okdkz 
 
 ~ « * 
 
 ^'WW 
 
is. 
 
 ■ 
 
 /5 
 
nsx, 
 
 
 -jf'* 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://archive.org/details/displayoffraudulOOgiba 
 
A 
 
 DISPLAY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 FRAUDULENT and GROSS 
 
 ABUSES 
 
 COMMITTED UPON THE 
 
 SECESSION-TESTIMONY, 
 
 I N 
 
 A Late Publication, entitled 
 
 The Re-Exhibition of the Testimony: 
 
 Containing fome Strictures upon 
 
 PERSECUTION and TOLERATION. 
 
 Fraude pent Virtus. Ovid. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 Printed by Neill & Co. Sold by V. Gray, R. KtfGLls; 
 und other Bookfcllci-. 
 
 M,DCC,IJ 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 ABout fix years ago, A DISPLAY of the SECES- 
 SION- TESTIMONY was Publifhed in two 
 Volumes: And as the Associate-Synod has never 
 found any fault with that work, — from which the 
 Author fuppofes, that he is not confidered by them 
 as having done any Injury to the Caufe which he 
 thereby endeavoured to ferve ; he may alfo fuppofe, 
 that his profecuting of this Endeavour, in a DIS- 
 PLAY of the prodigious Injury which has been done to 
 the faid Teftimony by the pretended RE- EXHIBI- 
 TION of it, — will not be an unacceptable fervice. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 January , 14//; 
 I 7 '8o. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 I'agcs. 
 JPART I. A general Account of the Re- Exhibition. 
 
 I. The full Title of it, 7 
 
 II. Of the original of it, - 8 
 
 III. Of fome private Papers in it, - 10 
 
 IV. Of the two la ft Acls in it, - 1 r 
 
 V. Of its Abufe about the Burgefs-oath, - 12 
 
 VI. Of its rejecting main Parts of the Seccflion- 
 Teftimony, - - 1 6 
 
 VII. Of the Falfenefs of the Title, Re-Ex hibition, 16 
 
 PART II. A particular Account of the Re -Exhibition. 
 Section I. Of the Preface to it, - 17 
 
 I. Of a ftrange hiftorical Narration in it, - iS 
 
 Hi Of a general Attack upon the Judicial Teftimony, 20 
 
 Section II. 
 
z & 1 
 
 Page!; 
 
 Section II. Of the Abufes committed upon the Ju- 
 dicial Teftimony, ' - - 26 
 Introduction to the View of thefe, - 26 
 Of carelefs and wanton Abufes, - 27 
 Of fraudulent Abufes, - - 28 
 Of the Fraudulence of thefe Abufes, - 28 
 Of the fraudulent Abufes themfelves, - 29 
 
 I. Of the Fir ft Book of Difcipline, - 29 
 
 II. Of the Second Book of Difcipline, and the Act ■ 
 1592, 30 
 
 III. Of the procedure, in 1638, againft the Prelates, 30 
 
 IV. Of our Reformers enforcing religious Duties 
 by civil Penalties, and blending the Affairs of 
 Church and State, - - 32 
 
 V. Of the Solemn League and Covenant, - 38 
 
 VI. Of the public Relblutions, - 39 
 
 VII. Of the Protefters, at the Reftoration, 40 
 
 VIII. Of the Revolution-parliament, - 40 
 
 IX. Of the Practice in reforming Times, - 48 
 
 X. Of the Revolution-afTembly, - 48 
 
 XI. Of the fame, - - 48 
 
 XII. Of the fame, - - 49 
 
 XIII. Of the Affembly 1692, - 49 
 
 XIV. Of the Oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration, 5° 
 
 XV. Of the Affembly's Procedure with Mr Campbell, 50 
 
 XVI. Of Procedure about Popifli Errors and Delufions, 51 
 
 XVII. Of Adherence to Teftimonies betwixt 1650 
 and 1688, - - 51 
 
 XVIII. Of Adherence to Teftimonies fince 1 688, 52 
 
 CONCLUSION, - - 52 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 pjge 9. Note 1. 1. For he read the 
 
 10. Note 1. 12. Read quoted; 
 
 17. I.9. Read forth 
 
 22- 1. 3, Rend forth 
 
 26. 1. 2. From the foot, read given 
 
 29. 1. 3. From the foot, read C'junfdhr< 
 
 30. 1. 2. Read Counfellors, 
 38. 1. 3. After fort read of 
 
A 
 
 DISPLAY 
 
 G F 
 
 The fraudulent and grofs ABUSES committed 
 Upon the SECESSION-TESTIMONY, 
 
 In a late Publication entitled 
 
 The RE -EXHIBITION of the Tejlimor.y. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 A General Account of the RE -EXHIBITION, with 
 regard to the SE C E S S 10 N -TE STIMO NT. 
 
 I. r \^ H E complete Title of the very lingular per- 
 JL formance now to be confidered, is as. follows, 
 viz* 
 
 <' The Re-Exhikition of the Testimony : or, a 
 <( connected view of thofe principles upon which a Se- 
 " cejjion from the Judicatories of the Church of Scat- 
 " land was ftated, by feveral Miniflers of the Gofpel, 
 " in 1733 ; anc *> ^ ince tnat time t maintained by the Afi 
 " fociate Synod: Containing, 1. A Tefiimony to the 
 " Doclrine, WorJhip, Government and Difcipline of the 
 " Church of Scotland; or Reasons. 2. Ad, 
 
 " Declaration and Tejtimwy of the Aflbciate Prefbyterv ; 
 Jf to which is now added, an Appendix. 3. The 
 u which was put into the hands of the Seceding Mini- 
 " fters by the General AiTembly, with their 
 " 4. Ads and Proceedings of the Aflbciate PivlL'ytery, 
 " containing their Declinature. 5. The Ad of AH'em- 
 u u ty 1739, condemning the Judicial Ad and ZX 
 
 B " tare; 
 
C 8 D 
 
 " tare ; with Ohfervations thereon by the Aflbciate Pref- 
 u bytery. 6. Reafons by Meflrs Erfkine, Wilfon, Mon- 
 M crieff* and ft/her, why they have not acceded to the 
 " Judicatories of the Eftablilhed Church. 7. Acl of the 
 " AfT,)ciate Svnod met at Stirling, Oct. 1747 ; declaring 
 " the Nullity of the pretended Synod that firft met in 
 " Mr Gib's houfe, April 10th. 8. Acl of the Aflociate 
 u Synod met at Stirling ; containing a Narrative of the 
 " Rife, Progrefs and Grounds of the Sec'ejfion. With a 
 <( Preface to this new Edition of thefe Papers. Publifh- 
 " ed by order of the Affjciate Synod." 
 
 The feveral Articles of thefe Contents (making about 
 300 pages of finall and clofe print in large oclavo) are, 
 at the clofe of the performance, called The foregoing 
 Tracls, — The preceding Cdltdtion of Papers. 
 
 II. Thefe Tracls are faid to be " publifhed by order 
 " of the AJfociate Synod v ; meaning what is called the 
 Burgher-Synod, but lhould rather be called the Burgefs- 
 oath-Synod. And if, according to the general title oF 
 the performance, it were only a " New Edition of thefe 
 u papers,"- — or, according to the title of the general 
 preface, " this Edition of the Testimonies" ; it were 
 fomewhat uncommon, that the folemnity of a Synodical 
 Order ihould have been interpofed for the publication : 
 However, as will be confidered afterwards, there is 
 more in it than a new Edition. 
 
 But the public is left utterly at a lofs, — about how 
 far the B- Synod make themfelves anfwerable for the 
 new matters of this publication. It contains nothing as 
 their deed, but a Ihort minute prefixed, dated " 3d Sep- 
 u tember 1778 :" which bears, that they" refumed the 
 " affair of publifhing the 1 eftimonies, &c. — appointed 
 " Meffrs John Smith, John Belfrage, William Arnot and 
 " Robert Campbell, as a committee to revife the Pre- 
 " face and Appendix, which had been laid before the 
 41 Synod, together with the Judicial Testimony as now 
 " corrected ; with power to publilh faid papers with all 
 ** convenient fpeed." , ' The prefixed minute of the firft 
 meeting of the faid committee (in which Mi* Belfrage 
 was not prefent) 011 the 28th of the fame month, bears, 
 
 1 — tljat 
 
t 9 ] 
 — that they " read over the Preface and Appendix, and 
 (< offered fome obfervations on each ;" but how far thefe 
 were accepted of ", is not told. The prefixed minute of 
 the fecond and Iaft meeting of the committee (in which 
 MrinnMvas not prefent) on the 2d of November the 
 fame year, bears, — that they " read over the Preface 
 " and Appendix, with the corrections of the Judicial Tef- 
 " timony, paragraph by paragraph ; corrected the lan- 
 u guage in fome places, unanimoufly approved the whole, 
 " and appointed their clerk to write out a fair copy for 
 u the prefs, that thofe papers may be published with all 
 i( convenient fpeed, agreeable to the order of Synod." 
 
 It thus appears that the B-Synod had feen none 
 
 of thefe papers, as manufactured by their committee, till 
 after the publication : And fo, with regard to all the 
 matters of the Re -Exhibition mentioned in their above 
 minute, yea the whole of the publication, — they meanly 
 fkulk behind that committee, as immediately anfwerable 
 for the whole. 
 
 Nor can the public judge, how far even that famous 
 committee is anfwerable. For, befide the above papers, 
 with others formerly publifned, — the Re -Exhibition con- 
 tains various things, not mentioned in the Sy nodical mi- 
 nute ; of which the committee do not, by their minutes, 
 take any burden : And which are therefore expofed 
 without any owning them ; farther then as they may 
 be laid to the door of Mr Campbell the committee- 
 clerk, — or of the [6r.] in that Synodical minute. As 
 
 to the Appendix, of 19 pages, (by which thefe called An- 
 tiburghers are dragged in for a ftroke, — along with the 
 eftablilhed Church, the Antigovernment party *, the Re- 
 //V/-party, Independents, Prtlatijts, Pap\J}s y &c.) ; the 
 large Nites which, belong to it are fomewhat of a doubt- 
 ful original, — as it may be fomewhat uncharitable to fup- 
 pole, that they could have come from either the B- Synod 
 
 or 
 
 * In the appearance which they rrprefrn* he Aflbciate Prefbytery as 
 having made, againft the Amtigtvermrutd Scheme ; they wholly over- 
 look that large and moft explicit Teftimony given againft it, in the 
 controverfy with Mr N.iirti. But this, and fome other mod material 
 parts of the Secefllon -Teftimony, are now caft whoily out of it by the 
 B-Synod ; as will be conlidejred afterwards. 
 
or their committee-}-. There are alfb five pages of a 
 new Introduction to the Act about Nullity, which fome 
 individual takes upon himfelf, — without telling who he 
 is : And, at the clofe of all, there are five pages of c?o«- 
 clufions deducible from the foregoing Trails ; of which no 
 author is any way notified. 
 
 III. It might have been fuppofed, that only papers of 
 a public nature, as judicial deeds, — would have been fet 
 forth to Seceders, under the title of the Re -Exhibition 
 of the Te/ibmny : But the cafe is much otherwife. — 
 What is called the Firft Teftimony was never a public or 
 judicial deed : and though the AiTociate Prefbytery, up- 
 on having it read over in prefbytery about fix months af- 
 ter the publication of it, caufed an approbation of it to be 
 marked in their minutes, — as their teftimony, and asfea- 
 finally publijhed ; yet they never notified this to the 
 world. The papers given in to them by Meffrs Thomas 
 Mair and Ralph Erfkine, (though now printed under the 
 running title of the Judicial Teftimony) were never any 
 part of the Judicial Teftimony, — and were not firft print- 
 ed along with it by any Prefbyterial appointment ; but 
 merely allowed to be fo, from the occalion of its being 
 then a- printing : While thefe could be no more a part 
 of that Teftimony, than any papers of Acceffon afterwards 
 given in by other ministers, — and by multitudes of peo- 
 ple. The Libel againft the Seceding minifters, and the 
 A£l of Affembly 1739 condemning the Judicial Teftimo- 
 ny and Declinature, — are certainly no part of the Tefti- 
 mony : While the Jnfwers to the one, and the Obferva- 
 
 tkns 
 
 f Though an individual has been found, it is hardly fuppofable that 
 any Synod or committee could have been found,— capable of telling 
 thofe of the Kclief-Schone, when combating their doctrine of Catholic 
 Communion, as founded by them on the fecond feclion of the twenty* 
 iixth chapter of our Confeffion of Faith; that— it it may not be im- 
 " proper to put them in remembrance, that our Confeffion fpeaks not 
 " here of Church Communion, — but of Chriftian Communion, in mini- 
 ** ftering with our fubftance, by communicating of it to fupply the ne- 
 *' certifies of the faints, or in doing other offices of kindnefs; as is ful- 
 '*. ly evident from the Scriptures quoted by the Venerable AfTembly at 
 " "Wetlmir.fter, in fupport of that article:" While, yet, among thefc 
 Scriptures, the following are firft cjuotted; Heb. x. 24, 25, Avis ii. 42, 
 46. Jfu. ii. 3. I Cor. xi. 20. ! 
 
 
[ II ] 
 
 thns upon the other, — were not judicial deeds. Nor 
 -did the Reafons of non-acceffior. ever bear a judicial form, 
 as of public authority in the Seceflion. 
 
