fellowship their former brethren; the nature of the case evinces a disposition to unmitigated tyranny.  This state of things we think has not been generally understood.  We shall here endeavor to render it intelligible.  The fact of organizing that church (the Associate Reformed) said to both Covenanters and Seceders “It is your duty to dissolve your respective organizations, and join us.”  This is undeniable.  The Covenanter or Seceder replies by asking—­“What iniquity have you or your fathers found in us, that you forsook our communion?” &c.  “Not any,” replies the Associate Reformed Church; “only some trifling opinions peculiar to you severally which we deem unworthy of contending about.  Only join our church, and we will never quarrel with you, relative to your singularities.”  “Ah,” replies the other party, “the matters about which we differ, are trifling in your account; how then could they be of such magnitude as to warrant your breaking fellowship with us?  What you call trifles, peculiarities, &c, we cannot but still judge important principles, sealed by the precious blood of martyrs:  must we deny these or bury them in silence, to gain membership in your new church?  Is this the nature and amount of your professed charity?  This is not that heaven-born principle ‘that rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.’  You break fellowship for what you esteem mere trifles—­you propose to us a new term of communion, with which it is morally impossible that we should comply, without doing violence to our consciences.  Is this charity or tyranny?”

2.  Although covenanting was declared by this body at their origin, to be an “important duty,” they never recognized the solemn deeds of their fathers as binding on them; nor have they ever attempted the acknowledged duty in a way supposed to be competent to themselves.  Nay, the obligation of the British covenants has been denied both openly and frequently from the pulpit and the press; and even attempts have been made, not seldom, by profane ridicule, to bring them into contempt.  The very duty of public, social covenanting, either in a National or ecclesiastical capacity, has been often opposed in the polemic writings of the ministers of this body, however often inculcated and exemplified in the word of God.  The moral nature of the duty taken in connection with prophetic declarations, to be fulfilled only under the Christian dispensation, demonstrates the permanency of this divine ordinance until the end of the world.

3.  This church set out with unsound views of church fellowship, as has been already in part made appear.  But when their position came to be more pointedly defined, they made the novel distinction between fixed and occasional communion.  The practical tendency of this unscriptural experiment was necessarily to catholic communion, which theory was soon advocated by some of the most prominent of the ministry; and accordingly eventuated in the merging of a large number of her ministry and membership, in the communion of the General Assembly.