4.  On the doctrine of the divine ordinance of civil government, this church has all along been unsound; as is fully evidenced in the practice of her members, which has been similar to that of Seceders.  Our testimony against the latter is, in this particular, equally directed against the former.

5.  This church has appeared as the advocate of a boundless toleration, conforming her views and policy in a most servile manner to the infidel model presented in the civil constitutions of republican America.  It would seem, indeed, that this body aimed at conforming their ecclesiastical polity to that standard, from the fact that the very symbol of their profession as a corporate body, is designated the “Constitution of the Associate Reformed Church”—­a designation which might be considered as militating against the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures.  In this Constitution a sphere is assigned to conscience, which is incompatible with due subjection to the Supreme Lawgiver.  As well might the will, or any other faculty of the soul of man, be invested with this impious supremacy, and immunity from control, by any authority instituted on earth by the only Lord of conscience.  Jehovah will rule the consciences of his creatures, as well as their judgments and wills, by his holy law, in the civil commonwealth, in the church and in the family.

6.  The unfaithfulness of this body appears further, in shunning to declare the divine right and unalterableness of Presbyterial Church Government, she testifies not against Prelacy or Independency.  If this church is Presbyterial in practice, it is on no better footing than that of the Revolution Church of Scotland.

7.  The purity of divine worship is not guarded by the terms of fellowship in this church.  It is true, “No Hymns merely of human composure, are allowed in her churches.”  But what mean these guarded terms and phrases, “merely;” “churches?” The best interpretation of these cunningly contrived expressions is supplied by the practice of those ministers of the body, who scruple not to offer unto God “hymns merely of human composure” when occupying pulpits of other denominations, or sojourning for a night in families where these hymns are statedly used.  It is known that this part of the order of public worship has been submitted in some instances, to the voice of the congregation by their pastor; thus manifesting in the same act, latitudinarianism in regard both to the government and worship of the house of God.

Lastly, to specify no further—­Laxity of discipline is observable in this church.  She has always admitted to her fellowship, and to a participation in her special privileges (the seals of the covenants), persons who openly deny the divine warrant for a fast in connection with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; yea, who ridicule that part of the solemnity as superstitious!  The same privileges are granted in this church to such as habitually neglect the worship of God in the family.  Nor does this church inculcate or enjoin, as a part of Christian practice, fellowship meetings for prayer and conference.  We must, as witnesses for the cause of Christ, solemnly protest against these sentiments and correspondent practices, as inconsistent with the scripture and the reformation attainments of our covenant fathers.