 IV. The Re-Exhibition contains two Afts of the B-Sy- 
 nod, patted in the years 1 747 and 1753: Acts fo infamous, 
 that they might well have become alhamed of them be- 
 fore this time, — after fo much leifure for cool reflection ; 
 wiiliing to have them buried in perpetual oblivion. The 
 iirft of thefe Acts, declaring a nullity of the true AlTociate 
 Synod, in their reftoration after the dilm.tl rupture, — is 
 wholly founded upon a fyftera of the mod grofs and ca- 
 lumnious mif-reprefentations : And, even abftracting from 
 the coniideration of the nullified Synod having the Secef- 
 fion-Teftimony kept among their hands, which the nulli- 
 fying Synod had dropt ; it was a moil ihocking outrage 
 upon the nature of Prelbyterial Government, yea of all 
 Government, — for twelve ministers to affume a power 
 for nullifying a fynod to which nineteen of their brethren 
 belonged. — The other Act (efpccially in the latter part 
 of it, about the true f cope and de/ign of the Secejfon) ex- 
 alts the iirft or extra-judicial Teftimony, with great dif- 
 paraaement of the Judicial Tejtimony, — all in favours of 
 the Burgefs-oath; as the four brethren had more occa- 
 fion in the firft Teftimony, — to make repeated mention of 
 their ordination vows and engagements, and of our beauti- 
 ful Prefvyterian conftitutkn : The great fcope of this act 
 being to prove, what no mortal ever denied ; — that u the 
 " Judicial Teflimony and Bond" is not " a renouncing 
 u and abjuring of the true religion profefTed and fettled 
 u in this nation, '' not u a SeceiTion from the true reli- 
 " gion ;" and that the Secerlion was " not a Secertion 
 u trom the Revolution-church in her very conititution, 
 " confidtred in her excellent conjiitution and ilandards." 
 Not a Secelhon, forfooth, from the Protectant religion 
 and Prefbytery ! — But there is no need for enlarging 
 here; as the matter of thefe Acts (and of the following 
 article) has been particularly conlidered in the Difplay 
 of the Secefj'ton-Tejiimwy . 
 
 V. The Re-Exhibitkn contains fome violent thrufis at 
 the Afibciate Synod, upon the controverfy about the re- 
 ligious 
 
C ki 3 
 
 tigious claufe of fome Burgefs-oaths ; in a fhamelefs re- 
 petition of feveral falfehoods which have been formerly 
 expofed, beyond all poilibility of reafonable contradic- 
 tion. — The Synod had found, " That a fwearing the 
 " religious claufe of fome Burgefs- oaths * by any under 
 " their infpe&ion, as the faid claufe comes neceflarily in 
 t{ this period to be ufed and applied, does not agree unto 
 '" the prefent ftate and circumftances of the Teftimony 
 * for religion and reformation, — which this Synod, with 
 fe thofe under their infpec"tion, are maintaining ; parti- 
 4< cularly, that it does not agree unto nor confift with an 
 11 entering into the Bond for renewing our Solemn Cove- 
 xt nants :" And this Decifion they have hitherto fup- 
 ported, in oppofition to a dreadful and defperate Project, 
 pufhed and pretended to be carried by a minority, — of 
 granting warrant for a joint fwearing of the Burgefs- 
 oath, and the oath of the Bond ; promifcuoufly avouching 
 the Secefiion-Teftimony by the one, and abjuring it by 
 the other. But what reproachful abufes have they fuf- 
 fered, what calumnious invectives have been fpewed up- 
 on them, — for their honefty in thefe matters ! f 
 
 Paflages are pretended to be quoted from their prb- 
 ceedings, with the ufual marks of quotation J, — which 
 are only an invidious glofs upon their proceedings, thus 
 fraudulently impofed upon the world as their language. 
 And they are charged with " fingularly extravagant, ir- 
 " regular, and unprecedented conduct :'' While thefe 
 charges are not founded upon any matters of faff, but 
 upon zbfolute falfeboods §. For, 
 
 They are charged with condemning the religious claufe 
 of fome burgefs-oaths ; called " condemners of the 
 u claufe as fnful .•" While they only condemned a 
 fwearing of it by Sececlers, in the prefent circumftances. 
 They are called " only a protefting minority, 22 againft 
 
 * Viz. " Here I proteft, before God and your Lordfhips, that I pro- 
 " fefs, and allow with my heart, the true Religion prefently profeffed 
 << within this Realm, and authorifcd by the Laws thereof: 1 mall abide 
 « thereat, and defend the fame to my life's end, renouncing the Ro- 
 ** man Religion called Papiftry.'' 
 
 •J- The erroneous and abfurd reproach which had been caftupon them, 
 about Ruling-Elders, is ftill repeated, — without offering to repel th* 
 former vindication upon that head ; and yet without mamc- 
 $ P. 262. § P. 174, 175, 260, 261, 262, 299, 304. 
 
I 13 1 
 
 H 52,"*— at the time of the breach: Though it ha> 
 been unanfwerably manifefted in the aforefaid Difplay, 
 that they " were not only the majority of acling mem- 
 *' bers on that occafion ; but they were alfo the majo~ 
 €i ritv of all members then prefent, who had any title to 
 " act' in that affair" then debated. It is faid, as to their 
 going out from the minority who puihed and pretended 
 to carry the forefaid dreadful Project, — that they " with- 
 " drew themfelves from the Synod, leaving the niode- 
 r< rator behind them :" Whereas they only withdrew 
 from the faid minority ; the moderator notoriously, in 
 the face of a great multitude, going out along with them, 
 — fo as he returned not to the managers of that Proj 6c 
 till the next day. It is told, w that the true religion, w as 
 " really fettled at the Revolution ;" and that " the firff. 
 four of the feceding minifters never ftated a fecefiion 
 " from the conftitution of the Revolution-church (confi- 
 " dered in her excellent Preibyterian conftitution and 
 *' ftandards), or th?t religion profeflfed in it :" And thefe 
 things are thrown out againft the Aflbciate Synod, as if 
 they had denied or controverted the fame ; which they 
 never did. They are laid to have '* warmly contended, 
 M that the true religion mentioned in it" (the burgefs- 
 oath), " is to be underftood as including all the corruptions 
 " of both church and ftate :" whereas they never con- 
 tended, pretended, or alleged, — that the laid true reli- 
 ghn y abftractly, includes any one of thefe corruptions .- — 
 And they are faid to have " laboured to confound the 
 H true religion profiled and fettled, with the profef- 
 " fion and fettlement thereof ; making, not the true re- 
 " ligion itself, but the profession and settle- 
 << MENT, the thing fworn to:" Whereas they never 
 beilowed a moment upon any fuch labour ; but always 
 confidered and treated thefe things as very different and 
 diltincT;, not confoundable, — though as nearly connected 
 as any thing can be with that which exhibits it. 
 
 At the fame time, the author of the lntroduclion for- 
 merly mentioned, affirms a downright falfe hood, — of w liich 
 he appears to be the riiit devifer : That, in the courfe of 
 the Sy nodical debate about the religious claufe of lbme 
 
 burgefs-oaths, 
 
C 14 I 
 
 burgefs-oaths, before the decifion upon that fubje&j 
 " The defenders of the daufe as lawful, for the fake of 
 " peace, ofFered to eondefcend to an Aft difcharging Se* 
 " ceders to fwear this claufe of the oath, as inexpedient 
 " for them in the prefent circumftances, viz, of ftrife 
 " and contention ;"— but that « this pacific propofal, the 
 w Antiburghers entirely rejected." Yet the faid pro- 
 pofal (very different from one of their overtures which 
 he feems to refer unto) thefe Antiburghers could never 
 reject ; as it was never made. 
 
 The faid Introdudtor readily allows, concerning the Sy- 
 nod before the breach, — that " they had ftated a quarrel 
 " with the manner , in which the true religion isprefently 
 u profefled and fettled * :" But he alfo tells us, — that " it 
 11 was the true, the divine religion itself, profefTed and 
 u authoriied in Scotland, that was fworn to in the oath, 
 (< and not the faulty manner of profeffing and fettling 
 " IT ; only fi that divine thing and precious trcafure, the 
 u true religion prefently profeffed and authorifed by 
 <c the laws of the land." And thus, though the true 
 religion is exprefsly defined in that oath by the prefent 
 prfeffing and authorifmg of it ; yet the oath, it feems, 
 ought not to be confidered as meaning any concern 
 with the faid profeflion and fettlement ! 
 
 It is upon fuch ridiculous reafoning, that the fwearing 
 of the forefaid oath, by Seceders, is pretended to ftand 
 in no contrariety to the Secelfion-Teftimony, — or to the 
 avouching of it in the Bond for renewing our Covenants. 
 But if fo, — what occafion had the B- Synod to fall a- 
 mangling this Teftimony, in their Defence of that oath ? 
 Aud why has their defence of it proved a burial of fo- 
 lemn covenanting among them ? — : — No lefs ridiculous is 
 the new attempt f to derive a warrant for the faid oath 
 among Seceders, — from the late repeal of the penal 
 
 ftatutes 
 * Let him try to reconcile this with the virulent reflection caft up- 
 on the AfTociate Synod (in the act of the B-Synod about the true 
 fcope and defign of the fecefllon), as if they had " miferably perverted" 
 the Judicial Teftimony ; by reprefenting it as " ftating a quarrel with 
 " the prefent national profeflion and fettlement of religion/' But a 
 Vad caufe cannot well admit of conflftency in defending it. 
 
 t p. 1 75. 
 
 
I '5 D 
 
 ftatutes againft papifts in England and Ireland, and the 
 danger of fuch a thing taking place in Scotland. For it 
 this argument con ferve for any thing in the prefent con- 
 troversy. — it muft be to prove, that Seceders ought now to 
 give up with their fecejffion ; or to fall from a fhting of 
 their Chriftian profefhon in the way of teftimony againft: 
 any public evils, but " the Homan religion called Pa- 
 " piftry." 
 
 The true ftate of the cafe, about a prefent {wearing 
 of the forefaid religious claufe, is this; that the AfToci- 
 ate Synod confiders it as amounting to an oath of formal 
 and full communion with the Eflablifhed Church : And as 
 meaning that, whatever faults there are in the prefent 
 national manner of profefling and fettling the true reli- 
 gion, — yet they are not fuch as can require or warrant 
 anv feparate teftimony againft the fame ; or a testifying 
 againft them in a ftate of feceffion from that church. 
 It is only in this refpect, and in fo far, — that they confi- 
 der the oath as approving of, or engaging to fupport the 
 prelent national profefhon and fettlement of religion. 
 But this true and natural ftate of the cafe, according to 
 which it is moft ihocking to pretend that Seceders may 
 confiftently fwear it,— is ftill moft induftrioufly lhifted 
 by the B- Synod, and all the writers on their fide : 
 All ftrenuoufly labouring, to have this plain matter of 
 fati kept out of fight ; while grievoufiy abufing the Sy- 
 nod upon a plain matter of falfebood, about the amount 
 and meaning of that oath. 
 
 It is however no wonder, that fome new endeavours 
 of this fort are ufed in the Re-Exhibition, — for the ho- 
 nour of the B- Synod 1 Seeing all their diftinguilhing 
 conftitution and profeflion is immediately ftated upon 
 the ground, and under the banner of the bur gr/'s -oath : 
 and it is evidently the general delign of the Re-Exhi- 
 bition, to fupport their character in that abfurd condi- 
 tion. 
 
 VI. The Re-Exhibiiion is fet forth as containing all 
 
 that is acknowledged, by the B-Synod and their ad- 
 
 herents, as belonging to the Stct-jjlon-Tefthmny .• For 
 
 the Teftimony faid to be re-exhibited is evidently of this 
 
 C general 
 
[ i6 ]• 
 
 genera lfenfe ; comprehending under it the firfi Teftimony > 
 and the Judicial Tejlimony, — with the other things men- 
 tioned in the title-page. It is therefore to be remarked, 
 yea to be fignalty remarked, and remarked with deep 
 concern, — that fome things eminently belonging to the 
 Seceffion -Teftimony are entirely left out in this Re-Exhibi* 
 tion. The Ad about the Doclrine of Grace, the Aft for 
 renewing our Solemn Covenants, the Acknowledgement of 
 Sins, and the Bond or Engagement to Duties, — as alfo the 
 Anfwers to Mr Nairn, with the fubjoined Declaration 
 and Defence of the Affbciate Prefbytery's Principles con- 
 cerning the prefent Civil Government ; thefe have no place 
 in this Re -Exhibition, but are thereby rejefted and buried. 
 All thefe molt material parts of the Seceffton-Teftimony 
 are therefore left to be coniidered as of no more ac- 
 count, among the people in fubjeclioii to the B- Sy- 
 nod, than fo many old almanacks : And they muft now 
 be anfwerable for this killing and burying of thefe wit- 
 neffes, — fo far as they ihall not be enabled to deliver 
 their fouls, by fome proper way of difclaiming that fame 
 Re -Exhibition. 
 
 VII. The Re- Exhibition, as it means a repeated exhibi- 
 tion, ihould natively be confidered as only a new exhibi- 
 tion or publication of what has been formerly exhibited 
 or publifhed. But this is by no means the cafe. For, 
 befide the new things in it which have been taken notice 
 of, — the Judicial Teftimony, as thereby exhibited, is in 
 many refpe&s a very new thing ; what the world never 
 law before : While yet there is an entire concealment 
 of every particular refpecl: in which it is new ; yea, in the 
 title-page of the Re- Exhibition, it is ftill called, — u Act, 
 kk Declaration and Teftimony of the Affociate Prefby- 
 " tery." 
 
 That Teftimony has been long in great difrepute with 
 the B-Synod, as an erroneous paper : And a great 
 deal of talking there has been, for many years bygone, 
 — about their being employed in correcting thofe errors ; 
 for publifhing it as a new or reformed Teftimony. The 
 Re -Exhibition has been accordingly puffed off in the pu- 
 blic papers, after this manner, viz, " As this publication 
 
 " has 
 
I '7 ] 
 *< has been long expe&ed, it is not doubted but it will 
 <l be fpeedily purchafed ; efpecially by all thofer»w ho 
 i( have fo earneftly wilhed to lee it." But how are 
 their people befooled, with regard to the long-expect- 
 ed and earneftly-wilhed-for new Teftimony P The B- 
 Synod have indeed been long with child, as to this mat- 
 ter ; they have been in pain : And, after all, they have 
 done nothing better, but even much worfe, — than as it 
 were brought furth wind. For, inltead of a new Tefti- 
 mony, out comes the old Judicial '1 ertimony : Wofuily 
 indeed adulterated, but as a work of darknefs; while net 
 the fmalleft bonification is made of what is corrected in 
 it, or where it is corrected, or what the corrections are : 
 It is given out, and impofed upon the world, in its r.cw 
 adulterated ftate, — as Hill the old Judicial Testi- 
 mony. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 A Particular Account of the Re-Exhibition, with 
 regard to the Judicial Testimony. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 Of the Preface to the Re-Exhibition, as rcfpecling the 
 Judicial Teftimony. 
 
