most reckless distortion could serve to make out the foul
charge contained in the second article of the Declinature. The
quotations from the " Christian Magistrate " and the " Covenan
ter " teach the doctrine of magistratical coercion, of gross idola
try and heresy ; .but they say not a single word about the mode of
punishment. They declare that Christian civil rulers have the
same power, in relation to the guardian care of the different pre
cepts of the decalogue, as had approved Jewish rulers,— but who
* While the covenant speaks of the extirpation of principles not of persons, it
undeniably teaches the doctrine of magistratical coercion of gross acts of false wor
ship; for it requires every person, according to his station, and " the means compe
tent thereto," to gainstand and abolish all false religion and. worship. Is not tho
exercise of magistratical authority, a means competent to tho Christian civil ruler ?

102
does not see that assigning authority to a person is one thing, and
the particular mode and circumstances of its exercise a thing totally
different? They declare, that "there is not' a , single hintigiven,
in all the New Testament, that the judicial laws and judicial de
cisions undierlthe Mosaicdispensations, were not to be referred to
as examples for Imitation in the Christian economy,, when a simi
larity pf circumstanoes might render such reference justifiable ;
nor that the laws against heresy, idolatry, hlasphemy, Sabbath pro
fanation, &c, are repealed, any more than those concerning -rob
bery or murder."* But ,Mr. Houston has ^repeatedly taught, as
has Dr. Wardlaw, and as even Dr. Paul himself admits, that a
law may reriiain! binding, while the .mode of its application, or the
penalty, may alter.f The punishment of Sabbath profanation by.
the magistrate is a case in point. Even Dr. Paul admits that
Sabbath profanation may still be a subject o£< magistratical coer
cion, while-he would not grant that the punishment of death, which
was awarded to the Sabbath-breaker under the Old Testament,
should be visited on the transgressor. %
• Again, the authors of the Declinature obviously represent Mr.
Houston, as teaching that the whole Judicial Code is still obli
gatory on Christian civil rulers, whereas, even in the passages

*. Covenanter, vol. i. p. Series,^-p. 2,74, 275. Jntheiuse which Dr. Paul has
repeatedly ,made of this quotation, We have a characteristic specimen of ins disin-
genuity'and sophistry. The Covenanter only declares that there is not a hint given
in the New Testament that some judicial laws are repealed under the New Testa
ment. Instead of Dr. Paul attempting to show (hat. such a," hint*' is given in the
, New! Testament [Scriptures, or toprove the repeal, of the laws against idolators, &c,
-rranii this was the only point with which he had to do here, — he constantly reasons as
if, the writer'in the Covenanter had explicitly taught in the passage that the Judicial
Laws'are to be taken as models under the New Testament economy. This can be
regarded as nothing but a barefaced, perversion, or a discreditable sophism.
+ "Moral laws, 1 admit, are immutable, — they are unalterable. }io changes can
take place in fhe laws, hut changes rnay taker plac,0 in the, penalties, or in the exe
cution of the penalties." — " Covenanter Reviewed," p. 54.
¦ ;+ " Besides those actions Of Old Testament rulers, which proceeded on moral
grounds, and whieh had for their object things which are substantially immutable,
i such aS the support of public worship, ajjdjthe, prevention of blasphemy, profanation
of the name of God, and sabbath-breaking ; there is an, application of their example
in the way of analogy, which while jt makes all allowances for the diversity of cir
cumstance's, and change of dispensation, proceeds upon a general reserrrblance' in
certain common principles and ends." — M'Crie's Statement, p. 122, 123.
"Although the institutions and examples of the Old Testament, of the duty of
magistrates, in, the things,, and abp.ut the worship of God, are not, in their whole
latitude, and extent, to be drawn into rules ; that should be obligatory on all magis
trates, now under the admistration of the Gospel ; and that because the magistrates
were then castos vindex and administrator legis judicialis and polilia Mosaics,
from which, as most think, we are freed ; — yet doubtless^ there is something in these
institutions, which, being unclothed of their judicial form, is still bidding to all the
like kind, as to some analogy and.proportion. ¦ Subtract from those administrations
what was proper to, and lies upon, the account of. the nation ttnd church of the
Jews ; and what remains upon the general notion of a'ehurch and nation; Hiiist be
everlastingly binding, and this accounts for at least, that Judges, Rulers, and
Magistrates, which are promised under the New Testament to be given nJ'merey,
and to be singujar, in usefulness, as the Judges were under the Old, are to take care
that the gospel church may, in all its concernments as such, be supported and
promoted, and the truth propagated, wherewith they are entrusted."— Dr. Owen
on Dan. vii. IS.

103
which they have quoted, the writer limits the laws, as do the emi
nent Divines, to those which guard the Decalogue, which are moral
in their nature, and which are susceptible of application, to nations
in different ages, and under every change of dispensation. The
sripport of this heavy charge is made to rest principally on a quo
tation, in the Christian Magistrate, from the venerable reformer,
John Knox, and on the reference to the 13th chapter of Deuter
onomy, made by the author of thediscourse, after the example ofthe
Westminster Divines.* What is the plain and simple inference ? Is
it not, that, accordingtoDr. Paul and theEastern Presbytery's show
ing, John Knox was a bigot and persecutor, whose principles on this
subject deserve to be held in universal and everlasting abhorrence ?
Moreover, the thirteenth of Deuteronomy is the very passage quoted
in the Westminster Confession, to prove the doctrine of magistrati
cal coercion. It follows, as a matter of course, thatthe Westminster
Divines and Confession, sanction intolerance and persecution, and
that even the Scriptures themselves, or their glorious Author, are
implicated in the same charge ! When the Eastern Presbytery de
cline the Synod's authority, because they will not repudiate and
condemn the abhorrent principles which they allege are contained
in these quotations, they just ask the Synod to declare that the
illustrious Knox was a man of blood,— a demon in human shape^ —
and that the Westminster Divines and Confession are deserving of
condemnation and abhorrence. Whatever allegations Papists,
Infidels, the advocates of arbitrary power,- and other enemies
of Scriptural principle and order, have advanced against the
illustrious reformer, and the compilers of the Westminster Stand
ards, they are far outstripped by the Separatists of the nine
teenth Century, — the men who, boasting perpetually of liberality,
have disowned the authority ofthe Reformed Presbyterian Synod,
because of its bigotry' and unfaithfulness ! The church, however,
will duly appreciate the -character of the new-light which they
would introduce. In its refulgence, not only Mr. Houston and
the Reformed Syriod stand forth as objects of general condemna
tion; but Knox, and the Westminster Divines, are exhibited as
most intolerant men, and their writings on the magistrates, power
as deserving of the utmost abhorrence.
Proceeding in the work of demolition, and of aspersing the
sentiments and character of the illustrious dead, who were yet
owned of God, as eminent instruments of reformation, the authors
of the Declinature characteristically exhibit a number of examples
under the Old Testament, Of the punishment of idolaters, &c, and
endeavour to deduce the most frightful consequences from magis
trates exercising their official care about religion, under the present
economy. It deserves speciailremark, that all the instances quoted
are represented by Dr. Paul in the Declinature, as flowing from
* Another case of studied disingenuity and dishonesty, on the part of Dr.
jfaul and his Declining brethren, is always representing every, expression in a
quotation as if Mr. Houston expressly taught the sentiment contained in it, as
if it were, in fact, his own words. This well serves the purpose of detraction.
It keeps the. hunted game on fobt, while it furnishes a thin, though to those who
would, have it so, an effectual covering to screen his virulent enmity against the
principles and characters of the most illustrious Reformers.

104
Knox's sentiment, — that the Judicial Laws, which are moral in their
nature, stand, yet, " in the plenitude of moral obligation;" and
that the cases are those which are referred to for proof, by the
Westminster Divines, in support of- the doctrines taught in chap
ters xx, xxiii. and xxxi. of the Confession. Is not the legitimate
conclusion, therefore, that Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery
ascribe all these monstrous consequences, which they have at
tempted to fasten on Mr. Houston and the Covenanter, upon the
venerable Reformer and the Westminster Divines? Why did they
not, as honest men, plainly declare this? Why did they come for
ward under a mask, and wear a tough garment to deceive ? The
answer is obvious, — it served the purpose of deception better.
Some even of their own followers, wOuld not haye gone
with them in violent and open assaults upon the Reformers and
the Westminster Standards : — and loose as are the sentiments that
are at present afloat on the surface of society, the religious public,
generally, would indignantly resent the aspersions cast upon the
honoured names of inen, of whom the world was not worthy. It
was their best policy to fight under a mask. Concealment was
their safest course. But they have been too often in the field, and
too virulent in their attacks, to keep their stratagems a secret.
Their allies, — Voluntaries, Radicals, and Infidels, — have spoken
out so plainly, employing the same kind of abuse, and deducing the
same forced and monstrous consequences , that theEasternPresby tery
can only hope henceforth to be known as among the most disen-
genuous and virulent assailants of principles and -characters that the
Reformed Presbyterian Church will always hold in high vene.
ration. One remark may suffice to show the entire fallacy of the reason
ing in the Declinature, from the instances of Jewish rulers re
ferred to, — Moses, Jehu, Josiah, and Nehemiah.* Dr- Paul
constantly takes cases, which were plainly specidt and ex
traordinary-, or peculiar, under the former economy ; and rea
sons aS if they were among the ordinary > features and charac
teristics of that dispensation. Thus the , command to Moses to
punish the idolatry of the golden calf (Exod. xxxii. 27.) was evi-.
dently special ;f so was the commission given to Jehu to destroy.
* Is it in ridicule that Dr. Paul speaks of Nehemiah cursing Sabbath-
breakers, &c, and plucking off their hair, with Divine approbation,— and alleging
that Mr. Houston's doctrine is, that the Christian magistrate should " curse the
pepple .that violate God's law by marrying Papists"? Does Dr. P. not know
that the word curse, as used in such cases in sacred Scripture, has quite a dif-'
ferent meaning from that in which it is commonly used now ? . To what miser
able shifts will new-light sentiments urge their votaries in perverting the Word
of God.
f In the " Covenanter Reviewed," f. 49— Dr. Paul represents the consecration
of the Priests and Levites under the Mosaic economy to have been, by the shedding
of the blood of their nearest relatives. — " The ministers of religion, under the legal
economy, were consecrated by the effusion of blood,— by imbruing their hands in
the blood of their own sons, their dearest friends and nearest relatives ; whilst the
blessed Author of our holy religion set apart his Apostles to their sacred function
by breathing on them, and giving a divine commission, accompanied with appro
priate instructions," The sophism of applying the term consecration, used on a
special sense and extraordinary occasion, to the ordinary dedication of the ministers
of the sanctuary, need notte pointed out : it is however characteristic of Dr. Paul's
reasoning. Such a representation of the former economy is most unfounded and
injurious.

105
the house of Ahab.* The destruction of the Canaanites was a spe
cial and extraordinary visitation, for which Joshua and the Israel
ites had a direct special commission from heaven. Dr. Paul, in
the " Covenanter Reviewed," reasons as if these instances were
among the ordinary features of the legal economy, and so do the
authors of the Declinature. Admit this, and then we are wholly
unable to see how the infidel, and frequently advanced, objection
can be refuted. The author of inspiration,— the God of Israel, is
evidently charged with cruelty. Let any one who has perused
any of the writings of infidels against the Old Testament, read
pages 4, 5, 6, 7, ofthe Declinature, and he cannot but remark the
similarity of impression they are calculated to make ; and he will
be surprised to find the Eastern Presbytery, in their vehemence
against Mr. Houston, the Covenanter, and the Reformed Synod,
furnishing, unintentionally, no doubt, matter for ribaldry and ca
lumny, in the objections of Deists against the Bible and the God
of the Bible. The sophistry is exposed, and the delusion va
nishes, when we consider that there are parts ofthe conduct ofthe
Jewish rulers, of an extraordinary and special character, and
other parts in which, in a general sense, they were designed
to be" examples to future rulers among a reformed people under
every dispensation. Of this last kind was evidently their guar
dian care of the precepts of the Divine law, and the official
restraint and correction of crimes openly committed against the
Divine Majesty, the interests of true religion, and the peace and
well-being of the commonwealth. Mr. Houston never pleaded for
the Jewish rulers being taken as examples to Christian magistrates,
in any other sense than this ; and all the reasoning of Dr. Paul
and his separating brethren, taken from extraordinary parts of the
official conduct of Jewish rulers, is wholly irrelevant, except
to their favourite object, — to keep up delusion, and to destroy
the reputation of Mr. Houston and the Reformed Synod. It
is not, nor was it ever Mr. Houston's doctrine, "that Christian
rulers should do, as did Moses, Joshua, Jehu, and Nehemiah,"
in special, extraordinary cases. Nothing but a direct commis
sion and command from heaven could justify such a course.
Where has he ever taught such a sentiment ? These often re
peated and barefaced assertions must just be classed among the
unblushing falsehoods of men, who, sensible that they could not
prevail against the truth, and who, mortified that their schemeswere
not succeeding according to their wish, employ their official station
and the name of religion, to propagate slander of the worst kind.
4. In the Fourth Article of the Declinature, we have another
characteristic instance of the disingenuous and unscrupulous treat
ment which Dr. Paul gives to Mr. Houston, and the fathers ofthe
Covenanting Church. In the Christian Magistrate, p. 81, an ex
pression from the Auchinsaugh Covenant is quoted, not for the
* On what ground Dr. Paul adduces the case of Jehu, in declaiming against the
Covenanter and Christian Magistrate, we are at a loss to conceive, save that it
helped him to render the picture somewhat darker, and that is sufficient for such a
logician as the Doctor. The Editor of the Covenanter, in pleading the examples
of Jewish rulers in some parts of their official conduct, only spoke of approved mai
godly rulers, and clearly Jehu possessed not this character.
O

106
puipose of saying any thing concerning the question of the Penal
Laws, — but to show that our forefathers who renewed the British
Covenants at Auchinsaugh, in 1712, held the doctrine of magis
tratical coercion of gross error, idolatry, and blasphemy. Dr. Paul
and the Eastern Presbytery, however, tell the public that the
author ofthe Christian Magistrate "maintains still farther that the
penal laws enacted against Papists ought to be executed in their full
extent and latitude ;" and again, " he laments that these laws are
not executed." It will be distinctly borne in mind that the Auch
insaugh Renovation has always been regarded with approbation in
the Covenanting Church : the transaction is mentioned in the Fourth
Term of Communion ; and an express approval of it, as far as con
sistent with the original Covenants, is required of all intrants into
the church, and of all members going to the Lord's table. This
approval has been understood to refer to the acknowledgment of
sins, and engagement to duties, as well as to the Covenants, adapted
as they were to the circumstances of the swearers. The Scottish Re
formed Synod declare,— "Those who approve ofthe original Cove
nants themselves, cannot consistently deny the propriety ofthe Auch
insaugh Renovation, seeing it must be obvious to every one who '
hath properly perused that deed, that there is not the least sub
stantial alteration."* It follows, according to this judgment of the
Scottish Synod, that Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery do not
consistently hold the original Covenants, National and Solemn
League, since they suffer no opportunity to pass without a thrust
at the Auchinsaugh Renovation. Into any explanation of the
views of the Auchinsaugh Covenanters, on the subject of the penal
laws, it is not necessary that we should enter. ' The Reformed
Synod, in the " Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Com
munion," have offered such explanations, as are sufficient to satisfy
every unprejudiced person, who values sound Protestant principle.
The Eastern Presbytery, on the other hand, have shown, in their
garbled quotations from the laws which were enacted in the reform
ing period, and dwelling upon these exclusively, how truly they have
learned to copythe slang of Infidels, and Jesuits, in their attempts to
represent our reforming ancestors as men of a bloody and intolerant
spirit, and as abetting persecution when in power, as did the worst
persecutors under the Romish Antichrist. Candid writers of diffe
rent names have generally admitted that the laws enacted against
idolaters in the reforming times, though severe, were necessary
as a means of self-defence., — the lives and properties of the Re
formers, — and, what was dearer to them, the best interests ofthe
church and kingdom, being exposed to the insidious and restless
attempts of Jesuits, and other devoted minions of Antichrist. Such
eminent writers as Dr. M'Crie, Bruce, Stevenson, arid even Aik
man, though an Independent, have, on this and similar grounds,
vindicated the enactment ofthe penal laws referred to. Surely it
might have been expected, that professed Covenanters would not
have been behind others, in defending the much vilified principles
and characters ofthe Reformers. But we mistake the march of
liberality: — or to speak plainly, the down-hill course of defection
will allow men to see nothing good in the principles and conduct of
* Explanation and Defence of Terms of Communion. — p. 186.— Belfast Edition.

