Remarks on a letter addressed to the members of the old church of Scotland by "an Old Dissenter" (John Dow)

In 1822, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland changed her terms of communion. After a period of internal controversy, the Synod, without proper presbyterial procedure, reworked the fourth term of communion by eliminating reference to the Auchensaugh Renovation of the covenants, National and Solemn League, of 1712. In its place they put a more general statement regarding the obligation of the descendants of Covenanters. Even many, later thought theological conservatives, thought the older term obsolete. The result should have been anticipated. Indeed, RP minister James Reid, who wrote the classic book “Memoirs of the Westminster Divines” (1811), declined the authority of the Synod along with a small number of members who perceived the true nature of the problem. What they had done was move from a more pointed testimony to one more loose and evasive. By the time the Scottish RP Synod split, in 1863, with the majority eventually merging with the Free Church, those in the minority had clearly lost their way. They were left contending for particular applications of the Covenanter testimony whilst drifting themselves ever farther. The Scottish church, in 1822, had taken up the same ground as the American RP had in 1806/7 with its “Reformation Principles Exhibited.” It had decided to divorce the church’s testimony from her history. Once that was accomplished, all that remained was a theological fire sale where various points of doctrine and practice were routinely sacrificed upon the altar of compromise hoping to avoid the inevitable—the “New Lights” and their total departure from the historical principle as practiced by the RP church.

We know almost nothing about the author of this work, John Dow, other than, he was probably a printer by trade responsible for printing some of the early RP Scottish magazines of the 19th century. Additionally, he was an attentive student to the doctrine of testimony bearing, its relation to historical testimony and the need for having clear and historical terms of communion. Dow traces the origins of controversy over retaining the Auchensaugh bond in the fourth term of communion and shows the mentality of those who are advocates of theological and ecclesiastical downgrade. It should come as no surprise to discover that a declining majority has always been quick to accuse a minority determined to uphold the testimony of the church with charges of schism and lawless separation. It should come as no surprise that those most keen on departing from the doctrine and practice of the church are also the ones most eager to retain the name. Dow shows the duplicity of the actors, the deceitfulness of their arguments and the dangerous tendencies of their doctrine.

In an age where few stop to consider what makes a group a “sect” or a “schism” from the body; or, what a particular church really is, according to our Reforming forefathers, Dow’s work points the way. It is often not easy reading; it often will involve wading into what, for the reader, may be uncharted territory; but, in the end, struggling to understand this controversy will bring the reader into a better position to understand the solution to Protestantism’s worst disaster—“denominationalism.” Should any believe themselves to be “non-denominational,” the delusion is deeper. Nations profess religions in their civil organizations. The only question is, will it be the true or the false? In America, authoritative toleration, the Erastian heresy, has overshadowed the churches of the land. Theology is in serious decline and ecclesiology is altogether neglected. Tolle lege.

свернуть