■I 
 $1 
 
 
 
2. 3. K 
 

REVIEW 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Principles and Conduct 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 S E C E D E R S- 
 
 W I T H 
 
 Pv e * sons of the Author's Separation 
 from- the BUlJCiHERS in particular. 
 
 By ALEXANDER P 
 
 **^^ 
 
 EDINBURGH 
 
 : for W. Gray, Front of the Exchange. 
 
 MDGCLXIX. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following fheets appear in vindication of 
 truth, and of perfonal character. The Author 
 hopes, that his late unhappy connections will 
 furnifh an apology for this publication, to every 
 candid reader. In relating fadts, he has wrote 
 nothing, but what can be attefted by unexcep- 
 tionable witnefies ; and in delineating principles, 
 he has examined the ftandard-writings of the 
 Seceders, where alone their genuine fentiments 
 can 'be found. 
 
 O#®®&®®00£®&8$®0®®0& 
 
A 
 
 REVIEW, &c. 
 
 AS I have left the Seceflion, a body with which I have 
 been fo long connected ; I reckon it neceflary to give 
 a iliort account of the reafons which have determi- 
 ned this alteration of conduct, that all concerned may 
 have acceis to judge in this matter with impartiality. 
 
 i/?, I am dhTatisfied with the foot upon which that body 
 ftands. The Chriftian church (lands M on the foundation of 
 " the apoftles and prophets, &c." or on that divine plan dis- 
 played in the New Teftament, the time of which is called M the 
 " time of reformation, " Heb. ix. 10. u Another founda- 
 94 tion can no man lay, than that which is laid" in the writings 
 of thefe holy men of God. But the Seceders never directly 
 pretend to have built on that foundation ; but avow, that they 
 have fat down on the fecond period of reformation between 
 the years 1638 and 1650; and particularly they build on the 
 principles of the protetters *, who proteiled againft the admif- 
 lion of non-covenanters into places of civil and military truil. 
 This plan is of mere human device, conceived and executed by 
 fallible men ; and fo is not upon the foot of the Chriftian church, 
 which knows no plan of reformation but God's, and knows 
 no foundation but that which he has " laid in Zion " How 
 fhocking, then, is it to fend us to the acts of parliaments, and 
 human hiftories, to find our principles, while Chrlftians have 
 no principles but thofe " of the oracles of God J" We dare not 
 receive divine truth, becaufe authorised by acts of parliament 
 and fallible fathers, but becaufe " it is in truth the word of 
 *' God." A church (landing upon an human foot muftbe an 
 human church. — Belldes, the Chriftian church is a corporation 
 erected upon ChrifVs royal patent, or new covenant , " which 
 " is from above, and is the mother of us all." This cove- 
 nant, fealed in the blood of Chrift, is the common tie or bond of 
 that whole fociety ; whereby they become ft ens> feU 
 
 low-heirs, and of the fame body , having one Lord, one faith, 
 common laws, privileges, and hopes. But the Seceders are 
 erected on, and bearwitnefs to human covenants, which God 
 never made, nor ever mentioned in that book, u which is 
 " able to make us wife unto falvation." This is the common 
 tie of the fociety. They are bound together by a profeffion 
 
 • A& and Teftimony, &c. p. 23. 25, et.pajjm % 
 
 A 2 of 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 of adherence to thefe covenants, or by {wearing faith in them; 
 whereby they become " a people feparated from all people;" 
 aiul call thcmillves witneiTes, not for the new covenant, but for 
 u our national covenants." Now, a Socieiy erected upon a charter 
 or covenant formed and authorised by kings, parliaments, com- 
 in it tees of eftatcs, &c. mull be a human or earthly Society, as 
 the Christian church knows no king but JcSus ; and no chaiter, 
 but Che covenant in his blood : although it is very proper that 
 our civil head lhould give his Subjects a legal Security for the 
 free excrciSe of their religious liberties. \i we purfue the a- 
 bove principles into their neceilary conSequences, they lead us 
 into the territories of the m an of fin , yea they will bring us 
 4i even to his Seat." This will be evident from the following 
 Series. 
 
 17?, According to them, religion is to be eftablifhcd by civil 
 authority, and Supported by the influence of civil rewards and 
 punifliments # : That is, after the clergy are Secured in their 
 benefices, by adopting the national Syilem of religion, they are 
 to be judges of the heretical character, and the king is to 
 be their blind executioner to defrroy all whom the clergy pleafe 
 to call heretics ; yea, all who preSume to worihip God accord- 
 ing to their own conscience, if it be not according to the clerical 
 dilates. This is Antichrift, or the Rev elation- be njl. Thatbeaft 
 defcribed by John is plainly nothing elSe but clergy-authority, 
 Supported by the power of the kings of the earth, who muft 
 bring to condign punifhment even their moft loyal Subjects, 
 if the clergy pleafe to call them heretics* This power may 
 well be called the beafl^ becauSe it deprives all under its influ- 
 ence of the exercife of their reafon ; •■* the king and clergy, by 
 making them wolves ; and the people, by obliging them to give 
 up their understandings and conSciences to others, which are 
 the property of God alone. This is direclly oppofite to Chrift. 
 His kingdom is not of this world, and So cannot be eftablifhed 
 by human might or power, but by his Spirit alone. To efta- 
 blifli truth, muft be to eftablHh it in the underftanchngs and 
 conSciences of men, which all the laws and Swords in the world 
 cannot effect. Swords and conSciences are very diftinct things ; 
 and it is not eaSy to See how wealth, honours, and eaSe in this 
 world, or Swords and gibbets, can convince men of the truth, 
 or eftablifh it in their minds. Paul deSires us to pray for 
 kings, not that they may give their power to the church, or 
 commit fornication with her ; not that they may eftabi{h her 
 by a royal patent, or interpoSe their authority in matters of rc- 
 
 * A£l and Teflimony, &c. p. 22. 23. with the acts of parliament 
 there referred to. 
 
 ligion 
 
c s ] 
 
 ligion and confcience ; but " that we may live a peaceable and 
 *' quiet life under them, in all godlinefs and honefty." There 
 is no direftion given in all the New Teftament to kings and ci- 
 vil rulers once to meddle with the understandings and con* 
 fciences of men* Moral aftions fall under the cognifance of 
 human legislators; but who bade them dictate to me in matters 
 of faith, or punifh me for confcience and opinion's fake ? 
 Chriftians as fiich know no authority but Chrift's, and nomo-- 
 tives to influence them either to embrace or continue in his 
 word, but fuch as he has prefented in that fhort emphatic 
 verfe, — " He that believes, fhall be faved ; and he that believes 
 V not, fhall be damned." To be influenced, then, in religion, 
 by the hope of earthly rewards, or the fear of temporal pu-> 
 nifhrnents, is^not to be influenced by the gofpel ; whole rewards 
 and punifhments lie chiefly beyond the grave, and contain all 
 that is amiable and all that is dreadful in eternity .< — No king 
 but Jefus has authority in or over the church, nor can his re* 
 ligion be fupported by political fandtions. 
 
 2dly, They have a falfe idea of the means of gofpel-refor* 
 mation. By reformation they mean a national uniformity of 
 opinion in doctrine, worfhip, difcipline, and government ; to 
 pre ote which we are to rife in arms againft ail that will not 
 iweat to that uniformity, and endeavour to extirpate them by 
 imprii onment, banifhment, confifcation of goods, and death *. 
 This reformation or national uniformity is not once mention* 
 ed in the New Teftament, and indeed is ablblutely impradti* 
 cable. No earthly nation ever was or will be a nation of 
 Chrift's difciples ; and although a whole nation could put on 
 the national uniformity, it avails them nothing, while the 
 heart is not right with God. Gofpel-reformation is a belief 
 of the truth and the fan&ification of the Spirit, in which no 
 nation ever will be uniform, but the heavenly nation. This 
 never can be promoted by arms, oaths, prifons, gibbets, and 
 other engines of perfecution, but by God's Spirit in the truth 
 of the gofpel. Thefe were the only means of reformation 
 known to the apoftles. They went forth and preached every 
 where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the 
 word : and they confldered the churches as reformed when the 
 word came, not to them in word only, but in power and in the 
 Holy Ghoft. How dreadful then is it to pray for the revival 
 of a reformation which God never promifed, to be promoted 
 by means which he never appointed } 
 
 -$dly, They aflert, that God has chofen the three nations, 
 Scotland, England, and Ireland, in the room of the Jewiih 
 *A& and Tefhmony, &c p. 20. 21. 22. &c. Solemn League, art. 2. 4. 
 
 nation, 
 
C 6 ] 
 
 n, and has feparated them from all people by a covenant 
 
 of peculiarity analogous to the Sinai covenant, and fupported 
 
 by the fame national rewards and puniihments. This is a moil 
 
 cverfive of the whole gofpel ; which allures us, 
 
 that God has cholen no earthly nation now for his inheritance : 
 
 \s only chofen a number out of all nations for his name- 
 
 ; which number is called the holy nation, the peculiar people, 
 
 The covenant he has made with thefe, is not according to 
 
 the Covenant which he made with Ifr . he brought th 
 
 out from the land of Egypt, (Heb. viii. 9.), but is a new a, 
 
 , founded on better promifes than the firft ; and is not 
 fenced by national rewards and punifhments, but by thofe 
 which are eternal. The firft was " the law of a carnal com- 
 ;ndment," but the fecond has " the power of an endlefs 
 u lirV." This is the covenant which feparates the people of 
 God in all nations from all people. Can any thing, then, be 
 niore wild than to fay that God made another covenant /50a 
 years after the new covenant was ratified in the blood of hi9 
 Son ; and has thereby incorporated three earthly nations into a 
 fbciety diftinft from all others ? This new covenant, including 
 &U that fhall be laved, God has revealed; but he no where fays in 
 all his book, that he would make a covenant with three kingdoms. 
 4f/;/y, Agreeable to the notion of an earthly-religious king- 
 dom, they affirm, that none can be legally king of the three 
 nations, but one who has fworn to promote the above unifor- 
 mity by the means already mentioned. This is evidently con- 
 trary to the gofpel ; which never deilred any king to perfecute 
 his fubjeers for confeience fake, nor ever made it a qualifica- 
 tion of a king to fwear the folemn league. The gofpel fays, 
 ** Let every foul be fubjeft to the higher powers ;" but no 
 where fays, that their religion entitles them to our obedience. 
 So long as our rulers permit us to live a peaceable and quiet life, 
 &c. fo long they have a tide to our loyalty. Though the Se- 
 ceders bear witnefs * to an aft of parliament (1649) confirm- 
 ing our Obedience to " a covenanted king/* I muft bear witnefs 
 againtl: it, as fubveriive of the afts of the King of Zion. A fe- 
 s belief of the propriety of the above aft, influenced by 
 the aiTertions of the clergy, who call our revolution-kings 
 u mongers with two heads, ,? muft neceffarily infpire fenti- n 
 rrrents of difarreftion to our prefent Sovereign, which may / 
 fconer or later difplay themfelves in circumftances more fa- *-? 
 vourable to their intentions. This I fpeak from dire experi- 
 ence. In my thoughdefs years, my fpiritual guides artfully 
 ^nHamed me with rage againft our then King, becaufe he was 
 
 * A& and Teflimony, &:. p. 22. 23. 57. 58. 
 
 not 
 
C 7 3 
 
 not a covenanter ; and all the Seceders I then knew were affect- 
 ed with the fame diftemper. 
 
 $thly, They affirm, aifo, that religion ought to. be made 
 a ftep to ftate-preferments, and that none but ccfaenanters 
 have a right to light for their lives and liberties, or to fill 
 up places of civil or military truft. This is clear from their 
 adherence to the acl for purging the army y 8tc. patted in the 
 year 1649 *. This oppofes the gofpel, which by no means 
 divefts men of their natural rights. The law of nature obliges 
 every man to ufe all lawful endeavours to fave his own life and 
 the liberty of his country, whether he be Heathen or Chriftian, 
 How ridiculous then is it to bear witnefs to an act divefting 
 mankind of their natural and gofpel rights ! Pollened of this 
 Opinion, can we condemn the Englifh law, which obliges every 
 candidate for ftate-preferments to take the facrament of the 
 fupper previous to his exaltation ? — Both methods are equally 
 contrary to nature and the gofpel, and condemning the one we 
 cannot juftify the other. Eeiides, the above opinion goes up- 
 on a falfe fuppofition, — that a profeffion of Chriftianity entitles 
 us to the powers, revenues, and dignities of this world, in 
 Order that we may be in cafe to make the thunder of our power 
 break upon the heads of them, who think differently from 
 us. Now, in what part of ChriiVs legacy thefe privileges are 
 left us, I profefs I know not. When I read the New Teira- 
 ment, I find Chriftians entitled to all the powers, and dignities, 
 and durable rights of the next world ; but I find nothing left 
 us of this, but the croft, perfe cut ions , and tribulations , toge^ 
 ther with food and raiment, fo far as God fees meet. Chrift 
 never came to difpofe of civil offices : his difciplcs muft be 
 content to be u poor in this world, and rich in faith, &c." 
 