107
the fathers of the church. It can find no mantle of kindness to cover
their injured names, no apology or defence for acts to which they
were impelled by the stern necessity of the times, and for which
they have had to endure the unmitigated hatred of an evil world.
With respect to the necessity or use of penal laws, we have
only to say that we agree with the sentiment of the Scottish
Reformed Synod, and with the excellent Professor Bruce of Whit
burn, in his work entitled " Free Thoughts on the Toleration of
Popery,"* in which he pleads for the necessity of penal restraints,
to prevent the aggressions of the Man of Sin. Even distinguished
modern statesmen have admitted, that, in certain conditions of
society, penal laws may still be required, as a necessary means of
self-defence against the attempts of Romanists to obtain universal
ascendancy, and to effect the destruction of Protestant institutions
and privileges.! I'1*0 this topic, however, it is not required that
we should enter farther, at present. The assault upon Mr. Hous
ton and the Christian Magistrate, in this particular, it will be re
membered, is directly against our Auchinsaugh fathers, and the
Covenanting Church, for yielding an approval of the memorable
transaction in which they were engaged. The plain meaning of
the views advanced in this part of the Declinature, is that the
Reformers of Scotland, who enacted laws in defence of Protest
antism, and their faithful descendants who have approved of their
pious zeal and holy devotedness, are to be regarded as " Inquisi
tors," — "persecutors," — intolerant, blood-thirsty oppressors.
Beyond all question, no Other judgment can be formed of them,
by those whose reading on the subject is, unhappily, restricted to
the late writings of Dr. Paul and his adherents. Such is the libe
rality of the Dr. and the Eastern Presbytery, — such their regard
to the fences which heroic, godly men raised around the Scottish
Reformation !
5. The next article in the Declinature contains some precious
samples of Dr. Paul's sophistry and misrepresentation. Wishing
to bring in Mr. Houston guilty of holding that all heretics should be
put to death, he reasons thus : In the Covenanter, Arminianism
had been termed a "pestilential, soul-destroying lieresy." " Now,"
says Dr. Paul, " if Arminianism be a pestilential, soul-destroying
heresy, Arminians are pestilential, soul-destroying heretics." As
Dr. Paul is mighty fond of logic, and takes no little pains to trum
pet his pretensions on this head, it might be enough to require
him to state the syllogism of which this is the conclusion. But
as we are plain men, and write for plain people, it is sufficient to
say that the consequence by which Dr. Paul supports his charge,
and without which it utterly fails, is altogether inconclusive. A
heresy may be of the worst character, and yet the person who
holds it may not be, as far as society is concerned,— and this is the
point under consideration,— a pestilent, soul-destroying heretic.
He may keep his error deep-hid in his own breast. It is at least
supposable, that, in some instances, as we believe is the case with
some Arminian missionaries, a man may have little occasion or in
ducement to refer to the peculiarities of his own system, and may
* See " Free Thoughts," &c.— pp. 261, 262, &c.
t See Speech of 3. Emerson Tennent, Esq., M.F., on the Repeal of the Union,

108
teach the Gospel of free and efficacious grace. And there are se
veral other cases, in which a person may be nominally in the ranks
of heresy, and yet be, in society, comparatively innocuous, and in
some points of his deportment an estimable man. Dr. Paul and his
clerical fellow-separatists, could not fail to know the distinction be
tween a pestilent, soul-destroying heresy, and a pestilent, soul-des
troying heretic ; and yet to effect their favourite object of bringing
. in the Editor of the Covenanter and the Reformed Synod, charge
able with the most monstrous sentiments, they wilfully confound the
two, and represent Mr. Houston teaching what, in no instance, he
ever asserted. It is a palpable falsehood, that he ever declared
Arminians to be " pestilent, soul-deslroying heretics ;" yet take
away this, and the reference to the thirteenth of Deuteronomy, one
of the passages quoted in the Westminster Confession, in support
of the doctrine of magistratical coercion, and in fact the whole ar
gument in this part of the Declinature, falls to the ground.*
The quotation from the " Reviewer Reviewed," p. 54, by which
Dr. Paul attempts to find the author of that pamphlet guilty of
maintaining, that heretics, and false prophets and idolaters are
identical, is just another instance of his sophistry, and suppression
of the truth. All that was taught in the passage referred to was,
that, in some cases, heretics and false prophets are to be viewed
as the same. This does not hinder but that in other respects they
may differ. So a person who is a false prophet, may be likewise
an idolater. Had the whole passage in the " Reviewer Reviewed "
been fairly quoted, this would be apparent,— but it would not
suit Dr. Paul's purpose to let Mr. Houston speak in explanation
of his own views, and therefore he mangles the quotation. That
the false prophet under the law, and the false teacher and heretic
under the Gospel, are to be regarded as, in some respects, identi
cal, is apparent from 2 Peter ii. 1. — " But there were false pro
phets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers
among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies," &c.
And in the view given, in the book of Revelation, of Antichrist, it
is evident that that complex system of iniquity is regarded, as at
once the false prophet, blasphemy, heresy and idolatry. It would
not, of course, suit the liberality of Dr. Paul and the Eastern Pres
bytery to call Popery, idolatry ; and to trace an identity or simi
larity of character between Antichrist and idolaters, and seducing
prophets, might subject them, with not a few of their admirers, to
the imputation of intolerance and bigotry. Nevertheless the spi
rit of truth has sanctioned such a mode of interpretation, and it
is familiar with the most eminent expositors: but Mr. Houston
and the Reformed Synod must, at all events, be stigmatized in
every form that is odious and revolting.
* This jugglery of interchanging the abstract for the concrete, — principles for
persons, and vice versa, is frequently practised by Dr. Paul, to help forward bis
misrepresentations and perversions. Thus, while in the Loughmourne Memorial and
in the Declinature, he reasons, that heresy and heretics, idolatry and idolaters, are
the same, one of his heaviest charges against Mr. Houston is, that he would make
Popery and Prelacy to mean Papists and Episcopalians,  and in the remarks of
the Eastern Presbytery on the Synod's overture, we have several choice specimens
of the same species of sophistry. The jugglery however is easily detected, and
the master-conjurer, lo support his pretensions, must betake himself to some other
shift.

109
6. The next charge in the TxmUnature (No. 6,) holds Mr. Hous
ton guilty of investing the civil magistrate with arbitrary powers,
and of maintaining that these powers would be employed for the
infliction of the most capricious and severe punishments. How is
this sustained ? Because the author of the Christian Magistrate,
and Reviewer Reviewed had, for reasons already stated, refused to
declare what particular kind of restraint or punishment should be
applied to the grossly erroneous or idolatrous, and had alleged that
this might be left to the " Christian wisdom " of the magistrate,
and would be a question for the judges, possessed of Scriptural
qualifications in a reformed nation, the Separating gentlemen thus
leap to their conclusion,—" Now, according to this doctrine, the
judge might order Papists or heretics to be either hanged, burnt,
or flayed alive. He might inflict upon them all the tortures in
vented either by the Sicilian tyrants or the Popish Inquisitors. "*
Now, good reader, just ask how these monstrous consequences fol
low from the principles, which Mr. Houston had laid down in the
passages quoted, and iu others which stand in immediate connex
ion with them ? The author of the Christian Magistrate con
stantly pleads for the civil ruler being under the influence of Chris
tian principles, and for his official conduct, and that of the judges
being directed by the divine law, and by righteous laws founded
on the Word of God ; and in this particular case, he expressly says
that the kind of restraint or punishment is to be determined by
" the Christian wisdom of the magistrate." Yet all this the Eas
tern Presbytery, in their Declinature, wilfully overlook, and dis
honestly suppress, and instead of regarding the Christian magis
trate or judge, as a man guided by Christian wisdom, directed by
God's law, and actuated by a Christian spirit, they represent him,
when left to the direction of" Christian wisdom," as a capricious
tyrant. What is this but impugning the wisdom of God, and doing
despite to the Spirit of grace, who may influence men in power as
well as others ? If a Christian, in the spirit of the youthful Solo
mon, would ask and obtain wisdom from on high, and if he pro
ceed to apply it in his administration, according to Dr. Paul, he
must all at once be transformed into a Sicilian tyrant, or a Popish
Inquisitor ! To utter such reckless falsehood is lightly regarded
by men, whose darling aim has been to trample under foot the prin
ciples, and make utter havoc of the reputation of the Church.
7. The Declinature improves in bitterness, as it advances. Mr.
Houston is charged with holding a principle, the tendency of
which would be to extirpate every sect and denomination of
Christians, who differ from him in religion ; — nay, even with hold
ing principles that would extirpate the whole human family, —
with maintaining the propriety of propagating the true religion
with the magistrate's sword,— with advocating the employment of
force to make men religious, — with gross Erastianism, &c. The
satisfaction is, that malevolence, when so glaring, defeats itself,
and the innocent victim escapes uninjured. The Eastern Se
paratists have fairly overshot the mark, — they have out-Hcroded
Herod. The church, and many of the candid religious public,
have already regarded these violent and extravagant charges, as
* Declinature, p. 10. sect. 6.

110
the breathings of insatiable malloy towards Mr. Houston ; and
while he has experienced sympathy and irrendship from the lovers
of the good old way, to which his humble efforts presented no title,
the same persons have not hesitated to class those who have reite
rated these foul charges, with the persecutors of a former period.
The reasoning in sections 7, 8, 9, in which the Eastern Presby
tery attempt the proof of these extravagant charges, is most so
phistical ; and the conclusions which they endeavour to draw from
passages in the "Christian Magistrate," "Reviewer Reviewed,"
and "Covenanter," are utterly unwarranted. According to their
usual method of dishonest concealment-, the writers of the Decli
nature have taken no notice of the numerous passages of these
pamphlets, in which the author has strongly and indignantly dis
claimed the sentiment that simple error is an object of penal in
fliction by the civil ruler, or that dissenters from the established
religion, when they are otherwise peaceful members of the com
munity, are to be punished, — in which the propagation of religion
by force is markedly condemned, — and in which the strongest
protests are uttered against every species of Erastianism.* Surely
the kind, generous, honourable gentlemen ofthe East, might have
afforded, at least once, to have told their people and the public ,
that Mr. Houston had repeatedly disclaimed, and condemned the
doctrines, with which they had branded him, and the Roformed
Synod. But by doing this, they would have greatly narrowed
the ground of their "Protest and Declinature," and would have
scattered the mists of delusion which themselves had raised ; and
they would not have appeared so redoubted champions of civil
and religious liberty ,f as they wish to be esteemed.
* " The nation bas avouched the Lord to be their God, and the magistrate is
God's minister, while he is civil head of the state, and therefore is he bound to vin
dicate the Divine honour, and to promote tbe church's welfare. It is in this view,
— in relation to a nation and a magistracy thus constituted alone, and considered
as civil offences, that idolatry and blasphemy, heresy and Sabbath-profanation,
should be subjected to outward punishment." Christ. Magist. pp, 59, CO.
It is added in the same part of the discourse,—" It is not heresy or idolatry to
the mind, but heresy or idolatry publicly avowed, propagated, and obstinately per
severed in, that calls for punishment. Men may hold what opinions they please,
and the Christian magistrate may safely suffer them to live unmolested." And to
guard against misrepresentation, — the following note is given, in connexion with
these explanations, — in reference to the former of these quotations : "This state
ment, which is intended to lie at the foundation of all our reasonings on the subject
of magistratical interference for the suppression of gross heresy, blasphemy, &c.,
it will be readily seen, removes many of the futile, though plausible objections that
are advanced against our doctrine. It is tbe duty of a Christian magistrate, pos
sessed of due scriptural qualifications, and ruling over a reformed nation, that we
have attempted to exhibit throughout the discourse. If any choose to make a dif
ferent application of our arguments, they do it at the hazard of putting upon our
language a construction which it will by no means bear, and of perverting reason
ing which they are unable to refute." — Christ. Magist. Note, p. 60, How few of
those who receive, as Gospel, the perversions and calumnies of Dr. Paul, and the
Eastern Presbytery, have ever thought that there are such expressions as these in
the " Christian Magistrate " !
f It is related by Alison, in his "History of the French Revolution," that the
Paris mob,— the sovereign people, were mightily offended with La Fayette, then the
commander of the National Guard, for punishing one ofthe wretches who had hung '
up an unfortunate baker to a lamp post, — and that they fiercely denounced him for '
abridging their liberty in saying or doing what they pleased,— and especially in

Ill
The passages in the " Christian Magistrate ," and "Reviewer
Reviewed," about the magistrate's restraining whatever en
dangers the "church's peace," and "tarnishes the divine
glory," taken in their proper connexion, just teach that crimes
openly committed against the first table of the decalogue, are to
be restrained ; and that those gross public offences which endan
ger the church's peace and safety, and which manifestly rob God,
the moral governor of the nation, of his honour and glory, are
proper objects of magistratical coercion. It is expressly laid down
as fundamental in the " Christian Magistrate " — (see pages 59, 60,
61 ),— that the civil ruler is to restrain and punish violations of the
first table of the law, not " merely as breaches of the divine law,
and not as ecclesiastical scandals ;" and that it is only in the case
of open, gross, and dangerous offences that he is to interfere.
Whatever other meaning Dr. Paul extorts from isolated or dis
torted passages, the author wholly disclaims. Let the Eastern
Separatists fairly bring forward the principles which Mr. Houston
has assumed as fundamental in the discussion of the question, or
brought forward in the course of the argument, and the injustice
of their partial quotations and forced conclusions, will be apparent
to the most superficial reader. This, however, we can easily pre
dict, they will never do. When the Hugonots of France were to
be utterly exterminated, their savage persecutors found it much more
convenient to represent them, as monsters having only a part of the
human form, than to bring forward their principles, and refute
them. How closely the enemies of a faithful testimony agree in
their tactics in different ages ! To spread delusion and keep up
prejudice against Mr. Houston, and important articles of the
church's confession, are more to the taste of Dr. Paul and his as
sociates, than fair reasoning ; and having long practised this trade,
they may be expected to pursue it to the end, verifying the Scrip
tural declaration, concerning some who " wax worse and worse,
deceiving and being deceived."
The reasoning in the Declinature, to prove Mr. Houston charge
able with maintaining that the true religion is to be propagated by
the sword* ofthe civil magistrate, is of precisely the same character
as that which we have just noticed. By keeping out of view all
the qualifying clauses in the passages quoted from the " Covenan
ter," and foisting in such a consequence as this, — " If he have a
right to require men to become Christians, he has a right to
enforce the requisition by pains and penalties," Dr. Paul, or
the subscribers ofthe Declinature, conceive they have proved
this point to admiration. As a single specimen of dishonest
mangling of quotations, of which many might be given, we sub
join the passages in full, as they stand in the Covenanter, in im
mediate connexion with the garbled extracts in the Missive of the
Eastern Separatists.
summarily putting to death whoever offended them. Quere ? Is it pleading for a
liberty of this kind that entitles a person, now-a-days, to be enrolled under the ban
ner of civil and religious liberty ? And furthermore, is the murder of character
one of the special prerogatives of the advocates of civil and religious liberty ?
* In this part of the Declinature, the word sword is evidently used ire terrorem,
and to excite odium against the " Covenanter" and its Editor, as it is in innumerable
other passages of Dr. Paul's writings.

112
In the Covenanter, vol. ii. p. 7, 8, the following sentences occur,
connected with two of the garbled extracts :— -
" Nobody complains of being obliged to be honest,, or of being
restrained for murder, robbeiy, perjury, or any other crime which
would unhinge society ; why then should the restraining of daring
irreligion and profaneness by the magistrate be accounted oppres
sive, since the, obligations of religion are as clearly revealed as
those of morality, and the transgressions of the first table as in
jurious to society, as those of the second table of the moral law ? "
" The plea, that there are various sects and denominations among
Christians, and consequently that all of them cannot be right, is
no valid excuse in refusing to profess and support tlie true religion ;
for there were also various sects, as Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes,
&c, among the Jews, who were all obliged to contribute to the
support of the established religion, notwithstanding their diversity
of opinion." Here the writer is arguing — in opposition to Volun
taryism — in favour of national support ofthe true religion, and this
is the principal object in the passage. Yet one would never think,
from the- quotations in the Declinature, that such a matter had
been mentioned at all. And the very next words in the Covenan-.
ter, in a sentence of which the Eastern Presbytery has thought pro
per on}y to give a part, show that the Covenanter is npt quite so
illiberal as its enemies would have us to believe. It is said, " the
Christian magistrate, ruling over his subjects with paternal care,
may, as he unquestionably should, allow the freest exercise ot pri
vate judgment, and he may not call into exercise his authority to
settle points of difference between those who, acknowledge Christ
the Head, relative to order and worship." The magistrate's " duty
in seeing that pure Christianity be publicly professed by his sub
jects," relates to his providing the means of religious instruction,
and it is added, " his suppressing immorality, idolatry, and gross
error and false religion, is perhaps the best establishment he can
give to the true ; for as it is already sanctioned and estab
lished by a higher authority than that of man, it only requires
the approbation, protection, and support of the civil power, in that
nation or kingdom into which it has been introduced."
Again, in the Covenanter, (vol, i. p. 232,) the following state
ments are made, in a sentence of which the Declinature quotes,
about the one-fifth: — "In discriminating between works that are
morally good or evil, or between those which should be encour
aged and those which should be suppressed, Covenanters imagine —
that it is the duty of Civil Magistrates, or of nations acting by their
rulers,* to profess, establish, and support the true religion; to ex
ert their influence and authority, that it may be received and pro-
fessed by all within their dominions ; to enact wise and salutary,
laws for its encouragement and protection ; and to see that its min-
* In this passage, Christian magistrates are viewed, as they are always through
out the "Covenanter,!' and " Christian Magistrate,'' as the nation's representa
tives, or as having the national sovereignty lodged in them, — and their labouring to
remove impediments out ofthe way of a profession of the true religion, is just the
nation recognising the prime obligation of the Divine law, — to avouch the Lord to
be their God. How carefully does Dr. Paul keep back all such views advanced
in Mr. Houston's writings, that he may. represent him as a monster of persecution,
and the Christian magistrate as a capricious and cruel tyrant !