 AS it is the hiflorical and condemnatory part of the 
 Judicial Teftimony — which the B-Synod hath put 
 hand in ; the ground-work of that violence is laid in 
 the preface. And, 
 
 I. A dark cloud is caft over the hiflorical part of the 
 Teftimony, or it is thrown into a bewildering mift ; by 
 a wonderful fpecimen which the prefacers give of their 
 own hiftorical abilities, — in the following terms, viz. 
 
 " That our renowned forefathers ftrenuoufly con- 
 u tended for the royal prerogatives of Jfsus Christ, 
 u who alone is King in Zion ; and that many of them 
 u fuffered imprisonment, baniihment, and death ; in the 
 " important ftruggle which they maintained ag'ainft the 
 u encroachments of ambitious and enterprising ecclefu 
 
 " allies, 
 
C 18 ] 
 
 u allies, patronized by the powers of the world, canoe: 
 ie b»e denied by any who have, even a moderate ac- 
 i{ quaintance with the hiflory of this church. But 
 4i when the partizans of this new fyftem of church - 
 " polity increafed in numbers, and acquired additional 
 * ftrength, by every new acceflion to the party, they 
 *' published with lels referve their deiigns with regard 
 " to the conftitution of this church ; and in proportion 
 *' to the fuccefs which attended their former attempts, 
 ** they purfued their pernicious plan with unwearied ar- 
 " dour, and repeated their aflaults with more boldnefs 
 '• and intrepidity. And as the prefent century hath 
 <c produced a vafl increafe of numbers to this party 
 a within the bofom of a national church, who have at- 
 <c tacked the infpired fyftem of gofpel-truth, with a de- 
 " gree of virulence and audacity almoft unknown in for- 
 " mer times ; the four Ministers who formed the 
 u afTociation, having, along with many hundreds of pri- 
 " vate Christians, frequently employed petitions and re- 
 <c monftrances without effect, found themfelves obliged, 
 ** by the command of God and their ordination-vows, 
 u to withdraw from the prevailing party in the church. ,T 
 Now, the reader may, if he pleafes, read this pafTage 
 over and over, — and think and meditate upon it ; to try 
 if he can make common fenfe of it, or can reconcile it to 
 the general truth of things. And for a help, he may- 
 take the following observations. 
 
 i. The above narration can have no fenfe, — but as 
 taken for a historical Iketch (fhort enough, indeed, in 
 three fentences) of matters from the Restoration down 
 to the year 1 733 ; through a period of above 70 years. 
 2. The firft fentence mult be underftood as a picture 
 of the whole period of bloody perfecution, from the Re- 
 //oration to the Revolution. And in what important 
 Struggle was it, that the witnefles did then Suffer. Why, 
 — a " Struggle againit the encroachments of ambitious 
 ff and enterprizing ecclefiaftics, patronized by the pow- 
 " ers of the world :" A pretty way, truly, — to ex. 
 prefs a rebuilding of the curkd JericJn of abjured prelacy, 
 upon the ruins of our covenanted reformation. 
 
 3. The 
 
[ ip 3 
 
 3. The hiftory of the ficond Sentence muft alfo begin 
 at, or foon after the Refioraiion : But where it ends, — . 
 that is the queftion. It would feem, from the matter of 
 it, that it mould come no farther down than the Revolu- 
 tion: And yet, from the next fentence beginning with 
 the prefcnt century , it would feem to come twelve years 
 farther down, — to the clofe of the laft century. Well, 
 what fort of folk were the bloody persecutors before the 
 Revolution ? They were " the partizans of a new fyf- 
 " tern of church-polity ." And they^feem to have been 
 but a weak party, when they firft got into the fiddle, — 
 through a fmallnefsof their number; during which time 
 (we are not told how long) they behaved cautioufly, — 
 as " they publifhed with referve, their deilgns with re- 
 " gard to the conftitution of this church." But lo, in 
 procefs of time, they " encreafed in numbers, and ac- 
 u quired additional ftrength by every new accellion to 
 u the party :'' And the confequence was, that " their 
 u defigns" came to be " publifhed with lefs referve ; 
 il they purfued their pernicious plan, and repeated their 
 " affauks with more boldnefs and intrepidity." — But is 
 this a proper account, or any account at all, of what 
 took place under the reigns of the bloody brothers before 
 the Revolution? 
 
 4. It is yet harder to know, what mould be made of 
 the third and laft Sentence. The hiftory of it begins 
 with the prefent century, twelve years after the Revolu- 
 tion: So as every thing done by God and men, in that 
 wonderful Revolution, is palled over with utter lilence. 
 — But, when fuch a gap is left, how are matters connec- 
 ted ; as to what took piace before and after the Revolu- 
 tion ? As there is an odd hiftory given of " the party" 
 which prevailed before the Revolution; the hiftory is 
 carried on after the Revolution, as Hill the Inllory of 
 " this party, — a vaft increafe of numbers to thib parry, 
 " within the bofom of a national church." And is it 
 the fame party, the Prelatical party, which has prevail- 
 ed in both periods ; are they all along " the partizans of 
 '« this new fyftem of church- polity," — the fame party, 
 in both periods, that the friends of Reformation have 
 
 had 
 
C 20 ] 
 
 had to ftruggle with? What then is become of the Re« 
 volution, or what has it ferved for ? 
 
 5. The four Miniflers who formed the Jffbciation, — 
 are reprefented as having " found themfelves obliged to 
 *' withdraw from the prevailing party in the Church :" 
 without a word about their having been thrufl out of the 
 communion of that Church. 
 
 But it is not worth while to rake further into this vi- 
 fionary and foppilh fluff ; a fort of burlefque upon the 
 nature of hiftory. And let the reader judge, how far the 
 authors of it are able hands for new -modelling the hif- 
 torical part of the Teftimony. 
 
 II. A nearer and more direct preparation is 1 made for 
 the particular attack upon the hiftorical part of the Ju- 
 dicial Teitimony, — by the following paragraphs, viz. 
 
 " It muft be evident to an impartial reader, whofe 
 u mind is not warped by prejudice, or under the influ- 
 " ence of faction ; that the moll important branch of 
 " the Teitimony is that in which the truths of God are 
 u folemnly averted, and the contrary errors exprefsly 
 u condemned. It is properly in refpect to this, that Se- 
 * e ceders declare their united confeflion of the truth, as 
 €( difhnCtly reprefented from the Holy Scriptures, in our 
 " adopted ftandards of Doflrine, Worfhip, Government 
 " and Difcipline ; in oppolition to the repeated depar- 
 " tures from this fyftem, with which the great body of 
 " the nation is chargeable before God." — 
 
 U It were to be wilhed indeed, that all who profefs 
 " to bear Teitimony to the truth as it is in Jefus, had 
 u uniform and unexceptionable views of the divine fa- 
 " vours vouchfafed to this Church, in the beginning and 
 (( progrefs of her Reformation from Popery ; as alfo of 
 " her general abufe of fuch diitinguilhed privileges from 
 " age to age ; that with one mind and mouth they might 
 " glorify God, by a grateful acknowledgment of the one, 
 Ci and a penitential confellion of the other: But as this 
 " is fcarcely to be expected in a militant church, efpeci- 
 " ally in thefe perilous times ; it becomes thofe concern- 
 <( ed chiefly to know and profefs what is of the utmoft 
 " importance, the certainty of which refts upon the in- 
 
 « fallible 
 
C 21 3 
 
 tc fallible record of God himfelf, and not on the fallible 
 ** narratives of men, which in themielves can never be 
 " a fufficient ground of our faith. To be ignorant or 
 " miftaken, with regard to the real exiftence of fome 
 K< part tranfaftions in the Church or State, tranfmitted 
 u to us upon human authorities, fome of winch are con- 
 " troverted by others of the fame clafs, and others of 
 " them covered with a cloud of uncertainty, which to 
 " us, at this diftan e of time, is almoft impenetrable, can 
 " never be fo crim.ial, as our ignorance or miltakes with 
 <( refpeft to the truths of God revealed in his word ; 
 " efpecially, if fuch ignorance or miftakes proceed from 
 " groundlefs prejudices, or unreafonable indolence. %f 
 
 u It muft therefore be obvious to every fober and un- 
 ce biaffed Chriftian, that an attempt, as in this edition of 
 " the Second Tefiimony, to elucidate fome hiftorical re- 
 " ferences, or even to omit others, which do not ap- 
 " pear to be fufficiently vouched, cannot, with any de- 
 u gree of candour and juftice, amount to a dropping 
 " of any part of the Teftimony, as it is a Ttjtimony to 
 " the truths of God revealed in his word ; notwithftand- 
 " ing the unprovocked abufe which fome have endea- 
 " voured to throw upon fuch an attempt, with a mani- 
 " feft defign to fupport the credit of a tottering fabric. 
 " To all fuch it will be fufficient to obferve here, once 
 " for all, what one of the original compilers of the.Tef. 
 " timony boldly avers ; That unlefs the principles adopt- 
 " ed by that Teftimony are proven to be contrary to 
 " the word of God, and the received ftandards of tliis 
 " Church ; any critical exception to the hiftorical narra- 
 *' tions contained in it, does not, in the lead, affect that 
 " confeffion of the truths of God which is made by the 
 " whole body of Seceders, but is rather a wrangling 
 " about circum fiances. See Mr Wilson's Continua- 
 *' tion of his Defence, p. 150, 151." 
 
 The above paragraphs contain a very fmooth and fly 
 prelude — to the particular abules committed upon the 
 Judicial Teitimony. And for bringing the matters con- 
 tained in them out of the mitt, into an open view, — the 
 following obfervations may fuffice. 
 
 1. The 
 
[ « ] 
 
 f . Tlie affertory fart of the Judicial Teftimony, which- 
 is but about a feventb part of the whole, — is here fet 
 fiirth as the principal part of it : And the acceflions 
 which Secede rs have made to the faid Teftimony, are re- 
 prefented as having been " properly in refpect to this 1 ' 
 part of it. 
 
 Now, as to the faid part being " the moft important 
 *f branch of the Teftimony," — no body is fo far " warp- 
 (i ed with prejudice, or under the influence of faction," 
 as to make a queftion of it ; if this only mean, that the 
 truths of God are of much greater importance than the 
 evils of men J 
 
 But the whole warrant which the Aflociate Prefbytery 
 had for makh'g, and which people had for acceding to 
 the faid Afftrthn of the truths of God in a way of Seceffion f 
 — depended upon the truth and importance of the hiftorical 
 and condemnatory part of the Teftimony . Abftracting from 
 this, their teftifying for the truths of God in a way of 
 Seceffion 3 — would neceffarily come to be confidered as a 
 criminal and fcandalous fch'ifm. They could have no 
 warrant for doing fo, but according to the previous war- 
 rant which they had for a Seceffion, — upon the ground 
 of the public evils narrated and condemned in the pre- 
 ceding part of the Teftimony. So far as that preceding 
 part is given up with or defamed, fo far the Seceffien 
 mould be given up with : And lb far, the Affertory part 
 muft fall out of a ftate of Seceihon ; muft fall back into 
 a ftate of communion with the Eftabliihed Church,— muft 
 be fwallowed up in the pretended adherence of that 
 Church to her Keformation-ftandards. It is therefore 
 moft evident, that the hiftorical and condemnatory part — i 
 is " the moft important branch of the Teftimony," even 
 the very fundamental part of it, confidered as a Teftimo- 
 ny in a ftate of Seceffion from the Eftabliihed Church. 
 
 2. It is a rude and injurious way of treating people, 
 in a Proteftant country j to argue wich them for a pre- 
 ference of " the certainty which refts upon the infal- 
 lible record of God himfelf, ,, to that " which refts u on 
 " the fallible narratives of men :" As if any Proteftant 
 queftioned that preference. It is alfo a rude and inju- 
 rious 
 
C 23 ] 
 
 rious way of treating people, in a Chriftian country ; to 
 argue with them upon a companion betwixt " the real 
 4i exigence of fome pair tranfactions in the Church or 
 " State," and " the truths of God revealed in his 
 " word f that u to be ignorant or miftaken with regard 
 " to" the former, u can never be fo criminal as our ig- 
 " norance or miftakes with refpecf to" the latter : As if 
 any Chriftian were otherwife minded. 
 
 It is nothing to the prefent purpofe, to tell us that 
 " the narratives of men" are u fallible;" without pro- 
 ving that they have aclually fallen into falfehood or 
 «rror. It is as little to the prefent purpofe to tell us, — 
 that " the fallible narratives of men, in themfelves, can 
 " never be a fufficient ground of our faith ;" if this be 
 meant of a divine laving faith, which none pretend that 
 they can be any ground of at all. 
 
 But there is a human faith, a faith about human things, 
 — which " the fallible narratives of men," bearing. fuch 
 evidence as the nature of the cafe requires and admit?, 
 muft " in themfelves be a fufficient ground of ;" or there 
 could be no fubiittence of human fociety : As the con- 
 cerns of both Church and State muft, in many inftances, 
 depend upon the witnefs of men. — But efpecially, if" the 
 " fallible narratives of men can never be a fufficient 
 u ground of faith" about human things ; what mult be- 
 come of all that obligation which Chriftians are under, to 
 give glory unto him who is a jealous God, vijking the ini- 
 quity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and 
 fourth generation of them that hate him. — by confeffing, 
 not only their own fins, but alfo the fins of their fa- 
 thers? If they are not to do this upon " the fallible narra- 
 " tivesofmen," they cannot do it at all. And to teach 
 people, that they may difiegard all certainty which arifes 
 from tliefe narratives, bearing fuch evidence as before 
 exprefled, — fo as to have their confeflions and teftimony 
 confined to what they have been eye and ear-wirnefTes 
 of; this indeed would make (hort work of witnefs-bear- 
 ing for Chrift againft the wkkednefs of men : Making 
 what has been, and confeqnently what will be, a matter 
 mf great indifferency to them. 
 