 6thiy y They declaim againft the toleration given at the revo- 
 lution to every man to profefs his religious opinions, and to 
 worfhip God according to confeience f> This is the gro. 
 of all civil bleffings, and the only ftate-bulwark which religion 
 needs. Accordingly Paul bids us only aik that God may put 
 it into the hearts of kings to give us ;i toleration to " lire a 
 " peaceable and quiet life under them in all godlinefs and ho- 
 u nelly." To teftify againft this toleration, is to U 
 Jefus. — A teftimony equally horrid and ridiculou s. Horrid, be- 
 cauie if the government give not a toleration of this kind, 
 then men muft be forced by civil pains to profefs a religion 
 which they do not believe, and to worfhip God in a way they 
 
 ;>erfuaded is finful. There is no medium ; either the ( 
 
 powers muft allow us to enjoy our own religion, or they mult 
 
 * Aft and Teftimony, &c. p. 22. f di. p. j8. 
 
 impofe 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 impofe a religion upon us whether we will or not ; or, in other 
 words, they muft make us worfe than we were before, by obli- 
 ging us to be hypocrites. — It is rrJictt/ous, fince the Secedei s 
 themfelves live under the protecting wrngs, and enjoy the fweus 
 6f the toleration, as well as others. It is wicked, to fnarl at 
 the very hand which feeds them, and to deny others the lame 
 liberty to differ from the church eftablilhcd, which they take 
 to themfelves. Has God given them a right to liberty, and 
 devoted all the reft of mankind to religious flavery ! —But, fay 
 fhey, it opens a door to herefy. So far from it, that it al 
 ns to reclaim heretics by all the means appointed in the New 
 Teftament, by perfualion, reafoning, and exhortation. li 
 fhefe fail, after church-cenfures are applied, we are to leave 
 them to the judgment of God, and not to deliver them to' 
 the magistrate', or hurt them in their civil interests. Perlccu- 
 tipn never will purge a man of herefy. Can confiscations of 
 £oods, racks, gibbets, dungeons, or prifons, ever cleanfe a 
 Ibul, or convince a man of his error? They may fend him 
 the fooner to damnation, but cannot enlighten the conscience. 
 Jtbly, They teftify againft the union between the two king- 
 doms of Scotland and England : as if it had been a fin for two 
 nations, joined by nature in one ifland, to join in a commer- 
 cial league of friendlliip, and to drop the fword of war, which 
 Jiad fo long ravaged both nations, and facrificed fuch muki- 
 fudes of their inhabitants to their mutual reientment *. But' 
 What has this union to do with religion ? Cannot the 
 people in either nation be as religious as before ? Yea, have 
 fhey not a better opportunity of religious improvement than 
 ever, fince they have (heathed the fword in its fcabbard, and 
 live at peace with one another ? If we judge Epifcopacy in Eng- 
 land an herefy ; we have better accefs to reclaim the heretics 
 than ever, fince the union gives us libetty to enter England, 
 and to ufe every gofpel- method to promote the knowledge of 
 the truth ; which liberty we could not have enjoyed amidft did 
 fury of war. And although Epifcopacy is eftablifhed in Eng- 
 land, truth is ftronger than human eftablifhments • lei rs 
 preach truth, and down falls Diana, though fupported by all 
 *the pillars of ftate. — But can any thing be more wild than to 
 cenfure our ruleFS, becaufe they would not murder almoit 
 the whole Englifh nation, merely for refufing to fubmit to tlie 
 ; Prefbyteriari government ? Who gave the Scots a right 10 
 ' iudge or chufe a reiigion for themfelves, and denied it to the 
 l£nglifk ? Cm civil authority force a confeience, which is fabjecl 
 \o God aicne ? So long as a man is a friend to the civil go- 
 
 • A3 md Teflirnony, &x. p. 54 — 57 . 
 
 vernment, 
 
C 9 3 
 
 vernment, fo long he has a right to its common protection ; ac^ 
 no king has a fight to chufe a religion for any but himfdr. 
 
 Laft of all, they confuier the oath of abjuration as unlaw- 
 ful * : as if it were criminal to abjure the race of Stuart, and 
 to fwear allegiance to the powers that are. Arguing upon the 
 antiquated ideas of hereditary right x they fuppofe, that would 
 the Stuarts renounce the Popifh faith and commence covenant- 
 ers, they <ue heirs to our crown : net coniidering, that all 
 power is originally in the people, and no man has any tide to 
 the throne, but lie who is cholenby their confent. 
 
 Such are the principles of the Seceders, — principles purely- 
 political, relating to kings, parliaments, fratefmen, foidiers, 
 arms> &c> but have no connection with the kingdom of Chrift. 
 If it be laid, they do not act up to the fpirit of thefe principles ; 
 the anfweris obvious :— Some profefs them, while they do not 
 believe them ; others are ignorant of them ; and the many are 
 reftrained by the Britiih confticution, which oppofes their in- 
 tolerating fpirit, 
 
 I proceed now to confider a few of their tenets, more pro* 
 peily reiig\ous t which are very near akin to the foregoing prin- 
 ciples ; being equally abfunl, a rontons, and dangeious, as will 
 appear in the following inftanccs, 
 
 - i//, They always preach fubjection to the authority of fal- 
 lible men in matters of faith and Chriftian practice. They tell 
 the people, that fuch and fuch doctrines and rules of govern- 
 ment were compofed and enacted by fuch and fuch divines 
 ene<J in certain aiTemblies, and therefore we lliould he- 
 Ufye them, and adhere to them all a becaufe they v 
 
 orifed by fuch aJTexnblies and counc\;s f. bible-authority 
 
 is rarely g mentioned. This muft ruin multitudes, as 
 
 in men rather than in God; and exprefsly to 
 
 diibbey ( r ; s, " Call no man matter on earth. * 
 
 Now, allowing rhefe docrrines and rules to be cf divine inftitu- 
 
 t, yet if w< a as " the word of men," or be- 
 
 cav.ie they were.;' fallible aflemblies ; and conlidcr 
 
 them as b r conf:iences, becaufe our fathers fwore to 
 
 we are the difciples of men, becaufe we receive 
 
 truth upon their authority, and not u becaufe it is in truth 
 
 *' tlw: word of Cod," or becaufe " it comes from God only." 
 
 is the leading error of the Papiits, who not only believe 
 
 . ven divine truth alfo on the foot of human authority : 
 
 \ tin to fay that there is a difference between the autho- 
 
 and Proteilants ; for Popes have as good a title to 
 
 il, or to aiiumc authority in religion, asanyProceUam what- 
 
 # A3, and T-fhaiony, Sec. p. eg, f lb. p, kZj. — j 29. 
 
 li foevcr. 
 
I '° ] 
 
 foever. Divine authority admits of no rival. God alone is Lord 
 of" the confeience, and hewH) not give bis glory to another. 
 
 %ily % They always t::uh, that human traditions are a [-round 
 for the faith and practice of Chriftians, and ft) are equally 
 binding with the fcriptures. — They teach, for inftance, that all 
 the acts of parliament and of the afiembly between 1638 and 
 1650 are frill binding. — That there was a national covenant Hi 
 in the days of James VI. and a foh -e in the reign of 
 
 Charles I. by which the confeience? of Chriftians are bound to 
 this day. Now, we know, that thefe acts and covenants had a be- 
 ing by human tradition only, and cenfequently our faith in the 
 very exigence of thefe things is merely human ; as wc cannot 
 give a divine faith but to the divine testimony, or to the 
 €i record which God has given us of his Sen." As men we 
 may read and believe thefe hiftories, according to the degree of 
 moral evidence atteiting the facls related : but as Chriftians we 
 know them not ; nor do we believe any hiftory, doctrine, or 
 rule but what God has given us in the facred records of his 
 kingdom. It is abfurd, then, to preach, that we cannot be 
 Chriilians, unlefs we give the faith of a Chriftian to a human 
 teftimony. This was the error of the Pharifees, who '< made 
 " void the commands of God by their traditions, and wcrfhip- 
 " ped God in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 " of men." This is the error of the Papifts hill. 
 
 jrl/jy They have doctrines calculated for every meridian. 
 When in Scotland they preach the obligation both of the na- 
 tional covenant and of the folemn league ; in England and Ire- 
 land they only teach the obligation of the folemn league; and 
 in any other nation they teach the obligation of neither of 
 them. Now, there is iurely juggling here. Chrift ordered 
 his ambafTadors to preach all things which he commanded them 
 in all nations: how, then, can thofe be dochines of the go- 
 fpel, which are only fit to be taught in a very few countries ? 
 Chriftianity is calculated to be an univerfal religion : and ac- 
 cordingly ihe <c calls all men every where to repent," and u her 
 <c voice is ftill to the fons of men." 
 
 $thly y They affirm, that ministers have a power to compofe 
 bonds or covenants of their own invention, and that people 
 are obliged to fwear them by the authority of an act of a 
 church-ccurt *. This they both teach and practife. Now, this 
 is to preach their own power, and not the authority of Jefus. 
 It is to ft in the temple of GoJ y planning and publiihing new re- 
 ligious laws and ordinances, which belongs to God alone •, yea, 
 exalting ourf elves above Csd 9 fince he will not add to the go- 
 
 # Ad of the AflbciatePreibytery for renewing our folemn covenant*. 
 
 fpe!. 
 
f II ] 
 
 fofcl-fyftem ; but declares, that if any man add to it, he will add 
 to him all the plagues written in that book. 
 
 $th!y> They err in their views of God's plan in diftributing 
 rewards and punifhments under the gofpel. If we adhere, 
 iky they, to our national covenants, then God will blefs us with 
 all the temporal or national bleffings promifed to old Ifrael; 
 but if we forfake them, he will fend upon us all the temporal 
 judgments threatened in the law of Moles, " to avenge the 
 " quarrel of his covenant *." In our late wars with France, 
 6r. this doctrine was warmly inculcated, being happily adapt- 
 ed to increase the number of covenanters, by perfuading the 
 people, that if they became friends to the Seceffion-intereft, 
 they mould efcape the awful judgments juft about to break on 
 the! e lands ; or, if • they fell with the carnal generation, they 
 fhould have their fouls for a prey. Since the termination of 
 the war, however, this dofirine, this time-ferving tenet, has 
 difappeared, as every thing but truth muft, No fuch doctrine 
 is in fcfipture. True, indeed, God faid to Ifrael, if they ob- 
 ferved his covenant made with them, he would blefs them 
 with the earthly Canaan and the fulnefs thereof; and if not, he 
 would finite them with innumerable national plagues : but he 
 never faid fo to any ether nation even with regard to his own 
 covenant, much lefs with regard to covenants which he never 
 once fpoke of. Matters are quite changed under the gofpely 
 when he has made a covenant vrith no earthly nation under 
 heaven. The Popifh nations, which have broke his covenant, 
 and turned Antichriftian^ riot in the gveatefc affluence of 
 worldly enjoyments ; while thofe who keep moft clofe to the 
 new covenant, are generally •" poor in this world.'' God's 
 covenant is founded on eternal fanctions ; and worldly bleffings 
 are but fo many appendages to the kingdom of God. The 
 hopes and fears of the Chriftian are not in this world. His 
 hope " reaches to that which is within the veil," and his fear 
 Shivers at the thought of M eternal deftruftion from the pre- 
 
 *' fence of the Lord." —No doubt national vices, pride, 
 
 ambition, veaalky, perjury, luxury, &c. will naturally draw 
 on a train of national calamities. But God inflicts theie pu- 
 nishments, as moral governor of the world, and not as head 
 of the new covenant. 
 
 6thly y They affirm, that there is a moral or eternal duty^ 
 viz. national covenanting, which Chrift neither practiied him- 
 felf, nor enjoined upen others. This is an accufation again ft 
 *he Saviour. The fcripturcs affure us, that when he came, he 
 taught us all things : and confequendy every eternal rule in 
 r Wprifoa's Attempt, &c. p. 60. — 64. Solemn Warning /<*//.> 
 
 B 2 the 
 
t " 1 
 
 the Old Teftament, is taught and confirmed in the New, bf 
 the mouth of Jefus, the King and Prophet greater than Mo- 
 les. How inconfiftent, then, is it to aflcrt, that Chriit, in 
 forming the plan of the gofpel-church, totally omitted any or- 
 dinance or ruic neceflary to be i . y his difciples ? 1 I 
 is to charge the gofpel as an imperfect inititution ; and to lay, 
 that men may be wife? than Jefus. 
 
 *]th/y 9 They teach, again, that our anceftors in the laft cen- 
 tury had a divine right to chufe a religion for all potkrity. 
 £ay they, our fathers fwore to adhere to the doctrine, v. 
 fhip, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland, 
 end to extirpate Epifcopacy and all feclaries by civil pains ; and 
 therefore we are perjured, if we do not adhere to the fame re- 
 ligion, and promote the ends of it, uniformity and extirpation, 
 becaufe our fathers fwore to it. Thus, according to the Sece- 
 des, they chofe a religion for all pofterity *. They forget, 
 jt items, that our fathers firft fwore to adhere to Popery, and 
 then to Epifcopacy, and, laft of all, to Prefbytery. Nov/, 
 gh>ery y Which of all thefe oaths binds pofterity ? As the fe* 
 cond and third oaths cannot difannul the firft, we are furely 
 bound to be Papifts, if our fathers religious oaths can bind us. 
 *— This is to force us to embrace religion by human authority ; 
 \vhereas the Bible fays, Judge ye. If we are convinced upon 
 inquiry that any religion is of God, we are bound tobelie\e 
 it upon his authority, without regard to any man, whether fa- 
 thers or brethren : and if we are convinced that any religion 
 is falfe, we are bound to renounce it, although ten thouland 
 fathers had fworn to it. If the matter of our fathers oath was 
 good, as no doubt the doctrine, worihip, circ. of the church 
 of Chrift is, then the matter, being of God, binds us, but not 
 the oath. No authority can be added to God's. 
 