113
isters be suitably supported, and its ordinances regularly dispen
sed." Will any candid person now say that the garbled extracts
in the Declinature, are a just representation of the sentiments of
the Covenanter? Will it be affirmed, even by any honourable
Voluntary, — that the passages which we have given teach, — as the
Eastern sages would have it, — " That the religion of Jesus Christ
should be propagated by the sword of the civil magistrate ?" They
simply state the grand principles on which the Scottish reforma
tion was promoted and established. They expressly admit the
fullest exercise of the right of private judgment. When mention
is made of "requiring a profession" ofthe Christian religion,
and of requiring men to " support" it, there is not the least hint
given of the magistrate employing force for this purpose ; and in
one of the passages, it is expressly declared, that the magistrate's
coercive power is limited to the suppression of whatever is grie
vously prejudicial to the interests of true religion. The candid
reader will judge, after this specimen of quotations by the Eastern
Presbytery, what weight is due to their testimony, in their dis
honourable work of sapping and undermining the pillars of
the Reformation. Thus speaks Dr. M'Crie,— than whom none
more clearly understood or stated the duty of civil rulers, with
respect tp religion: — " It is his (the magistrate's,) duty to watch
over the church's external interests, and to exert himself in
his station to preserve upon the minds of his subjects an impres
sion of its obligations and sanctions, and to suppress irreligion,
impiety, profanity, and blasphemy. It is' also the duty of civil
rulers, and must be their interest, to exert themselves to introduce
the Gospel into their dominions, when it may be but partially en
joyed ; and by salutary laws and encouragements to provide them
with the means of instruction, and a settled dispensation of ordi
nances ; especially in poor and desolate, or in ignorant and irre
ligious parts of the country ; — all which they may do, without pro
pagating Christianity by the sword, or forcing a profession of re
ligion on their subjects by penal laws." — Statement, p. 80.
8. The allegation about Mr. Houston's Civil Magistrate forcing
men to be religious, (Declinat. sec. 9. p. 12.) rests upon as sandy
a foundation as any that we have already noticed. The instance
of the exercise of official authority by Asa was, in part, special,
and partly, in the mode of punishment threatened, there was the
full carrying out ofthe inflictions of the judicial law.— Mr. Houston
has never pleaded that, in such cases, or to such extent, the con
duct of Jewish rulers is to be taken as an example to Christian
magistrates. ,/-.¦¦,
Section 10th of the Declinature, in which Mr. Houston s Civil
Magistrate is arraigned of appointing and deposing church officers,
aUd° regulating public worship, furnishes another sad instance of
the profane flippancy with which Dr. Paul's writings against
Scriptural magistracy, and ecclesiastical establishments abound.
If David, " with Divine approbation," as the Separatists allege,
"appointed church officers and regulated public worship,"—
and Solomon, under the same high sanction, deposed church
officers: and if in Dr. Paul's estimation, such an exercise ot
maoistratical power is unwarranted, " Erastian and oppressive,

114
then it must follow that these eminent princes acted as Eras-
tian oppressors in the things of religion, and even that God
himself sanctioned such procedure!! Such is the length to
which enmity against the testimony of the church will conduct
men ! If Erastianism is sinful now, it was sinful also under
the former economy; and to charge the Jewish magistrates,
when acting with Divine approbation, with it, as Dr. Paul
has frequently done, in reality amounts to making God the
author of sin. Those parts of the conduct of the reforming prin
ces of Israel and Judah which were extraordinary, have nothing
to do with the argument, and it were no difficult matter to
show, that, in some of the instances referred to, they may have
acted without infringing, in any measure, on the proper limits of
civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.* But all this is unnecessary.
The shortest way for Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery, in their
vehemence against Mr. Houston and the Synod, is to charge the
godly princes of Israel with Erastianism and oppression, and make
God, whose vicegerents they were, and who approved oftheir holy
zeal in his service, the author of sin t When they can advance
this length, it is high time to consider argument with them as at
an end ; and to leave them in undisputed possession of their
triumph. 9. In section 11th, of the Declinature, the Eastern Presbytery
charge Mr. Houston and the Covenanter with teaching sentiments
grossly Erastian, and they adduce some quotations, which had been
given from celebrated divines, in an early number ofthe periodical,
insupport of the allegation. The same charge had been advanced
by Dr. Paul, in his first attack in tbe Newsletter, and in his pamph
let entitled, The Covenanter Reviewed, &c, and precisely the
same passages were quoted to substantiate it, — a proof among
many, that the Eastern Separatists, in putting forward this part of
the Declinature, allowed themselves to be dragged through the
mire by Dr. Paul, and have slavishly adopted his vituperation.
Dr. Paul's charge of Erastianism against the Covenanter is fully
considered in the Reviewer Reviewed, chapter v. ; and although
the Eastern Presbytery have judged it prudent to take no notice
of the reasoning there adduced, we hesitate not to affirm that Dr.
Paul, and his coadjutors are wholly unable to refute the arguments
contained in that chapter, — arguments which ehow clearly the ut
ter groundlessness of the charge of Erastianism against the perio
dical, the dishonesty of Dr. Paul as a reviewer, and his spiteful
opposition to the views of the Reformers. As our space will not
permit us to give the reasoning of the Reviewer Reviewed on this
point at length, we may be excused for subjoining a brief outline
of it.
The author first showed that it was common for erroneous per
sons to charge with Erastianism those who stood forward in behalf
* Under the Jewish economy, care was employed to separate between the
exercise of civil and ecclesiastical authority, — and we have no evidence that
there was any undue interference in the reforming times of the one with the
other. In the days of Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, the chief priest, was over the
people " in all matters of the Lord,"— and Zebadiah, " for all the king's mat
ters." Was this like Erastianism ?

115
of Scriptural order. The Remonstrants had advanced it against
the Orthodox Synod of Dort, — the Independents had charged the
venerable Westminster Assembly with Erastianism, — and when
the Secession body in Scotland, in the commencement of the pre
sent century, abandoned the testimony of their fathers, the back
sliding part had frequently and vehemently charged with Erastian
ism Dr. M'Crie, and the excellent men who with him resisted sweep
ing innovation. Then an outline ofthe principles of Erastianism, as
stated by Dr. M'Leod, was given, and it was shown that in no in
stance had the Covenanter ever advanced a single Erastian senti
ment. On the contrary, the periodical had repeatedly testified
against the system as a whole, exhibited its evils as they exist in
various sections ofthe church, and vindicated the independence
ofthe church against the encroachments of civil rulers. Then,
the passages quoted in the Declinature, and given there as if they
had been written by the Editor or his correspondents, were stated
to have been quotations from the writings of such eminent men as
an Assembly of Presbyterian Covenanting Ministers in London,*
Archbishop Ussher, Samuel Rutherford, and George Gillespie;
and that they were adduced, not for the purpose of expressing
either agreement or disagreement with every sentiment contained
in them, — but merely to show that the employment of magistratical
authority for suppressing gross heresy and idolatry, is not at vari
ance with the opinions of the ablest advocates of Reformation
principles. It was even admitted that the mode of statement or
illustration, in other parts of the quotations, might be objection
able. But it was shown that Dr. Paul's charge of Erastianism was
in reality laid against the London Covenanting Ministers, — against
the illustrious Rutherford, who had written much and testified
faithfully against Erastian usurpation, and had died, banished from
his flock, the victim of Erastian supremacy, — against the faithful
Gillespie, who had in the Westminster Assembly pleaded against
the learned Selden, the cause of the church's independence,— and
against the excellent Livingstone, who had suffered through his
whole life from Erastian oppression, and who had always witnessed
a good confession in opposition to it. To charge such men with
Erastianism, was what few even of their most determined revilers
would hazard, sinee all history would belie the absurd allegation.
It appeared much easier for Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery
to make the attack on Mr. Houston and the Covenanter, under
cover of a masked battery. But, they may rest assured, the church
and the public are not deceived. The object of the assault is in
reality the Covenanting reformers and martyrs. Even admitting
the mode of expression, in some of the quotations, was not the hap
piest, — it was only by ignorantly or wilfully perverting the meaning of
thelanguageof the illustriousDivines, whose sentiments Dr. Paulhas
held up to odium and derision, that he has attempted to wring out of
their words a sense which they will by no means bear. To this reason-
* Held about the time of the Westminster Assembly, and the same that
emitted an excellent work on the " Divine Right of Presbyterian Church, Go
vernment," — in which the limits of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction are accu
rately and clearly stated,— and the duties of church officers and magistrates are
detailed in a circumstantial and scriptural manner.

116
ing we have nothing at present to add. It stands unrefuted ; and
we venture to predict, that Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery
will pour torrents of reproach upon Mr. Houston and the Reformed
Synod, before they attempt to meet it. Meanwhile, all that we
consider it requisite to say for ourselves, as often as they charge
us with Erastianism, is, that we are, in the same sense, andno further
Erastian, than were our illustrious forefathers, who lived and died
oppressed by Erastian civil rulers, and testifying, with their latest
breath, against the unhallowed and unscriptural usurpation.
10. The next charge (No. 12, of the Declinature,) about Mr.
Houston's monstrous tithe system, so often reiterated in Dr. Paul's
speeches and pamphlets, is almost too ridiculous to merit serious
exposure. It is not true, as the Declinature, alleges, that the
Editor ofthe Covenanter claims "for the clergy, and for the sup
port of religion, all that has ever been given, or shall, in times
coming, be given for the use of the kirk."- He has indeed pleaded
for a national support to the church of Christ, in opposition to
Voluntaries and Infidels, and in the part ofthe Covenanter referred
to, he has quoted two or three passages from the First and Second
Books of Discipline, which have always been regarded with appro
bation in the Covenanting Church, and the latter of which, as Dr.
M'Crie testifies,* was sworn to in the National Covenant, and is
to be considered of standing authority in the church. These quo
tations were offered merely to prove that Covenanters had al
ways pleaded for a state-support of the true religion, without any,
the least hint being given, that the particular mode of support
mentioned in them should be again resorted to. On the contrary,
it had been shown immediately before, that while a state-taxation
might be applied to the support of religious ordinances, in the un-
evangelised parts of a country, in other parts, each congregation
would support its own pastor, without any burden to the State. —
" Were he (the magistrate) to act thus, we think it evident that
the community would have no cause to complain of being burdened
by the pecuniary support of the national religion ; as in this case,
it is presumed, where the ordinances of religion were regularly ad
ministered, each congregation would support its own pastor, and
a tax to send the Gospel to the unevangelised portions ofthe coun
try, would be considered by none as a grievance. "f It was only
by Dr. Paul's usual discreditable method of concealing these and
similar statements entirely, that he arrives at another of his charges,
by which he hopes to excite odium against Mr. Houston. The
author of the Christian Magistrate neither desires Tithe nor Re
gium Donum, nor a state-aflowance in any shape, from a corrupt
government. He has frequently protested against endowments of
this kind ; and he trusts he may say, more on Covenanting princi
ples, than Dr. Paul in his published objections to Tithe and Regium
Donum. Nor does he prostitute the humble talents that God has
given, to earn golden opinions from Papists, Arians and Infidels.
There are some men that declaim furiously against a state-endow
ment to the ministers of religion, who yet have no objections to
receive the rewards of defection, from hands as defiled as any that
* Statement, p. 44. f Covenanter, vol, ii. p. 86, Qld Series.

117
dole out the pensions of the State, to the ministers of endowed
churches. Mr. Houston's worst traducers, however, have it not in
their power to allege, that, in any thing he has said or done, he
has betrayed any inclination after favours, from any of these quar
ters. The reference to a note in the " Christian Magistrate," (p. 46.)
which Dr. Paul and his friends have made the theme of ample
declamation, is just managed in the same candid way as are other
extracts in the Declinature. Dr. Paul represents Mr. Houstpn as
teaching that the one tenth of the products of industry should be
given as a national support of religion ; and as also maintaining
that this should go into the pockets of the clergy;* and then
he declaims most manfully against such an exorbitant assessment,
and raises the loudest outcry against Mr. Houston's monstrous op
pressive tithe system. It may suffice to say, at present, that both
these allegations are entirely unfounded ; and the most superficial
glance at the note in question, will convince any impartial reader
that the writers of the Declinature have done barefaced and sig
nal injustice to the Christian Magistrate in this instance. Af
ter offering some reasons against the present tithe system of
these countries, and alleging that it is unjust that the whole
burden should be laid on the land-holder, it is added, — " At the
same time, we would not be understood as objecting against the
principle of a public national support being supplied to the minis
ters of religion, and for the maintenance of religious ordinances ;
nor, as even insinuating that a tenth part of the products of in
dustry is too large a share to be devoted to the purposes of religion.
Such a support, — that is, — ' a public national support;' we are
entirely persuaded from Scripture and reason, the rulers of a
Christian land are bound to furnish; — all the objections that can
be brought against it, have equal force against a provision made for
National Education, or indeed against any tax levied for preser
ving the morals, and protecting the lives and properties of the
subjects." Where now is the application of all Dr. Paul's specious,
swollen declamation about Mr. Houston's tithe system ? . The
simple fact is, that instead ofthe author ofthe " Christian Magis
trate " having a monstrous tithe system, as numbers have ridicu
lously and shamefully alleged, he has no tithe system at all.
He merely pleads for a national support to true religion, on
" equitable principles," and, when referring to the liberality which
should characterise Christians in promoting religion, he hints that
it ought to be on a more extensive scale than we at present behold
it. That the author, in the part of the sentence, in which the
" one tenth " is mentioned, chiefly refers to private voluntary be
nevolence, is evident, when he mentions the devoting of the pro
ducts of industry to religious purposes. Rulers supply, or furnish
a state-support, — Christians in their private capacity devote, in the
spirit of faith and prayer, of their worldly substance to build up
the tabernacle. There is room for both means of support, and we
maintain the value and importance both of an endowment from
* See Dr. Paul's " Review of the Christian Magistrate," pp. 15—20. Speech
at Synod of 1838, in " Report," &c.

118
scripturally qualified civil rulers, ministered on scriptural princi
ples, and ofthe offerings of private voluntary benevolence for the
evangelization of the nations. To guard against misapprehension,
Mr. Houston simply says, in this place, that he would not be un
derstood as " insinuating that the tenth part ofthe products of in
dustry is too large ashare to be devoted to thepurposes of religion."
Even when referring to private benevolence, he, in fact,, says no
thing positively on the subject of the portion to be allotted, though
Dr. Paul being interpreter, the reader of the Declinature would
think that he had asserted, in themostdirect and unequivocal terms,
that the State should exact the tenth part of the products of indus
try. Besides, the author of the " Christian Magistrate," in this
place, expressly mentions " the purposes of religion." Under these
may be properly included, the building and support of school-hou
ses, churches, .colleges, — Bible and missionary enterprises, — the
support of the poor, &c* Yet Dr. Paul, with adisingenuity in con
troversy, to which he may advance peculiar claims, represents Mr.
Houston as wishing to draw all the state-support into the coffers of a
greedy and avaricious clergy ! The last passage quoted from the
Covenanter on this head, about " private contributions," was given
in the periodical as an extract from a synodical sermon, preached by
a minister, then the Moderator of the Reformed Presbyterian Sy
nod in Scotland. This gentleman, Dr. Paul had, on another occa
sion, bespattered with his praises, when misapplying his sentiments,
he tried to excite odium against the Covenanter. The extract
given in the Declinature needs no comment. It is presumed the
Doctors of the Eastern Presbytery themselves would not refuse
" private contributions, to the utmost extent to which they can
be procured," either for themselves or their congregations ; and
they have given proof sufficient that they are not over scrupu
lous ofthe quarter, from which such contributions come, provided
they are to be the recipients.
11 . Again, Mr. Houston and the " Christian Magistrate" (sec:
I 3, Declinature) , are charged with teaching " the long-exploded
error," that " dominion is founded in grace." Were Dr. Paul and
his brethren to state distinctly what they mean by dominion being
founded in grace, the readers of the Declinature, who will take
the trouble of referring to the " Christian Magistrate,"] would
* It is justly observed by Hetherington, in his " History of the Church of
Scotland," — Part I, lately published,— " While our Scottish Reformers still
wished ecclesiastical revenues to be devoted to ecclesiastical, and not civil pur
poses, they did so, not for the sake of their own aggrandisement, but purely for
the public good, purposing a threefold division and application of them, — one-
third for the support of colleges and schools, one-third for the support of the
poor, and the remaining third for the support of the ministers of religion."— -
Hist. Ch. of Scot p. 81. Will it be said, after this, that the Reformers — for it
is in reality to them that Dr. Paul refers when he discovers his virulence against
a passage from the Second Book of Discipline, — " must be regarded as the most
greedy and avaricious clergy on the face ofthe earth ? "
f Dr. Paul and his allies are continually declaiming against the Editors of
the Covenanter, and other members of Synod, for not allowing fhe people with
whom they have influence to read the Doctor's pamphlets, newspaper philippics,
&c.,— and they do not fail to cry out bigotry and intolerance against them on this
ground. We might retort the charge, and ask, how many of those who have
swallowed implicitly Dr. Paul's unsupported assertions and foul calumnies, have

119
at once perceive the utter groundlessness and falsity of the charge.
Even were it true that Mr. Houston has taught, in the passages
referred to, that saintship is essential to the character of a Chris
tian magistrate, this would not properly be teaching that magis
tracy is founded in grace. The error here charged against the
author of the discourse is, that civil rule has its origin in the me
diatorial system,— that it flows from Christ, as Head of the church,
and is subordinate to the ministry of the Gospel. Hence the
usurpations of the Romish Antichrist. Pretending to be Christ's
vicar on earth, he claims to be king of kings, and strenuously
maintains the subjection of the throne to the mitre. This degrad
ing doctrine, the witnesses of the Reformation have always repu
diated, as leading to the most intolerable tyranny and oppression
by the ministers of religion, and the most enslaving bondage of
civil rulers. Were the allegation of the Eastern calumniators
true, that Mr. Houston has taught this odious doctrine, it would
indeed constitute a very heavy charge, — it would amount to an
abandonment of one great article of the Protestant Reformation.
The slightest inspection of the matter, however, will convince any
unprejudiced person, that the charge is not only unproved, but
that there is abundant proof in direct opposition to it. The au
thor of the " Christian Magistrate " has never, in the slightest in
stance, taught that civil rule is founded in grace. On the other
hand, he has distinctly and explicitly taught, that " civil magis
tracy is instituted by God, as the moral Governor of the universe,"
based on the " law of nature, or the moral law," and " placed in
subjection to Messiah, as Mediator ;"* and all care is taken,
throughout the discourse, to shew that civil government is a di
vine ordinance, entirely distinct from ecclesiastical government,
though placed under the Mediator, for the advancement of the
divine glory. After the statement of these principles, which are
assumed as fundamental, it surely cannot be alleged, with any
justice, that Mr. Houston has taught that dominion is founded in
grace. In the discourse, it is expressly said, " Christian magistracy is
the topic under consideration," p. 15r— and again, " It is the duty
of a Christian magistrate, possessed of due Scriptural qualifica
tions, and ruling over a reformed nation, that we have attempted
to exhibit throughout the discourse," — note, p. 60. Yet the
Eastern Presbytery, fairly following Dr. Paul's mode of reasoning,
by leaving out of view every statement that was calculated to place
Mr. Houston's sentiments in a just light, and to lessen the weight
ever compared the passages in the " Covenanter? " Christian Magistrate," and
" Reviewer Reviewed," which he has distorted and mangled, with the garbled
extracts in the Declinature ? But there are others who believe on trusts-
other bigots besides those who plead for scriptural standards, — and the New- Lights
and Liberals of the present day furnish a full complement of them. The truth is,
however, honest Covenanters, and many other pious individuals, have had so
many samples of Dr. Paul's opposition to reformation principles, and of his vindic
tive spirit, that they have no relish for his new wine Of innovation. The remark
made by an excellent elder of the church, in Synod, expresses much. — " How
little of all that Dr. Paul has written could a pious man read on the Lord's day " !'
* See " Christian Magistrate," pp. 8, 10, &c.

