BROTHER MODERATOR:

      Reverend and Dear Sir--At the meeting of the Committee of Consultation in Richhill, on the second Tuesday of October last, according to appointment, for concerting a plan of union between the two bodies of Seceders in this kingdom, the evil nature and tendencies of our unhappy division occupied, for some time, the serious consideration of the Committee.

      It appeared to us, indeed, a matter truly deplorable, that, in the circumstances in which the Lord has placed us, there should not exist the most perfect harmony among all the sincere friends and lovers of the truth as it is in Jesus; and that all such were not united in one common, energetic co-operation in the grand cause of truth and righteousness, under the banner of one common, comprehensive, and faithful testimony. More especially that a respectable body of professing Christians, in a declared secession from the surrounding Churches, on account of their heterodoxy, and other prevailing enormities, should be divided among ourselves; while, at the same time, there exists no real difference between theta in doctrine, worship, discipline, or government.

      This, our unhappy division, appeared to us an evil of no small magnitude, whether abstractly considered as [210] inconsistent with the genius and spirit of the Christian religion, which has union, unity, and communion in faith, hope, and love, for its grand object upon earth, or whether considered in its hurtful tendencies, as marring and embarrassing the cause which it was the grand object of the secession to promote. For has it not exposed the zealous contenders for a reformation, on both sides, to the contempt and jeer of the scorners, and filled the mouths of scoffers with reproach and obloquy? Has it not been fraught with the awful consequence of distracting, disturbing, and dividing the flock of the Lord's heritage, and of sowing discord among the brethren? Has it not been productive of a party spirit, both among ministers and people, stirring up and promoting an unhappy disposition of evasion and reprisals upon the boundaries of their respective communities? Has it not had an awful tendency to relax discipline, or render it abortive, by opening a door of escape to the delinquent, or by its dissuasive influence upon ministers and sessions, for fear of losing the subject, in case he should take offense? Has it not had a very embarrassing tendency with respect to many of the serious and well-meaning, when they, seeing our division, upon inquiry, find that the subject-matter of our difference is not to be found either in the Old or New Testament?

      Affected with a sense of those lamentable evils, (the manifest result of our unhappy division,) we proceed, in the next place, to inquire by what means those grievances might be fairly and amicably removed.

      After a conversation upon this head, finding no existing difference either in faith or practice between the two bodies of Seceders in this kingdom, we could not reasonably affirm that there was any existing cause of division; and that, of course, no manner of necessity for continuing in a state of actual separation where there was no actual existing cause; more especially as that branch of the secession Church in this kingdom known by the name of Burghers exists in an [211] independent and separate capacity front those of the same denomination in Scotland, and so, of course, no longer influenced by their decisions or administrations.

      Upon these grounds, as matters of incontrovertible evidence, we were again obliged to conclude that the nominal division subsisting here was, at best, a distinction without any real difference, that could, in less or more, affect the grand cause of secession within the limits of our actual jurisdiction in this kingdom, and, at the same time, that our unfounded division was, and must be, prejudicial to the interests of the common cause in which we are all equally embarked. It would be of no use to our brethren of' either sect in Scotland, where the grounds of the unhappy controversy at first originated, and does still, in some measure, continue to exist. The way being so far clear, there appeared no manner of doubt concerning the propriety and high expediency of carrying the desired coalescence into effect.

      The manner of essaying this, however, appeared to us a matter of such peculiar delicacy, in respect of the particular views and feelings of our brethren on both sides, that we could have wished to have rested, with a simple declaration of our opinion as above. But, apprehending that, from the nature of the task imposed upon us, something further would undoubtedly be expected, we ventured to sketch out the following plan, relying upon the candor and sympathy of our brethren, that, upon receiving extracts of it, they would favor us with their friendly animadversions; that so collecting all the information we could, we might at, our next meeting, revise, alter, or remodel the whole question, as we could understand the wish and views of our sincerely-esteemed and much-respected brethren.

      Reverend and dear sir, having thus given you a succinct account of our proceedings, I subjoin a draft of the determinations in which we all unanimously acquiesced for the present until we should receive further information; at the same [212] time earnestly requesting your assistance, either by letter or otherwise, just as opportunity may serve.

      I am, with all due respect, reverend and dear Sir, your unworthy fellow-servant,

THOMAS CAMPBELL.      

      PROPOSITION 1. That it is the opinion of this Committee that a union of both denominations of Seceders in this kingdom would, through the Divine blessing, contribute much to the edification of the Church, and to the credit of religion.

      PROPOSITION 2. That while we recollect with sorrow the melancholy consequences of our unhappy divisions, which have alienated affections on both sides, and tended rather to exaggerate our mutual infirmities than to heal and cover them, being heartily desirous that these evils may proceed no further, we are of opinion that, in existing circumstances, it is our incumbent duty to avoid all animadversions, or all direct or indirect criminations of either party, with regard to past ground of differences, which might tend rather to gender strife than to edify one another in love.

      PROPOSITION 3. That the circumstances in which the Lord has placed the secession Church in this kingdom do not render a judicial decision concerning oaths, disputed in Scotland, a necessary part of testimony-bearing in this land.

      PROPOSITION 4. That seeing both denominations of Seceders in Ireland are of one sentiment in the grand abstract or covenanted system of doctrine, worship, discipline, and government contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, Presbyterian Form of Church Government, and Directory for Worship; and seeing that the judicial decision about oaths in Scotland can be no actual subject of testimony-bearing here, much less a term of communion among us; therefore., it appears that there is nothing to prevent the two bodies of Seceders in this land to unite in a bond of a common testimony adapted to their local situation. [213]

      PROPOSITION 5. That such a testimony should be emitted and adapted to our circumstances, as a branch of the secession Church in this part of the United Kingdom, as would, at the same time, preserve every article in the original testimony emitted by the Associate Presbytery, in so far as said articles may appear in any wise effective of the grand object of testimony-bearing among us.

      I here take the liberty of subjoining the following query, which was proposed to the consideration of the Committee, as it seems to be at the root of the matter of our present deliberations:

      QUERY. Is it not sufficient, to vindicate the faithfulness of any branch of the Church resident in any kingdom or state, that a faithful testimony be borne by her, in her collective capacity, against the errors and evils existing in the limits of her local jurisdiction? Or must she interfere with all the local evils existing in administrations of the various branches of the same Church in the other states or kingdoms of the world, in the way of testifying against said evils, especially against such evils as she never can bear a practical testimony against in her actual administrations; which is evidently the case with respect to the subject-matter under consideration?

      N. B. The epistles addressed to the seven Asiatic Churches, in Revelation ii and iii, seem a direct answer in the affirmative to the above query.

T. CAMPBELL.      
[214]

[METC 210-214]