4 
 
 
 

 \ 
 
 ; *; 
 
 • V 
 
 Vs' 
 
 7- / 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 ■4 * 
 
 \ 
 
 1 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 £ •- 
 
 i ' 
 
 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/rnemorialremonstr00giba_0 
 

 A Synod-Sermon conjldered: 
 
 I N A 
 
 MEMORIAL and REMONSTRANCE, 
 
 B Y 
 
 ADAM G I Bo 
 
 

 / 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 c?: f. 
 
 
 T 
 
 J. 
 
 , « ! r r ' 
 
 i /j. - - 
 
 
 . ■ - 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
A 
 
 
 M E M O R I A L 
 
 AND 
 
 REMONSTRANCE, 
 
 Read before the Associate Synod, at Edinburgh; 
 May 2. 1782 : Relative to a printed Sermon which had 
 been preached before them. 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 I. 1 he Rise of Antichri st ; with his Progress for 
 42 months, or 1260 clays : A gain it the falfe calculations 
 thereof made in that Sermon,—from Biihop Newton, 
 Mr LowmAn, and Dr Gui se. 
 
 II. Hie Reformation from Popery ; as injured by 
 thefe falfe calculations. 
 
 in. The State of the Reformation-Testimony, in 
 the hands of the Ajjociate Synod ; as likewife injured by 
 the Sermon. 
 
 WITH 
 
 Some Remarks upon an Answer to the lajlpart of the 
 Memorial and Remonjirance; that Anfwer being pre¬ 
 fixed. 
 
 By Adam Gib, Minifter of the Go r pel at Edinburgh. 
 
 Rev. iii. ri. Hold that fajl which thou hajt ? that no mart 
 take thy crown* 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 Printed by A. Neill and Company. 
 
 Sold by W. Gray, Front of the Exchange; and 
 . other Bookfellers. 
 
 M,DCC,LXXXIV. 
 
 [Trice Sixpence.;] 
 

PREMONITION. 
 
 T HE Author might well enough fuppofe himfelf 
 juftifiable, in publifhing the following Memo¬ 
 rial and Remonstrance; though he had no 
 other reafon for taking this ftep, but the publica¬ 
 tion of the Sermon to which it refers: as no point 
 of delicacy can juftly require,—that a defence of 
 the caufe of truth and duty fhould be more private 
 than the injury which it has fuffered. 
 
 Yet, confidering fome exoneration which he got 
 in the Minutes of the Associate Synod, he not 
 only delayed, but even had no defign to lay that 
 defence before the public ; till he found a neceffity 
 laid upon him for doing foj in an anfwer madq to 
 the loft part of it,—as admitted by the Synod to a 
 place in their minutes. 
 
 And even this would not have had the prefent 
 confequence, had that Anfwer contained and been 
 confined to any appearance of fair-dealing with the 
 fubjedl in debate. But the injury done to it in the 
 Sermon , is continued and confirmed in the Anfwer ; 
 through a courfe of very injurious treatment given 
 to him. At the fame time, confidering the place 
 which the Synod, at their laft meeting, appointed 
 that Anfwer to have in their minutes (as will be 
 afterwards explained) ; there is little probability that 
 it may ever be brought under any difcuflion by 
 them : and, confidering the prefent hate of matters, 
 there is no probability that their difcuffing of it 
 might be got to procure what he could put up with, 
 —as any proper juflice to that caufe, and his own 
 chara&er. 
 
 And he cannot be fatisfied to leave that caufe be¬ 
 hind him, bleeding, without any binding-up,—of 
 thefe wounds w r hich it has received in the houfe of 
 its friends; and himfelf, at the fame .time, lying 
 under reproach on its account; While thefe inju- 
 
 A 2 ries 
 
C iii ] 
 
 ries may be otherways made more public than ia 
 the prefent edition of the fermon,—and in the Sy¬ 
 nod -minutes, vhich lie open to every fuppofable 
 ufe that may be made of extrafts from them ; when 
 he fhali not be on the flage, for repelling the 
 fame. He cannot therefore excufe himfelf from 
 making this publication without further delay; 
 having been particularly warned by diftrefs, fince 
 laft meeting of Synod, to look out for the end of 
 his courle, -which, by the courfe of nature alio, 
 may not be far olf: feeing he confiders the prefent 
 ftep as a neceifary piece of juftice to thofe interefts ; 
 and as a neceifary exoneration of himfelf, in the 
 matter of a ilediaft adherence to that good caufe for 
 which he has been fo long enabled to appear; and 
 as a neceifary admonition to both minifters and peo¬ 
 ple with whom he is in communion, for holding 
 (hat fajt which they have . • 
 
 Emnjiuilghs April yth, 1784. 
 