 C And 
 
[ 2 4 ] 
 
 And that Chriftians " with one mind and month 
 f e might glorify God, by a grateful acknowledgment of" 
 the great things which he has done for us in days of 
 reformation, — " and a penitential confeffion of" back- 
 {lidings from the fame ; is " this fcarcely to be expected 
 " in a militant Church, and efpecially in thefe perilous 
 " times," even among thofe <• who profefs to bear 
 " Teftimony to the truth as it is in Jefus!" And is it 
 not rather to be expected in perilous times, among fuch 
 profejjors ; when common danger awakens them mod 
 
 for fuch exercife ? The days have been when the 
 
 whole Seceffton-body, fo far as concerns the Judicial 
 Teftimony, and according to the quaint ftile now ufed,-*- 
 <( had uniform and unexceptionable views of the divine 
 u favours vouchsafed to this Church, in the beginning 
 u and progrefs of her reformation from Popery, as alfo 
 <e of her general abufe of fuch diftinguifhed privileges 
 <c from age to age ;" fo that they fweetly harmonifed 
 in fuch " grateful acknowledgment and penitential 
 i( cQnfeffion" as hath been mentioned : And they conti- 
 nued to do fo, till the B- Synod broke in upon this 
 harmony ; fo as to get a number of them plunged into a 
 ftate of uncertainty and confulion about thefe matters ; 
 — all in favours of the Burgefs-oath ! 
 
 3. The general and miity flourishing which has been 
 confidered, is in order to bringing home a (troke upon 
 the hijhrical part of the Judicial -Teftimony. The mat- 
 ters there fet forth, particularly thefe of an older date, 
 are the " part transactions" meant. — as " tranfmitted to 
 " us upon human authorities : Some of which (we are 
 \\ told) are contradicted by other" human authorities ; 
 t{ and others of them covered with a cloud of uncer- 
 <i tainty, which to us, at this diftance of time, is almoft 
 <c impenetrable." But it is aftonilhing, that any could 
 have the face to tell fuch a ftory : For it is abfolutely 
 falfe, that any fuch contradiction was ever made ; while 
 the pretence now made, of fuch uncertainty , is abfolute- 
 ly groundless, — and a molt calumnious defamation. 
 
 The matters fet forth in that bijhrical part, are gene- 
 rally twofold ; inftances of the Lord's goodnefs, and of 
 
 what 
 
C 25 ] 
 
 Vmat good he has enabled to do,~for matter of thank- 
 fulnefs : With inftances of public evils, as Handing 
 grounds of the Lord's controversy, — for matter of hu- 
 miliation before him. Now, whatever controverfy or 
 contradiclidn has taken place, about the nature of the 
 things contained in thefe inftances ; yet the facl of thefe 
 things is what none has ever prefumed to controvert or 
 contradict. — And how could they do fo, or how could 
 any uncertainty of thefe things be pretended ; when 
 they are things laid out in the mofl public and authentic 
 hirtories and records of the kingdom. Yea, as is elfe- 
 where obferved ; " there never was any cafe fince the 
 44 days of the Apoftles, nor can be to the end of time, 
 " — in which people had or can have better evidence to 
 €t proceed upon, in confefling the iniquity of their fa- 
 " thers :" Such evidence, that the Prtfacers cannot 
 point out fo much as one inftance of contradiction or un- 
 certainty, — as to any fubftantial matter of facl. 
 
 4. The Prefaccrs acknowledge " an attempt, in this 
 " edition of the Second Tejfimony, to elucidate forne hif- 
 u torical references; or even to omit others, which do 
 u not appear to be fufficiently vouched. ,> But they 
 give no particular account of what thefe hifrorical refe- 
 rences are, or of how they do elucidate them ; nor of 
 what thefe are which they omit, or upon what defect as 
 to being fufficiently vouched* . However, they plead that 
 their " attempt cannot, with any degree of candour and 
 " juftice, amOUnt to a dropping of any part of the Te- 
 " f/imony, as it is a Tejiimony to the truths of God re- 
 " vealed in his word." But they had no reafon to be 
 afraid in this cafe ; as every body will have enough of 
 " candour and juftice" to admit of their plea, when it is 
 taken into plain language : That the abufes committed 
 by them upon the hijiorical part of the Teftimony, do 
 not amount unto a dropping of the affcrtory part, — fo far 
 as concerns Bible-truths ! How far the oppofition made 
 
 to 
 
 * They have indeed given the Teftimony Come appearance of Atch 
 defccl ; for they have thrown out thirteen references which it Originally 
 contains, to ads of Parliament and Wolrcii?s Hiftory, — as vouchers b£ 
 what is narrated. It is odd to charge it with a uaut of voucher^ 
 uhon depiivin* it of fo many which it hid. 
 
to their fcandalous dealings with that Teftimony — de* 
 ferves the character of " unprovoked abufe/' will be 
 confidered afterwards. 
 
 5. Were not the fubject too ferious for it, one could 
 not well help laughing at the queer blunder which the 
 Prefacers have fallen into ; of miftaking a pafTage refer- 
 red to in Mr Wilson's Continuation of his Defence, as if 
 it were any way for them, — while it is all againft them. 
 —Neither he, nor any of his brethren, ever afcribed 
 perfection to the Teftimony ; or fuppofed it free from 
 all circumftantial overfights. He knew therefore that it 
 was liable to quibbling and wrefting, and -wrangling about 
 circumftances ; particularly with regard " to the hifto- 
 " rical narrations contained in it :" While even the Ho- 
 ly Scriptures are not proof againft fnch ufage. But 
 
 it was odd for the Prefacers or B-Synod to imagine, 
 that this pafTage could make any thing for them ; while 
 it makes only for thofe againft whom they level it, — 
 as it means a reproof to themlelves, for their attacks upon 
 the faid " hiftorical narrations." 
 
 SECTION ir. 
 
 Of the Abuses committed, in the Re-Exhibition, upon 
 the Judicial Teftimony. 
 
 THE grievous injury done by the B-Synod, as to 
 the Seceffion-Teftimony in general, fo to the Judi- 
 cial Teftimony (the Aft y Declaration and Teftimony) in 
 particular, — is a matter of very melancholy confideration . 
 After being expofed to the world for above forty years, 
 the worft treatment it ever met with — has been in the 
 houfe of thefe profefled friends ; confidering the great 
 aggravation, of being met with among fuch hands. 
 
 Some members of the B-Synod at firft infilled, that the 
 burgefs-oath among Seceders — was in a ftate of perfect 
 agreement with the faid Teftimony : But this pretence 
 was foon give up. Under the banner of the faid oath* 
 that Teftimony quickly fell into difrepute ; as chargeable 
 
 with. 
 
C 27 ] 
 with grofs errors : And it has continued in a ftate of in- 
 famy on that fide, for about thirty years bygone. 
 
 The account which it gives of the fettlement and pro- 
 fefflon, or of the authorifed profejffion of religion at the 
 Revolution, was the thing principally found fault with; 
 the chief fubjec~t of the abufe which it has fuffered. And 
 the mod ftrenuous endeavours were ufed, to have that 
 matter fet forth in a fairer ftate ; for agreeing better with 
 an engagement of Seceders in the burgefs-oath. But 
 there was no real occafion for this, or for having the bur- 
 gefs-oath fupported at fuch expence ; nothing at all could 
 be gained for it by fuch endeavours. For, let the authori- 
 fed profeflion of religion at the Revolution be fuch as the 
 Teftimony reprefents it, — or let it be better, or let it be 
 worfe ; this is all one matter with regard to the burgefs- 
 oath : Becaufe it is properly to be confidered as an oath 
 of immediate communion with the Eftabliihed Church ; 
 not fimply as me was at the Revolution, or at the Union^ 
 or in any bygone period, — but {till in her prefent condi- 
 tion. However, upon the Teftimony becoming a great 
 eye-fore, as to the Revolution-fettlement ; no pains 
 have been fpared to promote its infamy, or the credit of 
 that abufe which had been firft committed upon it, — by 
 picking as many other holes in it as poftible. Accord- 
 ingly, while it was not convenient to difcard it altoge- 
 ther, (though the Appendix mows no particular regard 
 but to about a feventh part, the njfertory part of that 
 Teftimony) ; it is now exhibited with a multitude of dif- 
 paraging alterations. 
 
 Beiide what are commonly called typographical errors^ 
 as to letters and points ; there are about feventy differ- 
 ences, as to words, — in the way of omitting, adding, al- 
 tering, and tranfpofing. But as it doth not appear, how 
 thefe could be dejigned ; they are left to be confidered as 
 fo many blunders fallen into by the Printer, — or by the 
 committee- c/cr£, in his transcribing for the prefs. Only 
 it may be obferved, that the fubjecl was entitled to a 
 more careful attention. 
 
 There are alfo about forty alterations, which appear 
 "to have, been defignedj what the committee mems, 
 
 whea 
 
C i* ] 
 
 when telling that they have « corrected the'language in 
 " fome places :" Though they will not readily get any 
 fenfible and impartial perfon to concur with them, iu 
 judging that thefe corrections are to the better. As the 
 compilers of the Teftimony defpifed foppery,— they did 
 not need to learn propriety and dignity of expretfion, 
 from fuch as our modern correctors. But feeing thefe 
 alterations do not affect the matter, they may be paffed 
 over without any particular notice. It is obfervable, 
 however, that the ufmg of fuch freedoms with the lan- 
 guage of a judicial Deed — is no lefs unwarrantable than 
 uncommon : And that thefe ought to be confidered as fo 
 many wanton abufes committed upon the Teftimony, — 
 treating it with great levity and contempt, wherever an 
 affront could be rubbed upon it. 
 
 But there are other abufes committed upon it, which, as 
 they are material, inuft aifo be confidered as of a frau- 
 dulent nature ; and all of them equally groundlefs, tho* 
 not equally grofs. — The Synodical minute, prefixed to 
 the Re-Exhibition, fpeaks of the Judicial Teftimony as 
 now correcled ; by which people would readily under- 
 ftand no more than a correcl edition of it, correcting fuch 
 errors of the Prefs as had crept into fome former edi- 
 tions. The Pre facers are a little more plain ; when 
 they acknowledge " an Attempt, as in this edition of the 
 " Judicial Teftimony , to elucidate fome hiftorical references, 
 w or even to omit others, which do not appear to be 
 " fufficiently vouched." But they keep the readers per- 
 fectly in the dark, concerning all thefe elucidations 
 (in reality overturnings) and omiffions \ For, when 
 one reads the Teftimony as now exhibit ed y -^-he cannot 
 find the fmalleft hint, even fo much as in a note, of any 
 alterations being made. As it bears the original fubfcrip- 
 tion, \Extracledby James Fisher, Cls Pref] ; fo it be- 
 gins with the original date, \_At Perth, the third day of 
 December, One thoufand Jevc-a hundred and thirty -fix 
 years] : And the reader is left to take every fentence 
 that he finds betwixt the date and fubfeription, from the 
 firit to the laft line of the whole, as of the fame antiqui- 
 ty ; net any one fentence, more than another ; as of any 
 
 later 
 
[ 2 9 ] 
 later compofition than the 3d of December 1736. At 
 the fame time, confidering the great difcredit which the 
 Teftimony has been lying under on that fide, for about 
 thirty years bygone ; the generality of the people now 
 belonging to the B- Synod are to be fuppofed as unac- 
 quainted with it, in its original and authentic ftate, as with 
 
 the Turkijh Alcoran. And when it is now exhibited 
 
 in an adulterated or corrupted ftate, as alfo in the dark 
 manner which has been mentioned ; let any impartial 
 perfon judge if a more fraudulent Impofition, in any 
 fuch cafe, could have been committed upon a people ; 
 while the reader is left incapable, as he reads it, of diftin- 
 guiihing thefe corruptions from the original Mate o c the 
 Teftimony. 
 
 But fome particular account muft now be taken of 
 thefei corruptions. — About twenty-five years ago, the B- 
 Synod publilhed [" an overture; relative to fome hifto- 
 (i rical miftakes alledged to be in the Act, Declaration 
 M and Teftimony, — Anfwers by the AfTociate Preibytery 
 iS to Mr Nairn's Reafonsof Diftent. — and in the Acknow- 
 " ledgment of Sins prefixed to the Bond] :" In which 
 they diftinguifhed thefe pretended hiJJorical miftakes into 
 eighteen passages. And now, they fall upon eighteen 
 parages to be corrected — in the Teftimony alone ; which 
 are itatcd and confidered, in the following articles. 
 [<V. B. In. the feveral articles, T. ftands for Tcfimony ; 
 and the annexed pages are thefe of the edition in the 
 firffc volume of the Difpluy ? C. ftands for correclion or 
 corruption ; and the annexed pages are thefe of the edi- 
 tion in the Re-Exlnbilhn.~\ 
 
 I. T. p. 55, 56. " The Fir J} Book of Difcipl'mc — was 
 " approven by the Privy-council of Scotland, in the 
 M forefaid year 1560." 
 
 C. p. 80. " The lirft Book of Difcipllne — was approven 
 <c by many of the Privy-councillors, in the vcar 1561." 
 
 It is here fet forth as an error, that the Book was ap- 
 proven by the Privy -council ; being only, as is alleged, 
 
 by many of the Privy- councillors. But according to 
 
 Knox's and Calderwood's Hiftories, hitherto reckoned Riffi- 
 cient authorities, the Book " was fubferibed by a great 
 
 " part 
 
C 30 ] 
 
 u part of the Nobility :" And as to thefe " that ruled 
 u the Court," or Privy-councillors, it was " fubfcribed 
 ** by the mod part with their own hands;" while the 
 rmfl part of them certainly made the Privy - council f 
 Moreover, the title-page of that Book, (as accurately- 
 printed in the Colleclion of Con f efforts, anno 1722) bears, 
 that it was " prefented to the Nobility, anno 1560 ; and 
 " afterwards fubfcribed by the Kirk and Lords :" Yea 
 the deed of fubfcription by the Lords, there recorded, 
 bears this Title ; Acl of Secret Council, 17th of January, 
 mm 1560. 
 