120
of their foul charges, take no notice of these statements, and apply
what is said exclusively about Christian magistracy, to magistrates in
a heathen and unreformed land. In all the passages ofthe Christian
Magistrate, which are quoted in this part of the Declinature, the
author is merely speaking of the proper qualifications of Christian
magistracy ; and even granting that he had estimated these high,
what had this to do with the foundation of magistracy ? Civri
government had been explicitly declared in the discourse to be
founded in the law of nature, or moral law, and not in the law of
grace ; and common justice and candour would have required
that Mr. Houston should have had the benefit of the statement.
But justice and candour have little to do with the proceedings of
Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery, towards Mr. Houston and
the Reformed Synod. When the author of the Christian Ma
gistrate spoke of piety, as an essential qualification of Christian
magistrates, in a reformed nation, he plainly meant visible piety,
and he merely followed the method of statement and illustration of
the most approved writers, who insist upon this qualification, with
out deeming it requisite always to repeat the distinction between
religion in the heart and its outward evidences.* The reference
to the expression in the Westminster Confession, " Infidelity or
difference of religion does not make void the magistrate's just and
legal authority, &c," in the connexion in which it stands, evi
dently shews that the Eastern Presbytery have entirely different
views of the subject, from what our Reformers and the Covenant
ing Church have ever maintained. The truly illustrious Renwick,
in the Sanquhar Declaration, understood this sentiment in the
Confession as referring only to a nation emerging out of Pagan
darkness, or partially reformed ; and so does the Act and Testi
mony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.f When the Eastern
* See Dwight on the Qualifications of Civil Rulers. — Theology, vol. iv.
pp.118, 119.
* On one expression (Christ. Mag. p. 24.) Dr. Paul harps incessantly,
proving, as he thinks, that Mr. Houston must intend what he has advanced about
Qualifications, (for this was the point under consideration,) to apply to Heathen
Civil Rnlers, as well as to Christian. The expression, — " If this be the case
generally," &c, may not be the most happy : but the very passage from which it
is taken, and the whole strain of the discourse shows, that the author was speak
ing of different communities as wholly or partially reformed, and of different
kinds of governors, and that he had no reference whatever to the character or
qualifications of magistrates in "a heathen nation. Dr. Paul and his worthy co-
presbyters must have been perfectly aware of this,— yet how disingenous their
conduct in perverting the statements, and deluding those who implicitly follow
them, by conveying the worst impressions respecting the doctrine taught in the
" Christian Magistrate. "
f " We acknowledge it to be true, indeed, that infidels, and those of a different
religion, are not (chiefly because such) presently to be declared no magistrates ;
for magistratus non est magistratus qua Christianus, sed qua homo. So that the
magistratical power, considered generaliter, given for the good of human society.
may be in the person of an infidel, or one of a different religion ; but considered
specialiter, given for the good ofthe church, it is only in the person of a profes
sor of the true religion. Hence, in travelling or trafficking in foreign lands, be
the persons in whom the power is, infidels or of a different religion, we cannot
refuse subjection to their laws, so far as they are consistent with the written
word of God, and our true Christian liberty. Howbeit our Covenants and Acts
of Parliament have put a bar upon the admission of any, either infidels or of a
different religion, while such, to govern in Scotland." — Sanquhar Declaration. —
Act and Testimony, p. 174.

121
Presbytery bring forward the expression, to set aside the necessity
of piety in magistrates in a reformed nation, -they pervert the
Confession, and surrender a cardinal principle of the Covenanted
Testimony. The concluding allegation in this section, that Mr. Houston's
views of magistracy are anti-government, and wOuld go to banish
all civil government from the earth, is akin to the objections which
enemies of a Covenanted testimony have always advanced against
those who- have faithfully maintained it. It is needless to observe
how frequently Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery employ the
weapons of the worst enemies of the church, against the Covenan
ter and the Christian Magistrate, affording thus a strong presum-
tive argument, that these publications advocate the church's testi
mony, while the Eastern Presbytery make common cause with
its known and determined adversaries. The command (1 Cor.
x;.3l-)y— " Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all
to the glory of God,"* is obligatory on magistrates in their official
capacity, as well as on individuals. The " Christian Magistrate " only
'maintains, in the. passage quoted, that civil rulers he under such an
obligation binding them in all their acts, and that the divine.glory
¦ ought to be the principal end of all their administration. The Eastern
Presbytery's gloss is not borne out by the passage which they have
quoted. The charge of being anti-government in principle, only
identifies Mr. Houston with the faithful advocates of the Coven
anted Reformation in different periods, — men of whom the world
was not worthy, — while it exhibits those who have preferred it, as
one in spirit and principle with thOse who- said/ in Zion's day of
affliction,—--" Raze, raze it to the foundation."
12. The next charge (Declinature, sec. 1,4,) of Mr. Houston
resting " the truth of our Standards on the character of the men
who composed them, instead of resting it on the firm basis of. di
vine revelation," the Eastern Presbytery are perfectly aware is
destitute of proper foundation. The distinguished writer of the
article referred to in the Covenanter, of which, as usual, a detached
sentence is quoted, does indeed adopt the method of presumptive
argument, as one that is seldom resorted to on this question, , but
not to the exclusion of the scriptural character. of the Standards.
In a subsequent part of the very same paper, (Covenanter, vol. ii.
p. 329, O.Si) this point is ably illustrated ; and Dr^ Paul knows
perfectly, that in repeated passages of Mr. Houston's pamphlets,
which he has so kindly reviewed, the scriptural character of the
Standards is prominently exhibited. To hint, however, that this
had been any where done, would not have suited the object of the
writers of the Declinature. The Eastern Presbytery would rather
keep back the truth, and peril whatever reputation they possess
on a false oharge, than lose the gratification of defaming the Edi
tor ofthe Covenanter, and the Reformed Presbyterian Synod. •
The charge against Mr. Houston, of applying, what Dr. Paul quite
ciagsiaplly styles the " Index Expurgatorious," to Rutherford's
writingSjis too contemptible for any serious notice. Dr. Paul would
* As Dr. Paul is fond of drawing extreme conclusions from statements about
duties, we should uke to have his exposition of this command, as applied to
civil rulers, ' Q

122
have desired nothing more, than that Mr. Houston had quoted the
whole passage from Rutherford, and used the words, "even to blood
and death ;" and then, as in his charges against the Covenanter for
teaching Erastianism, how loudly would he have declaimed about
the demonstration which was thus furnished, that the author of the
" Christian Magistrate" had taught the doctrine of capital pun
ishments, and that his sentiments tended to deluge the world in
blood ! With what ecstatic delight would he have exhibited the
godly Rutherford, t- as he has indeed lately done, in his newspa
per pasquils, — as candidly avowing the most hateful persecuting
principles ! What a pity, that Dr. Paul was not indulged the op
portunity of telling the world, in his own sweet style, that Mr.
Houston had taught, in express terms, that " heretics and idolaters
should be punished, ' even to blood and to death.' " What a pity
that the Doctor was prevented from flourishing, in this instance,
about the " Inquisition," — ^ the Sicilian tyrants," — " oceans of hu
man blood" ! &c. &c. But surely there was no reason to expect that
Mr. Houston would give such an advantage to such an opponent.
The " Christian Magistrate " quoted Rutherford,- in support ofthe
principle of magistratical coercion: It was unnecessary to adduce
testimony in relation to the mode of restraint and punishment, as
in the discourse it- was expressly said, the author would teach
nothing on the subject, for this simple reason, that the Standards
of the church fully declare the principle, but are silent as to the
mode of its application. There is no injustice done to the excel
lent Rutherford by'the omission, — nor is there any " pious fraud "
attempted. Dr.Paul'scourse,however,isworsethan "pwusfraud,"
— it is impious perversion of the Standards of the church, and ofthe
Scriptures Ihemselviesj-^it is the wholesale aspersing ofthe vener
able Reformers, ahd al the while practising the delusion upon
simple people that he is still a firm Covenanter. Mr. Houston has
always vindicated the honoured names and writings of the Refo-
mers and Martyrs of Scotland. To Dr. Paul and the Eastern
Presbytery in • this controversy belongs the exclusive infamy of
perverting their writings, aspersing their principles, and reproach
ing their memories.
13. The two remaining charges of the Declinature might be
suffered to stand or fall, on the evidence by which the Eastern
calumniators sustain them. The virulence which they breathe
against an innocent victim is their best refutation. Mr.
Houston, forsooth! does every thing in his power to subvert the
whole fabric of the Protestant religion, !hy endeavouring to tear
away " the pillars on which it rests." What, gentle reader* think
you, are these pillars? According to the Eastern Separatists,
not the supreme authority of God's word, — not what Luther well
calls, the great article of a standing or falling church,^-tbe doc
trine of justification by faith, through the Saviour's righteousness
imputed ,-r-but "the right of private judgment and free inquiry"!!
So much for the Superior enlightenment ofthe Eastern Sages ! So
; much for the liberality of the Nineteenth- century 1 Against the
" right of private judgment," when defined and regulated by the
Divine law, and' against " free inquiry," when directed by the re
velation of heaven, and conducted in a prayerful humble spirit, Mr.

123
Houston has never written or uttered a single sentence. But he
has refused to acknowledge a pretended right, in opposition to the
authority of God, speaking in his word : — he has strongly con
demned covenant-breaking, as displeasing to God and injurious, to
man, — and he has never praised that free inquiry, or free discus
sion, which aims to unsettle the minds of simple believers in the
truths of the Bible, and to call in question, and then to reject
important parts of the 'testimony of Jesus.
In the first quotation in support of the 15th charge, we have a
specimen of Dn Paul's characteristic blundering, in stating a sim
ple fact, and of the " implicit faith," with which the other sub
scribers of the Declinature adopt his blunders, as well as his errors.
It is said in the Declinature, p. 16,-^" In his (Mr. Houston's)
Christian Magistrate, p- 271, he writes thus."— Now there are
not 171, much less 271 pages in the Christian, Magistrate, nor
is there any such statement in all that work- Surely from learned
Doctors, and fcoin an Ecclesiastical Judicatory, ever boasting of.
superior illumination, a little more accuracy might have been ex
pected in such an important document as a Declinature. In the
sentence quoted, which is from the Covenanter, not the Chris
tian Magistrate, a sentiment which was expressly mentioned as
a particular case, is taken in a universal sense; and by;thls easy
process of distortion, Dr. Paul and his willing coadjutors find
Mr. Houston chargeable with "downright Popery"! The, plea,
for breaking scriptural' vows, deliberately made, and for avowing
opinions contradictory to the church's, profession, by persons still
claiming to be in the church, and to hold her creed, is just what
might-have been expected from the Eastern Presbytery,, after their
proceedings for a number of years. But to rej ect such a plea, and
to hold the binding obligation of the vows of the church,!— for
of this alone the Covenanter was speaking, in the passages re
ferred to,— might surely have merited some gentler name. than
"-downright Popery " ! ! Let the Eastern calumniators, however,
enjoy the full honour of applying such a term to Mr. Houston; and
the Reformed Synod. The vocabulary of abuse with which they
have long been familiar, suggested it to them ; and why should
they not. discover the kindness of their hearts, by applying it upon
every convenient occasion ? Such weapons, however,. ;injure
those that employ them, not those against whom they are pointed.
14. Last of all, as a fit conclusion of this fearful bill of indict
ment, against Mr. Houston, comes the charge, in which it is
averred that f the Autocrat of Russia, the<Qrand Seignior, or the
greatest despot that ever breathed, would be gentle as a lamb
compared with Mr* Houston's ' Christian Mwistrflte ' " •' / i '/
(Declinature, p. 17.) The sentiment on which, this.] allegation
rests, is taken from the writings ofthe excellent fames Durham,
one of the most Eminent of Scotland's covenanted sons, and is
frequently to be met with in the writings of other distinguished
reformers. So then, according to the Eastern Separatists, Dur
ham and his illustrious compeers, have .taught doctrines respecting
civil' government, which, would lead to, the wqrst despotism and
oppression; and to use their own tasteful jjcUmax, " 'the .Autocrat
of Russia, tlie Grdnd Seignior, or the greatest despot that ever

124
breathed, mould be gentle as a lamb, compared with" the Chris
tian magistrate which the reformers and martyrs of Scotland aimed
to set up ! ! Such are the sentiments of the Eastern Presbytery,
in relation to men and writings that were distinguished by a large
measure of the unction of the Spirit, and whose names will be held
in everlasting remembrance.
Any vindication of Durham's sentiments from -us is not required.
It is enough to say, that the obvious design of the reasoning was
to shew that the Christian civil ruler, being figuratively the father
of his people, ought to act in the spirit of a Christian parent, by
caring for the spiritual welfare of his subjects, and by repressing
whatever is detrimental to their best interests. It was never pre
tended that the similarity extends to every minute detail of go
vernment or management. The illustrations of the Separatists,
about a father correcting a child for " spilling its milk," "soiling
its clothes," not " using its pocket-handkerchief," and about ^'dis
missing his servant for the smallest fault, or without any fault at
all,'' are at once a specimen of Dr. Paul's vulgar sarcasm, and ofthe
fallacy ofthe principles which he frequently takes for granted. The
images of a father "correcting achild for spilling its milk," " not us
ing its pocket-handkerchief," &c, are certainly homely, if not ludic
rous, for a Presbyterial Declinature. And it is more than question
able whether a Christian parent, employing the rod of correction as
a divine ordinance, may apply punishment in such trivial cases, or
whether the Christian head of a family may dismiss a servant for
the smallest fault, or without any fault at all, — the dismissal being
regarded as a punishment, as the case under consideration neces
sarily requires. If Dr. Paul entertains such low and mistaken
views of parental obligation and. duty, it is not to he wondered at
that he should be often erroneous, in reference to the exercise of
magisterial authority. >
15. In the conclusion of the Declinature, we have the reasons
why the Eastern faction decline the Synod's authority, and sepa
rate from its fellowship and jurisdiction. By far the largest por
tion of the paper is taken up with Mr. Houston and his writings,
and they being found guilty of almost every thing that, is odious
and revolting,' it is as little as could be expected that; the. char
ges advanced, should be somehow or other fastened on the
Reformed Synod, that there might, at least, be some plausible
pretext furnished for Dr. Paul and his friends casting off all re
gard to a court,- to which they had solemnly vowed^subjection in
the Lord,- — some pretence afforded for setting off to establish. a
church on the ruins of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. A
brief notice of the reasons offered for this important step may at
present suffice : — .,.,,,-,
Reason 1st. Because the Synod have identified themselves
with the errors which Dr. Paul has pretended to discover in
Mr. Houston's writings, by " refusing to condemn them."
Answer 1. The Synod have never refused to condemn any error,
when it was known or proved to be such.
2. What Dr. Paul and his co-presbyters allege to be er-
rors in Mr. Houston's writings, are either truths plainly taught iu
the Standards ofthe Reformed Presbyterian Church, or in the ap-

125
proved writings of our eminent reforming forefathers, or absurd con
sequences which, Dr. Paul pretends', flow from these writings {
and for the Synod to condemn these truths, would be to condemn im
portant parts of the testimony, which they are solemnly pledged
to maintain, and the men and writings which they have been al
ways accustomed to hold in deserved veneration. The conse
quences which Dr. Paul strives, with all his might and main, to
extort from Mr. Houston's published sentiments, are forced and
illogical, flowing only from his own false and malignant construc
tions, and are utterly disclaimed by the Editors of the Coven
anter. 3. The Synod is in nowise responsible for Mr* Houston's publi
cations, nor has it ever identified itself with them, farther than as
they exhibit and defend the principles which all sound Covenanters
maintain. 4. All the proof of error in these publications, which the East
ern Separatists offer, is the mere assertion of Dr. Paul, which he
would convert into argument and demonstration by frequent re
iteration,— by deducing consequences which Mr. Houston and
the Synod indignantly disavow, — by obtruding his own lax views
of magistracy and covenant obligation, and by taking these
for granted, although they are manifestly opposed to the views
which' the Reformed Church has all along maintained.
- Reason II. Refers to alleged untruths, falsehoods, and calum
nies, with which the subscribers ofthe Declinature say they have
been loaded, and their characters aspersed, and which they aver
the Synod refused to condemn or examine. ¦
Answer 1. The prbof of these untruths and calumnies is the
simple ipse dixit of Dr. Paul ; and when, at different meetings of
Synod, he was allowed every opportunity of venting all his spleen
against the Editors of the Covenanter , he produced nothing' but
his own assertions, to disprove a single statement in the Covenan
ter, and other writings1 of Mr. Houston. It is easy to raise the
outcry of falsehood and calumny against ah opponent, and Dr.
Paul has just taken the course, which enemies of truth have
always adopted to get rid of a faithful testimony.
2. The Synod never refused to examine even the groundless al
legations of Dr. Paul against Mr. Houston; but they would not
trample upon their own acts, and precipitate the church into the
vortex of interminable strife and confusion, to gratify his desire
for revenge upon the Editors of the Covenanter, and his irrecon
cilable enmity to valuable parts of the Church's testimony,
3. Dr. Paul's papers are veritably libels against the Editors of
the Covenanter. The 150 alleged untruths are statements or prin
ciples brought forward on good evidence; many of them have al
ready been proved, and all of them can be fully established. The
Eastern Presbytery, by adopting Dr. Paul's method of making their
own assertion pass for proof, and condemning unheard, hope to
ruin the character of the opponents of new-light doctrines. But
neither the church nor the religious public will be influenced by
such virulent and barefaced attempts. The characters of the Editors
of the Covenanter stand as irreproachable, as they did before such
dishonourable attacks were made upon them ; and they are even

126
more endeared to those, who have learned to go forth to Jesus,
without the camp, bearing his reproach.
Reason IIL Charges the Synod with refusing to entertain the
complaints preferred in memorials from congregations and sessions
of the Separatists.
Answer I. The Synod have been doing little else, from year to
year > for the last six or seven years, than hearing sDr. Paul and his
friends reproaching the testimony ofthe Church and'the Synod it
self, and uttering complaints, because'the church would not coun
tenance thiem in their latitudinariart and divisive courses, The
Synod erred on the side of lenity, and forbearance towards those
who were trampling on all order ; and they have their thanks in
the -false and groundless allegations of the innovators. - -
2. Many of -the- memorials referred to, especially those from
Dr. Paul and his congregation and session, were expressed in,
terms so disrespectful to > the Synod, and they so openly pro
claimed the insubordination of those who 'composed and presented.
them, that no Court having a proper regard to its own honour
'would permit them even to lie on its table.
3. The! Synod's Act in requiring papers to be held in retentis,
till the^Sco'ttish Testimony should be adjudicated upon, was pas
sed,, we have seen, with the consent and approval of members of
the Eastern Presbytery. It bore upon papers from other parties
besides Dr. Paul and his friends, since there were memorials from
many congregations and sessions under th© care of -Synod, com
plaining of , the opposition carried on by Dr. Paul and his co-pres
byters against the church's testimony, and the injury that they
were doing to the church,— requiring that the innovators should
be brought to censure on charges exhibited,— desiring the Synod's
sanction to the Declaration, in overture, of which the memorial
ists cordially approved, &c. - These applicants had as good reason
to complain of delay as Dr. Paul and his friends, from whom had
arisen, of late years, all the: reproach on the testimony and minis
ters of the church. Had the Eastern Separatists been as much
concerned about the peaGe and welfare of Zion as they were about
their own honour, or the gratification of malice, they would have
readily acquiesced in the law of Synod to which they refer, and
their fJecfinature would not yet have seen the light.
., 4., The allusion to a lengthened delay, and ; to the Eastern Pres
bytery standing on "the pillory;" can only be taken to be an in
direct,; but easily understood, blow at the discipline and order of
the church ; and another of those countless aspersions which the
Synod, has endured, at tbe hands of these disorderly and factious
brethren. Dr. Paul and his party may see no difficulty in laying
aside a portion of the church's testimony, and adopting another,
without due deliberation; but this is, a course which has hitherto
been unknown to ecclesiastical, judicatories, that-were desirous of
walking by former valuable attainments. . There.is not the least
ground for the, surmise about de,lay in adjudicating on (he Scottish
Testimony, since g,U the members of Synpd uniformly discovered
deep concern to, have this matter speedily settled;
Reason IV. The fourth and last reason strikes against the Sy
nod's resolutions in 1833, with which the Eastern Presbytery ex-