 Zthly, It is their opinion, that the Weftminfter confeflicn 
 fcf faith, <&c< is a ftandard of divine truth. Now, a ftandard 
 tneans fC a rule which is of undoubted authority, and is the 
 V teft of other things of the fame kind. Now, as there is no 
 authority in religion but that of God, before we receive a book 
 as from God, we muft fee it ftamped with his authority. But 
 J know no book which God ever recommended or author; fed 
 but the fcriptures ; nor in that book decs he any where fry, 
 that men were to be affiled by him in framing another ftand- 
 ard. A ftandard is perfect in its kind ; but when faw we a 
 •perfect human writing? If nny fuch be a ftandard, we may 
 throw away our Bible, a$ we have ftill a perfect rule left us in 
 * Morifon's Attempt, &c, p. 6i. &c. authorifed by the Rev. Mr 
 Adam GiU 
 
 fewer 
 
t 13 1 
 
 fewer words. The parliamentary laws are the only ftandanl 
 
 of policy to the whole kingdom of Great Britain. Is King Je- 
 fuss ftandard a lefs perfect rule to all his fubjecls ? How fear* 
 ful is it to fet up an idol in the room of God, and to teach 
 people to pay the fame reverence to mens works which they 
 owe to their Bible only! By this they exprefsiy contradict the 
 \Veitminfter divines, who maintain, that " the holy fciipture* 
 " are the on ly rule of faith and obedience." Whence 'it is 
 plain, that thefe great men never intended their ccnfeflion to 
 be a ftandard. 1 hey only coniidered it as an help to kno\r 
 the fcriptures ; and io only ufed that liberty which is common 
 to all religious focieties,-^-a liberty to declare our religious opi- 
 nions. Thefe divines, then, were quite in the right ;— they 
 gave out a confefllon of their faith, but they did not hinder 
 others to ufe the fame liberty, nor did they bind their confec- 
 tion upon the confeience of others. This was left to*the par- 
 liament and general afTembly about the middle of the lafl: 
 century, to force three nations to believe upon their authority, 
 or to make a national uniformity of heads and thoughts 
 However deeply, then, we may blame thofe courts who at- 
 tempted to be above God, let us no more accufe the Weftmin- 
 fier afTembly. Creeds and confefilons are lawful things^ 
 while they are kept in their proper place, i. e. while they are 
 coniidered as declarations of the religious opinions of a fociv 
 any article of which the fociety may change, fo foon as they 
 are convinced it ij contrary to the word of God. 
 
 Qihly, They fbmetimes affirm, that the commands of God 
 given to the Ifraelitiiri nation were partly moral, partly cere- 
 monial, and partly political ; but when it ferves the low de 
 figns of a party, they teach again that they were all moral, and 
 io it ill binding on all people *. Yea, one of them lately- 
 preached, that fince Jonah's mariners offered facrihees and 
 made vows, therefore all ages are bound to aft in the lame 
 manner j. This is in exprefs opposition to fcripture. St£ 
 Eph.ii. 16. Heb. x. 1. 8. and laft verfe. 
 
 lothly. Allied to the foregoing tenet is their doctrine con- 
 cerning the Sinai covenant. That covenant, fay they, is (till 
 binding on all CUriOians. Now, circumcilion was the feal 
 that covenant, and the gate to it, by which every male was v } 
 enter in. But the apoftle tells us, that if we obierve but I 
 one rite of the Sinai covenant, we " have fallen from grace/' 
 Gal. v. 2. 3. 4. " Behold I Paul fay unto you, that if ye be 
 *' circumciftd, Chrift ffrail profit you ncthing." How erro- 
 
 * Wylie's Short Dialogue, &c. p. 8, 
 t MoruWs Attempt, &c. p, I, 
 
 JKOU3, 
 
C 14 ] 
 
 tieous, then, is it to fay that we mnft be under a covenant, 
 "Which, Paul lavs, was " ready to vanifh away :" Heb. viii. lair* 
 Chriftians u are not come to mount Sinai," bur they r< are 
 <4 ic:!v: to Sion," where there is u a 1 und- 
 
 : \i:.r promifes." 
 
 I r/A/fj They maintain, thst the iSinai covenant was a cove- 
 nant of works, cf grace, and of duty. As to the covenant 
 *)i duty, — no fuch covenant is mentioned in the book of God : 
 it is a clergy-covenant. Beiides, how abfiird is this doctrine ? 
 Can any covenant be both a covenant of works and of grace ; 
 vhen Paul tells us, r< if it be of grace, then it rs no more of 
 41 works ) otherwise graxe is no more grace, &c ?" Rom. 
 
 ki 6. •. 
 
 V, They err in afTefting, that the word of God Warrants 
 \is to (Wear to adhere to human fyftems as ftandards ; whereas 
 f cannot produce either precept or example from the whole 
 Scripture for ftich an opinion. 
 
 Befides the above grofs and dangerous errors adopted by the 
 whole Seceding body, there are feveral others efpoufed by the 
 Burgher-prefbytery of Perth in their libel againft me. 
 
 i//, They affert, That juftification to eternal life was the 
 chief thing ill the Sinai covenant or law cf Mofes. This is 
 ■on f herefy, everfive of the fcripture ; which affures us, that 
 there were crimes M from which we could not be juftified by 
 f< the law of Mofes, %> A&s xiii. 39. Now, if it could not ju- 
 stify us from all fin, it could never juirify us to eternal life. 
 <5race and truth came by Jefus Chrifi:, and by him alone we 
 'are t€ juftified from all things." Even the Old-teftament be- 
 . rs were only jHftified to eternal life, by believing, not in 
 the covenant ratified in " the blood of bulls and Croats," but 
 the covenant to be confirmed in the bk>ed of Chriit ; even 
 that covenant of promise, * The feed of the woman fhall 
 3,1 bruife the head of the ferpent." 
 
 1 Uy y That the meral law is binding en Chriftians, a^ in the 
 
 i covenant %. The import of this doctrine is, that we arc 
 
 rnfl to keep the ftvet;th-day fabbath, and to honour our 
 
 ■' -ith a view to the inheritance of the earth 
 
 is the form cf the 4th arui 5th commandments in the Si* 
 
 * The Seceders exprefsly oppofe the fentiments of the Pv.ev. Mr 
 Bofton, v/ho, in his fcrmon, entitled, The e^e^lnjrzng ejpovfah, { 
 7«}nrm^ — " The Lord brought JUrael into a vifible church-date by the 
 " Sinai covenant; but that covenant did not laft, Ifiael was put £- 
 *' way. Here (in the text) he promifes to bring them back by the 
 Ci new covenant, the gofpel covenant-from mount Zion," &c. p. 7. 
 f Libel, »L 7. J 1L art. 6. 
 
C '5 1 
 
 nai covenant. Befides, it is contrary to exprefs fcripture, (Keb* 
 vni. 9.) M I will make a new covenant, net according to the 
 " covenant that 1 made with their fathers in the day that I 
 u took them bv the hand to lead them out of the land v£ 
 
 " Egypt." 
 
 *$dty % They accufe me for ajHrming, that God, as Creator,, 
 gave the moral law to Adam, by writing it on his heart * : 
 confequentlv their opinion is, that God did not give the mcral 
 law as Creator ; or in other words, Adam knew nothing of 
 the moral law till he knew Chrift the IVkdia'or. This is a gFCaft 
 miftake, contrary to plain fcripture, Gen. i, 27. 
 
 4tbly, They affirm, That the Sinai covenant was not found- 
 ed on temporal rewards and puniihmenrs +. This error n 
 clearly confuted by the whole hw of Mofes, particularly by 
 Lev. xxvi. throughout. Thofe furely are temporal blcftwga 
 and curfes ; and thofe are exprefsly laid to have been given as 
 ianctions to " the laws, ftamtes, and judgments, which the 
 " Lord made between him and the children of Jfrael, in mount 
 $i Sinai, by the hand pf Moies." ver. 46. 
 
 Jfthfy, Ihey maintain, That unleis a perfon be in C ! 
 and affifted by his grace, he cannot fwear a national covenant^, 
 This gives God the He ; who tells us, that old Iirael fwore 
 covenant, and yet rhcy were " i\.-:-ious in heart, linfredfaii 
 " and periidious in his covenant ;" fo that he (i i.vore in his 
 " wrath, that they ihould : cer into his reft." It alio 
 
 conn :i human hiftory ; which informs us, that in the 
 
 laft centuries men of the work - characters fwore our national 
 covenants. 
 
 6th!y y They affirm, That the children of Ifrael bad 
 to the land ot Canaan, although they had never obi!ivcd 
 article of the Sinai covenant ' . Here " they err, not kr*o 
 u ing the fcriptures ;*' which allure us, that b '■ ke 
 
 the covenant of God, therefore he made them all -call in 
 whdernefs, fave Caleb and Toihua, who M followed the Lout 
 " iVHy." Heb. iv. i6,— { 
 
 I may add to all, That the fcope and tendency of th 
 neral plan of preaching is molt dangerous, — tending torn;, 
 the hearers with bad fentiments. As they are taught to cc>: 
 der themlllves as -witnefjes for C/:/:/?, an !?c\ , rated 
 
 by God's CQVenunt from all . I to look 1 [ F ag 
 
 the carna $n % /*clan*ns t latitudniarians, £cc. fin I 
 
 ing rnuit naturally beget pride, illf-conceie, party-fpirit, 
 nature, and a f.ilfc fecurity. And as human left 
 venants, acts of parliaments and of aifemblies, are urged 
 
 • Libel, art, &. f lb. art. 7. J lb. art. 9. . \c. 
 
C it D 
 
 *heir confciences ; fuch opinions muft infpire iLvery and blind 
 
 e to men: an 1 consequently muft debauch the con* 
 
 ice from its allegiance to the King of Zion. 1 fpeak from 
 
 Mt the baneful gl their doctri 
 
 tod principles upon my own heart. But be God, who 
 
 nine eyes to lee my Bible amidlt all the above rubbiih 
 
 \ and who has not fuftcred mc to preach the a- 
 
 bovc opinions, even when I believed them, or at lean had not 
 
 L^n their inconiiftency with the gofpel of Chrift. May I be 
 
 no more "exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers ;" 
 
 but may I count all things lofs ami dung, that I may ^ain Chrift, 
 
 and that " through faith and patience of the fcriptures 1 may 
 
 " have hope." 
 
 I proceed, ^//v, to ofler my objections agamft their difci* 
 i government. They have always been famous for ex- 
 communication ; yet feldom have they directed their anathe- 
 by the divine rule. Their (hafts have been aimed by hu- 
 mour and prejudice, on account of mere differences of opi- 
 nion, chiefly about human things — Befides, they exclude by 
 rules which Chrift never appointed, lniiead of applying to 
 the Bible, where all the laws and rules of Chrift's houfe are, tncy 
 
 •ays appeal to the acts of parliaments, general aflfertabl 
 Thefe are conlidered as laws of Chrift** authorifing, and ac- 
 cordingly they are executed in his name, and by his authority ; 
 as if Chrift had b? en (b unfaithful in h!s houfe, that he left its 
 government and laws to be coined and ftamped by the autho- 
 rity of human leriilators and fallible councils. If anv (rf tb 
 acts arc enacted in the word of God, they are lufficientfy au- 
 thorifed already, and Chriftians feel I s bound to db 
 
 if any or them relate to the decency and order to be obien 
 in the churches, we may ehufc as many of them for pruden- 
 meafures as we judge proper. But to coniider them as 
 binding the consciences of Chriftians becaufe of the authority 
 of parliaments and councils, is to maintain all the principles or 
 " the man of fin." Chrift has left no authority to fallible 
 men to make any law, rule, or doctrine in his church ; there is 
 only an authority in every church to obey, or to put in - 
 cution, the (a*f vh'ch Chrift has made, and publiflicd in the 
 ords of his kingdom. — Again, they maintain, That the re- 
 formation between the years 1638 and 1650 was complete ; yet 
 they have added to the laws then made at leaft feveral hundreds 
 of acts of parliament and ailembly made fince the revolution ; 
 befides I know not how many Seceflion-acts. Now, how was 
 the I brauttion-pariod complete, while ir wanted luch 
 
 a number of laws, iicceuarv for the gcutfrQment of tii£ church 
 
 of 
 
Thus no mm can know by what rules he is I 
 judged : ..whether by ttiofe framqej P "he days of Mr Knox 
 
 .; or by lucii as received their authority 1 vw 
 
 years i 5 . or by th n ha*c been pro midge J 
 
 -j the revolution, by church or date, or the Seccilion ; 
 finally, by fome yet XQ be I by church-authority, th ^ 
 
 1 fource p : I doctrines. It is cere.. 
 