 It is alfo fet forth as an error, that the Book was ap, 
 proven in the year 1560 ; not having been, as is alle- 
 ged, till the year 1561. — But, according to all accounts 
 given of the matter in thofe days, it was in 1560 ; and 
 it was fo, according to the only method of calculation 
 then, and long afterwards, in ufe. The year did then 
 begin on the 25th of March; fo that the January in which 
 the approbation took place, though the firjl month of the 
 year 1561, according to the later way of reckoning, — 
 was but the tenth month of the year 1560, according to 
 the way of reckoning then uled. 
 
 II. T. p. 56. " All the pieces of Reformation then 
 u attained unto, were ratified and approven by the Par- 
 u liament anno 1592." 
 
 C. p. 89. " All the pieces of Reformation" (as above) ; 
 iC excepting that patronage, which was exprefsly con- 
 u demned in the Second Book of Difcipline, was appro- 
 u ven by the faid acl: of Parliament." — But the undifguifed 
 matter of fact, with regard to that exception, is this, viz. 
 In the 1 2th chapter of the Second Book of Difcipline, 
 bearing this Title, " Certain general heads of Reforma- 
 u tion which we crave," — the aboliihing of patronage 
 was one of thefe craved ; but it had not been yet at- 
 tained unto, in the year 1592 : And therefore it is ftill a 
 certain truth, without any fuch exception, — that, by the 
 faid a& of Parliament, all the pieces of Reformation then 
 attained unto were ratified and approven. 
 
 III. T. p. 57. " In the latter end of the forefaid year 
 f* (1638), a free and lawful General AiTembly met at 
 
 " Clafgowj 
 
£ 3' 3 
 
 •* Gla/gozu ; who depofed all, and excommunicated fome 
 < c of *the Prelates." 
 
 C. p. 90. — " Which depofed all the Prelates from their 
 u pretended Epifcopal function, and from the privilege of 
 " fitting and voting in Parliament, council or convention, 
 " in name of the Kirk ; fufpended two of them from 
 " the exercife of the ministerial office ; depofed all th'j 
 u others from the office itfelf, and excommunicated eigh: 
 u of them." — And here is a pretence, of both correct- 
 ing an error and fupplying a difed in the Teftimony. Bur, 
 
 1 . As Mr JVilfon obferves concerning the four brethren 
 in that Teftimony, (Def. p. 320.) ; i( When the bre- 
 " thren fay they were all depofed, theyfpeak according 
 " to the title of the feveral acts relative unto them : 
 u They fpeak likewife in the ftile of all the writers at 
 " that time ; and in the exprefs words of the minifters 
 " of Perth and Fife, in their Teftimony." The quoted 
 priftage of the Judicial Teftimony, as it refpects the abo- 
 lilhing of Epifcopacy. — plainly means a de poling of all 
 the Prelates from their Prtlatical ftate, or Epifcopal func- 
 tion ; which was unqueftionably done. As to the par- 
 ticulars added by the B-Synod, refpecting thefe Prelates 
 in their mimflerial office ; and how many of them were 
 excommunicated : Thefe are neither of any importance 
 nor propriety, in that part of the Teftimony. 
 
 2. Did the Ailem'oly depofe the Prelates " from the 
 " privilege of fitting and voting in Parliament, council 
 " or convention, in name of the Kirk ?" Did they take 
 upon them to model and regulate the conftitution of Par- 
 liament, council and convention. — as to who fhould have 
 a feat and vote there ; this privilege having been allowed 
 to the Bifhops, properly confidered as Batons of the re- 
 alm, — a ftate which the Parliament only could deprive 
 them of? As to this matter, the Aiicmbly did only depofe 
 them from " the office of Commiiiioners to vote in Par- 
 " liament, council or convention, in name ot the Kirk :" 
 as their acts exprefsly bear. They o;.K deprived thefe 
 Prelates of a c6mmtffiott from the Kirk i'u to-vo/e, without 
 a word about their Jit tttig; leaving it to the Parliament, 
 to whom only it was competent, to deprive them of the 
 
 D privilege 
 
C 32 ] 
 
 privilege of fuch fitting and voting, — pretendedly in name 
 of the Kirk. And muft the Teftimony be defamed ; be- 
 caufe it has not defamed that famous AfTembly, in the 
 manner now done by the B- Synod I — As to the Prelate s 
 being deprived of the faid office of Commlfftoners ; the 
 Teftimony did very properly leave this to be underftood, 
 in their depofition from their Epifcopal function. 
 
 The fame blundering correction is repeated (C. p. 102, 
 103) : where the Teftimony repeats (p. 88.), as a con- 
 traft to the procedure of the R.evolution-afTembly ; that, 
 " by the AfTembly that met anno 1638, — all the Prelates, 
 <l being ringleaders in the apoftafy, were depofed ; and 
 " fome of them excommunicate." And as the abufe of 
 the Teftimony is aggravated, by repeating that bafe cor- 
 rection ; fo it is done with particular impertinence : For 
 there was no occafion, with regard to the Revolution- 
 alTembly, — to take notice of depofing the Bifhops " from 
 " the privilege of fitting and voting in Parliament, coun- 
 " cil or convention, in name of the Kirk ;" as the Par- 
 liament had turned them out from that privilege, before 
 the faid AfTembly met. 
 
 IV. T. p. 5$. u From this time (1638) till the year 
 " 1650, the building of the Houfe of God went on pro- 
 " fperoufly and fuccefs fully." 
 
 C. p. 90, 91 . " The building of the Houfe of God, 
 
 " in manifold inftances, advanced profperoufly and fuc- 
 M cefsfully : Though it muft be acknowledged, that the 
 " enforcing of religious duties with civil penalties ; and, 
 " in too many inftances, blending the affairs of Church 
 " and State with one another ; is totally inconfiftent with 
 " the fpiritual nature of ChrifPs kingdom." — And here 
 the Teftimony fuffers very confiderably ; in a pretended 
 correcting of its extravagance : But it fuffers in good 
 company, along with a grievous defamation of our re- 
 forming anceftors. Two different matters are now to be 
 confidered : As *rhe reafons given for correcting the Te- 
 ftimony, in the fuppofed extravagance of that commen- 
 dation which it beftows upon our laft reforming period. 
 
 j/?, Our Reformers are blamed, as to " the enforcing 
 " of religious duties with civil penalties. " But, 
 
 I, It 
 
[ 33 1 
 
 I . It is refnfed that ever they did Co : The correctors 
 are challenged to give fo much as one inftance, in all the 
 public managements from 1638 to 1650, — of any religi- 
 ous dutv as fuch, or any matter of religious duty diftinct- 
 ly confidered, having ever been enforced by civil penal- 
 ties. And the charge againft our reformers, of their 
 having acted a part, in this matter, " totally inconfiftent 
 " with the fpiritual nature of Chrift's kingdom, " — is 
 therefore a grofs calumny. More particularly, 
 
 (1.) It is granted that, in the period referred to, the 
 natural rights of mankind, about matters of confeience 
 and religion, were not properly underftood and acknow- 
 ledged. — It is competent for, and incumbent upon the 
 Church, to take cognizance of the religious principles 
 and practices of her members ; and to proceed againft: 
 them, as erroneous or undutiful in thefe matters, by the 
 exercife of her discipline. But no religious duties can 
 be warrantably enforced by civil penalties : No man can 
 be juftly fubjecfed to any penalties of that fort, for any 
 error of principle or iniquity of practice, — in religious 
 matters as fuch. It is competent for and incumbent upon 
 the Chriftian magistrate, to countenance true religion ancf 
 difcou.nenance falfe religion, to encourage the profeiTors 
 of the one and ciifecurage the profefibrs of the other ; 
 to do fo, by all means which may confiit with men's na- 
 tural rights, — fo as not to touch any one's perfon or pro- 
 perty, life or liberty, on a religious account. But it is 
 grolsly inconfiftent with the lovereignty of the Lord 
 Chrift, the fpirituality of religion, and the unalienable 
 rights of confeience, — for the civil magistrate to make 
 bimfVlf an authoritative judge of true and falfe religion, 
 o^ religious principles and profefiions, for dealing com- 
 pullively with his people in fuch matters ; or that they 
 iliould be any way accountable to him in the matters of 
 their faith and worfhip, as fuch. A maintaining and pro- 
 moting the public good of outward and common order, 
 in all reafonable fociety through his dominions, — is the 
 proper woik of his office. If fnen are truly chargeable 
 with principles or practices under the name of religion, 
 which manifeftly ftrike againft the welfare of civil fociety, 
 
 — or 
 
[ 34 1 
 
 — or are, according to the common principles of re a for;, 
 fubverfive of the public peace ; the pretence of religion 
 ought not to be any fafcguard unto them in fuch a cafe : 
 But it is the magistrates buliuefs to reftrain or puni/h them 
 as troublcrs of the civil ftate, or under the character of 
 bad fubjefts :' Yet frill without afluming any cpgnizance 
 of them as bad Chrijtians, or uling them with any com- 
 pulsions in that refpedt; as it is by a quite other fort of 
 means, that men are to be reclaimed from religious er- 
 rors or enormities. 
 
 It is too true, however, that confiderably different 
 views of this matter were entertained in the faid reform- 
 ing period : That our Reformers had not then got their 
 minds fufficiently extricated from the bondage of thofe 
 compulfory principles, in matters merely of confeience 
 and religion, which hod fo long domineered in the Po- 
 pifh and Epifcopal churches. — A fad evidence of this 
 lies in an a6t of Affembly 1647, in which the following 
 doctrine is taught; " That the civil magistrate may and 
 " ought to fupprefs, by corporal and civil punifhments, 
 " fuch as, by Spreading error or herefy, or by foment- 
 ^< ing fchifm, greatly dishonour God, dangeroufly hurt 
 " religion, and disturb the peace of the Kirk." Here, 
 indeed, the affair of civil penalties is doclrinally applied 
 to matters of religion as fuch, — yea to matters of reveal- 
 ed religion as fuch ; whatever might be judged error or 
 herefy or fchifm, though merely upon principles of Re* 
 velaiion. And if the magistrate was not to be degraded 
 into a mere blind tool of the Church, he was to affume 
 an authoritative judgment in thefe matters; and what- 
 ever lie ihould judge to be error or herefy or fchifm, 
 he was to fupprefs by corporal and civil punifhments. 
 And whether his judgment be right or wrong, in this 
 cafe, — the confequence rnuft be all the fame : Becaufe 
 what really is error or herefy or fchifm, and what he 
 judges to be fo, muff, be all one to him, — he muft pro- 
 ceed alike upon what is fo, and whatever he takes to be 
 fo ; as, according to the*proverb, \ What is fauce for a 
 ' goofe will be fauce for a gander.' — The perfecuting and 
 bloody tendency of this fcheme ; in itfelf confidered, may 
 
 be 
 
C 35 ] 
 
 be t>bvious enough without further enlargement. But it 
 is to be remarked with great thankfulnefs, that the Lord 
 did not fuffer it to take effect ; fo as the Prefbyterian 
 Church mould have come to be flamed with blood. 
 
 (2.) Principles and propositions of this fort, in which 
 tine minds of men, through fome train of ccnfufed fpecu- 
 lations, may be entangled, — will not always be a fufficient 
 ground, for charging them with a perfecuting or bloody 
 difpofition. We need go no farther for an evidence of 
 rhis, than a late Publication from London, upon a molt 
 commendable defign, entitled; " An Appeal from the 
 " Proteflant dictation to the people of Great Britain, ccn- 
 tl cerning the probable tend ncy of the Jate Ac! of Par- 
 u liament in favour of the Papids." It may well be 
 prclumed, that the Gentlemen of this Afibciation are as 
 little chargeable wkhfuch a difpofition as any other pc 
 fons in our Ifland. Yet they have rafiily injured tH-. 
 good caufe which they plead, — by the following paffagi '■ 
 in their definitions of perj'ccuiion and toleration. " Per 
 " fecution confifts in hurting a man in any of his natura. 
 " or civil rights, — on account of the principles he holds, 
 <l or the worfhip he performs; when thefe principles 
 " and that worHiip, have nothing in them incompatible 
 
 €l with the Scriptures: Toleration— confifts — in al- 
 
 " lowing every man to profefs his own faith, if not evi- 
 " dently repugnant to the Holy Scriptures." Now, it 
 was very right, to define Toleration as confining in a 
 practical nllozving, a not molefting ; inftead of coniifting 
 in an Act, giving pofitive countenance and encourage- 
 ment. 
 
 But, with regard to a man's religious principles and 
 worlhip, or the faith which he pro ft lies, — who are, in 
 this cafe, to be the judges ; as to whether or not thefe have 
 any thing in them " incompatible with," or " evidently 
 " repugnant to the Holy Scriptures ?" Certainly, the civil 
 powers, to whom perfecuting and tolerating belong. Yet, 
 if they be allowed to affume fuch a judgment, they may 
 perfecute as much as ever Papiits did ; and yet never be 
 chargeable, according to the above definitions, with any 
 perfecntion at all ; having no more ado for this, but firft 
 
 to 
 
C 3<> ] 
 
 to judge againfl: the perfon in the things mentioned: 
 And his plea for toleration will be good for nothing. 
 The miftake lies, in allowing the civil judgment concern- 
 ing fuch perfons to turn upon any other queftion, than 
 that of their being good or bad fubjects and members of 
 the civil Hate ; troublers, or not, of the common peace. 
 (3.) Our Reformers, in the laft century, had never 
 any fuch cafe under confideration, — as that of enforcing 
 religious duties, diflinclly confidered, by civil penalties ; 
 they never dealt, as they never had any occafion to deal 
 in fuch a practice. The enemies of Reformation- work, 
 whom they had to deal with, were, at the fame time, 
 enemies to the civil conft'rtution and liberties of their 
 country : And none of thefe were ever laid under any 
 civil penalties on any religious account, fimply confider- 
 I ; but as oppofmg the interefts of religion, in the way 
 .' active malignancy againft the public peace. 
 And it is very injurious to our Reformers, — to confi- 
 der their principles and conduct upon that head, in the 
 way of abstracting from their peculiar circumftances ; or 
 ss the fame principles and conduct would come to be 
 confidered in our circumstances. For it cannot be juftly 
 inferred, from any principles of compulsion which they 
 flood upon, that they would have made the fame applica- 
 tion of thefe principles in fuch a period as the prefent; 
 when people of different and pppofite denominations in 
 religion do all agree, in the common character of good 
 and peaceable fubjects of the civil date. 
 