127
pressed themselves satisfied, but which, as we have seen, they all
along set at nought. It is opposed to the resolution, which pror
hibited one minister in the church to write against another, and
which referred to the discipline of the church to settle disputes
among brethren. The " vindication of truth," they say, " com
pels" them to unfurl the standard of rebellion. What may be
their ideas of truth, we pretend not fully to know j but it is certain
that, in following Dr. Paul, the Eastern Presbytery have bitterly
assailed various valuable truths ofthe church's testimony; and
we have shewn that, on more than one occasion, they readily
joined hands with parties who have discovered unappeasable hos
tility to all the distinctive articles of that testimony. Where, in
any ©f their writings,, have Dr. Paul and the. Eastern Presby
tery put forward and. vindicated a single peculiar principle ofthe
Scottish Reformation? We know where they have virulently attack
ed and reproached several of them ;— .hut we have yet to be inform
ed where they have exhibited and vindicated any of them. .The "de
fence of their own character," we can readily believe to be so impor
tant in the estimation of Dr. Paul and his friends, as to impel them
to effect, their design of rending thechurch. They have; for a length
of time, manifested much more concern about their own honour and
interest, than about, the testimony, peace,, or purity of the church.
Their characters were never assailed, save as far , as they regard
the statement of the truth, and opposition to their new-light inno
vation, as assailing them; and surely they might have, entrusted
their vindication to the scriptural discipline of the house' pf God,
and the .piety :and discernment of the church. The step. they, have
taken, and- their proceedings, before and since they, declined the
Synod's authority, will not. tend, .in future. years,. to exhibit their .
characters in the most attractive light, and their, names will not
be cherished in the remembrance of those who lave: Ihe. peace
and prosperity of Zion.  . ..
"Division in our, church,!', they say, "we regard as mqst lar
mentable. W& greatly deplore it. We have done every thing in
our power to prevent it, hut we cannot avoid it. It is forced on
us. " The reader who has carefully perused the preceding part of
this narrative, will know how to appreciate these assertions. The
whole conduct of Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery,, for the
last seven years, flatly .contradicts them. From the: beginning of
the controversy, relative to the magistrate's power, till they with
drew from Synod, their measures and spirit were plainly divisive-
No union would satisfy them, but that which was .founded: on the
sacrifice of ..Covenanted principle, ona domineering, ascendency
for themselves, and on the destruction of the reputation of those
members of Synod, who presumed to.differ from thpro., We can
believe that they " greatly deplore "that they did, not succeed in
their designs. Union, on the footing of truth and love, they re
jected and scorned. Division they fervently sought, when they
failed in their object of moving the church from her ancient
foundation. In " renouncing your jurisdiction," they say, " we do not re
nounce our principles." This may be all true. They may have
been, and some of them probably were inoculated with new light

128
views, years before the controversy commenced. They may
have been traitors in the camp, keeping . close alliance with
enemies, and ready at every moment to sell the standard and be
tray the citadel. But the Verdict pronounced* , both within and
without the church, and even by some of Dr. Paul's admirers, is,
that he and the Eastern Presbytery have' renounced the church's
principles, — and have emancipated themselves from the trammels
by which . they were formerly held. Like other, • backsliders,
they would wear the mask ; and retain the name of Reformed
Presbyterians, while in principle they have abandoned the foot
steps of the flock. They challenge those whom they style
" Calumniators," to point out a single principle of, the Church's
Testimony which they have relinquished. As we suppose the
kindly epithet is intended for us, we might '. allege that the chal
lenge has been repeatedly met,* and the church, both in this
country, and in Scotland, and America, has been satisfied with the
exposure. Nevertheless, we shall, in the close of this pamphlet,
respond to the call, and briefly contrast truths taught in the
Standards and approved writings 6f the church with the sentiments
which have been avowed by Dr. Paul and his followers. We
shall then ask our readers to ." look on this picture and on that,"
ahd conclude how far the Eastern Separatists are still entitled to
the designation of Reformed Presbyterians.
In nearly the very next sentence, they themselves accept, the
challenge, and convict themselves of the abandonment of Cove
nanting principle. They say,— "With those Covenanters who
think that the civil magistrate should punish heretics and idola
ters, we would have borne for some time, but they would, not bear
with us." Now here they plainly declare they, are not the Cove
nanters who hold that the- civil magistrate should punish gross
heretics and idolaters; and yet this sentiment has been always held
by all Covenanters, from the first swearing of the British Cove
nants, till the days of Dr. Paul. If is declared in the Westmin
ster Confession, — embodied in the Covenants,; — taught in* the
writings of the most eminent advocates of the Covenanted Refor
mation,— and explicitly declared in Three Testimonies of the Re
formed Presbyterian Church, the Act, Declaration and Testimony,
the American, and the New Scottish Testimony. Now, what
does the declaration which we have just quoted from the Declina
ture of the Eastern Presbytery amount to ? Why, that Dr. Paul
and his followers have , entirely given up a principle of the
Church's Testimony, which is inseparably connected with other
valuable truths,— a principle which Covenanted witnesses have al
ways held, and which the three Synods in Ireland, Scotland,
and America, now hold. The Separatists, forsooth, are willing to
live in the church and eat her bread, if they are allowed to utter
the foulest invectives against this principle, and to asperse the
Reformers and present witnesses for maintaining it. The Synod,
* See " Christian Magistrate," in the authorities mentioned from p. 65 to p.
84, and in the notes, which arc adduced from the Confessions and Testimonies
of the Reformed Churches, and the writers of eminent witnesses for truth, in
relation to the magistrate's coercive power, and " Reviewer Reviewed," from p.
81 to p. 94. ¦

129
it is true, were unwilling to permit these invectives to be poured
forth from year to year, — but they all along erred on the side of
gentleness and forbearance. They instituted no process against
the assailants of the testimony, and the vilifiers of their fathers'
memory. Dr. Paul and his faction could not bear that the Synod
should go forward displaying the standard for truth, which they
had received from their fathers, and which was transmitted to
them by costly sacrifices. And, disguise it as the Declining gentle
men may, they forsook the Synod, and originated schism, just be
cause they could not bring the Synod to tolerate innovation, —adopt
their new-light doctrines^ — and join with infidels and others in
pouring torrents of reproach upon the venerable reformers.
The allegation about " virtual excommunication," which Dr.
Paul is so fond of making a theme of piteous complaint, is easily
exposed. It refers, we believe, to some congregations in the church,
that wished to walk in the good old way, refusing to hear him,
after he had broached his new-light sentiments, maligned his
brethren, aspersed the memories of the fathers of the church,
and opened wide the flood-gates of reproach upon a Covenanted
profession. This they did of their own accord, and in places
where the ministers of the Eastern Presbytery might have been
expected to possess much more influence than their opponents.
Dr. Paul " excommunicated " himself, by his opposition to the
Testimony of the church, and by his virulent assaults upon
her ministers. In some places, his latitudinarian explanation
of the Terms of Communion, and his political and Voluntary
harangueSj in addressing communicants at the Lord's table,
had begun to excite disgust ; but it was his new-light doctrines
and his disorderly procedure, that chiefly- induced the people tp
testify in this way their marked disapprobation. Surely this
might have taught the other members of the Eastern Pres
bytery, who followed him, that he was leading them away
from .Covenanting ground, as it forcibly declared to himself,
that the sense of the well-disposed and steadfast members of the
church was against him. That the people should act thus, is not
much to be wondered at. He had branded principles which they
valued, with every designation that was odious and revolting ; he
had held them up to the gaze and scorn of the community, as
sworn , to extirpate Romanists and others, every time they sat
down at the Lord's table ;* he had declared, that he and his co-
presbyters considered themselves disgraced by connexion with
those who held such intolerant and persecuting principles ;f and
he was publicly known to be on intimate terms, with those
who had published the most injurious aspersions upon the
church's standards, ministers, and members. After this, the
people would have been passive indeed, if they had willingly
* This he did in the discussion on the Auchinsaugh Renovation, in the Synod,
ihl837. t Dr. Paul made this remark respecting the congregation of Baliesmill, then
under the 'jurisdiction of his own Presbytery, at the meeting of Synod in 1838.
A number of ministers and elders, at the time, declared they held the principles
ofthe Baliesmill congregation, and that Dr. Paul's expression was an aspersion
on the whole body. B

130
received sealing ordinances at the hands of their reviler.
They exercised rights, which any people, similarly treated,
would have claimed ; and the only wonder now is, that, exposed
as they were to so much slander and odium, by Dr. Paul and
his allied they did not, in other ways than simply refusing
to hear these ministers, testify their disapprobation. '> The
"excommunication" of the Eastern Presbytery, we repeat it,
was their own act and deed, by their abandoning and opposing
truths which the church had all along held, and by their
following the trade of perversion, and slander. Least of all
have they reason to complain. On their own principles,' the
people surely had the right to exercise liberty of conscience
and private judgment, If they disliked the new mine of libe
rality and innovation, and preferred the old wine of Covenant
ing principle and order, surely Dr. Paul would not compel them
tp drink what they regarded as adeleterious nostrum, or to accept
as their physician, one whom they considered a self-opinionated
and reckless empiric.
There is no need for vindicating the Synod from the charge of
acting disorderly, advanced in the close of the Declinature, — nor
for referring particularly to the " sorrowful hearts "- of the Sepa
ratists in withdrawing, — nor to their " affectionate regards " and
" prayers "* for their " erring brethren,"— nor to their pity for
the " error" and credulity of the Covenanting "laity,''— nor to
their proposals to enlighten the church and the world, &c, &c.
All this may pass current with Dr. Paul's' .admirers,— -but to
those who value the truth, and who have attentively observed the
conduct of himself and his co-presbyters, for a number of years,
it; must pass for the mere " cant," if not of hypocrisy, at least of
innovation and schism. The Separatists have given little indica
tion indeed of sorrow of heart, for sowing division and con
fusion in the church; and they' have' never evinced therleast
reluctance to: expose to odium, those who resisted their disor
derly courses, — whether the 'Editors of the Covenanter, or the
whole Synod. They may have grieved that they could not move
the church from her profession^ and that they could not succeed
in establishing the reign of a spurious liberality ; but as to any
sorrow for dishonouring the church, wounding the godly, and
slandering their brethren, of this we have no evidence whatever.
And to say nothing farther, the Declinature itself, and the other
pasquils which Dr. Paul and his friends have published in the
newspapers, and circulated as widely as possible, since their sepa
ration, discover, plainly enough, the kind of " affectionate re
gards," which they entertain for the members of the Reformed
Synod , and the spirit in which they would offer prayers in its behalf.
This is not the first instance of men fasting and praying "for
* The resolution of the gentlemen who signed the Declinature, to pray for
" their erring brethren," is akin to Dr. Paul's declaration respecting the Editors
of the Covenanter, made at the close of. his venomous speech in the Synod of
1838 j after having ascribed to them the most odious principles, and la
boured with all his might to render them obnoxious to the whole community, —
after characteristically jumbling together things solemn and sacred with light and
ludicrous allusions, and appearing to the feelings or views of the worst parts
of the audience, he said " he would pray for them ! "

131
strife and debatey and to smile with the fist of wickedness ; " and
we may be free to say, that had these gentlemen discovered more
ofthe spirit of love and of prayer, in the, meetings of Synod and
elsewhere, many of their proceedings had hot been taken, — many
of their scurrilous publications had never seen the light.
The Covenanting "laity" can well afford to dispense with the
" pity "of those who have maligned the principles and the church
which they love. They are intelligent enough to discern the
character and tendency of Dr. Paul's sentiments, — they have
already suffered something for a good conscience, and for the
testimony of Jesus,— and he may rest assured that it is not all
the odium and reproach that he and his co-presbyters can collect
and heap upon them, that Will frighten them from the. standard Of
truth,— that will induce them to abandon their colours, or to launch
into courses of liberalism and innovation. We tell him, no
" efforts " are required *° keep the people " inignorance," audio
" muffles them."- Before he and his friends left the church, the
members that had any regard to practical piety, and to unity and
peace, were nauseated with his pamphlets, speeches, &<!., in which
the same shout of persecution, intolerance, blood, &c, Was kept
up incessantly, and the same stale arguments,— if arguments they
could be called, — were repeated," times without number. And,
now that the Doctor and his friends have betaken themselves to
the outside of the house, the honest members Of the church will
have little hankering after the same cold dishes, served up'to
them, perhaps a tenth or twentieth time, by men who have' thtfftra
off the mask, and plainly declared themselves among the most
virulent assailants or the Reformed Presbyterian Church. ' And if
they, sometimes, read his paltry publications, that" are obtruded
upon them by- Ms flying- stationers, we have no fear1 of his gaining
converts inthis way. The effect will just be, what it has already
been^the simple-minded members of the church will only regard
his writings with the greater disgust, — and they will cling the more
closely to the principles which he would root out;> and tor those
who are the objects of his rancorous hostility. '¦ '
To form a. proper estimate of the " affectionate regards " which
the Eastern Presbytery enteittain for their " erring brethren,"— the
ministers of Synod, and of their respect for the " laity " of the
ehurch, we may only notice, in conclusion, the insinuations and
charges which they throw out against them in the-very passages,*
ih- which they pour forth the sorrows of their hearts, talk of their
'r hearts, desire and prayer to God," and introduce theif ejacu
lations and aspirations, for restored union and harmony. They
speak of the ministers as ' ' sanctimoniously talking of the blood of fhe
martyrs,"—" publishing calumnies innumerable," — "walking dis-
orderlyv" &c. The laity they represent as " believing what their
ministers told them," — "seeing through a false mediums'—sub
mitting to be " muffled,"—" condemning before they hdar," &c.
And of the- Synod they speak as not Correcting " errors and calum
nies, as exercising- or countenancing the partiality and the tyranny
by which the peace and prosperity of the church have been.des-
* See last page of 'the- Declinature.

132
troyed," — and as manifesting, " instead of a spirit of conciliation
and peace," a "spirit of factious division," Such is the chari
table judgment to which Dr. Paul and his co-presbyters have given
expression, respecting the Synod, and the ministers and people of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church ;— such the kindly terms in
which they speak of former brethren ; and this is the spirit
in. which they would have us believe, — gentle, good men!—-
they desire the restoration of union and peace, and in which
the v stand engaged to pray for their " erring brethren." And as
they, close the " Protest and Declinature," we conclude our stric
tures, with simply remarking, that it presents a pretty fair and full
epitome of Dr. Paul's speeches, pamphlets, memorials, &c, in re
lation to the.inagistrate's power, that have been given to the Synod
or the public, for the last eight or nine years : and that, as it was
the first, published paper of the Eastern Separatists, after their
withdrawal from the Synod, it maybe taken as a declaration of the
grounds on which the new sect is constituted. From it, the
Covenanting community and the religious public may judge ofthe
principles and spirit of the men, who have obtained the unenvi
able honour of creating schism, and unfurling the standard of
faction and rebellion. SECTION X.
Proceedings of ihe Separatists, after their withdrawal from the
Reformed Presbyterian Church.— Their Newspaper Commu
nications, and Pamphlets.— Correspondence between Dr. Paul
and the Committee of Synod.— Communication of the Rev.
Gordon T. Ewing. — Deceptive adoption of the New Scottish
Testimony by the Eastern Separatists.— Dr. Paul's News
paper Controversy with the Rev. John Stott.— Contrast of
Dr. Paul's sentiments with the Standards of the Church* —
Conclusion. The length to which our Narrative, and the Strictures on the De
clinature have already extended, prevents us from noticing, other
wise than in the most cursory manner, the proceedings of the new
sect, since they separated from the Reformed Synod, and the various
publications which they have emitted, in accordance with their avow
ed design of" undeceiving" the church, — " explaining their princi-
ples,"-r-and " defending their characters." We have already related
the forbearing, conciliatory spirit which the Synod manifested, even
after the Eastern Presbytery had tabled their Declinature, and
withdrawn. Instead of proceeding to censure or suspension, for
contumacy and rebellion,— not to mention error and irregularity,
as the laws of Presbyterian Church Government would have
warranted, they sent a deputation to urge them to return to their
duty and their place in Synod, — and when this friendly measure
failed, through the obstinacy pf the Separatists, still the Supreme
Judicatory refrained from taking any step", that even malice could
construe into a design to expose the principles or injure the repu
tation of those who had divided the church. Whether the Synod
should not have publicly marked their condemnation of the prin-

133
ciples and practices of the Separatists, and in self-defence and for
the protection of the congregations entrusted to their care, in
flicted censure upon those who had violated order, we wait not to
inquire, — but sure we are, that the gentleness and forbearance
shown towards them, left it entirely out of their power to allege
that they were driven to the hostile measures to which they had
recourse. The Synod bewailed the infatuation which led Dr.
Paul and his friends to decline its authority, and separate from the
church ; they performed no act, on their retiring, that could be
considered as erecting a barrier to their return to dutiful submis
sion and friendly co-operation ; and we have reason to believe that
every member of Synod would have hailed their restoration to
their places, on the ground of their acknowledging the church's
testimony, and ceasing to introduce innovation and to embroil the
church. The course adopted by the Separatists displayed a spirit
the reverse of all this,— it was, in .fact, an open declaration of
war, and an avowal that no weapons would be spared that might
serve to sink the Synod in public opmion, and to exterminate
the Reformed Presbyterian Church. If their success has fallen
short of their anticipations, we are not to ascribe it to their
want of will, or their withholding of exertions, — but to the gra
cious care exercised over his church by Him, who makes even the
wrath of man to praise him, and who restrains the remainder of
man's wrath.
Very soon after the adjournment of Synod, the Eastern Presby
tery published, in several of the Belfast Newspapers, the Declina
ture which they had presented to Synod, and so anxious were
they to begin the war, that they did not wait ' even to correct
the palpable blunders and inconsistencies of the paper. It was
then published in a pamphlet form, — and every means in their
power was employed, to give it the most extensive circulation,
in this country, and in Scotland, England, and America; Per
sons who were known to be hostile to a Covenanted profession, —
individuals of loose character, were employed to circulate this do
cument, — it was handed about in public-houses and markets, to
members ofthe church, — it was sent gratis to persons in connexion
with congregations under the care of Synod, — it was diligently
dispersed among persons of other religious denominations, espe
cially Romanists, — and was industriously used, on all fitting occa
sions, to excite prejudice against those ministers who had resisted
Dr. Paul's new-light sentiments and disorderly procedure. In the
same manner was published paper after paper, of Dr. Paul and the
Eastern Presbytery, — such as "Farther Account of the Proceed
ings/of ihe Eastern Presbytery,"— heing the "Libel" of Dr. Paul
to the Northern Presbytery, and his Protest against their deci
sion.—" The Eastern Presbytery to the Reformed Presbyterian
Synod in Ireland." — " An Exposure of Persecution, by the Rev.
Dr. Paul,"—kc, &c. With these bitter philippics, column after
column of certain liberal newspapers* was filled ; and week after
* The principal newspapers which kept their columns always open for these
attacks of Dr. Paul upon tie Reformed Synod and its members, were the
Belfast Newsletter, and the Northern Whig, whose friendship to the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, need not here be related. ,

