ever since been popularly called
the American Testimony. The familiar designation, _Testimony_, the
general complexion of the book, the orthodox aspect of terms, and even
most of the leading sentiments of the work, gave it currency, and
rendered it generally acceptable to pious and intelligent Covenanters.
And however it seemed to the unsuspecting to sustain, it eventually and
effectually supplanted the Scottish Testimony. The men who had the
principal hand in giving shape and direction to the principles and
practice of Covenanters in the United States, at that time, were located
in some of the most populous and commercial cities on the Atlantic
coast, where temptations to conform to this world were many and
pressing. A disposition to temporize was manifested in these localities,
soon after their principles had been judicially exhibited. The last war
between the United States and England, subjected Covenanters to new
trials in America. As aliens, they were deemed unsafe residents at the
seaboard, and were ordered, by the government, to retire a certain
distance to the interior (much like the course pursued by Claudius
Caesar toward the Jews, Acts xviii, 2). To meet the exigency, a
deputation of the church was appointed to repair to Washington, in 1812,
and offer a pledge that they would defend the integrity of the country
against all enemies. This measure was, however, never carried out.

The church increased in numbers and influence, and began to be noticed
with respect and professions of esteem among surrounding denominations.
Some of her members had ventured to act in the capacity of citizens of
the United States, by serving on juries. This was of course managed for
a time clandestinely. At length, waxing confident by success, they began
to act more openly. This gave rise to a petition addressed to the
supreme judicatory of the church. The petitioners were answered by
instructing them to apply for direction to the inferior
judicatories--thus shunning the duty of applying their own acknowledged
principles. This was in the year 1823. This course did not satisfy the
petitioners, and application was again made to Synod in 1825, to explain
the import of their former Act. The reply was--"This Synod never
understood any act of theirs, relative to their members sitting on
juries, or contravening the old common law of the church on that
subject;" a response obviously as equivocal as the preceding. As early
as 1823, a motion