 The kingdom of England was then laid under a dread- 
 ful inundation of fectaries, like a deflroying army of lo- 
 cufts ; Anabaptifls, Antimrnians 9 Fami lifts, Sivenkfieldians, 
 Seekers, Perfc&ionifls, Libertines: While thefe various 
 parties did not endeavour to maintain their different prin- 
 ciples and ways of worfhip in a peaceable manner, with- 
 out offering any injury or disturbance to others; but 
 were labouring, each, to bring ruin upon all others, — 
 to throw the public (late into univerfal confufion and 
 diftrefs. And muft our Reformers be hardly cenfured, 
 by fuch as now dwell at eafe ; becaufe driven, perhaps, 
 into fome practical extremes, — as to their way of guard- 
 ing 
 
C 37 ] 
 ing againft a mod imminent-danger of fach a horrid fcens 
 in this country. 
 
 After all, the qualification under which the Teftimony 
 commends our laft reforming period — might have ftili 
 fufficed, viz. " But fince the church, while militant, is in 
 " an imperfect ftate ; it is not hereby intended to affirm, — 
 " that, under the above mentioned period, there was 
 " nothing defective or wanting as to the beauty and or- 
 " der of the Houfe of God ; or that there was nothing 
 " culpable in the administration." 
 
 2. Though our late Reformers had been truly charge- 
 able with enforcing religious duties by civil penalties, it 
 very ill becomes the B-Synod to find fault with them 
 for doing fo : And it is truly a wonderful fcrape which 
 that Synod has fallen into, on this head. 
 
 In their Appendix, they condemn the General AflTem- 
 bly 1738, — for difmifling the procefs brought before them 
 againit Dr William Wish art, late Principal of the 
 Univerfity of Edinburgh ; on account of fevecal doctrines 
 which had been taught by him, and this among o- 
 thers, viz. " That the civil magiirrate hath no power to 
 " puniih herefies of any kind ; but that his jurifdiction 
 tl reacheth to thofe crimes only, which are committed 
 u againit the ftate." Now, while the Doctor was charg- 
 ed with other articles very grofsly erroneous and pernici- 
 ous ; that the above ihould have been brought in among 
 them, as a fubjed: of profecution, — was a reproach to all 
 who bad a hand in it, a reproach to this country. — But 
 what lhall one think of the B- Synod in this cafe > They 
 condemn the above article cf doctrine ; bringing it in un- 
 der the character of a. dangerous fentiment, a pernicious 
 principle, a herefy. They muft therefore be for the re- 
 verfe, for afcribing to the civil nagiltrate a power to pu~ 
 yiijh herefies of every kind ; and fo to enforce religious du- 
 ties by civil penalties. Prodigious ! Are they not the 
 fame perfons who have accufed and abufed our reforming 
 anceftors, for entertaining the fame principle which thera- 
 felves now adopt ? 
 
 idly, Our Reformers are blain.?d as, " in too many in- 
 " fiances, blending the affairs gf Church and State with 
 
 " one 
 
C 38 3 
 
 u one another, — -'totally inconilftent with the fpiritual na* 
 " cure of Chrift's kingdom. " 
 
 But what fort blending is meant ? Is it according to the 
 proper fenfe of the word ; a mingling of thefe two af- 
 fairs together , into a third thing compounded of both ? 
 Certainly no fuch blending ever was made, becaufe it ne- 
 ver could be made by them ; they left thefe affairs ftill 
 two different things as they had found them. — It mud 
 therefore to be a blending in the improper fenfe of the 
 word, which is meant ; a carrying on the affairs of Church 
 and State, in a connexion with one another : Efpecially 
 as in the National Covenant, and afterwards in the Solemn 
 League and Covenant. But was this criminal, — where all 
 the competent powers, civil and ecclefiaftical powers, were 
 concurring? And was this " totally inconfiftent with the 
 " fpiritual nature of Chrift's kingdom ;" more than it 
 would be to take in the whole matter of duty in fome 
 Scripture-texts, (as Mattb.xxn. 11. 1 Pet. ii. 17.), into 
 the matter of one oath ? — Our Reformers knew how they 
 were circumftanced, and what was proper for them in 
 thefe circumftances, better than we can pretend to do. 
 And it becomes us to behave with a little modefty, — when 
 judging about the propriety of their meafures, in circum- 
 ftances which we have no experience of. 
 
 And here is another wortderful fcrape which the B- 
 Synod has fallen into. — In their appendix, they bring it 
 forth as one of Mr Glass's Errors, which the church- 
 judicatories have not duly teftified againtt ; " That our 
 " Covenants, National and Solemn League, were an un- 
 " warrantable confounding and blending of Church and 
 " State with one another." Strange ! They condemn 
 our Reformers for having blended the affairs of Church 
 and State with one another; and they alfo condemn Mr 
 Clafs, for faying that their doing fo was unwarrantable! 
 
 V. T. p. 58. " The remarkable countenance which 
 " the Lord gave to the reforming and covenanting church 
 u of Scotland, did excite their neighbours in England and 
 " Ireland, to join with them in a Solemn Covenant; for 
 " maintaining, advancing and carrying on a work of re- 
 i( formation in the three kingdoms." 
 
 C.p.o!. 
 
C 39 ] 
 
 C. p. 91. " The remarkable countenance which the Lord 
 <c gave to the reforming and covenanting Church of Scot- 
 <e land at this time, was followed with a confiderable re- 
 " formation among their Proteftant brethren in England ; 
 " as alfo among a vaft number of them in Ireland. The 
 " confequence was, that a great body of the former, 
 " and many thoufands of the latter, united with her in 
 " a Solemn League and Covenant, for promoting and 
 " advancing a joint-reformation in the three kingdoms." 
 
 This correction fets forth the matter in fomewhat of 
 a different form, and with a good many moe words. 
 But to what advantage? So far as the alterations are not 
 manifeftly idle, they evidently ferve for darkening the 
 fubject. — There was no need for adding at this time ; 
 when the matter is directly brought in under the period 
 betwixt 1638 and 1650, as mentioned a few lines be- 
 fore. Join with is certainly more proper than united 
 with; as there was then no union, of either the king- 
 doms or churches. What reafon was there for throwing' 
 off the influential connection betwixt what took place in 
 Scotland, and in the neighbouring kingdoms ; by throw- 
 ing out the confideration of the one exciting to the other : 
 For one thing may be followed with another, without any 
 fort of influence upon it ? How comes the joining in the 
 Solemn League and Covenant — to be fet forth as imme- 
 diately the confequence of reformation in England and 
 Ireland ; and not of the remarkable countenance which 
 the Lord gave to the Reforming and Covenanting Church 
 of Scotland, according to the truth of hiftory ? Upon 
 what authority do they ftate fuch vague proportions, as 
 to Reformation and Covenanting, betwixt England and 
 Ireland ; leeming to give the preference to the latter : 
 When the Solemn League represents the matter differ* 
 ently ; calling the ftate of the Church and kingdom of 
 Ireland deplorable, while calling that in England dijlref- 
 jed? And how come they to throw the prcfrvation (or 
 maintaining) of the Reformed Religion in the Church of 
 Scotland, out of the Solemn League? 
 
 VI. T. p. 65. " The fore laid Refolutions, both of 
 " Church and State, were contrary to and condemned by 
 fi the word of God." 
 
 F. C.p.o;. 
 
C 40 ] 
 • C. p. 9*;. " This introduction of fuch perfons into 
 u places of power and trull, was contrary to and con- 
 •' demned by the word of God." — And here, the Tefti- 
 mony of the witnefling Church of Scotland againfl the 
 Public Rejoluthns, as a Church-Evil, is upon the matter gi- 
 ven up : Retaining only a Teftimony againfl the State- 
 Evil which was consequent thereupon ; the introducing of 
 mali'gnants into places of power and truft. 
 
 VII. T. p. 65, 66. " The mod part of thefe who 
 " were for the Public Refolutions made defection unto 
 u Prelacy; whereas all the Proteflers, except a few, 
 " flood firm againfl it : When, in the year 1662, this 
 €< curfed Jericho was rebuilt." 
 
 C. p. 95. — " The greateft part of the Proteflers, ex- 
 ■' cept a few," Cc. And is the greateft part except a 
 few a truer way, yea is it not a much lefs proper and 
 f mfible way of exprefling the matter, — than all except a 
 fe-wP It is even rank nonfenfe. But, reafon or none, it 
 feems, the Teftimony muft be corrected. 
 
 VIII. We come now to the principal error of the 
 Teftimony, as is pretended ; in the account which it gives 
 of the Revolution-Settlement '. And, for a diftincl view of 
 the matter, there muft be a pretty large tfanferibing on 
 both fides. 
 
 T. p. 86, 87. " When the Parliament of Scot- 
 " land met immediately after the Revolution, in the 
 W fi r fl fetf* 011 tnev aboliffjed Prelacy ; as a great and tn- 
 * f fupport able grievance to this nation, and contrary. to the 
 " inclination of the generality of the people ever fine e the 
 <i Rr formation, — they having reformed from Popery by 
 " Pi-fbyters. And in the fecond feffion of the fame Par- 
 " liament, anno 1690, Prefcyterian Church- Government 
 * l and Difcipline is eftabliihed and ratified ; according to 
 ** the civil ratification and eftablilhment given unto the 
 " Government of this Church, anno 1592. Thus, a re- 
 u trograde motion is made near an hundred years back* 
 ** ward ; and all the legal fecuriries given to this Church 
 * l in the Covenanting period, from 1638 to 1650, are 
 <i overlooked and palled by. Likewife, all the acts of the 
 
 firft feffion of the firft Parliament of King Charles II, 
 
 " together 
 
 n 
 
C 41 3 
 
 c: together with the infamous y#? Refciffory amn 1661, * 
 " (whereby a Covenanted Reformation was razed, and 
 " the Acts and Deeds of that Covenanting period were 
 " declared feditiou^ and treafonablej — are left untouch* 
 " ed in this above mentioned fettlement." 
 
 u Prelacy is never confidered as contrary to the ivord 
 " of Cod, and ahjured by our Covenants ; nor our Pref- 
 u byterian Church- Government and Difcipline, as what 
 <c the land is bound and obliged to maintain by the 
 41 moft folemn oaths and covenants. The indignities 
 " done to the National and Solemn League and Cove- 
 <l nant, and cohfequently to the Moil High God the 
 " great party in them, are never regarded ; but thefe 
 " folemn Oaths and Covenants are left buried under an 
 <( act refciflbry, and other acts and deeds fubverfive of 
 « them." 
 
 Thefe two paragraphs are wholly retained, in the Re* 
 Exhibition : And this mult be remembered, for com. 
 paring them with the following adulteration. 
 
 T. p. 87. " If this nation, when an opportunity and 
 u feafon was given them, and when the Lord gave fuch 
 " a remarkable and wonderful deliverance unto them, — 
 " did not reient the indignities and injuries done in the 
 
 " former 
 
 * By an original overfight in printing the TefHmonV, and not adver- 
 ted to in following editions of it, (which has oecafioned an inadvertency 
 in Mr IVilfon's Defcnc:, p. 319); 1601 has been put, in this place, for 
 1662. 
 
 Among the afls of the firft feflion of that Parliament, anxo i66f, 
 tliere was an infamous >iCt rc)c:j'ory, (act 1 5th, referred to in the third 
 article of the condemnatory part of the Teftjjnony concerning the'Rdlo- 
 ration) ; by which the Parliaments of our Reforming period were r. - 
 fcineU'd and annulled; and all acts and deeds patl and done in th«m, 
 without mentioning any particulars, are declared \o:.i .;.vJ null. Hut 
 another infamous ad rqaqfon (mentioned in the ^chm . >it of 
 
 (ins under the character of that impious a* , bcfide or dif- 
 
 ferent from the acts of the jir r t feflion, — did pafs in tht Lco::.l feiTion of 
 the faid Parliament, cv.no 1662. (being act 2d, mentioned in the fourth 
 article of the fad condemnatory part) ; « 4 whereby a C\nci:j:tu'. 
 *' formation v as razed, and the acta and deeds of that Covenanting pe* 
 c< riod were declared (editions and treasonable:" And particularly, the 
 faid act declares our Solemn Covenants td be H in thcrafeives unlawful 
 k4 oaths; and therefore ..:. nulls all Acts and CouUitutiuns, Eccleiiaftical 
 ii or Civil, approving the fa»d Covenants, of nuking any intcrprcta- 
 %i tion 3 thereof. '' 
 
[ 41 1 
 " former period, to that God whofe awful and hofy 
 " name was interpofed in thefe Solemn Oaths and Co- 
 " ven ants ; it is a righteous, jurt and holy difpenfation 
 *' of providence, — that we fhould be no more a nation - 
 " And that our noblemen, barons, and burgefles, (who 
 *' had fuch a golden feafon and opportunity put into 
 " their hands for honouring God, and doing juftice to 
 " that great name which was abufed and profaned in 
 *' fuch a dreadful and unparalelled manner,) — mould 
 " for ever be deprived of the opportunity of acling by 
 u them] "elves in a parliamentary capacity." 
 