134
week, they, were obtruded on the public, and circulated, in a pamph
let form, ini every direetion where it was thought they would pro
duce any effect in exciting prejudice against the Synod, or in
helping the cause of the Separatists.
Now, we ^migbit ask any person of sense or candour, was this!
procedure calculated, to generate a " spirit of conciliation and
peace '"? Did it tend to restore harmony, and to heal the breach
that had been made ? . Truly he must have little acquaintance with
human nature, orwith.the rights of either civil or ecclesiastical So-
cietyj who. would hazard an affirmative answer. The Eastern Se
paratists, on all convenient occasions, could talk of peace, and of
their separation being but-temporary;— they could trumpet their
own liberality, in allowing some of their.followers to hear ministers
in connexion with the Synod ; they could declaim against the
illiberality of those who would not.counteriance their ministrations,
after' they had rebelled against the Synod and maligned -its cha
racter;, and,*toi their dupes, they could affect the aspect and lan
guage of grief, and-utter doleful complaints ofthe hard treatment
they were receiving 4 I -
Even had the Separatists furnished no previous grounds for the
alienation of the church's- affections from them, the publication of
the papers which we have noticed, was' matter sufficient to produce
this result. The worst enemies of the Covenanting Church' had
never advanced allegations more foul, nor imputations more odious,
against 'hfae 'Reformed Synod, than did Dr. Paul and the Eastern
Presbytery, in the Declinature, and other papers which' they pub
lished since their separation. To talk as they do, in some of these
papers, of future 'union and fellowship, with those Whom they had
thus aspersed and- vilified, was worse> than ridiculous. ' The spirit
exhibited in al the papers emitted by Dr. Paul and his bretbseri/
is the same that characterises the Declinature 'from beginning to
end* It is that of relentless .and insatiable malice,"towards the
Editors of the C&venanter, and of deep-rooted hostility to the
principles1 and order of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod. Hence,
the pamphlets and fly-sheets of the- Eastern Presbytery have al
ways been- special favourites with the church's enemies ; they are
arrows prepared to their hand, whiGh they can shoot at pleasure,
under the cover of the names of men who would have us believe-
they are still faithful and true Covenanters. ^Our space, at pre
sent, will not allow us to enter into, any consideration of the prin
ciples, avowed in theses papers; as far as these haVe not been -al-
ready noticed, we purpose to bring them under review in the *Sfe-
cond Part of this Narrative, We may merely give a sampleior two
of the spirit which pervades the pamphlets ofthe Separatists, to
wards the Reformed Synod. Passing over all they say about
Messrs. Houston and Dick, — the constant mark of their envenomed
arrows, the- victims of their implacable hate, — they speak of the
Synod as establishing ": iniquity by a law," — as bringing in- a- law
with which '-'thieves', robbers, and murderers would be delighted,"
which would "unhinge civil society," and introduce, immediately,
the "reign of anarchy." They insinuate that the Reformed Syr.
nod is i one pf those ' ' public bodies tlictt, have no, conscience.' f They
charge the Synod with ' ' tyranny andinjustice," and' " with a system

135
of ill-treatment, practised for many years.''* And then they go on
to pervert expressions of Scripture, and to appeal to " God and the
Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels." To all this railing, reply ©r
vindication isunnecessary, and appeals of the kind we have just no
ticed, in the connexion and spirit in which they are introduced, bor
der as nearly upon profanity as arty thing we could mention. We
only notice this tirade, to put it to the candid reader, whether it
was in this style that men would write, who could declare
that "no language can describe the anguish they endured,"
in their separation. If such statements are to be credited,
the Separatists can only mean, that the Synod, having come
to their bar, and pleaded guilty to the charges of tyranny,
injustice, want of 7honesty and conscience, &c, and having
renounced principles which they had solemnly vowed to
maintain, and which the church had always held, would receive
due censure; and then, on promise of dutiful submission, in
ah time future, to their sovereign masters, they would re
ceive absolution. The Eastern gentlemen well enough know,
that the Reformed "Synod desires no such harmony and
peace ; and as their writings and conduct have erected impassable
barriers to any other, common honesty would require them to
cease deluding simple people with the talk about peace and re
union, while their every word and action tend entirely to prevent
their attainment.
The most lengthened document that has been published by
the Eastern Presbytery since their separation, and one to which
Dr. Paul, at least, is in the habit of referring as most tri
umphant, is a paper which first appeared in the Belfast ' News
letter, and was entitled, — " An Exposure of Persecution by the
Eastern Presbytery," or ' 'Remarks on the Persecuting Principles
Contained in '¦ The Declaration,' read by the Rev. James- D^ak,
in the Reformed Presbyterian Synod of 1837." This paper,
which is stated to have been remarks of the Loughmourne Ses
sion, is that which was read before the Eastern ' Presbytery,
received its sanction at a meeting in Ballymena in i 838,- and was
shortly afterwards laid on the Synod's table. It was designed to
oppose the Synod's overture on Civil Government, usually cal
led the "Declaration.'''' It is as plausible, and deceptive, as
any paper that has issued from the same quarter, and may be con
sidered as an exhibition of the sentiments ofthe Separatists, in op
position to the employment of civil authority in behalf of true re
ligion. A* present we notice it, not to discuss the sentiments
which it puts forward, for our limits will not admit this, but to Call
attention to the. mode of reasoning which its authors adopt. The
"Exposure of Persecution " is properly a virulent, though studied
and well-planned attack, upon the New Scottish Testimony, and so
upon the Reformed Presbyterian Synod in Scotland. Of five or six
statements in the Overture, which are- selected for animadversion
by bir/Paul and the Eastern Presbytery, four of them are in the
very words > or in expressions equivalent to the words, of the New
t * See the* Eastern Presbytery to the Reformed! Presbyterian Synodm Ireland,
in the Belfast News-letter of August, 1840.

136
Scottish Testimony, and these form the grand subjects of the ex
posure. The reader will be convinced of this by' comparing pages
2, 5, 6 and 12, with the doctrinal part of the New Scottish Testir
mony, pages 163, 156, 157 and 158.* So, then, according to the
author of the Exposure of Persecution, not Messrs. Houston and
Dick, not the Reformed Synod in Ireland, but the Reformed Sy
nod in Scotland is chargeable with teaching persecution of the
worst kind,— is guilty of putting forward dark, ambiguous state
ments, and fallacious reasonings,— and of what is much worse, of
publishing principles that authorize " despotism," — tend tp intrp-
duce " everlasting contention, rapine, plunder, and bloodshed,"
—and would " dissolve the frame of society," and " depopulate
the globe ! ! " The Scottish Reformed Synod needs not. our de
fence or vindication. The sentiments which they have delibe
rately, and as far as we have ever been able to learn, unanimously
published in their Testimony, were under judicial consideration for
years. The fathers and brethren of that section of the Covenan
ting Church are well able to defend them, and Dr. Paul and his
allies may rest assured, that it will require much more than the
Doctor's logic, and sophistry, and declamation, to lead gopd men
of almost any rehgious persuasion, who know them, to believe that
they maintain such bloody and abominable principles as are as
cribed to them, lt was not enough to assail the Reformers through
the Editors of the Covenanter, — not enough to expose then}) even
in this paper,— the whole drift and bearing of it is to exhibit the
Scottish Reformed Synod in the most odious and hateful hght.
After this, it is manifestly most absurd to claim that the Separa
tists are in unison with the views of the, Scottish Reformed Synpd,
on the article of magistracy. None but those who make a trade
of deception, or who are duped by persons more knowing and de
signing than themselves, would venture on such an assertion. The
" Exposure of Persecution " will long hence subserve a purpose,
which those who gave it to the world, in all likelihood, never in
tended. It will complete the chain of historical proof, that the
New Sect are in diametrical opposition, not only to the Covenanted
Standards, and Reformers, and Martyrs, on the subject of magis
tracy, but also to the Judicatories of the Reformed Church in Ire
land, Scotland, and America ; and that any who dare to plead for
the doctrines ofthe Reformation on this article, however excellent
their character, and distinguished their talents and station, may ex
pect to be exposed to all the misrepresentation and reproach that it
is in the power of Dr. Paul and his associates to heap on them. ,
The " Exposure" contains several samples of Dr. Paul's favour
ite mode of reasoning, — substituting persons, where the Scottish
Synod had spoken of principles, or rites of worship, and punish
ment for restraint,'— omitting qualifying, or explanatory clauses,
— and leaping at consequences wholly unwarranted by the promises.
Thus, instead of Paganism, the "rites of Mahomet," and the
"idolatry of Antichrist," he artfully inserts " heathens, "— " Ma-
* The plea set up by the Eastern Separatists, in reference to this" glaring op
position to the New Scottish Testimony, is, that the expressions in question are
not in the body of the Testimony, but in the notes. We shall notice the futility
of this plea afterwards.

137
hpmetans," and " Roman Catholics," * and then he proceeds to
picture the destruction of" all civil and commercial intercourse,"
wholesale and universal massacre, as flowing from the sentiment of
the Scottish Reformed Synod ! ! And again, Dr. Paul argues
for legal protection in a reformed land, to those who publish
the most hateful and dangerous errors, and to the worst kinds
of idolatry and false worship. This is unquestionably a step
in advance of the " simple forbearance," with which he set out,
in his attacks upon the Covenanter; and we should like a disqui
sition from the Dr. about the difference between authoritative 'pro
tection of idolatry and false worship, for which he pleads, aadauthor-
tiative toleration, which he then refused. There are many other
points in the " Exposure,' Trom which it were easy to show the na-
tureand tendency of the new-light doctrines; such as the statement,
" no man is accountable in matters of religion to another man's
conscience," — the rights of errorists and idolaters, for which Dr.
Paul pleads, — the punishment of idolaters, under the law,— the
judgment from between the cherubims,— and the appeal now to
the day of judgment, Sec. &c. :— but we forbear to enter upon
these topics at present. Nothwithstanding the complacency, with
which Dr. Paul regards the " Exposure of Persecution," and the
marvellous effect which he ascribes to it, the principles taught in
the Scottish Testimony, and in the Synod's overture, stand on an
evidence and authority, which he cannot shake, — and will be va
lued by those, who love the testimony of Jesus, long after the
ephemeral productions of the Eastern Separatists shall have sunk
into oblivion.
Having thus briefly noticed the principal documents which were
issued by the Eastern Presbytery, after their separation from Sy
nod, and seen how little they were calculated to heal the breach, we
turn to the public proceedings of the Separatists, where theevidence
is greatly increased, that they aimed at the injury of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church. At meetings of, those, calling themselves
the Eastern Presbytery, certain members of Synod were held up
to odium, — papers that had been before Synod, containing slan
derous charges, were read, —and encouragement was given to
disaffected individuals, scattered throughout any of the congrega
tions, in connexion with Synod. An active correspondence was
kept up with such characters, — and- by means of them the fly-
sheets of the Separatists were pushed off ; and division and strife
were fomented in the most peaceful parts of the church. Preach
ing was granted in the bounds of congregations, under the jurisdic
tion of Synod, although in every-case, with the exception of the
late Mr. Gamble's congregation, the persons that had, any previous
connexion with the church, who countenanced the ministrations
of the Eastern Separatists, were very few, and remarkable neither
* This, it will be remembered, is what Dr. Paul has, without proper ground,
charged upon Mr. Houston and the Covenanter, when he represents them as in
culcating, that it is the extirpation of persons, and not of principles, that is in
tended in the Solemn League and Covenant. We have already exposed this
misrepresentation in our remarks on the first charge of the Declinature.
S

138
for intelligence nor discretion. * The congregation of the late Mr.
Gamble, under the care of the Western Presbytery, applied to the
Separatists for the dispensation of ordinances, — and all at once,
the Eastern Presbytery, though distant more than 60 miles from
them, received them, — appointed them supplies of preaching, and
the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They
afterwards completed the work of disorder and schism in this con
gregation, by ordaining over a part of it, a young man, — a licen
tiate, who received appointments from the Synod, after Dr. Paul
and others had given in their Declinature, and - having fulfilled
some of them, relinquished the jurisdiction of the Western Pres
bytery, when prospects pf a settlement under the standard of re
bellion were presented. Did proceedings like these manifest any
friendly feeling towards the Synod,r-rwere they calculated to keep
the door of accommodation open ? On the contrary, they were
thus trampling upon the good order which had hitherto prevailed
in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, — they were treating the Sy
nod and its subordinate judicatories with contempt, — they were
holding out encouragement to faction, — and they plainly declared,
that their design was, to divide, and subjugate to their imperious-
dictation, wherever, by violence or deception,f they could make
an inroad upon any of the flocks under the care of the Synod. No
unprejudiced person will pretend to say, that a course of conduct
such as this, discovered any friendly feeling towards the Reformed
Presbyterian Synod, and none, we are confident, will allege that it
opened a prospect of re-union and concord. It was however quite
in keeping with the course which was pursued by Dr. Paul and
his brethren of the Eastern Presbytery, for a long time before they
withdrew,— sowing disorder, invading rights, and injuring, as much
as they could, the feelings and character of members of Synod, and
all the while declaring that they were not the aggressors, and that
* Pursuing the method of keeping up delusion, which they had practised
all along, the Separatists and their friends boasted not a little of the members
that adhered to them, and that were opposed to the Synod. Thus it was told
that a congregation at Myi-oe, near Newtownlimayady, had joined them, because
some ministers of the Eastern Presbytery had been allowed to preach a few days
in a Meeting-house built by unendowed Seceders and others,— this congre
gation has since given a call to a licentiate of the Burgher (Scotch) Seceding
connexion. Forsooth, they had gained a great point at Boardmills, County Down,
because Dr. Paul preached one Sabbath there ! One small vacancy of the Eastern
Presbytery, Cloghmills, unanimously agreed to receive ordinances from the-
Northern Presbytery, and nearly the one half of another vacant congregation
under their care, Portglenone, also sought for ministrations from the Committee
of Synod. To counterbalance these losses, and the departure of several mem
bers from three of their congregations, having pastors, the Eastern Presbytery
could not boast of more than a very few individuals, from two or three congre
gations that adhered to the Synod; and we have not .heard of any from other
sections of the church, connecting themselves with them, notwithstanding all
their shouting about toleration and liberality.
f In some cases, to induce persons adhering to the Synod to join them, the
cry was, blood and death, — vast difference, — insurmountable breach, &c; but in
other cases, when members were to be retained by the Eastern Presbytery,
who were well affected to the Synod, they were told that the difference was only
about points of order, — that the separation was only temporary,  and that the
Separatists were most anxious for reconpiliation and re-union.

139
they were most desirous of cultivating peace and love. Tbe cha-
racter of these schismatical proceedings was sufficiently seen both
by the ministers and members of the church, — and many of them
hesitated not to declare that, had there been no other grounds
of preventing the reception of Dr. Paul and his allies, without
marked censure, their writings and conduct, after they cast
off the authority of the Synod, furnished reasons of the most
weighty kind.
It will be' remembered, that we have already related the ap
pointment of a Committee, at the close of the sessions of the last
meeting of Synod, to correspond with the sister judicatory in
Scotland, and to watch over the interests of the church till the
next meeting of Synod. Some time after, the committee met,
and resolved, on their own responsibility, to correspond with Dr.
Paul. As the committee have not submitted their report, it would
be premature to say any thing respecting the propriety or expe
diency of suoh a step ; but we are ready to admit that it was
taken, with the desire of promoting peace, and to bring about re
union. We have reason to believe that the overtures made by the
committee to- Dr. Paul were all of a pacific, healing natures-no
thing being said or written that was calculated to hurt feelings,
open up old sores, or excite prejudice. If the fathers and brethren,
who were concerned in this business,, expected to pacify the ring
leader of faction, or to bring fhe Separatists to a sense of their duty,
they were speedily undeceived. Dr. Paul rejected every proposal
made by the committee, and in his communication to them had re
course to his usual themes of declamation, making the committee of
Uo account, and in his own reckoning, at least, triumphing over them.
The committee, in consequence, after three meetings, agreed to
break off all correspondence with the Separatists,— having found,
by experience, what, from the spirit which they had often' before
displayed, might have been anticipated, that there could be no
agreement with them, but on the sacrifice of truths taught in the
Standards of the church, and by allowing them to dictate to the
Synod the measures which they should adopt. There was thus
added another to the many proofs which have been already given,
that Dr. Paul and his friends, whatever they pretended or said,
sought no- peace, but on a ground of which the history of ecclesi
astical judicatories furnishes no example, — that of a faction,- who
had declined the authority ofthe Court, and reviled its principles,
members, and proceedings, prescribing the terms of reconciliation!.
It must not he omitted here, that one member of the Synod's
committee,— the Rev. Gordon T. Ewing, — dissented from his
brethren,' in their resolution to break off Oorrespondence with
Dr. Paul. Not long, after, this gentleman gave publicity to a paper,
which, he informs1 us, he had prepared' for the committee,
but which they rejected. Of his previous newspaper epistles, or
the present puny production, we deem it beneath us to take any
particular notice. Its whole texture and spirit are in perfect
keeping with its author's1 course- of conduct, while a member of
Synod,— always manifesting a ready disposition to bring in the
Covenanter and its Editors faulty, but never insinuating that any
tfeing in principle or procedure was wrong with the gentlemen