 <fe, for a 
 
 nb njere (la.i 
 as it i&.impo lire to read, or judgripepc 
 
 to v y, and S : 
 
 fun, en a can- 
 
 not know .- right or wrong in any cafe 
 
 . :i concerns the.-n. But w. :onSned t wible, 
 
 the people might 
 Ign&ent a- .all the 
 
 .3 of ChriiVs church are plain, e:d /, and I i > every 
 
 i jr. 
 
 Tcife of c 
 
 of any | fcent ; pr 
 
 i >n any o: the: they 
 
 a?e i t ly ihun i f 'V, In 
 
 c.de, ir any n mor, hj 
 
 riOjs 
 
 to J r 
 
 ■ 
 
 itely £017:. 
 
 • 
 the 
 s to 
 
[ i8 ] 
 
 jet undetermined •; This crime is generally laid in the ba- 
 lance agunft the parfe of the delinquent. If the purfe hap- 
 pens to be weighty, the offence diminifhes in proportion, and 
 Ordinarily vanifhes into tC the fmall d\ift in the balance. " In 
 this cafe, the offender is difmifled with a recommendation not 
 to do the like for the future, " unlefs he fees it to be his duty." 
 But if the purfe be light, the crime eafily preponderates ; 
 and the delinquent frltift be cenfured accordingly, either with 
 a. fevere rebuke, or, in cafe of Obftinacy, with excluiion from 
 the peculiar privileges of the church. — Thefe inftances of 
 partiality have frequently given me the mod fenfible pain ; yet 
 1 would not have mentioned them, had they not been too no* 
 torious to be denied. 
 
 I go on, Athly, to examine their terms of communion ; than 
 which nothing can be fnOreunfcriptural and abfurd. — Chriftian 
 communion is to be enjoyed on the terms of Chrift's inftitution. 
 Now, it is certain, that thefe terms are revealed in the word of 
 Chrift, and that nothing is ftated nor allowed there as a term 
 6f communion, but a •* profeffed fubjecTion to the gofpel of 
 u Chrift,'' in faith and practice, But it is very evident, that 
 Seceders rejeft thefe terms as itifufficient, anji avowedly admit 
 none but fuch as agree with all the horrid principles and groft 
 errors and herefics above fpecified. — Particularly, t/?, All the 
 members of their communion muft believe, that it is finful to 
 hear the gofpel from any perfon but a Seceder. idly, They 
 
 «uft profefs the faith of a Chriftian in humafi traditions, or 
 a human teftimony, grounded upon the traditions of the far 
 thers. 3^'>', They muft alfo believe in human covenants, and 
 their religious obligation ; — a term of communion unknown in 
 Chriftianity, as the whole Chriftian fyftem was finifhed near 1700 
 ^ years ago, while this term of communion is not yet 2CO years of 
 ; age. 4t hly\ It is required of them, that they believe it to be their 
 I duty, to extirpate Epifcopacy and all feclaries by all civil pains; 
 or to endeavour to induce the civil magiftrate to bring them to 
 condign punifhment, according to the tenor and fpirit of the 
 acts pafled by the privy council, parliament, and general af- 
 fembly, in the covenanting periods. S^hfy. They muft believe, 
 that our Britifh civil conftitution is unlawful, becaufe it is 
 
 * One of \ heir -clergy, however, determined its atrocity in the fol- 
 lowing manner. Reprimanding fome of his hearers from the pulpit, 
 for hearing, in his abfer.ee, the eftablifhed clergyman of the panfti, 
 he was plrafed to bctfow upon their crime the odious epithet of adul- 
 tery. Yea, fays he, it is worfe than if you had defiled your neigh- 
 bour's bed ; fince this would only have been but temporal adultery, 
 whereas die other is fpirit uaL 
 
 contrary 
 
[ 19 J 
 
 contrary to the laws framed in the laft century, which, accord- 
 ing to the Seceders, are ftill binding on ah ranks in thele lands. 
 6thiy, All who differ from them in opinion, of whatever cha- 
 racter and denomination, are excluded from their communion. 
 The above are terms agreed on by both parties of the Secef- 
 fion. But the Antiburghers have added fqme materials to this 
 Babel-building, i/?, Their members mult not only, believe 
 \vifh the Burghers, that Chrift took " the keys of the king- 
 " dom of heaven" from the general-afiembly, and gave them 
 to the Seceders •, but they muft believe alio, that he took them 
 from the Afibciate Synod, and entrufted them with the twelve 
 minifters, who, under the banner of a proteft, left that ccmrt 
 fitting in Bnitow meeting-houfe, and, by the direction or a 
 beam of light from heaven, erected themfelves into a new 
 court in Mr Gib's houfe. idly. They muft believe, that it is 
 finful to fvvear the burgefs-oath ; and that it is duty to deliver 
 over to Satan, all who fee not that oath to be finful, although 
 they fhould never fwear it. sdly 9 They exclude all who will 
 not fwear their bond, or at leaft all who do not fee it warranted 
 in the word of God, and are not ready to fwear it at firft op- 
 portunity. Such as only " lie open to light, " are admitted 
 with difficulty. 
 
 None of the above terms are fo much as mentioned in the 
 word of God, and confequently arc finful. The communion 
 of Chrift is the communion of the body of Chrift, who are 
 all partakers of the one bread, and admitted tQ that privilege 
 on terms affigned by the Head of the body. But when a#y 
 party makes fuch terms of religious communion, as exclude all 
 the difciples of Chrift, who cannot receive that pz'ivilege on 
 finful conditions, they undoubtedly make a fchifminthe body, 
 and cut themfelves off from the body, as they have no more 
 communion with the whole body of Chrift, than a withered 
 arm which cannot admit nourishment from any other member 
 of the natural body. It is evident, then, that the Seceders 
 are guiky of fchilm ; and accordingly ever fince they excluded 
 all other Christians from their communion, like an arm cut 
 off, they have gradually loft the vigour and fpirit of Chriftia- 
 nity, and have fallen into decay and corruption. I know fome 
 among them ftill retain fome faint ideas of Chrifiian liberty, 
 and excufe themfelves for joining in their communion on fin- 
 ful terms, by alleging that they do not agree with thefe terms, 
 but difavow them in their hearts. Th-s is the groffeft hypo- 
 crify, believing one thing and profefii ng the contrary. By 
 joining in the communion of a party, wefay that we acquiefce 
 in their terms of communion, and fay it in the moft folemn 
 
 C 2 manner 
 
j and Mood Of Jcfus. Now, if wr be- 
 
 (irtfulnefs of our conduit is 
 
 \ ■ j uny join the Romifli 
 ■■!. Sinful tcrirxs i 
 
 ft ground ^ from any church. . 
 
 Err be in a church ; but while rh< fe arf not impofed 
 
 en its members, or a belief of them required as a q 
 tion requifite to communion, t! at • but 
 
 When the contrary is the cafe, we connot communicate without 
 fin, 
 
 5'£/)', I coriiider their fpirit ahd temper as highly hlanu 
 i — being uncharitable, and conn\ rv f» the fpirit of love. It 
 v-ould be an cndlefs tafk to relate all the inilanc? of their un- 
 charitable temper* Whoever looks into the Seceding publica- 
 ;, muft lee them* generally fpeaking, filled with tfie mofi 
 \ir14lent abufe, and malevolent reflections poured upon the 
 church eftablifhed. Every mjftake of conduct is magnified 
 into a crime, and the errors of individuals are charged upon 
 the whole body. All other parties are branded with terms of 
 infamy, as fccldrians, latitudinarians, agents of Satan, &c. 
 Yea, they tear up the monuments of the ileeping dead, and 
 pour ignominy upon many valuable minifters , and others, who 
 lived at and before the revolution. Nor can the belt minifters 
 in tiiis age efcape their fury. — A recent inflance of which I 
 fhall here relate. In October 1767, I attended a meeting of 
 Prefbytery, where the differtation on the Sinai covenant, pu- 
 blished by Dr John Erfkine in Edinburgh, was declared erro- 
 neous, and the author an infidel. Says a minifter, with whop) 
 the reft all agreed* If Mr Erfldne re ally believes ivhat he has 
 afferted in that differ* \if ion , / am fur e he cannot be a CbnjtLin ! ! ! 
 Now, if in their judgment Dr Erfkine is not a Chriftian, I 
 cannot fee how any in that church can be entitled to that cha- 
 1 aer.-~-Nor are they more favourable to the minifters of Re- 
 lief \ but, merely becaufe they contend for Chriftian liberty, 
 and oppoie tyranny over the faith and consciences of men. 
 they take care to reprefent them as latitudinarians, enemies to 
 the hordes canfe, Sec. ii'ho lead their people a fmoatb iiay tc ' 
 — ouch a fpirit as this muft be an enemy tor .. And to 
 
 that charity which thinketh no evil. It is not the ipirit which 
 fel Of God. 
 
 6th\y y Nothing ftrikes me With greater horror, than the 
 conuderaticn of the perjury into which the clergy have in- 
 Vofred fuch a multitude of unwary people. Thoufands have 
 -fv/orn the bendy the party-teft, who were incapable of un- 
 derstanding its import, either through youth or vveuknefs. 
 
 Now, 
 
C 21 1 
 
 Now, ignorant fwearing is a kind of perjury ; although up 
 doubt it Will be charged to the account of the admir.htratois 
 principally, who preached, prayed, and exhorted them into 
 the crime. The cafe of the young and unthinking fwearers 
 muft merit our pity, rather than excite indignation ; when we 
 coniider how artfully their leaders feized upon their weak fide, 
 and wrought upon their hopes and fears, by preferring them 
 with all that can encourage the one, or alarm the other. 
 Swearers were favoured with the fmiles of their minifter, and 
 buoyed up with the hopes of being favourites of heaven ; while 
 thoie who '< feared an oath," were frightened with the \iew_ 
 cf excommunication, and threatened with all " the terrors 
 ft of the Lord.' ^ In that oath, too* people fwear to ad- 
 here to books which Jefus never infpired, and to walk by 
 rules which he never planned : and, what is worft of all* 
 as the confeffion of lins is fo intimately connected with 
 the bond, people fwear to the belief of lies and uncertain- 
 tics. In that confeffion, there is a number of manifeft falfe* 
 hoods, as the Burgher-Seceders have evidently proved in 
 their Overture , &c. Befides, it contains alfo a narration cf 
 fuppofed facts, many of which are laid to have happened an 
 hundred years ago, and fo muft be all dubious in law ; /. e. nc> 
 man can fwear to the truth of them, as he was neither eye 
 nor ear witnefs of them. Moreover, it reprefents the work 
 at Cambuflang as a deluiion, and Mr "Whitefield as an impoftor ; 
 although many of the fwearers never faw the one or the ether : 
 and although they had been fpectators, it is a queftion how 
 far they were qualified to judge, or what call they have to 
 fwear in any fuch matters. It is hard enough, if we cannot 
 get to heaven, unlefs we fwear others into hell. 
 
 It has afforded me great fatisfaction to think, that the Burgh* 
 er-Seceders have feen the iinfulneis cf thofe things, and have 
 at laft put a ftop to this torrent of perjury. But as mam 
 themfeives fwcre that oath, and had a vaft influence in leading 
 others to the fnare, it could be wifhed that they had openly ac- 
 knowledged their oitences, and had more carefully warned 
 others of their danger. Ready are they to confefs and pubiilh 
 the lins of others, while this their own iniquity has never beer* 
 made ground of mourning to this day. — As to the AjuiburglK 
 they are fo far from repenting of their witkediufs, that *' they 
 " refufe to be aihamed." Left their ftudents, alter they come 
 to the years of reaibn and reliction, ihould begin to judge 
 for themfeives, and refufe to fwear the covenant, their clergy f- 
 oblige them to fwear that bond before they can be admitud 
 to the divinity-hall. This favours of the wiidgm of this world, 
 
C « ] 
 
 Thtt*, many a* the age of fixteen, or a l'mle aWe it, arc un- 
 warily induced by worldly motives, to fwear to a rtligion, 
 which they have never examined. And if afterwards any of 
 them, by frsrehing the fcripturcs, find that they have fa 
 
 my unfcriptural opinion, they are deterred Yrom farther 
 examination, when they are told, that " they have opened 
 *' their mouth to the Lord, and they cannot go back, or 
 " make inquiry after vows ;" as if an oath could bind us to 
 adhere to any falfe opinion ! I feel for the young men, know- 
 ing experimentally how eafdy unthinking youth may be mil- 
 led. May " the Lord deliver them from the fnare of the 
 * fowler!" 
 
