faithfulness is very obvious from
the following observations: 1. Hereby they have cast a most injurious
calumny and reproach upon our honored reformers, and in their pretending
to imitate their practice, in renovation of the covenants, are guilty of
a most dreadful and deceitful imposition on the generation; for though
our reformers did renew the covenants with a new bond, and perhaps very
seldom swear them without some additions, yet they never went back from
any part of reformation, espoused, and sworn to in the renovations that
were before them, under a pretense, that such points of reformation
formerly attained, were unsuitable, or not adapted to their
circumstances, as _Seceders_ have done. On the contrary, our reformers,
in all the different renovations of the covenants, not only included all
that was formerly attained to, binding themselves in strict adherence to
all the articles priorly in the oath and covenant of God (at the same
time solemnly acknowledging all former breaches thereof; and obliging
themselves, in the strength of grace to the performance of the contrary,
and consequential duties), but also, still went forward in explaining
and more explicitly applying the covenants against the sins of the day,
and more expressly binding themselves to the opposite duties, as is
clear from the bond wherewith our reformers renewed the covenants 1638,
and the solemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, 1648;
both which the _Seceders_ have barefacedly cast by and exploded in their
alleged renovation of the covenants; whereby, as it is manifest that our
reformers always went forward to further degrees of reformation, so it
is no less manifest, that foresaid party acting contrary to them, have
gone backward. But 2d. They have not only rejected the renovations of
the covenants by our ancestors 1638 and 1640; but even when they
pretended to follow the renovation of the covenant, 1580 and 1581, they
have kept out and perverted almost the whole of the national covenants,
as was already observed; particularly in their new bond, they have cast
away the civil part of the covenants altogether. For what reason they do
so, is indeed hard to say. True, they allege it would be a blending of
civil and religious matters together; and that it is not proper (or
competent for them, as a church judicatory) to meddle in these matters
that are of a civil nature. But seeing infinite wisdom has not judged it
a (sinful) blending o