 <l Likewife, by the fame Parliament the Oath of AU 
 " legiance to the Sovereign is appointed to be fvvorn, — 
 " in place of any other oaths impofed by laws and acls of 
 " preceding Parliaments*. Though it may be faid, that 
 " this had a refpect to the oaths impofed during the perfe- 
 " curing period ; yet the terms in which the Act is conceiv- 
 " ed appear plainly to exclude the Oath of the Covenant, 
 li which contained a very folemn teft of allegiance to 
 <c the Sovereign : Efpecially when it is confidered, that 
 " the above-mentioned Act Refciffory was not repealed." 
 
 Now, thefe two paragraphs are wholly rejecled in the 
 Re-Exhibition ; without the fmalleft hint given to the 
 reader, that any fuch were ever in the Teftimony. And 
 what quarrel had the B- Synod, with thefe two para- 
 graphs ? As to the firft, — do they demur at the charge 
 upon this nation, that they did not refent as above ex- 
 preiTed ? But this is as ftrongly laid in the paflage 
 immediately preceding, which they retain as before- 
 mentioned. — Or do they flick at the inference from that 
 charge, than which none can be more juft? But, reafon 
 or none, the whole is reje&ed. 
 
 As to the fecond of thefe paragraphs ; it is well known, 
 that they are again ft finding fault with the Oath of Allegi- 
 ance as then impofed : Againft confidering it, as then im- 
 pofed in place of the Oath of the Covenant. — But could 
 
 the 
 
 * The words here printed in Italic have been, through overfight, 
 printed in the Testimony with turned commas ; though they are not the 
 precife expreilions, but the plain import oFthe Ac~l of Parliament refer* 
 red to. The difference between printing with turned commas,, and in, 
 Italic chara&ers, has not been attended unto. 
 
I 43 3 
 the Revolution-Parliament be ignorant, that this latter 
 oath had been " impofed by laws and afts of preceding 
 " Parliaments" in the reforming period ? And while 
 all thefe, as is acknowledged, were burled under an Art 
 Refciffbry,—and this ftill left unrepealed: Could they 
 fuppofe that the Oath of Allegiance would not, and ought 
 not to be taken, as impofed in place of the Oath of the 
 Covenant which they left as already buried ; as well as of 
 others, which they did then bury ? 
 
 C. p. 102. " But though the Proteftant Religion, 
 u and Prefbyterian Church-Government, which had been 
 " profeffed and fworn to in our Covenants, national and 
 " folemn League, betwixt 1638 and 1650, were thus 
 <e eftablilhed ; and though it would appear, from the ge- 
 " neral claufe in the Act of Settlement at the Revolution, 
 " that the Acts Refcijfory were included among the other 
 " Arts, Statutes, and Proclamations, mentioned in the 
 u faid claufe, and fo materially refcinded, in fo far as 
 €< contrary to the faid Religion and Church-Government 
 " eflahlifhed by faid Act ; yet it is to be lamented, 
 u that thefe infamous Ads were not exprefsly refcinded, 
 <( as well as the other wicked Acts mentioned in the Set- 
 " tlement at the Revolution. — Prelacy was never confi- 
 u dered as contrary to the word of God, and abjured 
 " by our Covenants : And though Presbyterian Govern- 
 (< ment was expreffly declared to be agreeable to the 
 11 word of God y yet it was never confidered as what is 
 " folemnly fworn to in thefe Covenants. — The indigni- 
 * ties which had been done to the National Covenant, 
 " as it was explained in 1638, and to the Solemn 
 " League and Covenant, and confequently to the Mofi 
 " High God the great Party in them, by requiring the 
 " fubjecls folemnly to renounce them as unlawful, and 
 u not binding upon the conscience ; or by declaring it 
 " treafonable to adminifter or take them, or to fpeak or 
 " write in defence of them; were exprefsly refcinded. 
 " But feveral other Acts, declaring thefe Covenants un- 
 M lawful and not binding, were left unrepealed. " 
 
 This large paragraph is wholly new ; never had any 
 place in the Judicial Teftimony, till intruded into it by 
 the B- Synod in 1779^ — though it is palmed upon the 
 
 reader^ 
 
C 44 J 
 reader, as the language of the Affociate Prefbytery it* 
 1736 ! And when once the intruders of this paragraph 
 fhall fairly coniider the futility, falfehood and felf-contra- 
 diclion, of which it is compounded ; they will certainly 
 
 be afhamed of it. But there is no neceflity for en- 
 
 larging upon the fubjeft, in this place ; as it has been 
 largely difcuiled in the fecond volume of the Difplay .- 
 Only, the following remarks may be now made, upon 
 that infamous paragraph. 
 
 1. The general defign of it is, to paint the Revolution 
 Settlement in fairer colours than what are natural. And 
 as it is acknowledged iq the Preface, " that the fine 
 " and backflidings of this Church and Nation are repre- 
 " fented in the firji Teftimony as grounds of Secejfion ;" 
 but, " in the fecond Teftimony, are confidered as juft 
 " grounds of the divine difpleafure with this nation, and 
 " as the ordinary forerunners of public calamities :" The 
 confeqnence is, as to the preient plea in behalf of the 
 Revolution. Settlement, — that it is not (imply a ftretching 
 of laws, in a plea for any of the fubjeSs againft the 
 Sovereign ; but a mod groundlefs ftretching of them, 
 in a plea for the whole generation againft God. 
 
 2. There is now a great lowering of fails, in coming 
 far down from former pretenfions about this matter. A 
 noted publication upon the fame fide, by the chief pro- 
 moter of the Burgher-fcheme, and which is ftill recom- 
 mended by a note in the Re -Exhibition f, — bears the fol- 
 lowing pafTages}, viz. " The Revolution-parliament can- 
 <* not juftly be charged with omijjions, as to the fettle- 
 " ment of the true religion : The true religion, as it 
 " wa.s prcfejjed andfworn to in that fecond period, was 
 " efpoufed and profefled by the Revolution-parliament : 
 " The true religion, as profeflld in the fecond Refor- 
 " mation-period from 1638 to 1649, in oppofition to the 
 " indignities done to it in the preceding reigns, was pro- 
 " felTed by the Revolution-parliament; \vhich does, 
 "' either more generally, or more formally and exprefs- 
 " ly, refcind all the wicked laws that were made againft 
 " any part of the true religion, that, was profefled in 
 
 " that 
 t p. 263. \ Sec the Difplay, p. 88, 89. 
 
C 45 1 
 " that period as well as the former : Either in a general 
 " or more particular way, the civil fettlement of religion, 
 * or the eftablifhment thereof at the Revolution, re- 
 " fcinds all the bad lazvs that were made againft the true 
 " religion \ and ratifies all the good laws that ever were 
 " made in favours of it, fince the Reformation : The 
 " National Covenant, as it zvas fworn to and explained 
 " in 1638, and alfo the Solemn League and Covenant, — 
 a are, by exprefs afts of the Revolution-parliament, 
 " vindicated from all the indignities done to them in the 
 " preceding reigns : The Revolution-parliament do aflert 
 u and avouch the alone Head.Jkip of our Lord Chriftover 
 u his Church J the intrinfic po-jver of the Church, and the 
 
 " divine right of Prelovtery." But, though there 
 
 feems not to be enouah of courage now, for re-exhibi- 
 ting thefe prodigious extravagancies in fo bold a manner, 
 or for uttering them with To wide a mouth ; yet the fame 
 things, upon the matter, are faintly and dubioufly infinu- 
 ated in the above paragraph, — under the cover of fome 
 infignificant qualifications. 
 
 3. The observation here made about Prelacy, is a vain 
 repeating of what was faid in the preceding paragraph* 
 And there is no advantage gained by adding, about Pref- 
 byterian Government, that it " was exprefsly declared 
 *< to be agreeable to the Word of God :" For all the dif- 
 ferent forms of t?/>ttrr/;-Government, juft as all the diffe- 
 rent forms of civil Government, were reckoned to be fo ; 
 and, in the Acl: of Settlement, the true Proteftant religion 
 is mentioned as one thing, — while Prefbyttri.m Church- 
 Government is mentioned as another, a different thing. 
 
 4. Though the Proteflant religion and Prcibyterian 
 Church-Government, wricb had been profefTed and fworn 
 to in our Covenants between 1638 and 165c, were efta* 
 blifhed at the Revolution : it cannot be pretended, that 
 the finalieft notice was then taken of thefe as having 
 been profefTed and l\vorn to in the faid period ■ And no 
 more can be inferred from this, in favour of that reform- 
 ing period,— than from the fame Bible being ufed then 
 and now. 
 
 But we are further told, — tl^ " it would appear, that 
 
 " the 
 
[ 46 3 
 
 tl the Acls Refciffory were materially refcinded" at the 
 Revolution. And if fo, the guilt ftill lying upon the 
 nation about thefe molt wicked acts — will amount to no 
 nmre than the difference betwixt materially and exprefsly ; 
 no fubftantial, but only a circumftantial kind of guilt. — 
 But how do thefe acts appear to have been materially re- 
 fcinded ? As it is certain that no mention was made of 
 them, among many acts of the perfecuting period which 
 were exprefsly refcinded at the Revolution ; it is no lefs 
 certain, that they (land in the body of our Scots law to 
 this very day, — as really as any acts of the Revolution - 
 parliament. How then would it appear (againft all com- 
 mon fenfe), that they were materially refcinded ? It 
 would appear, it fecms, that they were fo by the general 
 claufe in the Act of Settlement. But the Acls Refciffory 
 were in no fort of refpect contrary to the J aid religion and 
 Church-government eftabliflied by the Act of Settlement at 
 the Revolution : For, as the faid act left the laft reform- 
 ing period in a (late of utter oblivion, by pafling back to the 
 eftabliihment in 1592 ; it could not therefore but ftan4 
 in a perfect agreement with the Abls Refciffory, by which 
 that period had been buried into fuch a ftate. 
 
 After all, as to this doctrine about the material re- 
 minding of the Acts Refciflbry ; how can it confift with 
 what lies in a preceding paragraph of the Tefhmony, 
 ftill retained in the Re-Exhibition : That '•' all the legal 
 " fecurities given to this Church, in that covenanting 
 " period from 1638 to 1650, are overlooked and pajfed by" 
 in the Revolution-fettlement ; and that " all the acts of 
 *' the firit fellion of the firft Parliament of king Charles II, 
 f* together with the infamous Acl Refciffbry anno 1662, 
 tc — are left untouched in this above-mentioned fettle^ 
 11 ment ?" And can a material refcinding be fuppofed, 
 in fuch overlooking and paffing by, and leaving untouched? 
 What miferable inconiiilency ! 
 
 5. It is pretended, in the paragraph now under confi- 
 deration ; that " the indignities which had been done to 
 f* the National Covenant as it was explained in 1638, 
 u and to the Solemn League and Covenant, and by con- 
 c( fequence to the Moft High God the great Party in 
 
 « them/* 
 
[ 47 ] 
 ct them," by Come acts referred to, — " were exprefj/ 
 " refunded." But what was all the import of refunding 
 thefe acls ? Juft this : That pterfbns in public truft were 
 thereby relieved from an obligation tti renounce thefe Co- 
 venants as in themfelves unlawful, on pain of being pu- 
 n'tjked as ufurpers of his Majefly's authority ; and the In- 
 jects relieved from an immediate liablenefs to be defrayed 
 as traitors, for owning them. Here was indeed a great 
 deal done for the lives and liberties of the fubjecls, who 
 did or might own thefe Covenants ; that they lhould be 
 no longer perfecuted for doing fo : But was all this any 
 exprtfs reminding of the indignities which had been done 
 to thefe Covenants themf elves ? A qualification is indeed 
 added, — that " feveral other acts, declaring thefe Cove- 
 " nants unlawful and not binding, were left unrepealed :" 
 Though there was no lefs reafon to imagine all thefe al- 
 (o materially repealed, by the general claule in the Act of 
 Settlement, than that the Acls Re/ciffbry were fo. — But 
 notwithstanding this qualification, there was (till, it feems, 
 fbme exprtfs reftiridhig of the indignities which had been 
 done to our Solemn Covenants ! And how can this con- 
 fi(t with what lies in the immediately preceding para- 
 graph of the Teftimony, (Till retained in the Re-Exhi- 
 bition : That " the indignities done to the National and 
 " Solemn League and Covenant, and confequently to the 
 " Mod High God the great party in them, are n&ver 
 regarded; but thefe Solemn Oaths and Covenants are 
 left buried under an Acl RefiJJv-y, and other acls and 
 
 u 
 
 deeds fubverfive of them ?" Can there be a i 
 
 lhocking inconiillency ? 
 
 Upon the whole, — confidering the retained paragraphs 
 (before exprefTed) as a text, and t'.ie paragraph now exa- 
 mined as a falfe and fubverfive commentary upon it ; the 
 queftion is, How came both the text and fuch a commen- 
 tary to have a place in the Re -Exhibition ? It feems im- 
 poflible to account for this, unlefs there be fjme hi) lb ry 
 in the cafe : Perhaps that the B-SynoJ found it necetfary, 
 in order to fatisfy all parties concerned, and keep them- 
 felves together ; to retain the text for pleating fome, ami 
 to take in the commentary for pleafnig others, — as no ra- 
 tional per ion can be plealVd with both. 
 
[ 43 3 
 
 IX. T. p. 88. " It was the laudable practice, in rc~ 
 forming times, to condemn all fteps of defection." 
 
 C. p. 102. — (i To condemn the moil glaring fteps of 
 " defection." And what a pretty correction is this ? It 
 means, if it mean any thing, that various fteps of defec- 
 tion were then left uncondemned ; only the tnojl glaring 
 being condemned. But, though the Teftimony could 
 not be fuppofed to mean (a thing impracticable), that the 
 condemning which then took place — contained a full par- 
 ticular enumeration of all preceding fteps of defection : 
 Yet the exprefs condemning of many chief fteps, fome 
 of which comprehended various particulars, — compared 
 with the general Reformation then fet about, of all for- 
 mer abufes ; this could not amount to any thing lefs, than 
 a condemning all fteps of defection, — all condemned, 
 either formally or materially. 
 
 X. T. p. 88. " The General AfTembly that met in the 
 " year 1690, made no particular acknowledgment of the 
 (l many heinous backflidings of the former period." 
 