 But <f the leaders of this people caufe them to err/' This 
 may pafs for a little ; but there is a laft day! <' The fire will 
 " try every man's work :" and the Judge has aflured us, that 
 11 by his word we ihall be judged at the laft day." Then he 
 will alk us teachers, whether we " taught all things whatfo- 
 M ever he commanded, " and " added not to his word ?" But 
 %vhere fh all we find in that word, any command to fwear hu- 
 man-religious covenants, ftandardu, and teftimonies ; and to 
 make this the bond of union among Chrifl's difciples ? Can we 
 fay in that day, " Lord, thou commanded thine apoftles to lay 
 €i this burden on thy churches, and to bind them together by 
 f< ♦[his band ?" Far lefs can we find any excuie for impofing 
 falfe oaths; fince God has aiTuredus 3 that " his curfe fliall en- 
 " ter into the houfe of him that (weareth falfely by his name." 
 If we have preached our own covenants, more than God's ; 
 and urged a belief in our acts and teftimonies, with greater 
 Warmth than the belief of the -divine teftimony ; yea, if we 
 hv.ve joined our own things, with the things of God ; how 
 fhall we abide the day of his coming ? May we never teach his 
 little ones, *' to break the kail of his commandments," nor 
 *' add to his words ; left he reprove us, and it be iin in us !" 
 His covenant abides fcr ever. Upon this foot may we and our 
 hearers ftand, that fo " when he fhall appear, we may have 
 " confidence, and not beaihamed before him at his coming !" 
 
 y, The peribttal injuries I have received from both 
 ties of Seceders, afford me fufticient reafons for declining their 
 authority. The ufage I got among the Antiburghers, has al- 
 ready been delineated at large ; and I fhall now proceed to re- 
 prcfent the conduct of the Burghers towards me, in order that 
 mv feparation from them may be farther vindicated. And as 
 a full difplay of their procedure would be very little interefting 
 to the public, I ihall only give the following fliort account 
 of it. 
 
 I 
 
C 23 ] 
 
 I had almoft finifhed an account of the Aflbciate Prefbytery 
 of Perth, be* in my caufc lately before them ; but before I 
 could publiih it, a narrative of their conduct, written by on$ 
 of their number, and connived at, if not affifted by the reft, 
 made its appearance in print. I have waited long to fee if ths 
 Preibytery would openly avow, what they have privately fen* 
 into the public ; but I have waited in vain. I fhall therefor^ 
 proceed to correct their narrative where it is amiis, and fupply 
 it where it is wanting. This appears necelTary to me, as i\q 
 man can form any proper judgment of the cafe from the ac> 
 count already pubiiihed. . 
 
 The Narrative begins and ends with a terrible buftle abou| 
 the EJfay on national covenanting, clamouring againft me, for 
 adopting the fentiments of that eiTay, and refuting my prin« 
 ciples with a great deal of labour. But as it has produced no* 
 thing new, but has only offered the old threadbare argument 
 which have been anfv/ered long ago again and again ; I fhalj 
 take no further notice of them. What I have published i# 
 truth : and neither the condemnation of the Eflay, by af3lem.11 
 fentence of Preibytery ; nor the arguments of the Narrat? 
 have raifed in me theleaft alarm for its fafety. — What the Aai , 
 rative fays on that head, is fummed up in the libel ; wher^ 
 the reader will find my anftyers at large, — and let every mar* 
 judge for himfelf. 
 
 But the Narrative chiefly labours, in giving an account of 
 the procedure of the Prefcvtery in leading a proof on the fir ft 
 article of libel, in which I am charged with averting, * tha$ 
 " the body of Chrift was not made of the fubftaace qk the Vn > 
 u gin." — Here I ihall make the following remarks. 
 
 The Narrative fairly acknowledges, that I was attacked by 
 the Prefoyrery on the principles of the Ejfay on national cove* 
 nanting, before they once mentioned the charge of the firij: 
 article; but it entirely mifreaprefents the manner in which that 
 charge was introduced. It infinuates, that the Preibytery ka4 
 never been informed of my teadiing the above tenet, till their 
 meeting March 10. 1767 •; and that they then were inform- 
 ed, that I had taught it of late. Yet the libel itfeif fays, ri« . 
 
 taught near two years before that time; and it can be 
 proved, tha< the Frefbytery heard of it in a few 
 
 I jrmon libelled was preached. But as they knew weil, I 
 the perfons who circulated die rumour, were prejudiced a- 
 gainit me, Xha entirely disregarded it; ncr would it I 
 \er been mentioned had tlu ;>i. The Etta v. however, 
 
 appeared ; I am fuppoied to be the author, and fo muft be 
 * Narrative, &c. p. 6. » 
 
 caihicied, 
 
C 24 ] 
 
 Inured. Preachings, pr ices of Prefbyteryj q - 
 
 >j and printed publications; 
 
 herefy of that Efiay, and to punifh k , .11 failed ; 
 
 lie tnrh. M oplc, having itill ibme 
 
 Chriitianiry : I them, to the great grit 
 
 Otald not be bullied into the belief c: 
 Efioy, nor join in the hue and cry I fuppofec) 
 
 ior. Hence arofe the politi dity of r< ie a- 
 
 bove flory of herefy. The clergy wifely for daw, thai it would 
 " anfwer the ends of n," if thi my con- 
 
 n nation turn upon the Eflaj 
 far to draw back. Ih tlii$ (trait, they remembered, thai, about 
 md an half ago, ibme of ti Ac about Auchtcr? 
 
 muchty had forcad the above (lander. This will do the buii- 
 We will drefi him up in the {kin of an c bee ; 
 
 i bawl, Herefy ! Not only our own people, but all 
 parties will hate him, if we can get them to believe our affer- 
 tions *. Thus, we iiiall glut our revenge upon that heretic, 
 who will not pronounce the Shibboleth of our party c :1 
 
 uits. — But what if he throw off the Manichee^fkh), an4 
 appear in his native orthodoxy ? We will poflibry find iomc 
 who will fwear him in:o that error; and 
 
 ■e talk, and preach, and pray him into it; and we are fuff 
 to be believed among the people. Yea, although he (hot 
 openly and explicitly diiavow that herefy, we will full charge 
 It upon him, as we mull know better what he believes than he 
 does hi mi elf. 
 
 Upon the'e principles, the Prefbytery proceed 
 was aiked, if I had taught that error, or if I believed i: ? I I 
 them, that I had no fuch opinion ; but that I 
 It. As they ftill urged the point, I took the IV 
 feffion of faith and catechifms, and read ray opinion from tfc 
 books; and declared that this was my unf. 
 No, f.tys the Prefbytury, that ifi not your opinion. W 
 then fays I, you mult prove that it is not. I have given j 
 my belief on that head, in the molt clear and explicit terms ; 
 s of your own chufing ; and If you will no' tal 0r4 
 
 for : , I fee no m-. thod left vou. 
 
 But all would not do : ftiil it mult form a part of the libel ; 
 but how juftly, I leave mankind to judge. According to this 
 plan, I t maintain, that the Prefbytery do m>t b- licve 
 
 ! of the becatrfc although they fay that they 
 
 _ve the whole, by their own rule, I mnit aver, that they 
 
 # S?id a father rt Ere we leave him, we will make him fo black, 
 *•' that no pari) fhalllgqrivc him." 
 
 believe 
 
C 25 ] 
 
 believe not a truth in it ; but ftudy to conceal tlieir errors 
 ¥ under the thin mafk of a declaration of adherence to the 
 " fcriptures." I fuppofe the Prefbytery would not chufe to 
 be judged by their own rule. 
 
 But left their plan fhould mifcarry, after all, the Prefbytery 
 at this meeting pra&ifed every artifice to * entangle me in my 
 •f talk. ,, As various queries were put, I gave aniwers fuch as 
 occurred in the extemporary way. In the mean time, the clerk 
 pretended to write my anfweis, which were not fo much as 
 read to me that night. Next day, however, I heard them 
 read ; and was furprhed to hear my aniwers difguifed in fuch 
 words, as made them convey ideas quite diftinft from what 
 I intended : and not only fo, but they had anfwers marked 
 which I never gave, .and queries which were never afked. — 
 Tet thefe frame {o many articles of libel. This was fuch con- 
 duct as was never pradtiled in any Proteftant country : the an- 
 nals of the inquifuion can fcarce produce a more glaring in- 
 ftance of tyranny. — They excufe themfelves indeed, by telling 
 me, that, as it was a judicial converfation, I might have u eafily 
 " learned, that they were to mark what might be faid V 
 True, I might have learned as much of the Prefbytery's dif- 
 pofition by tha^cirr.e ; but, as I erred on the charitable iide, I 
 could fcarce imagine that they would have been guilty of fuch 
 iniquity, either in a judicial or extrajudicial converfation. 
 They tell me next, that the queries " were not premeditated." 
 But will this excufe wickednefs, that it was not premeditated ? 
 -Again, they allege, that it was not the Prefbytery, " but a 
 " certain brother" who did the whole. But is not the refet 
 as ill as the thief P Did not the Prefbytery acquiefce in what 
 he did ? Yea, this is falfe, fince they were read next day as 
 a part of the minutes, and as a deed of the Prefbytery, as their 
 own minutes teftify + . 
 
 Page 25. of the Narrative exhibits a clufter of lies. It is 
 afTerted, that I iniifted that the libeller mould prove that firft 
 article; whereas it is clear from my aniwers (p. 19.), that I 
 demand no fuch thing. Again, it is alleged, that M I did not 
 " fo much as pretend to oder any objection againft one or 
 V other of the witnefies." This is falfe. When fome of 
 them were going to be examined, I told the Prefbytery, that 
 they knew as well as I, the difpofition of thole witnefies towards 
 me, and what they had vented againft me. I own, I ought to 
 have been more explicit on that head ; but the fact is, the 
 Prefbytery knew all my objections as well as I did. They knew, 
 th^t it was entirely unprecedented and illegal, to make witnefies 
 • Narrative, p. 18. f lb. p. 5. 6, 
 
 D depofe 
 
[ 26 ] 
 
 depofe to a fermon they had heard near two years ago ; that one 
 of the witnefTes was about 60 years of age, and lb could not 
 be iuppofed to remember a fermon, fo as to depofe to it at 
 fuch a diftancc of time ; and that another, worn out with the 
 fatigues of the tavern through the week, generally fleeps them 
 off on Sabbath, and fo might be well fuppofed to have miftaken 
 me. They knew, too, that the 2d, 3d, and 4th witnefles had' 
 difplayed the greateft prejudice again ft me at my fettle ment hi 
 Abcrnethy ; that after they heard the fermon libelled, they 
 iriduftrioufly circulated the clamour of herefy, but never once 
 fpoke to myfelf on that head ; which was certainly acting an 
 unchriftian part. Again, twelvemonths after that, they came 
 to Abcrnethy, and joined with me in communion ; yea, fome 
 cf them ferved under me in the character pi elders on that oc- 
 casion * . Now, I appeal to all mankind, if it can be credited, 
 that thole men really believed one word they have fworn. 
 Could men fo zealous for truth have joined in communion. 
 with a man, whom they really believed to be an heretic? — 
 Thefe things, well known to the Prefbytery, entirely disquali- 
 fied them from being witnefies againft me, and muft unque- 
 ftionably difcredit their teftimony. I therefore defired the 
 Prefbytery not to take their depofitions at all : but nothing 
 would prevail. — Again, the Narrative afierts, that I never of- 
 fered any exculpatory proof. This is obvioufly falfe. I afked 
 liberty again and again in words, to bring in fuch proof; yea, 
 it is clear from my anfwers, recorded page 19, of the Narra- 
 ti\«, that I demanded it in writ. It is amazing, then, how 
 this author can give himfelf the lie, and publifh his own con- 
 demnation » I was roundly told by the moderator, that no fuch 
 proof could be allowed ; as, fays the Narrative, li a negative 
 * ( Connor be proved in a cafe of this kind:" he might have 
 d, in a cale of no kind. But this was a weak argument. 
 it 1 would have offered to prove, was not a negative, but 
 that I, at the time libelled, maintained the reverfe of the doc- 
 trine libelled ; or that I then affirmed, " that the body of 
 " Chrill i- the feed of the woman, the feed of Abraham, 
 " made of a part of the virgin ; and fo bone of our bone, and 
 ieih of our fleft^ 1 This is my real fentiment upon the 
 head of our Saviour's conception. 
 
 it appears to me very hard, that a man fhould be cut off for 
 an error, whereof he declares his abhorrence ; and, I fuppofe, 
 the Prefbyteiy has the honour of being the firft inventors of 
 
 * ^he number of my elders was insufficient for the fervicc ; for 
 which reafon fome of the Auchrermuchty elders were employed. None 
 of my hearers were ever calkd to witnefs againft me. 
 
 this 
 
t 27 ] 
 
 this rule, fince our fathers difavowed the authority of the man 
 of fin. It would be ridiculous in a furgeon to cut off a limb, 
 becaufe it was once affected with a gangrene, while he pro- 
 nounces it in the mean time whole and found. Suppofing I 
 had once efp©4afed the error libelled, (although it never was 
 the cafe) ; yet, as I openly avowed the truth before the Prefby- 
 tery, nothing could be more contrary to all rules hum^n and 
 divine, than to deal with me, as if I had obftinately perfevered 
 in error. 
 
 The infinuation made, p. 29. is abfolutely falfe, and plainly 
 calculated to -ferve a turn. The narrator is aware, that his 
 proof is clearly contradictory, fince the firft witnefs contradicts 
 the teftimony of the other three witneffes on the fermon. To 
 put a glofs upon this, he pretends, or would have the world 
 believe, that the firft witnefs heard me at a time different from 
 the reft ; whereas it can be eafily .proved, that all the witneffes 
 •heard me at the fame time, and that their depofiuons refer to 
 the fame fermoR. This is perfectly well known to all the wit- 
 neffes, and to many others ; yea, to at leaft fome of the 
 members of Prefbytery themfelves. How deteftable, then, is 
 the above isfiauation I How feeble a caufe, which needs fuch 
 a fupport ! 
 