140
of the East. This, with ample professions of impartiality and
disinterestedness, and earnest desires about peace often expres
sed, without saying ought in relation to the proper grounds
of peace and concord, formed Mr. Ewing's public procedure in
Synod ; and these are the prominent characteristics of his pamph
let. The church has already formed its estimate of the value of
Mr. Ewing's services ; and as his pamphlet, suppressing leading
facts, and blundering about the most familiar dates, can do us no
harm, the Separatists who get it into their possession, are quite at
liberty to make any use of it they think proper, to help the cause
of misrepresentation and innovation.
It only remains that we allude to the latest publications of Dr.
Paul, as discovering the same rancorous hostility to the principles
and ministers of the Reformed Synod, as he has evinced from the
commencement of the controversy. Soon after ihe publication
of the Exposure of Persecution, by the Eastern Presbytery, and
after Dr. Paul had treated with scorn the Synod's committee, and
the correspondence between him and them had been broken off,
the Rev. John Stott, a member of the committee, published a let
ter in the Derry Standard, in which he ably vindicated the Synod
from several of the aspersions contained in the Exposure; shewed
that the Eastern Presbytery were in reality assailing the Scottish
Testimony more than the Synod's overture ; exhibited the nature
and tendency of their principles, and defended the doctrine of the
Standards from their attacks. In this, and two subsequent letters
published by Mr. Stott, in the same paper, in reply to communi
cations from Dr. Paul, he discovered an extensive acquaintance
with the subject, skill in controversy, and candour ; and fully
established his principal point, shewing that Dr. Paul and
the other Separatists, had clearly abandoned doctrines taught
in the Standards of the church, and that they are diamet
rically opposed to the sentiments advanced in the New Scottish
Testimony, on the subjects in dispute. These communications, cre
ditable as they were to Mr. Stott's talents, manliness, and fidelity,
endeared him to honest-minded members of the church ; and as
they served in part to take off the mask, which the Separatists
seemed anxious to wear, and to display them in their proper co
lours, they could not fail to excite the indignation of Dr. Paul and
his brethren.
Accordingly, the Doctor replied to Mr. Stott, in three letters
. in the Derry Standard, which were, of course, struck off in a
pamphlet form, and put into extensive circulation. These com
munications have strongly impressed upon them the prevailing
characteristics, of the author's style and mode of reasoning,
— flippancy, perversion, occasional punning, and low allusions,
evading the points in question, deducing forced consequences,
boasting of his own writings, and of the distinguished char
acter of his co-presbyters, crying out intolerance and perse
cution, endeavouring to hold up his opponent as the sworn enemy
of peaceful Roman Catholics, &c. ; — these are principal features
of the letters, and were they taken away, what would remain in
the shape of reasoning, would-be little indeed. There are many
points in these epistles which we might select for animadversion,

141
but neither will our space admit of lengthened remark, nor is it
necessary. Our brother, Mr. Stott, needs no help from us ; he
has already answered many of Dr. Paul's cavils, and exposed his
perversions, and he is yet well able to reply to any that remain.
The Dr. may evade the question, and vapour about his own prow
ess, and sneer at Mr. Stott's youth, but this will not pass for con
clusive argument with any that understand the question ; and Dr.
Paul's vituperation and appeals to prejudice, instead of injuring,
will only endear his opponent to those who value the church's
testimony, and who are determined steadfastly to maintain it. One
or two topics in the Doctor's letters in the Standard, demand
from us a passing notice, — not in the way of discussing the sub
ject at issue between him and Mr. Stott, but to exhibit the position
and views of the Separatists. Dr. Paul evades the whole argu
ment of Mr. Stott, about the attacks of the Eastern Presbytery
being made, not so much upon the Synod's overture, as the New
Scottish Testimony, and about the notes of the doctrinal part ex
pressing the sense of the Scottish church, on the subjects in dis
pute ; and despite of his awkward attempts to get away from an argu
ment which pinched him, the case just stands as Mr. Stott has
stated it. — It is Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery, versus the
Reformed Presbyterian Synod of Scotland, — it is the Scottish
Synod and the Scottish Testimony that are the objects of the most
•violent distortions and virulent attacks, contained in the Exposure
of Persecution. *
Again, we are informed in one of Dr. Paul's letters to Mr. Stott,
that the Eastern Presbytery have adopted the New Scottish Testi
mony, without the notes appended to the doctrinal part ; and it
should seem they have also, since their separation, changed the
Terms of Communion and the Formula, for ordination, that have
been in use in the Reformed Presbyterian Church in this country,
* Mr. Stott shows clearly, that the Notes appended to the doctrinal part of
the Scottish Testimony were bound in with the Testimony, the paging being
continued, and reference made to them in the table of contents, — that they were
judicially considered, when the other parts of the Testimony were before the
Scottish Synod,— and in the nature of the case, they must be taken as express
ing the judgment of the Scottish Church, on the subjects stated and illustrated
in the Notes. In order to show, against Mr. Stott, that there is no absurdity in
the Scotch not being pledged to the conclusiveness of the reasoning of their own
Notes, Dr. Paul refers for a precedent to " one of the Synods of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church in America." He forgets, however, to tell us that this is the
New-Light Synod, who have abandoned the distinctive standing of the Coven
anting Church in America. It is the same body that, in one of their public do -
cuments, only speak of " highly appreciating " the British Covenants, instead
of recognising their perpetual obligation, — that have come to approve of the
United States Government, as the moral ordinance of God, — and that have of
late been proposing a union with another religious denomination (the Associate
Reformed), on very latitudinarian grounds. It is not strange that such a
body should advocate » lax and indefinite adherence to ecclesiastical stan
dards. Dr. M'Master is well known as the special pleader for frater
nisation of Covenanters with the United States Government. The Scottish
Reformed Synod agree in no sense with the American New- Lights in their
views of the manner of adherence to the church's Testimony, — they refer only
to "historical details," — and Dr. Paul knows very well that this is a different
matter altogether from doctrinal statements and arguments. The Notes in ques
tion belong, to the Doctrinal, not to the Historical part of the Testimony.

142
for the last seventy or eighty ; years, in order to have it believed
that they are with the Scottish Synod in their views. As Dr. Paul
mentions, at the end of this letter, that the Eastern Presbytery pro
posed to give to the public, " a statement of their adoption of the
Scottish Standards," which has not yet appeared, we are prevented,
at present, from saying much in relation to this step of the Separa
tists. While, the rapidity with which- these alterations have been
made, indicates the progress of innovation, and holds out the pros
pect of still more sweeping changes,* the deception, if not treachery,
with which the Scottish Testimony has been adopted by the Sepa
ratists, is deserving of particular observation. The notes on the
doctrinal part of this Testimony, express the sense and deliberate
judgment of the Scottish Synod on the magistrate's power, circa
sacra, — restraint and punishment of Open violations of the first
table of the law, — liberty of conscience, &c Of these notes, the
Eastern Presbytery say, as Dr. Paul- has quoted them, f — "The
notes appended to' the doctrinal part of the Scottish Testimony we
vegard,.— o» we believe they are regarded by the Scottish Church, —
as bearing no farther authority than that of the reasoning Contain
ed' in them, to1 the conclusiveness of which we are not to be con
sidered as pledged." This is expressed with sufficient- caution,
—but there is a snake in the ' grass which is easily detected.
Instead of regarding these notes as matters of indifference, the
sentiments which they teach are subjects of Dr. Paul and tho
Eastern Presbytery's unsparing reproach, and most determined op
position,' as' may be seen by referring to their " Expositre of Per
secution." The reasoning of the notes they style, " quite falla
cious,"— and ambiguous,-—and the principles which they incul
cate, intolerant, persecuting, and almost every thing that is odious.
In fact, these notes just contain the grand articles to which almost
all Dr. Paul's pamphlets, speeches in Synod, and newspaper com
munications, havebeen opposed for a number of years : — they are, for
substancejinperfectaccordancewiththesentimentstaughtintheCow-enanter, Christian Magistrate, and Reviewer Reviewed, and doin re
ality declare the very doctrines which have called forth so much
ire from Dr. Paul and his brethren against these pamphlets, and the
Editors ofthe Covenanter ; and they involve the principles which
are made chief grounds of the Eastern Presbytery's casting off the
authority of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod in Ireland. In the
|' Exposure of Persecution," these notes are charged' with teach
ing the Worst species of persecution, and with warranting univer
sal assassination and anarchy. According to Dr. Paul's own
principles and reasoning, the Scottish Synod must be persecutors,
monsters of cruelty, and the veriest bigots' on the face ofthe earth[
provided they believed whattheyhavepublished, and would actupon
theirprinciples. What ' ' authority thereasoning contained " in these
* Such an alteration in the Terms of Communion, and in the Formula, to accord
with then- views, which the Eastern Presbytery could not but know to be opposed
to the wishes of many pious members of the church in this country, furnishes
another proof that- the Separatists desired no future union, or only such as
they themselves will dictate.. ' y ucn aa
t First Letter to the Rey. J. Stott, in tha Deny Standard.

143
notes, bears with the Eastern Presbytery, it is easy to tell,— just the
same, as does the Synod, against which they have rebelled, or Mr.
Houston and theC4wewa«^e/-,thattheyhave aspersed and vilified. How
they can, at the same time, talk of adopting the Scottish Standards,
and of agreeing with the Scottish Synod, they can themselves best
explain, and their dupes may beheve them ; but we have no dread
that either in this country or in Scotland they will gain much credit
to the allegation. The deception is too obvious, the disguise too
thin to. conceal their views or designs, even from persons, of the
smallest discernment.
Even laying aside the notes, it is quite evident that the state
ments of the Scottish Testimony, both in the dootrinal and histori
cal parts, are opposed to the sentiments taught in Dr. Paul's writ
ings, and embraced by the Eastern Presbytery. Thus, it is de-
clared,~Scottish Testimony, doctrinal part, p. 99, — "It is his
duty to see that the violation of the moral law,— in open contempt
of the being of God, — in gross and public idolatry, — in open blas
phemy ofthe name of God, — or in open profanation of the Sab
bath, — >as well as by injustice, licentiousness, and violence, be duly
restrained, as scandalizing to religion and the church of God, as
hurtful to the peace and good order of society, and as provoking
the displeasure and rebukes of the Almighty against the nation."
In p. 104 of the same part, the Scottish Synod testifies against the
sentiment as an error, " that the repression of gross outward pub
lic acts of idolatry or blasphemy, is persecution;" and in the his
torical part, p. 108, they set aside the plea of liberty of conscience,
advanced to exempt persons of erroneous sentiments from restraint
and correction, and say, — " Who will deny that there are opinions
and practices so contrary to the hght of nature, and the known
principles of Christianity, and so injurious to society, as fully to
warrant magistratical coercion and punishment ?" We leave it to
any unprejudiced person, whether these statements are not plainly
opposed, to the avowed sentiments of Dr. Paul, while they are en
tirely consistent with the notes on the ddctrinal part of the Testi
mony, and with all that former authorised writings of the church
teach, upon the subject of magistratical coercion.
We are aware that the Eastern Separatists would persuade
us, that their views are not opposed to those of the Scottish
Testimony, when it teaches the duty, of magistrates to repress
gross and public idolatry. They explain " gross and public ido
latry," to mean "such idolatry as the worship of Juggernaut, or
the public processions through the streets of cities, where all are
compelled to worship the host," and admit that in such cases it
should be restrained. We only remark, at present, that, as Mr.
Stott has wgll shewn, the statement of' the Eastern Presbytery is
merely tantamount to declaring, that murder, injury to men's per
sons, &c, should be punished, — but that it by no means amounts
to the declaration in the Scottish Testimony. In plain terms, the
presbytery would have the magistrate to punish the breach of the
sixth commandment, but not that of the second ; they would have
him to restrain idolatry, merely when attended with violence to
men's bodies, or murder, and that under the notion, merely, of

144
crimes " hurtful to the peace and good order of society." But
the Scottish Synod declare it should be restrained as idolatry, for
they mention other breaches of the moral law, as objects of magis
tratical restraint, such as " injustice, licentiousness, and violence,"
—and they say it should be restrained as " scandalizing to religion
and the church of God," and as " provoking the displeasure and
rebukes of the Almighty against the nation," as well as " hurtful "
to society. It is, therefore, completely apparent, that, notwith
standing the Presbytery's explanation, they are still on Dr. Paul's
ground, and utterly deny the duty of civil rulers, in a reformed
land, to repress gross and open idolatry, as such, and also plead, as he
does, for " legal protection and favour " being extended to " the
mysteries of paganism, the rites of Mahomet, and the idolatry of
Antichrist ; " and that they are herein utterly opposed to the
Scottish Synod, who not only declare that " gross and public ido
latry" should be -restrained, but that " opinions "" contrary to
the light of nature, and the known principles of Christianity," are
a proper object of " magistratical coercion and punishment." The
deceitfulness of such a method of dealing with the Standards of
the church, need not be pointed out. The Eastern Separatists
can agree with the Scottish Testimony, and disagree with it at the
same time, — they can adopt it, and virulently assail it, — they can
charge upon it every thing abominable and revolting, while, for
sooth, they " have not departed " from it, and are " willing to be
tried " by it ! The church in this country and in Scotland will
form their estimate of such professions, and will recognise in
them the policy of those who embrace novelties in religion, and
become schismatics in the church.*
We may only remark farther, respecting these letters, that Dr.
Paul tries, as he has vainly tried a hundred times before, to shew
that his new-light doctrines are consistent with the Standards of
the church, by referring to the " Causes of Fasting" for 1823,
which he always' represents as the Synod's Causes, and to the
" Explanation and Defence ofthe Terms of Communion," and to
the "iShort Account of Old Dissenters." These, it will be re
membered, are the only documents which he has adduced, when
repeatedly called upon to shew the consistency of his sentiments
with the Standards of the church. Surely if the Dr/s system be,
as he would have us believe, in accordance with the testimony of
the church, he might have found in our approved writings, some
what more than two or three passages to yield him the shadow of
support, in opposing hundreds which pointedly condemn his sen-
* Dr. Paul, in one of Ms letters to Mr. Stott, finds no difficulty in forging an
expression, that he may expose the excellent Samuel Rutherford and Mr. Hous
ton, to odium and indignation. He says,— "The Rev. Samuel Rutherford and
the Rev. Thomas Houston were not mitred, and yet they could tell what punish
ment should be inflicted,— 'The very same punishments that were inflicted under
the former economy.' " Now, this last clause", given in inverted commas, as a quo
tation, and in italics, to produce effect, is neither an expression of Mr. Ruther
ford's nor of Mr. Houston's,— it is something worse than a pious fraud—it is a
malevolent forgery of Dr. John Paul, of Carrickfergus, who knew, at the time,
that Mr. Houston had frequently protested against the sentiment which he has
ascribed to hum

145
timents. , These few irrelevant expressions, he, in fact, brings for
ward, in opposition to all the authorised documents and approved
writings of the church, from the days of the First Reformation
till the present time, which plainly teach a doctrine that he denies
and opposes.
As however he clings to the statements of the " Causes,'' as his
miserable sheet-anchor, we may observe, that if the " Explanation
and Defence," and "Causes of Fasting" are to be taken, accord
ing to the construction which he puts upon them, then we would
have no hesitation in saying, that they surrender a great principle,
clearly taught in the church's standards, and as little in saying,
that we reject at once their explanation, and cleave to the stand
ards.. The vows of ministers at their ordination, and of persons
on entering the membership of the church, bind them to an ex
plicit approval of the standards, but make no mention of occasional
explanations, — and clearly they cannot bind to statements or rea
soning which explain away or deny any thing taught in these writ
ings, for this were to impose a self-contradictory vow. The
" Causes" of 1823, were, we believe, prepared and published by
a committee, and not by the Synod ; * and if they bear Dr. Paul's
construction, and deny and oppose the doctrine of magistratical
coercion, then that portion of them on which he relies, was
the result of inadvertence or treachery; and even had the Synod
expressly sanctioned them, as we believe they never did, the
church "could not be bound by them, for the Supreme Judica
tory would then have renounced a great article contained in the
standards which they had solemnly vowed to maintain. Under
stood in their proper sense, the expressions of the " Causes " teach
nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of magistratical coercion.
They take off an offensive meaning ascribed by enemies to the
word extirpate, as employed in our Covenants, and in this we
agree with them. They vindicate the church against the allega
tion, that men are to be converted from their errors by physical
force, and we utterly reject such a sentiment. But if the expres
sions are to be stretched out to oppose the doctrine of magistrati
cal restraint of gross and public idolatry, heresy, and blasphemy,
—then we say again, that the men who foisted in such a statement
were either overseen in this instance, or acted a disingenuous and
treacherous part. The Reformed Synod assuredly never adopted,
knowingly, the views of a modern Independent, on the subject of
the Christian magistrate's guardianship of both tables of the Divine
law. The expressions from the " Explanation and Defence," and
from the " Short Account of Old Dissenters," require no farther
comment than we have elsewhere given.f They declare, as we
have always maintained, that error in the mind is not a proper ob
ject of magistratical coercion, — that men may hold their opinions
without restraint,— and that it is only when they propagate gross
error or idolatry, so as to do injury to society, that even in a refor-
* Dr. Paul stated in Synod, that the writer of these "Causes," was the Rev.
John Alexander, and if we are rightly informed, there was at least another of
tie Separatists, a member of the committee, that prepared them.
f "Reviewer Reviewed," pp. 14, 15.
T

146
med state, tliey should be restrained or punished. That this is
in nothing opposed to the views held forth in the standards of the
church, and in the Covenanter, Christian Magistrate, &c, on the
subject of the magistrate's coercive power, while it affords no
countenance to Dr. Paul's views, must be apparent to any person
who properly understands the question. • j •
Having thus noticed the principal public proceedings and writ
ings of the Separatists, since their withdrawal from Synod, it re
mains that, according to promise, we meet the challenge of the
subscribers of the Declinature, and show, by a brief contrast, the
opposition Of Dr. Paul's published sentiments to the " Church's
Testimony,"— only premising, that we consider the Separatists
justly identified with his writings, since the Declinature and other
papers published by them, are just the essence of his pamphlets,
libels, memorials, &c, aiid that, on a future occasion, we may ex
tend this contrast, and add some comments, for which we have not
room in the present publication. db. Paul's sentiments.
" Sins striking against Gotl, and W>t s° Immediately -affecting the interests of
society, are not less now than under the law ; they are greater. ' Our light being
greater, these sins are more aggravated. They are not, however, tdbe treated in
the same manner. As God himself does not treat them in the same manner,
neither' should; we. As he has chahgejd.Ats.plEW ot discipline, we should change
ours also." — Covenanter Reviewed, pagp 45; j, ¦ ,
" We foolishly imagine that error/heresy, arid idolatry, are not so sinful now
as they were under the legal dispensation,— because they are irot punished by
such awful visitations. The very reverse, however, is the fact. They are much
more sinful. Their- criminaliliy- is- certainly uiulch enhanced by the immense su
periority of our light and privileges;.; ¦ Accordingly, we find that the punishment
then threatened, was temporal ; but that which is now threatened, is eternal."—
Ibid, page 45, 46.
" Some flagrant violators of the moral law of God are in this life visited with
terrible punishments,— some are punished, but not so severely,— whilst others are
scarcely punished at all."— Ibid, page ,54. , , ,
/ " Under the legal dispensation, God said to the idolater, ' I wjl^punish you
with temporal death; I' will cut you off by the sword of the civil magistrate.'
Under the Gospel dispensatibn, he says, ' I will punish you with eIehn al
death.'" — Ibid; page &&.
" With an infallible Judge to direct them, they might try cases of heresy and
idolatry, which, without such a Counsellor, it would be the highest presumption
in us to try. God himself was then their king, and, therefore, idolatry- and sin,
committed immediately against himself, was punished as high, treason, JJnt
this is no precedent for us npw, who have^no infallible king, and have no, oppor
tunity of obtaining an infallible decision."— -Review of Christian Magistrate,
page 73. •-¦?.¦ r
" Away, then, with the weak and ill-founded idea, that the punishment of
heresy, and idqlafry would have any tendency to eradicate these eivils,— that it
would operate as an example to deter others, — or that it would produce any one
beneficial effect," — Ibid, page 83.
" Though an old Catholic writer, Peter Dens, maintains, that because heresy
and idolatry were punished by the civil magistrate under the Jewish dispensa
tion, they ought to be so punished still /Catholics are now ashamed of 'such
persecuting principles. They deny and abjure them. The long period they
spe»t in the school of persecution, has taught them, we trust, some useful lessons.
The position in which they at present stand, fighting the battles of cjvil ftnd re
ligious liberty, is certainly well calculated to eradicate persecuting principles,
and to inoculate them with the principles of liberty and charity."— C'attses of
Fasting and Thanksgiving, by tbe Eastern Presbytery, pages 30, 31.