 C. p. 103. — " Did not make fuch a plain and particu- 
 u lar acknowledgment of the heinous backflidings of the 
 <e preceding perfecuting period, as might have been ex- 
 " petted." 
 
 And here the Teftimony is corrected, as if it had gi- 
 ven a falfe reprefentation of the cafe. But the correc- 
 tion is moft groundlefs and difingenuous : For the cor- 
 rectors cannot produce any particular acknowledgment 
 at all, then made of thefe many heinous backflidings. 
 
 It is alfo particularly obfervable, — that the B-Synod 
 here confines thefe backflidings to U the preceding per- 
 " fecuting period •," fo as to abftract from all backflid- 
 ings relative to the public refolutions, for about ten 
 years before the perfecution began. 
 
 XI. T. p. 88, 89. "When many lamentable fteps of 
 " defection and apoftaiy were complained of, in a large 
 " paper offered to the forefaid AfTembly 1 690 by Mr Alex- 
 li under Shields and other two minifters ; the faid AfTembly 
 " was [o far from attempting the redrefs of their griev- 
 " ances, that they approve the report of their committee 
 " for overtures, — calling them unfeafonable and imprac- 
 
 " ticable 
 
[ 49 1 
 " ticable propofals, uncharitable and injurious reflections, 
 " tending rather to kindle contentions than to compofe 
 " divifions." 
 
 C. p. 103. — " Calling feveral of them, &C." 
 Now the fmall correction here made, by inferting the 
 word feveral, — means a charge of falfehood upon the Te- 
 ftimony ; as if it carried the reflection upon that AfTem- 
 bly beyond matter of fact. But the charge is entirely 
 
 groundless; and fo, the correction is real!)' abufive. 
 
 For though the committee acknowledged, that the faid 
 paper had feveral good things in it ; (and it had been 
 ftrange, if a large paper by three honeft minifters had 
 not contained feveral good things, — even in the opinion 
 of that committee) : Yet, as to what it pro poled a re- 
 drefs of, under the character of their grievances ; not 
 merely fome or ftveral of thefe, but the fame in gene- 
 ral, were lalcl under the forefaid character. 
 
 XII. T. p. 89. " The AfTembly 1690, did not aiTert 
 " the divine right of Prefbytery, and the intrinlic power 
 " of the Church.'' 
 
 C. p. 103. — " Did not, by any formal and exprefs 
 u act, afTert, &c." But what occafion was there for de- 
 faming the Teftimony by^ch an addition, as if it had 
 fpoken loofely and beyond the truth ? The correctors 
 cannot produce an initance, of the faid Affembly having 
 afierted thofe very important things at all, — in any man- 
 ner that deferves the character of affertmg them. 
 
 XIII. T. p. 89. " The King's Commiflioner diflblved 
 u the AJTembly 1692 : And though their meetings were 
 *' adjourned from time to time by the King's proclama- 
 " tion, till the year 1694; yet there is not any fan d- 
 ii ing Teftimony againft fuch finful encroachments upon 
 <{ the rights and liberties of Chrift's fpiritual kingdom.-' 
 
 C. p. 103.- " Yet there is no fuch (landing Tefti- 
 
 u mony againft fuch finful encroachments upon the rights 
 u and liberties of Chrift's fpiritual kingdom, as the cafe 
 " required." 
 
 But, in order to fupport the defamation of the Tefti- 
 mony by this qualifying correclion, as if it had mifre- 
 nrefented the matter j the correctors Ihould have point- 
 ed 
 
[ 5° 1 
 ed out where fome kind of (landing Teftimony may be 
 found, in the cafe referred to. It would be a grofs im- 
 pbimg upon people to pretend, — as if a verbal Teftimo- 
 ny by the Moderator, at the time uf the Commiffioner's 
 diflTolving the AfTembly 1692, could amount to any thing 
 of the nature of a [landing Teflimony upon this head : 
 When that verbal Teftimony was not put upon a public 
 record; no adherence. to it having been declared, then or 
 afterwards, by the General AfTembly. 
 
 XIV. T. p. 95, 96. " The united constitution, direcl- 
 " ly oppofite to our Covenant -anion, is thereby {viz. 
 u by the Oath of Objuration) homologate and fworn un- 
 " to : [And the /aid Oath, together with the Allegiance, 
 tl is fubftitute in the room of our Solemn National Cove- 
 11 nants ; which contain the ftricteft engagements of du- 
 <l tv to the Sovereign, and a moft folemn renunciation of 
 ci Popery, and conUquently of all Popiih pretenders 
 <{ whatfoever."] 
 
 Of this quotation, the whole latter part (included in 
 crotchets) is left out and rejected by the Re -Exhibition 
 (p. ic8.) ; without any fignification of its having ever 
 hcid a place in the Teflimony. The groundlefs quarrel 
 ■with it, as refpe&ing the Oy :h of Allegiance, has been 
 already confidered in the eighth article : And now there 
 is a refufal likewife, of any injury having been done to 
 our Solemn Covenants by the Oath of Abjuration ! 
 
 XV. T. p. 121. " A like injury has been done to 
 <( truth, by the committee's judging, — [that the expref- 
 (< fions objected againft, are only too high on the fide of 
 « felflove."] 
 
 C. p. 124. " Are only top high on the fide of felf- 
 
 " love ; which amounts to no more, than that he had ex- 
 <( P re lfc'd the truth in equivocal and fufpicious terms." 
 
 That part of the above paiTage from the Teftimony 
 which is inclofed in crotchets, belongs to the judgment 
 of the Afilmbly's committee, — about Mr Campbell's 
 fcheme of felf-love : While the addition now made, here 
 diftioguiftied by Italic characters, is brought in as a ne- 
 ceffary illuftration ; for correcting a fuppofed defect in 
 the Teftimony. And let any body who pleafes take it 
 
 for 
 
C 5« ] 
 
 for an illustration ; that an expreffing of the truth in 
 equivocal and fufpicious terms, is the lame tiling with a 
 fpeaking only too high on the fide of the truth ! — The 
 Teftimony, in what follows the above paJTage, gives a 
 very different illuftration ; " An high exprefhon, in com- 
 " mon language, being nothing elfe but truth fet in a 
 " firing tight." 
 
 But there is a linp-ular oddnefs of this affair. For the 
 faid addition (though only made by the B-Syncd) is 
 brought in, with continued marks of quotation, as a part 
 of the Committee's judgment ; even incorporated into 
 the fame fentence with their language : So that the 
 Committee is reprefented as giving their judgment, in 
 the way of defaming their own judgment ! 
 
 XVI. T. n. 144. " Though Popilh errors and delu- 
 " fions abound more and more, and the abominable i- 
 " dolatry of the mo.fs is openly frequented in many ccr- 
 " ners of this land ; -yet no proper nor effectual remedies 
 " are applied agninfr this growing evil ; [And particular* 
 *' ly, church- dikipline is not duly exercifed againit Pa- 
 " pi 'is; according to former laudable acts and conftitu- 
 " tions of this Church. "] 
 
 C. p. 140. — " Againit this growing evil, by either 
 " Church or State." 
 
 That part r>i the above quotation from the Teftimony 
 which is inc ed in crotchets, is left out and rcjeifedhy 
 the Re-Ex! ^iiion \ and the place of it is fupplied by 
 thefe words, ^y either Church or State. — The reafon of 
 this conduct appears inconceivable ; farther than as it 
 ferves for rubbing a reflection upon the Teftimony, of 
 its fpeaking idly or improperly in \\h;)t is now rejected. 
 
 XVII. P. p. 162. " '1 hey (the Ailbciate Prefb) 
 
 " hereby declare their adherence to the feveral Teftimo-, 
 " rites, Declaration* and Warnings, — emitted in behalf 
 r< of the Covenanted Reformats n of this CI urch, from 
 " the year i6c.o to the year 1688. " 
 
 C. 152. — " Then- adherence to the feveral regular 
 " and Scriptural TeftimtnicSy &c." 
 
 And here is a qualify'* ftion of a funpofed ex- 
 
 ance in the Teftvmony ; by inferting the words, 
 
 ret 
 
C 5* ] 
 
 rrgular andfcriptural. — But what need was there of this 
 addition ? Is not the adherence fufficiently confined to 
 what was regular and fcriptural in thefe Teftimonies, 
 Declarations and Warnings; by the qualification, of their 
 being " emitted in behalf of the Covenanted Reforma- 
 *' tion of this Church ?" And muft an indefinite reflec- 
 tion be rubbed upon any of them really fo emitted, as if 
 they had been irregular and unfcriptural? 
 
 XVIII. T. p. 162. " They (the Affociate Prelbyte- 
 il ry) hereby declare their adherence to the feveral Tefii- 
 " monies, whether given in by reprefentations and peti- 
 " tions to the feveral General Affemblies, or otherwife 
 <e emitted and publilhed fince the year 1688, — againft 
 *' the feveral finfu! omiffions of the Judicatories of this 
 " Church above mentioned; or the feveral fteps of de- 
 u dining and backfliding in this prefent age, from a Co- 
 " venanted Reformation once attained unto." 
 
 C. p. 152. — " Their adherence to the feveral Teftimo- 
 tl nies, &c. [in fo far allenarly as thefe are calculated t* 
 " maintain the Doctrine, Worfhip, Difcipline and Go- 
 " vernment of the Church of Scotland, founded on the 
 " Word of God."] 
 
 And here again, by the addition inclofed in crotchets, 
 there is a qualifying Correction of a fuppofed extravagance 
 in the Teftimony. — But is not the adheretre fufficiently 
 limited; in its refpecting thefe Teftimonies "Cnly as againft 
 the flnful omiffions, with the feveral Jleps of- declining and 
 backfliding therein mentioned ? 1 
 
 The truth of the matter is, — that whatever need the 
 Teftimony may have of being defended, with regard to 
 this and the foregoing article ; it {lands in no need at z\\ 
 of being amended. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The fraudulent and grofs abufes which have been 
 committed, in the Re-Exhibition, upon the Seceffion-Tef 
 timony in general, with the Judicial Ad: and Teftimony 
 in particular, — have now been confidered. And a la- 
 mentable cafe it is, that the authors thereof mould have 
 
 taken 
 
E 53 ] 
 
 taken fuch a courfe, — for promoting their favourite 
 caufe about the Burgefs-oath, which they now explicitly 
 profefs ; yet without gaining any real advantage by it, 
 to that caufe. For however much any particular correc- 
 tions of the Teftimony, as thefe now made, may recon- 
 cile it to their imaginary fcheme about the meaning and 
 effect of the Burgefs-oath among Seceders ; yet nothing 
 lefs can anfwer unto the real meaning and effect thereof, 
 
 nothing lefs than a giving up with that Teftimony 
 
 altogether, as in a ftate of Seceffwn from the Eftabliihed 
 Church : While the B-Syncd, in order to make room 
 For the Burgefs-oatk, has already thrown the Renovation 
 of our Solemn Covenants quite out of doers. 
 
 Had thefe abufes been executed in a fair and open 
 manner, with a plain and particular account of them as 
 they feverally occur, — that the reader might judge for 
 himfelf, betwixt the old and neiv State of the Teftimony ; 
 the fault had been of far lefs aggravation. But the 
 fraudulent adulterating of it, which has been conlidered, 
 is a moft unexampled prefumption; as the Churches of 
 England and Scotland, after all the corruption which they 
 are funk intc, — have not yet been left to corrupt their 
 Homilies, Articles or Con f effort : And it would be as 
 much as one's life were worth, to perpetrate fuch for- 
 geries upon any deed of private rights among men, — a? 
 are now committed upon the Judicial Teftimony. It will 
 be ftrange if fome. at leaft, of the people belonging to 
 the B-Synod, mall not now have their eyes opened ; to 
 fee how they are impofed upon, and have been trilled 
 with for many years back. 
 
 But of this Teftimony, it is to be hoped, the 
 Lord will continue to take a fpecial providential 
 care. — It was formed and emitted above 40 yean: 
 ago, under a very difmal ftate of the Reformation - 
 intereft, as a banner given to be difplayed becaufc 
 of the truth. It was fet up as a banner difplayed 
 for God, in ftating the grounds of his controver- 
 fy with a backiliding generation ; and for the now- 
 buried Ileformation-cauic, which has been abun- 
 dantly 
 
[ 54 3 
 dandy fealed with the blood of martyrs. By this 
 Tefiimony the Lord Chrifl did, as it were, take a 
 new infeoftnient of our land for his inheritance ; 
 which, as may be hoped, he will not give up with. 
 It was fet forth as an enfign, — for j. athcring and 
 forming into a witneiTmg-body, the friends of a 
 covenanted Reformation in thefe lands. It hath 
 accordingly p.ovcd a blefled mean for that end, 
 through many corners ; in the courfe of many 
 years bygone. It has proved a mean, among 
 the favourers of the dud of Zion, for gathering 
 bone to his bone : And as, in a great mezfarc, Jinezus 
 and Jlefh have come up upon them, and the Jhin co- 
 vered them above ; fo when the Lord's time comes 
 for caufmg breath to enter into the witneffing-body, 
 more eminently than at prefent, — that Tefiimony 
 will be cleared from all abufes, ignominy and re- 
 proach. In the mean time, the Author of this 
 
 Difplay, who has been acquainted with it from the 
 beginning, — and knew it to have been the fruit 
 of many prayers, under much of the Lord's coun- 
 tenance ; and who hopefully wifhes that he may 
 be kept to the end in a date of adherence to it, 
 as alfo to all the contendings for it in former pro- 
 ceedings of the Affociate Synod ; craves leave to 
 exprefs his thankfulnefs for being yet fpared — in 
 a capacity for contributing this new endeavour to 
 fupport its juft Reputation. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
A Synod-Sermon confidered: 
 
 I N A 
 
 MEMORIAL and REMONSTRANCE, 
 
 B V 
 
 ADAM GIB. 
 
7 
 
 f 
 
-^r 
 
 V.WUnd^tf* 
 
 te^w X iV