 The character of the firft witnefs renders it credible, that 
 his depofition is neareft the truth ; and as k contradicts the 
 remaining three, this renders the proof contradictory, and 
 confequently weak. Befides, the three laft contradict each 
 other, in feveral very material ciroumftances. The one af- 
 firms, that I faid, that our Saviour's body was nourifhed in 
 the womb as other children are ; but according to the other, 
 I afferted, that he was nourifhed there, as a child is on the 
 breaft : two opinions, which could be m no mind at the fame 
 time. The laft evidently contradicts kfolf. For if I faid, that 
 the body of Chrift was made in the manner reprefented in the 
 firft part of the depofition, how could I fay, that this is a 
 myftery, and will remain a myftery ? If I called it a myftery, 
 then I certainly coniidered it as dark to me : what I clearly 
 know, is no myftery to me. Time, I did call the incarnation 
 of Chrift a myftery, and I call k fo ftiil. The terms of art> 
 invented by divines, to unravel that myfterious procefs of di- 
 vine agency, only betrays human pride, and a defire to be wife 
 above what is written. — Thus nothing appears in thefe oaths 
 •but contradictions and inconfiftencies. 
 
 But, upon a more narrow inflection of thefe depositions, k 
 will be found, that none of them will bear faith. According 
 to an a& of parliament, every oath mult be clearly affirmative 
 
 D 2 or 
 
or negative, otherwifint claims no faith. Glaufes of exception, 
 fiich -is If I remember right , <bc. entirely invalidate the oath. 
 But each of the oaths under examination contain fuch claufes 
 of exception, and none of them are clearly affirmative. — A- 
 gain, none of the deponents affirm, that I uttered the words 
 depofed ; how can I then be charged with them ? They fay 
 indeed, that I uttered words to that purpofe : but let them tell 
 what thele words were, and others will judge whether they 
 were to that purpofe or not. And although I had fpoke thole 
 words, tlixs does not fay that I gave my own opinion in them, 
 but the opinion of others. This was the real cafe, and I am 
 lorry that the poor men had not fo much judgment as to know 
 this. I impute their miftake to their want of judgment, as I 
 would fondly avoid afcribing it to their wickeJuefs. 
 
 The 5th witnefs depofes to a private converfation, which 
 he has grofsly mifreprefented, as can be attefted by a perfon of 
 integrity who was prefent. I pity the poor man, and wifh 
 him repentance and the remiflion of fins ; left he be found 
 guilty, when he ftands before the tribunal of unerring decifions. 
 The two laft depofitions refer to a private converfation faid 
 to be held in Perth. Thefe were fuftained for a proof, al- 
 though neither of them charge me with afferting any thing 
 wrong. The witneiTes could not be induced to fwear a lie, 
 even when it was forged by the Prefbytery. — Nothing could be 
 more odious than the manner of introducing that branch of 
 the firft article of libel, upon which they depofe. The Pref- 
 bytery deiired me to wait a little, after their meeting was diffbl- 
 ved, as they wanted to fpeak with me in private. Trufting to 
 their fidelity, I remained, not fufpecting but the converfation 
 was to be friendly and private, as they faid. However, that I 
 might not efcape, three men, not members of Prefbytery, are 
 kept within doors, that they might witnefs againft me, if the 
 Prefbytery could extort any words from me, which could pof- 
 fibly be explained in a bad fenfe. Accordingly, when the libel 
 appeared five months after, the firft article charges me with 
 aiferting error in that converfation. This greatly furprifed 
 me, as none of the members of Prelbytery had ever fo much 
 as hinted to me their offence on that head. — What the Pref- 
 bytery have afierted on that article, is the grofleft falfehood. — 
 I am abfolutely certain I faid no fuch thing. How wicked was 
 it to endeavour to make a man his own accufer ! But " God 
 " takes the wife in their own craftinefs," and H brings to 
 " nought the counfel of Ahithophel." 
 
 The next falfehood apears in page 32. There it is aflerted, 
 That when the Prefbytery at liirkaidy iapirei if I had any 
 
 thing 
 
C 29 3 
 
 thing further to add, as anfwers to thenbel, &c. u I anfaer- 
 " ed in the negative/' This is falfe. I replied to the above 
 queftion, that <c as to the firft article, I had read my mind on 
 " that head before the Prcfbytery long ago from the confef- 
 li lion of faith and catechiims, where my opinion on that 
 u point is raoft clearly exprefled ; — to which opinion I ftill ad- 
 M here, and, I hope, ever will. As to the reft of the articles, 
 €t I have nothing to add to the anfwers already given. ? That 
 thefe were my words, can be proved by witneffes ; and not 
 only fo, but the minute of that Piefbytery, an extracted copy 
 of which I have by me, materially acknowledges the truth c£ 
 what I have faid. 
 
 Page 33. alleges, that " even before the Prcfbytery came to 
 " pais^ny fentence'at all againft, or for me, 1 rudely forced 
 " myfelf in, contrary to all decency and order, and at an im- 
 " proper feafon offered a proteft." Hard words indeed ! 
 How could I rudely force myfelf in, when I was not out ? I fa?, 
 the whole time of the deliberations on the queftion, on the fame 
 bench with my judges, not a yard diftant from the clerk, and 
 io could not get in without force. Again, the Prefbytery had 
 fuftained the firft article proved, the relevancy of which had 
 been formerly fuftained.—- Was not this a deed againft me ? It 
 was againft this deed I protefted, and appealed to the Synod, 
 after I had aiked the moderator, whether the vote had not 
 carried prove ? Was this <c at an improper feafon i" 
 
 The fame fpirit breathes in page 34. Says it, <c I never ap- 
 " plied' for any extract of my proteft, nor offered one rea- 
 " ion to fupport it." This is evidently falfe : I actually got 
 an extract: ; and how could I have got it unafked ? I afked it 
 in the conclufion of the proteft itfelf, as page 33. of the Nar- 
 rative declares. Satan generally betrays himfelf where-everhe 
 is. — Yea, I afked it the fame night three feveral times, as alfo 
 an extract of the depofitions of the witneffes ; but both were 
 refufed. They told me, they would take no notice of my ap- 
 peal, but would proceed as if no fuch appeal had been made. 
 Accordingly I got no extract, till the fecond day of the meeting 
 of Synod ; to which I appealed, when I only received an ex- 
 tract of my proteft, but none of the depofitions as demand 
 Hence it is eaiy to fee how I could not give in reafons of ap- 
 peal in form, as it behoved them to be founded on the dep 
 tions of the witneffes, a copy of which I was denied. This in- 
 formality then was the neceffary refult of the injuftice of the 
 Prefbytery. 
 
 From the above detail, it is eafy to fee, why I refufed to 
 join th§ Prefbytery in prayer for a blefling on the fentence of 
 
 iuipeniion. 
 
0-1*} 
 
 k>n. Could any pcrfon rationally join in graying for a 
 Memng on a fentence he was convinced in his confeience 
 
 >!utely irregular ami grouniHefs ? A fentence p. died after an 
 
 ,:\ade to the Synod, and hi itfctf the huit of malice and 
 
 Would the Prefbytery have had me to mock God ? — 
 
 \Veil mar ;he Narrative lay, that the Prefbytery feared left the 
 
 F fuck a fentence in my meeting-houfe " would 
 
 " have been attended with a profanation of the Sabbath," 
 
 fince the fentence itfelf was profane. I wifh they had been as 
 
 ; Vaid of profaning the name of God, by alVuming his 
 
 rhority to do evil, or to pafs unjirft: fentences in his name ! 
 
 As the Narrative began, fo it ends. Page 35. aflerts, " The 
 " Synod met at Edinburgh (Atigult 25.) v/here he (I myfeif) 
 rl brought in a complaint againft the Prefbytery, contrary to 
 " all fn-m, and on that ground was by the Synod laid afid 
 &c— -The complaint mentioned was unaniittoufly tranfmitted 
 to the Syned by the committee, and not one member of Synod 
 -objected to its irregularity but one. As a proof of this, it 
 was left \ipen the table tiH next meeting, where it ftill lies ; 
 which could not poffibly -be the cafe, had it been laid aiide, as 
 the Narrative fays. The truth is, the Synod could not enter 
 on the caufe at that meeting, as all tXe members of Prefbytery, 
 the moderator excepted, were fled, and had carried their mi- 
 nutes along with them : as both parties were not prefent, the 
 Synod could not judges although, to do them juftice, they 
 all feemed to condemn the Prefbytery. 
 
 The Narrative fays (p. 36.) *' Seft means were ufed for his 
 u recovery, but to no purpofe." I wifh thefe terms were ex* 
 plained.— How could I be recovered from an error into which. 
 I never fell ? And if by foft means be meant private rteatis, 
 ^.one fuch were ever ufed. No committee was ever appointed 
 to converfe with me ; although, along rime after the above fen- 
 tence was pa^ed, I was told, that if I would defire a committee, 
 it would be granted. This I could not do, as this would hav^ 
 4aid that I hdd fome recantation to make, while I had none. 
 Bcfides, if they reckoned mc in an error, it was their bufinefs 
 to ufc means to reclaim me, as is ufual in all courts of that kind. 
 
 The above fentence of fufpenfion was intimated to me at 
 Dundee, (Oflober 1767); upon which I protefted againft h, 
 and appealed to the Synod. At Perth, (December faid year), 
 the Prefbytery agreed to fuftain the remaining articles of libel, 
 Separately from the firft, relevant to infer cenfure. This be- 
 ing intimated to me by the moderator, I alfo protefted againft 
 it, and appealed to the Synod. For both thefe appeals, I gave 
 in my rcalbas to the Prefbytery in due time. 
 
 From 
 
[ 3i 2 
 
 From the Prefbytery the whole affair went to the Synod, by 
 the way of appeal. There the whole procefs was read, with 
 my protefts, and reafons of appeal, from three different 
 branches of the procedure of the Prefbytery, The whole, 
 however, was rejected, upon a pretended informality in the 
 appeal ; and I, in confequence, was remitted back to the 
 Prefbytery. Hereupon, I told the Synod, that I could not ac* 
 quiefce in their prefent decision, for the following reafon \±r& 
 cannot in confeience fubmit myfclf any longer to the judgment 
 of the Prefbytery of Perth, &c. as 1 have brought in very 
 heavy charges againft them in my reafons of appeal, which 
 this Synod feem difpofed to take no notice cf, I am ready 
 ftiil to lay before you far more grievous charges againft them, 
 if I be allowed an extract of their anfwers to my reafons o£ 
 appeal, which have been juft now read. From thefe I offer 
 to inftruct, That the Prelb)tery are men guilty of the groffeft 
 diffimulation, and that in that paper they have afferted the 
 moft notorious falfchoods. This being the cafe, I cannot, 
 confiftently either with Chriitianity or common fenfe, iubmjt 
 my caufe to the deciilon of fuch men, until I lhall be c< n- 
 viqeed that my prefent opinion of them is groundlefs. — r J 
 reprefentation had no effect, but ft ill I nuift return eo be jud- 
 ged by the Prefbytery, 
 
 I once offered a proteft againft the above decifion • but, at 
 the defire of the Synod, I took it back, in order tl % I mi 
 ponder the majter more deliberately. Accordingly, when I 
 returned from Glafgow, after the moft ferious consideration, 
 I found myfelf poffeffed of the fame opinion, with regard to 
 the Prefbytery, as reprefented above, and consequently could 
 not reafonably fubmit to them as a Prefbytery. I aifc 
 reafon to blame the Synod, not only for the reafons al 
 mentioned, but becaufe they alleged that my appeals were in^ 
 formal, and made this the only ground of their decifion. I 
 do not chufe to difpute upon forms not appointed in the word 
 of God ; but this I am fure of, that I can vindicate mv ap- 
 peals from the authenticated formulas of the church of Scot- 
 land, which admits of an appeal from any deed or fentence of 
 an inferior court, whereby the pannel judges himfclf lefed ; 
 which appeal ftops all further procedure in that affair, till the 
 fuperior court gives its judgment, — But even allowing \}\ t \% 
 there was an informality in the appeal, I look on it as veiy 
 hard for a man to have his whole caufe rejected merely on that 
 account, and to have his character left under a blot among the 
 people he is in communion with, without any probable hope 
 of redref3. This may obtain in civil courts, where a mm 
 
 only 
 
r 32 : 
 
 Only be hurt in his worldly interefts. But furc Jefus nr. 
 acted iuch ft paft ; nor has he given any injunction to others 
 to make the religious character of his fubjects depend upon fo 
 r a thread, as that of a mere form. 
 