ui
" Dr. Paul concluded by moving, that, after the words, ' holding different opi
nions,' in the report, the words, ' or avowing and defending them,' be inserted."*
— Report of Discussions on the Magistrate's Power circa sacra, in the Synod in
Ballymena, in 1S38, p. 41.
The reader will please to compare with the above the following
statements from
THE STANDARDS OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
* And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices,
as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity,
whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation ; or to the power of godliness ;
or such erroneous opinions or practices, as, either in their own nature, or in the
manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to ,the external peace
and order which Christ hath established in' the church; they may lawfully be
called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church, ana by
the power of the civil magistrate."— Westminster Confession, chap, xx, art. 4.
" It may also be here remarked, as an undoubted evidence of the corruptness
of^hs state, that although there are civil laws presently iri-being, which declare
the maintaining of Antitrini tarian, Atheistical principles, to be not only criminal
but capital ; yet the civil powers in the nation have not so much regard to God,
and tile-Son of God, as to punish treason openly acted against them." — Act,
Declaration and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, p. 90.
" And therefore, that all who vent or maintain tenets or opinions contrary to
the established principles of Christianity, whether in the matter of doctrine,
divine worship, or practice in life, which are contrary to, and inconsistent with,
the analogy of faith, and the power of. true godliness, or destructive of that pure
peace and good order established by Christ in his church, are accountable unto
the church; and, upon proper conviction, ought to be proceeded against, by
inflicting ecclesiastical censures or civil pains, in a way agreeable unto the Di
vine determination in the word concerning such offences." — Ibid, page 160.
(' And who will deny that there are opinions and practices so contrary to the
light of nature, and the known principles of Christianity, and so injurious to
society, as fully to warrant magistratical coercion and punishment ?"f- New
Scottish Testimony, — Historical part, page 108.
Again, the Eastern Presbysery write thus : —
" With those Covenanters who think that the civil magistrate should punish
heretics and idolaters, we would have borne for some time, but they would not
bear with us."-^Deeimatwre, page 18.
"They (the sentiments of tho Declaration) are extremely exceptionable: —
they involve, — so far as we can understand them, — the entire system of persecu
tion. Let us- come to particulars. 'Nor is he (the magistrate) under less obli.
gation to withhold legal .protection, and all favour whatsoever, from the mysteries
, of Paganism, the rites of Mahomet, the idolatry of Antichrist, and every other
system of.iiajls,e worship.' "
* In reference to the merits of this controversy, it deserves and will secure
perpetual remembrance, that in this motion the liberal and tolerant Dr. Paul
would allcw no limitation or restriction upon the right of any man to " avow'and-
defehd "his sentiments, however noxious, save and except those that have1 been
avpwed arid defended by the Rev. Thomas Houston, whose works on the subject
Of Magistracy he would consign to the flames, and of coarse along with them
the writings of Knox, Rutherford, Gillespie, Durham, Renwick, the Westmin
ster Divines, arid all others that teach the coercion and .punishment of gross
heresy and idolatry.
* f'This cannot be Tegarded as a simple interrogation, as the Scottish Synod
must be aware that thousands in the present day deny that grossly erroneous
opinion's, arid 'idolatrous practices, should be coerced and punished ; and they
could not have been ignorant of the existence of some of Dr. Paul's late pamph-
. lets, which contain not only the denial of this sentiment, but the most violent
demnaation bf it. We are exceedingly happy to find our Scottish brethren
adopting this form of expression, in order to give a most emphatical condemna
tion of a spurious liberality.

148
" The statement on which we are animadverting would not only lead to .public
massacres, .but to private assassinations." -
" From the observations made, it must be quite apparent that the Declaration
would destroy all civil and commercial intercourse."
Exposure of Persecution, pages 3, 3, a.
Now let us hear the Scottish Reformed Synod on this very point:
" And while we consider that legal protection ought to be given to the religion
of Christ, we cannot plead the same for the mysteries of Paganism,— -the rates
of, Mohammed,— or the idolatry of Antichrist. And in contending for the -prnv
ciple upon which we make these exceptions, we cannot think that we expose
ourselves to the charge of in tolerance and persecution. "-~NewSc.ottishTestimony,
page 163.
Again, the Eastern Presbytery say : —
" The Declaration asserts that a Christian nation is bound to embody in its
constitution the laws of Godon both tables."
" And yet on this very basis the Declaration endeavours to erect the whole
fabric of persecution." Exposure of Persecution, page 5.
The Scottish Testimony declares : — ^
"When civil society has, by its own consent, embodied in its constitution the
laws of God in the first table, as it is under obligation to do, as well as those in
the second, it is inconsistent with the subjection of conscience to the Divine law,
as well as with the principles on which society is formed, to plead for a right to
violate these laws." — New Scottish Testimony, page 156.
The Eastern Presbytery add : —
" The Declaration assures us, 'that the civil restraint of those that, in propa
gating their erroneous sentiments, openly transgress the law of God, and the .
laws of society founded upon it, is not intolerance.' And again, — ' Authorita
tive restraint of the open violation of the first, second, or any other command
ment of God is not persecution ; for as no man has a right to violate the Divine
law, no right is invaded.' And again,—' It is no more a man's right to worship
an idol than to kill or to steal.' This reasoning, though extremely plausible, is
quite fallacious. It proves too much, and therefore proves nothing to the pur
pose. It proves the very thing it was designed to refute, — the charge of persecu
tion. It leads to the very same frightful consequences which we have been just
now exposing." — Exposure of Persecution, page 9.
"Nay farther, , on the principle laid down, the propagation of religion by the
sword might be justified. — The Covenanting civil magistrate might go forth with
the Bible in the one hand, and the sword in the other."1
" It opens a frightful door for intolerance and persecution."
" The Declaration goes on to say, — ' And there can be no valid objection to
the judge, who is, first, the Divine Lawgiver himself, secondly, the nation re
cognising his law, and embodying it in the civil constitution, and empowering
the representatives to carry it into effect.' To this statement we strongly object.
To us it appears quite fallacious. All persecution is founded on that sophism
which takes for granted the point in dispute."
" If it be said, idolaters were punished under the law,— were those who puni
shed them both party and judges ? We answer, No. God was judge. He sat
between the cherubims and decided difficult cases. It is otherwise now ; and
therefore we must appeal to the judgment of the great day."— -Exposure of Per
secution, pp. 9, 10, 12, 14.
Compare with this the declarations of the Scottish Synod :— -
" A right in'opposition to his own law, God does not, cannot give; nor is it
competent to any power to impart and sanction such a right. It is no more the
right of a man to worship an idol, or to blaspheme the name of God, than to kill
or to steal, though he may judge it proper to do all of them."— New Scottish
Testimony, p. 1 56.
" It is objected against all magistratical interference in any thing connected
with the first table of tbe law that it is persecution. But the restraint of an
open and gross immorality is not persecution. In this restraint no right is in
vaded."

149
" The question of persecution resolves itself into ariother respecting the rights
of man ; and this brings us to the law of God, tbe standard of these rights. And
as no man has a right to violate the law of God, the restraint of an open viola
tion invades no right, is no persecution." "But it is asked, Who is judge?
This question may be answered by another : Who is judge in ecclesiastical law ?
Who is judge in the case of the breaches of the second table of the law 7 If
there is a competence to judge and act in the one case, why not in the other ?
Is the law of God that unintelligible, ambiguous, and convertible thing, that no
definite meaning can be assigned to it ? The Judge is, first, God himself, the
great Lawgiver; and secondly, it is the nation recognising the Divine law, em
bodying it in their constitution, and empowering their representatives to carry
it into effect." — Ibid, pp. 157, 158.
" We speak here of man, not in the retirements of his chamber, where no
human eye seeth him, but as a member of society, and visibly exerting- an in
fluence upon it. And in this view, few will assent to the above sentiment,
(that it is the common right of all men to worship God in the way they think
proper) without excepting from the liberty granted, principles and practices
hurtful to society, or subversive of it. We go a little farther, and except from
the above liberty, principles obviously in opposition to the moral law, and sub
versive of the moral government of God. Principles of this kind are hurtful to
society : but, this, consideration, though necessarily connepted with the subject,
and important, is not to take the precedence of that honour which is due to
God."— Ibid, p. 159.
" Nor in this matter are we to confound the just restraint of an obstinate and
contemptuous blasphemer of religion, of God, and of every thing sacred, and the
exclusion of men of bad principles from places of power, with allowing them
to enjoy the protection of those rights which are common to men, while they do
not, in the propagation of their principles, offend openly against the laws of
God, and of society, and thus threaten the subversion of the one and of the
other." — Ibid, p. 161.
We have thus exhibited a contrast between the sentiments con
tained in the writings of Dr. Paul and the Eastern Presbytery, and
the doctrines of the Standards of the church. We might easily
have extended it to other points, but the quotations which we have
given may suffice to meet the " challenge " in the close of the De
clinature. Compelled to take up the gauntlet, we have only to
let the extracts speak for themselves ; and we have no doubt that
they will prove, to the entire conviction of every unprejudiced
reader, that the Eastern Separatists have "relinquished" more
than a " single principle of the church's testimony," and that we
are no "calumniators " when we have alleged, that, in withdraw
ing from the Synod \ they haVe withdrawn " from the Reformed
Presbyterian Church," — they have abandoned her principles, and
placed themselves in the attitude of her determined enemies.
CONCLUSION.
In the necessary defence of principle and character, we have
performed what we entered upon with reluctance. We have traced
the progress of innovation and error, till they have issued in schism
and separation, and originated another of the numerous sects which
unhappily divide the church. In exhibiting the progressive steps
of those who have relinquished the authority of the Reformed Sy
nod, and withdrawn from the church, we have had frequent oc
casion to notice the spirit by which they were actuated, the aid
which they furnished to the declared enemies of the church, to
vilify her principles and reproach her ministers and people j and,
above all, the contrariety of the published sentiments of the sepa
rating brethren, to the church's testimonies of an earlier and

150
later date; This opposition has been so mournfully apparent ill
so many instances, that none can doubt it who are not blinded by
party spirit, or have not been brought to regard with favour the
relinquishment of a Covenanted profession. If we add to this,
the avidity with which Dr. Paul and his friends have, all along,
seized every opportunity, that presented itself) to reproach the ve
nerable reformers and fathers of the church, and their embittered
hostility towards their brethren ; labouring to draw upon them
the hatred ofthe whole community, representing them as men of
hateful sentiments, we have the melancfaqly picture completed,
and the new party stands forth as having forsaken the footsteps of
the flock, opposed in principle and alien in spirit to the church
of our fathers.
The subject of this pamphlet suggests toahy solemn subjects o'f
reflexion. Another division of the church has taken place, — and
this effected by the declension of ministers of long standing, and of
acknowledged abilities ! The leaders ofthe peoplehave caused them
to err. Defection from scriptural profession, and schism in the church
are evils of great magnitude, and, in whatever sources they ori
ginate, they are much to be deplored. It is fearful to consider
the breach of solemn vows, which they, involve,, and the melan
choly consequences by which they are followed. The Lord hateth
putting away, — and the course of backsliding has generally been
marked by tokens of divine di'sappjohatjon, even m this world.
An increasing departure from principle; the decline of practical
piety in individuals and families; and a gradual merging into con
nexions ecclesiastical or pohtical, that are far from a scriptural
standard, are, among the baleful fruits that spring from this sur
render «f, a, faithful testimony. Men, goaded on by passion, or pre
judice;, concealed hatred to the, truth, or tlie love of sin, choose
their delusions*— and God generally gives them up to strong de
lusion. Deceiving, .others,, they are themselves deceived; and
galled by the, faithful exhibition of truth, or mortified jthat they
cannot prevail against those who, hold, fast thfirprojessiori, their
spirit becomes more and more rancprpus, while they still continue
_to profess respect for sound principle, and to declare that they
are actuated, !by the desire of peace. They " bite with their teeth,
, and, cry, Peace ; and he that putteth not into their xnpuths, they
even prepare; war against Jam."
In the view of such evils, the Lord's voice loudly calls to Cove
nanted witnesses, to " Hold fast that which they have, that no man
take their crown," . Under thest&ndard jpf our fathers' testimony, we
are safe amidst trials within the church, and exposed to the great
est conflicts from without* In keeping the word of Christ's pa
tience, the Faithful and True Witness has, guaranteed that we
shall be kept in the hour of temptation, that is coming upon the
- whole world to try. them that dwell upon the earth. He who was
with our father*, hy his Spirit to, guide' them m difficulty and to
; sanctify, and comfort thera, and , fey his power to sustain them and
render them triumphant in suffering j will be present with all who
iwalk by the footsteps of the flofik, to hide them frpni the strife pf
tongues, to support them in the .evil day, and/to own and bless
their labours. What would it avail us to abandon the testimony

151
of Jesus ? The favour and applause of the erroneous and irreli
gious are but a poor recompense for the sacrifice of a good cons
cience ; and nothing on earth can furnish a solid ground of peace
and comfort, if we incur the displeasure of Him whose name is
Jealous, — of Him who, while he walketh amidst the golden can
dlesticks, has his eyes like a flame of fire.
> To ministers and office-bearers ih the church, the transactions
which we have recorded, speak in the language of solemn admo
nition. Let us be watchful against those evils that have seduced
others into courses of backsliding. W e should beware of associ.
ation with thpse who undervalue the testimony of Jesus, or of
fcon&derating with the political parties of the day. Let us avoid
a divisiVe, self-seeking spirit,-*— Cultivate personal piety, give our
selves wholly to the work to which we have been appointed, and
labour together in prayer, that the Lord would pour out his Spirit
upon a faithful remnant, and repair the desolations of Zion. And
in a trying, and shaking time, discarding all considerations of our
own ease, reputation, and worldly interest, we should keep ever
before us the solemn command and gracious assurance of our ex
alted Lord,—" Be thou faithful unto the death, and I will give
thee a crown of life."
The members of the church too should improve these trials, by
abounding in all holy duties. By the defection of standard-bear
ers, and persons of long standing, they are taught that there is no
confidence to be placed in man. Let them trust in the name of
the Lord, — let them go to the mercy-seat, andlive near it; and when
enemies belie their principles, and cast out their names as evil ; let
them, as did their illustrious forefathers, aim to be blameless, and
without rebuke amidst a crooked and perverse generation, — shining
as lights in the world, and adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour
in all things. To any candid, and well-minded persons, who still
value a Covenanted Testimony', though they have been deluded
by the representations of those, who have abandoned the testimony
ofthe church, or have in their simplicity followed them, we would
say,— give the statements which we have submitted an unpreju
diced consideration. Weigh the matters which they present, in
the light of your solemn voWs, and of your duty to the present
and to future generations. The history of all past defections
warrants us to say, that a few years will disclose the evil tendency
of the principles and measures of those who have aeceded from the
testimony of our fathers, and will put them to shame. Let those
who have, for a season been -under deception, speedily retrace the
"steps into which they were unconsciously led, — and, displaying
again a faithful standard for truth, let them seek, by walking in
the footsteps of the flock, the protection and refreshment adminis
tered by the Shepherd of Israel.
There is no ground of discouragement to right-hearted men
from these trialsl Division is not unfrequently the result of
awakening times in the church,— of the revival of sound principle,
and of holy practice. Evils that had lain long concealed, are at
such a season brought to light,— and persons who disrelish the
testimony, and have no heart to spiritual efforts, are driven away.
However unpleasant and trying a winnowing process may be in

152
the church, our comfort is, that the fan is in the Redeemer's hand,
that in love and mercy he purges the floor, and that the trial miist
ultimately contribute to the strength and beauty, the stability and
fruitfulness-of Zion. While lamenting the evil effects of discord
and division in the church, and preparing for future trials, let us
admire the doings of Him who is excellent in council and won
derful in working. Let us wait on the Lord, who hideth himself
from the house of Jacob : and however men may vilify and reproach,
let us rest assured that the Lord will, in due time, arise and plead
his own cause, and hasten on the era of Zion's joyful and glorious
deliverance. " Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion ,- for
the time to favour her, yea the set time is come. For thy servants
take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof. "

END.

KELSO, PRINTER, BELTABT-

THE FOLLOWING WORKS, BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
MAY BE HAD AT THE PUBLISHERS' ;
A Pastoral Address to the Members and other individuals connec.
ted with the Reformed Presbyterian Congregation of Knockbracken. — 12mo.,
pp.50,
The Christian Magistrate ; A Discourse, with an Appendix,— 8vo.,
pp. 124.
The Reviewer Reviewed, and The Covenanter and Testimony of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church Vindicated, from the Perversions and
Groundless Allegations of the Rev, John Paul, in a pamphlet, entitled, " The
Covenanter Reviewed, and Persecution Condemned,"— 8vo., pp. 123.
The Faithful Minister's Walk with God, Removal by Death, and
Future Glory: A Discourse, delivered at Rathfriland, on Sabbath, 14th May,
1837, on the occasion of the Death of the Rev. John Stewart, Pastor of the
Reformed Presbyterian Congregation, Rathfriland.— 8vo,, pp. 66,
' The Duty of Nations favoured with Divine Revelation to Promote
; Scriptural Education ; In Two Discourses.— <8vo., pp. 105.
fcf* A fen Copies of any ofthe Ten published Volumes of ihe
Covenanter may also be obtained, on application to our Pub*
Ushers,