 Nothing could be more artful and unjuft than the conduct of 
 the Synod in this afflrfr. In judging concerning the laft pro- 
 »nd appeal, they rejected it, on the pretence, that it was 
 not made immediately after the deed appealed from was done. 
 Upon this I defired them to read the minute of Prcfbytery re- 
 lative to that matter, which would fliow whether their ju«. 
 inent was properly founded. On reading the minutes, it ap- 
 i edj that the Preibytery alleged, that faid deed was done 
 before. Then I defired them to fhew ivken and where it \ 
 done. This the Prcfbytery could not do, as no account of 
 any iiich deed. is to be found in their minutes, previous to that- % 
 meeting', when the proteft was taken. Thus my appeal was 
 perfectly in form, according to the records of the Preibytery, 
 to which I referred for nay vindication. How abfurd then was 
 the charge of informality ! — Although the Prefbytery faid fo, 
 jnet their own minute gave them the lie. Yea, I can eafily 
 prove, that fome members of Prefbytery declared their fa- 
 tisfaction with that appea!, becaufe it was made from a deed 
 immediately done. How wicked then was it to infert a known 
 falfehood into their minutes, and to make one part of them 
 contradk'»che other ? 
 
 After the Synod had rejected the whole caufe, I was told, 
 that, if I faw proper, I might bring in a libel againit the Pref- 
 bytery, on the various articles of charge laid againit them in 
 my reafons of appeal. This was obvioufly a mere fhifr. I 
 offered to libel the Preibytery for the moil fcandalous iniqui- 
 ties, on condition that the Synod would grant me a copy of 
 the Prefbytery 's anfwers to my reafons of appeal : but this was 
 abfolutely denied me. — I might indeed have framed a libel 
 without the above paper : but as many of its articles would 
 have required witneflfes for proof, and thefe could not have 
 been obtained but at great expencc, as probably they muft have 
 gone to Giafgow; and, perhaps, after all, at fuch a diftance 
 of time, they might have forgot feveral of the facts libelled; 
 I reckoned it vain to make any attempt of this kind. More- 
 over, although I had brought the clearest evidence, it is pro- 
 bable it would have been rejected, as the judges were obvioufly 
 biaffed in favour of the Prcfbytery. This appears evidently 
 from the above narration. If they had defired to detect the 
 injuftice of the Prefbytery, would they not have granted me a 
 copy of that naper, upon which I offered three feveral times 
 
 to 
 
c 33 i 
 
 to prove the Prefbytery liars and diflemblers ? Again, one of 
 the members of Synod acknowledged honeitly, that the Pref- 
 bytery had fent him a narrative of their conduct, in my cafe, 
 which was very different from the account given in their own 
 extracted minutes, a copy of which I laid before the Synod, 
 This he repeated thrice. Did not this prove the grqtTelt dif- 
 fimutetipn and artifice in the Prefoytery, and alfo the moft 
 glaring partiality in the Synod, who would not inquire into 
 the truth of this fadier's allegation ? 
 
 At this meeting or Synod, a petition from my congregation, 
 directed to the Synod, was read in the committee, and entire- 
 ly neglected. As it (hows how eafily I could have produced 
 exculpatory proof, had I been allowed, I fhall prefent the pu- 
 blic with a copy of it. — It was unfolicited, yea unfeen by me, 
 till a very few days before it was prefented to the. committee in 
 the form in which it now appears. 
 
 To the Very R:v. the Moderator and remanent members of the 
 Ajjgciate Synod, to meet at Cla/sow, 3d day of May 17 63, 
 
 The petition and reprefentationof the elders and others, mem- 
 bers of the Aiibciate Congregation of Abernethy, 
 
 Humbly fbetvethy 
 
 THat fince an appeal comes before the Synod, at this meet- 
 ing, relative to a fentence of fufpenfion pafied again ft the 
 Rev. Mr Alexander Pirie, our minifter, by the Prefbytery of 
 Perth and Dunfermline ; we beg leave to reprefent, that the 
 above fentence appears to ns to be unjuft and unprecedented ; 
 fince we could, if it were neceffary, give an account Qt the 
 particular doctrines our minifter has taught us, both before 
 and lince he was fettled amongft us ; but we (hall mention on- 
 ly the firft and feco.-d after his iertlemcnt. The firft was from 
 that text, " God forbid that I fhould glory (in any thing) 
 V fave in the crofs of Chrift.** In difcouriing on this fijbje 
 he {hewed the ground of glorying to lie in the death of 
 Chriit, God-man, who was the feed of the w,oman, and as 
 man made of her fubftance. The fecond text he preached 
 from was, ;i There is one God, and one Mediator betwixt 
 fi God and men, the man Chrift Jefus." In preaching upoi) 
 this, he proved the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divi- 
 nity cf Chriit 's pre exifteut ftate before he was mar/; and 
 then how he was very man, made of 4 woman, bone oF 
 our bene, and flefh of our flefh. Our minifter, in autumn 
 1765, preached upon the fub}e& ^libelled, 416 from that text, 
 
 £ " tod 
 
C 34 3 
 
 " God fent forth his Son, made of a woman ;" when there 
 happened to be hearing him fundry people, from different 
 corners of the country, and particularly feverals from Auch- 
 termuchty ; fome of whom were notour and avowed oppofers 
 of our minifter's being fettled amongft us, unlefs there were 
 fuch limits and boundaries fixed and fettled upon, as would in 
 effect render us no meeting almoft worth noticing. Our mi- 
 nifter, in difcourfing from faid text, made mention of two o- 
 pinions, relative to the incarnation of our blefied Lord, as is 
 lhewn by the firft witnefs led againft him ; when, as at all 
 times formerly, fo particularly then, he eftablifhed and con- 
 firmed the doctrine of Chrift's human body, to be the feed of 
 the woman, the feed of Abraham, the JMefiias promifed to 
 the fathers, conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, by 
 the miraculous agency of the Holy Ghoft ; and exhorted us, 
 notwithstanding Chrift's being made of a woman, not to en- 
 tertain any opinion which might infer that our Saviour's body 
 was unholy, as he was that holy thing born of a woman, yet 
 feparated from finners. However, there were fome of the 
 hearers on that Sabbath-day, who, thinking one of the faid 
 opinions to be very new; and, as it would feem, remem- 
 bering that only, caufed inform certain of the minifters of the 
 Preibytery, in order to accufe our mini iter of error ; but to 
 no purpofc, as it was not credited by them, that he gave the 
 lane as his own opinion. Yet, by degrees, the ftory took air, 
 and the Antiburghers blazed it abroad, that our minifter was 
 neous. And, as it was really falfe, fo his Rev. brethren 
 k not the leaft notice thereof, but afiifted him, at two dif- 
 .'it times, in difpenfing amongtf: us the facrament of the 
 Lord's fupper ; at the firft of which occafions, which was in 
 July 1766, the now libeller Peter Speedy joined with us, who, 
 together with fome in his neighbourhood, inquired of us 
 anent the forefaid point of doctrine, which made fuch a noife 
 amongft the Antiburghers : and being afiured by us of the 
 groupdleflhefs of the clamour, they declared they would not 
 herec/ter give the leaft credit to that ftory. At the fecond of 
 thefe folemn occafions, which was in autumn thereafter, an 
 elder from Auchtermuchty joined with us in that holy ordi- 
 nance ; and alfo afiifted our elders in the fervice of the tables, 
 as an evidence of his being fatisfied fully as to our minifter's 
 orthodoxy ; but no fooner was our minifter fufpected of being 
 author of the eflay on national covenanting, than he appeared 
 his bitter enemy, and is one of the witnefies led againft him ; 
 and, as would feem, remembered nothing of the fermon quar- 
 relled but the opinion formerly alluded to. 
 
 Further, 
 
[ 35 3 
 
 Further, we muft, at leaft, beg to be excufed for not ao 
 quiefcing in the forefaid fentence of the Prefbytery againft our 
 minifter: fince, at the meeting of Prefbytery, March jo. 1767, 
 before ever the libel appeared, many of us heard him read his 
 opinion on the incarnation of our Saviour, from the facred 
 records, and in the precife words of the confeffion of faith 
 and catechifms, both larger and fhorter, which he declared to 
 be his fentiments on that point ; which, in our humble opinion, 
 we gladly hoped, would have effectually put an entire flop to 
 any procefs in that affair. But lince it had not the juft and 
 delired fuccefs ; and as it is faid by fome, our minifter fhould 
 have objected againft the witneffes, yet we have no reafon to 
 complain of him thereanent, as he had perfonal acquaintance 
 almoft with none, a>t leaft a very few of them ; and there's no 
 difcovering the heart, but by the words and actions. — Neither 
 can we blame him for not objecting againft the proof, on ac- 
 count of the diftance of the time, in regard the Preibytery fo 
 very fondly received the libel againft him, and fo readily ful- 
 tained themfelves judges therein. Whereas, we humbly think, 
 their province was to have rejected that article, both by realbn 
 of the length of time, and our minifter having declared his 
 orthodoxy on that fubject formerly in their hearing, and, as 
 we think, to their fatisfaction too, as it was in their own precife 
 words. He, our minifter, alfo demanded of the Prefbytery, 
 the liberty of an exculpatory proof, which was refufed him ; 
 upon which we think it was vain for him to object againft any 
 of their proceedings in which he was concerned. In fhort, 
 all of us can declare, that our minifter preaches die very re- 
 verfe of the doctrine libelled, and never in our hearing advan- 
 ced any fuch points of doctrine as he is accufed of. We judge 
 it therefore only juftice done his character, to declare before 
 this Rev. court, that it gives us fincere grief and pain to un- 
 derftand, that he is fufpended for advancing and maintaining an 
 error, which, we are very fure, .he abhors and detefts ; and 
 that fuch violent attempts fhould be made to deprive us of his 
 labours, which have been faithful rynd conftant, and we hope 
 not unfuccefsful amongft us. — We are very far from pretend- 
 ing to dictate to this Rev. court, having only with truth and 
 fimplicity reprcfented the reafons why we cannot acquiefce in 
 the fentence of the Prefbytery ; and do therefore earneflly beg 
 and humhly hope, that the Rev. Synod would take the above 
 into their ferious confideration, and be pleafed to reverfe the 
 fentence of fufpenfion againft our minifter, which has done fo 
 much hurt to the intereft of real religion and godlinefs in the 
 place and country-fide. 
 
 E 2 That 
 
[ 3* J 
 
 That the Lord may direct you in this, and every other affair 
 that comes before you, is the prayer of 
 
 Your humble petitioners. 
 
 Abernethy, April 27. 1768. 
 The congregation being met, and having chofen a prefes, 
 the above petition and reprefentation was by them conceived 
 and agreed upon, after reading the fame ; and they appointed 
 it to be preiented to the Rev. Synod, by their commiffioner 
 John Dron : and that he fhould infill:, with ail earneffcnefs 
 and humility, the fame fhould be read and confidered by them. 
 (Signed) James Isaac, Prejes. 
 
 I fhall fay no more concerning the conduct of the Synod. 
 Their procedure can be vindicated upon the maxims of worldly 
 wifdom. u The Lord commended the unjuft rteward, becaufe 
 41 he had done wifely," according to the maxims of this world. 
 It was wifer for the Synod to M make to themfelves friends'* 
 of the Prefbytery, than of one man, although it fhould be 
 by the judgment of unrighteoufnefs. Befides, I revere lev era! 
 characters in the Synod ; and although irt thefe very characters 
 I law very considerable blunders, I chufe to pafs them over in 
 filence. With great Satisfaction I have heard fome of them 
 preach the purity of the gofpel ; and I fincerely wifh that I had 
 not feen any part of their conduct fo inconfiftent with their 
 doctrine. But where we have any room for charity, let us in- 
 dulge it : we all, the wifeft of us, err. 
 
 After I returned from Glafgow, I took a feriotis review of 
 the whole affair. Examining the character of the Prefbytery, 
 as I had defcribed it before the Synod, I Was more and more 
 convinced that I had done it no more but juftice. In this 
 view, it is eafy to fee, that I could not ftand connected any 
 longer with men, of whom I had conceived fuch an unfavour- 
 able opinion. As the Synod, too, feemed nowife difpofed to 
 redrefs my grievances, I judged it vain, yea irrational, to 
 pu null the matter any further. But before I gave in a decli- 
 nature to the Prefbytery, I began to examine more narrowly 
 the Seceding publications, that I might fee whether or not they 
 were really witnefiing for the truth of the gofpel, according to 
 their pretenfions. Of this I had formerly doubted ; but now 
 I faw it evident, that their pretenfions were entirely groundlefs. 
 To me it appeared, that their diftinguifhing principles were 
 not 4( the principles of the oracles of God." This determined 
 me at once to leave that party, fince I judged them as neither 
 fpeaking nor acting " according to the truth of the gofpel.'* 
 
 Accordingly 
 
C 37 1 
 
 Accordingly I gave io to the Prefbytery, a paper declaring my 
 reafons of declinature in brief ; which reafons are exhibited 
 more at large in the preceding pages. 
 
 Nor have I myfelf been blamelefs. I ought to have examined 
 the Burgher principles more ftridtly, before I joined them. If 
 I had done fo, I might have eafily feen the inconfiftency of 
 adhering to a teftimony, wherein we find falfehoods ; ,of call- 
 ing any practice a duty, which we neither do ourfelves, nor 
 will allow others to do ; and of fquabbling about a moral duty, 
 which may not be duty once in 70, 700, yea, in 7000 years, or 
 to eternity. Again, I erred, at the commencement of this pro* 
 fecution, in indulging too favourable opinions of the Prefby- 
 tery. This threw me off my guard, and kept me from ufing 
 the precautions neceffary for efcaping the fnares, whereby 
 tiiey lay in wait to deceive me. Moreover, I ought to have 
 left them, fo foon as I faw that our opinions were fo different ; 
 and not have wafted fo much time and money in a fruitlefs at- 
 tendance on a pretended court, where every new appearance 
 gave the members only a frefh opportunity of bringing guilt 
 on their own heads, and of reviling and abufing me in the 
 moft outrageous manner, while I had no accefs to make my 
 defence *. 
 
 I am not, however, to blame, as the Narrative alleges, ii\ 
 giving a difingenuous anfwer to the query concerning the 
 binding obligation of the covenants, put to me at my admiffion 
 into that party. Before I was admitted at all, I told the then 
 moderator of Prefbytery, that I could not bow to that query, 
 unlefs the fenfe of it be this ; — So far as the matter of thefe co- 
 venants was moral, it is binding on all pofterity. To this 
 he replied, * Many of us take up that queftion in the fame 
 
 * I (hall only relate one inftance of many, which might be addu- 
 ced in proof of what I have afferted. — 1 attended a meeting of Pref-? 
 bytery at Kinrofs, in February 1767, where the affair was called in, 
 and examined. In the courfe of reafoning, or rather of fpeaking a- 
 gainft reafon, fome members took occafion to attack me, with all the 
 virulence which an envenomed heart could fuggeft. One in particular, 
 a fon of the famous Demas, fpread his inve&ives and flanders around 
 a very large audience, for near an hour together. — I heard all to A* 
 men ; and then defired leave to fpeak in my own vindication. This 
 was abfolutely refufed, with a loud voice, for this weighty reafon; — 
 " No, Moderator, he is a pannel ; he ought not to get leave to fpeak 
 u here 1" He might have added, " We have endeavoured, Mo-» 
 M derator, to render him odious before this crouded audience by his 
 u lies and nonfenfe; and doubtlefs, our eloquence has made fome 
 " impreflion : now, Sir, if we permit him to anfwer for himfclf, he 
 " will very readily cxpofe our talfity and hypocnfy, which would 
 M mar the whole plot," 
 
 " light." 
 
C 38 1 
 
 " fight" Well, fays I, remember, I can take it m no other 
 fenle \ and it any of your brethren have any other view of it, 
 you may let them know. No objections were then made, io 
 
 as- I know.— The reader may now judge whether there be 
 toy foundation for the terrible charge of difingenuity, laid a- 
 gainft me on that head. 
 
 It would be endlefs to relate the numberlefs inftances o£ 
 
 ^treatment I have received from the Prefbytery thefe two 
 years part. In public and private, they have tiled inceffant ef- 
 forts to deftroy one weak man, who has ?* no help of man at 
 " all." By folemn lies both to God and man ; by circulating 
 infamy both in their own flocks and mine ; by every low, not 
 to fay wicked, method, have they ftudied to render me an ob- 
 ject of abhorrence to mankind. But ie I-know in whom I 
 have believed." That arm which fupports the univeife, is 
 
 i.nly able to fupport me. Here, through grace, will I rely, 
 and let mine enemies fpend their rage in vain. ?f Thou, O 
 u Lord, art a refuge to all that put their truft in thee ! Let 
 u none that fear thee, ever be afhamedfor my fake. O let the 
 V malice of the wicked end ! Blefs them who perfect! te me, 
 H and do good to them who fpitefuily ufe me and treat mc I' 
 
 What I kave written is fincerely intended for the good of 
 Seceders. My well-meant efforts, for the edification of the 
 people of that perfuafion, have expofed me to the refentment 
 of their clergy, whofe honour and intereft lay in the fcale op- 
 pofite to truth. The people, too, ever too much in fubjeclion 
 to clerical influence, have confidered me as their enemy. But, 
 my brethren, let me tell you your miftake. I have been ana- 
 thematized for your fake again and again ; and I am ready to 
 be anathematized, or to be reckoned by you " accurfed from 
 " ClinA:" again flail, if this could tend to your edification ; if 
 it would tend to perfuade you, that u you worfhip God in vain, 
 '/ while you believe for doclrine the commandments of men ;" 
 and that the remnant of the woman's feed are fuch as u keep 
 " the commands of God, and hold the teftimony of Jefus 
 M Chrift-," and not thofe H who are exceedingly zealous for 
 " the traditions of their fathers." This has been the aim of 
 my writings and preachings among you ; this fhall be the fcope 
 of my prayers for you, now when I am banifhed from your 
 focicty. I will repay love for hatred : curfe me, and I will 
 blefs through grace. — Finally, brethren, farewelL Whether 
 you will hear me or not, the death-bed will fcatter that mift of 
 
 prejudice, 
 
t 39 1 
 
 prejudice, which now furrounds you ; and will preach, that 
 Bible-religion can only ftand before God: — and I heartily 
 wiih, that this truth may not be believed too late ! 
 
 Perhaps you imagine, that however I may be concerned for 
 your welfare, yet my wifhes for the happinefs of your pallors 
 are not fo warm. But in this you are alfo miftaken. To fee 
 them teaching the things which become found doctrine, an4 
 conducting you in the path of truth, would afford me thg 
 mo ft lincere pleafure. Would they hear one, whom they haye 
 caft out, and profecuted with fo much virulence, he would 
 addrefs them in the following terms, 
 
 Brethren in the Mini /try, 
 
 The paftoral care is of all others the mod important, ardu* 
 ous, and interefting. It is the care of fouls, redeemed by rhe 
 precious blood of Chrift, and deftined for the eternal flrorld, 
 Thefe are committed to our truft, that we may feed, help, air 
 fift, and direct them in the paths of righteoufn efs. The gre*t 
 Shepherd and Bilhop of their fouls {lands at the door, and wii{ 
 call us to an account : and blefied is that fervant, who (hall ht 
 found watching when his Lord comes ! Alarming thought f 
 Was religion a chimera; was death the end of existence, "and 
 no judgment to come;-^then we might frame and fupport fuck 
 a fyftem of religion, as would belt fubferve our intereft an4 
 aggrandizement in this world. But the Lord comes, and 
 blood of fouls will be required at the hands of the faithjcis 
 watchmen. Since we look for fuch things, how diligent ihoulcj. 
 we be to fulfil our miniftry, and to acl as thofe who are really 
 looking for the coming of the day of the Lord J 
 
 Now, if we really believe that we mult ftand before the judg-~ 
 ment-feat of Chriil, we will certainly make it the bufineis of 
 life, to do the things which he fays. What fays he to us t 
 %i Feed the church of God, teaching them to obferve all things 
 " whatfoever I have commanded you. You fhall not add 
 •* thereto, nor ceafe to declare the whole counfel of God." 
 This is the fopd of fouls : they are to be nourifhed up in the 
 words of faith and good doctrine. But, my brethren, do vou 
 not too, too often mingle your fermons with doctrines which 
 Chrift never taught i Are not human covenants, mens tcfti- 
 monies, the a£ts and deeds of fallible fathers, and things re- 
 ceived by tradition from the elders, the frequent theme of 
 your difcourfe ? Uo you not teach the people to give a div 
 faith to thefe things? Do you never wrett the fcriptures, to 
 eftablilh thefe tenets ? Did you really believe thefe things your* 
 feives, or do you preach them, that you *nay get to youi iclv.es 
 
 § 
 
C 40 ] 
 
 & name ? — The Judge hears you, and he will fajr, Who has re- 
 quired the fe 1 your hands ? Again, are not your kr- 
 mons interfperfeu with the moft unchriftian rerledtions on all 
 Who differ from you in opinion ; tending to fill your hearers 
 with the fpirit of malevolence ? yea, do not your prayers 
 breathe the lame uncharitable fpirit ? The archangel, when 
 contending with the devil, durft not bring a railing accufation 
 againft him before the Lord. And fhall we worms ufe a 
 freedom with our Maker, which was refufed to archangels ? 
 When they are not permitted to rail againft Satan before God, 
 mall we prefume to accufe our fellow-Chriftians before him ? 
 —-To fuch afTemblies mine honour be thou not united ! — Is this 
 the fincere milk of the Word, whereby Chriftians are to grow 
 in faith, love, and holinefs ? God forbid, that we fhould make 
 any thing known among our people, but Jefus Chrift, and him 
 crucified ! Shall we preach ourfelves, or the necefiity of cove- 
 nants and bands of our framing, in order to knit the body of 
 Chrift together ? No : the body of Chrift is M knit together 
 f* in love ;" and its bands are bands of love, which have the 
 ftrength of God. " With loving-kindnefs," fays God, " have 
 " I drawn you/* If we preach any thing elfe, how ihall we 
 abide the day of his coining ? 
 
 Our fafting too will be recognized at that day. Did you 
 faft at all to me ? faith the Lord. Did you not faft for 
 ftrife and debate, and to fmite with the fift of wickednefs ? 
 Were you as careful to fet their own fins before your people, 
 arid to lament over them ; as you were eager to publiih 
 the iniquities of others ? Did your fafting, like charity, 
 begin at home ? Rather, did you not magnify the guilt of o- 
 thers, and exaggerate their failings, while you foothed your 
 hearers, with the flattering titles of the Lord s remnant, wit- 
 riefies for Chrift, &c. I Minding the mote in your brother's 
 eye, you forgot the beam in your own, and deluded your peo- 
 ple into a falfe fecurity, while, hecdlefs of their own ftate, they 
 were conftantly talking over the defections of the times. Is this 
 the faft that I have chofen ? 
 
 Nor fhall your courts, brethren, be exeemed from a review. 
 How have you demeaned yourfelves there ? Have you acted 
 as under the eye of the Supreme Judge ? What then mean 
 your hot contentions, vain janglings, angry difputes about 
 doubtful matters, your anathemas ib liberally thrown at or.e 
 another about burgefs-oaths, acts of parliament, and things 
 which have no connection with godli efs ? Were you never 
 afraid to gratify your own humours, and pafs your fentences 
 in the name of Jefus ? Are you fure tLat Chrift has committed 
 
 the 
 
a; 
 
 elfe ; and ti 
 
 he ax. ^ . ^^ tew .a\vs, acts, covenants, 
 
 and teftimonies, bincin« 6 tue coniciences of his fubjects ? Have 
 you never executed your own laws, under the pretence' of di- 
 vine authority ; and have not intereil, honour, and even per- 
 fonal pique, directed your meafures in dealing with offending 
 brethren ; more than the glory of God, or the falvation of 
 fouls ? Will. the facred name of Jefus, prefixed to your rafh 
 tenfures, fandtify meafures which he never planned : — I be- 
 feech you remember that awful word, " Many fhall fay unto 
 u me in that day, Lord, Lord, we proph cried in thy name, 
 H &c." to whom he will fay, " Depart from me, ye workers 
 §t of iniquity." 
 
 And are you really certain, that your terms of communion 
 will ftand the tell: at the bar of Jefus : The divine word is the 
 rule whereby we are to be judged at the laft day. Are your 
 peculiar terms prescribed in. that word ; .or rather, are they 
 not merely of human device ? Conlider and fee. Is it a light 
 matter to exclude from the table of the Lord, all w T ho bear not 
 our image, or cannot put on our party-peculiarities, and give 
 a divine faith to human hiftories ? "Will the Judge of all the 
 earth proceed by thefe rules, and debar from the kingdom of 
 heaven, all who walk not according to your dictates ? No ; 
 certainly. Tremble, then, to curfe in the name of Jefus, thofe 
 whom he has bleiled. 
 
 I w r puld befeech you, too, to bring your fpirit and temper 
 under review. Have you not zealoufly affected your hearers, 
 but not well ? Can you juflify the ufage you have given to 
 your fellow-labourers in the miniftry ; and are you certain 
 they deferve all the harfh epithets, you have fo laviihly bellow- 
 ed upon them ? Is the circle of the Seceffion, the boundary of 
 the Spirit of God ; and can none preach Jefus in fincerity but 
 he who preaches your teflimony, and joins you in railing a- 
 gainft your fellow -Chriftians ! What if your Mafter fhall 
 come, and find you beating your fellow -ferv ants, inltead of 
 performing with afliduity the talk affigned you,. and provoking 
 your brethren to love, and to good works ? I tremble at the 
 confequence. — " The Lord will cut that fervant off from his 
 u family, and appoint him a portion with hypocrites. " Con- 
 fider, then, what you do. The fpirit which breathes in your 
 preaching and conduct:, will live in your hearers, when you 
 are gone to your " long home." Would you be fo cruel, 
 then, as to deiire that they too fhould be found employed at 
 the beating-work, when the Mafter comes ? Will not this ag- 
 
 F gravate 
 
[ 40 
 
 Tii.Jge he**s you, and he will fay, Who has 1 
 gravatc your gi ^ r y () ^\ a nds ? Again, arc not your fcr- 
 you would iayc you.^lves ft un chriillan reftf/ v jon*, on a]Mcr 
 tluic things ferioufly. Be not ttitfltee^ to rcliiUjUiih what is 
 wrong ; nor be offended at one, who admoniihes you rn love. 
 Hold faft the faithful word, even the woios of our Lord ]o 
 fus Chrift ; and ftudy to be as he was in the world. And if 
 you V walk according to this rule," my cenftanr, rrydyng 
 wifli fhall be, u peace be upon you, and upon all the I J rat? 
 " of God/' 
 
 THE END.