 A 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
A S' y nod-Sermon confide red ; 
 
 I N A 
 
 MEMORIAL and REMONSTRANCE: 
 
 Read before the Associate Synod, at Edinburgh. 
 
 May 2. 1782. 
 
 A Sermon was preached before this Synod, at their 
 meeting in April 1779; lcme paffages of which, 
 when I heard it, gave me great offence But be¬ 
 caufe I could nor pretend, from iome dulriefs of hearing, 
 to have taken it fully up ; and becaufe, for reafons 
 known to my brethren, I was not then taking any part 
 in the bufinefs of this Synod * ; and becaufe I fuppofed 
 that the offcnlive paffages then uttered might be foon 
 forgotten, without any {landing effecl: I therefore 
 relied in expreffmg fome diffatisfa&ion to the preacher, 
 before feveral of his brethren, when come in from the 
 
 place 
 
 * When, the Synod was confidering a draught of an aft for a fad, on 
 thehoth of April j 776,—iome new political principles were broached, 
 in favour of the horrid war then taking place; the introduftion of which 
 principles T immediately withdood. But 1 could not fee an expediency, in 
 the very critical date of matters at that time, and confidering fome evident 
 peculiarity of my lituaticn,— for allowing myfelf to be drawn into a 
 courfe of political debates : while I re( koned it more than probable, thafi 
 I Ihould have a like occafion at every meeting of Synod during the war, 
 
 .—particularly, when on afhs for fads; and I could not fit as a filent 
 hearer, at any repetition of fuch abhorred principles, i therefore law 
 nothing remaining for me, but to be abfent. Accordingly, I attended 
 none of the following meetings of Synod; except in diets of public wor- 
 fhip : Till, being called for by the Synod, on the 31ft of Augud I'fSo, 
 1 then returned to my feat; particularly, upon getting this Kejblution 
 cnafted, viz. “ That all the members ihould abdain from offering to in- 
 “ troduce into ihe Synod, particularly with regard to a<ds for fading,— 
 “ any matters or articles rela e to the prefent political date of public 
 “ affairs, which may be (rumbling or draitening to any of the members ; 
 “ as interfering with any difference of fentiments which may be taking 
 “ place among them about thefe affairs.” 
 
6 
 
 Of AntichriJFs Rife and Prog refs. 
 
 \ 
 
 place of worfhip ; imagining, that I fhould never have 
 any more concern with that fermon. 
 
 But now, thefe paffages of it have given me (till great¬ 
 er offence, when I read it ; upon getting it into my 
 hands in print, fince the laft meeting of this Synod, un¬ 
 der the following title : [The two witnejfes prophesying a 
 thoufand two hundred and fixty days in fackcloth. A Ser¬ 
 mon preached at the opening of the Associate Synod, 
 at Edinburgh, April 27. 1779.- -Published by De¬ 
 
 sire.] 
 
 I have reafon to believe, that the publication was by 
 the defjre of only one brother befides the preacher; 
 and whether or not, as I have heard fuppofed, my dif- 
 spprobation concurred with that brother’s approbation, 
 as a reafon for publiihing the fermon,—I leave thepreach- 
 er to determine. 
 
 However, (befides any prefent impofition by it),—as 
 this fermon may be extant when we are all in the duff ; 
 readers may then readily fuppofe, from the indefinite der 
 claratiota of its having been publijhed by defre, if there 
 fhould be nothing then on record to the contrary,—that 
 the peculiar fentiments exprelfed in it, were acceptable to 
 the generality of thofe who heard it. But though I am 
 very well pleafed with many things in the fermon, i can¬ 
 not agree that my memory fhould be loaded, when I am 
 gone, with a fuppolition of thefe peculiar fentiments ha¬ 
 ving been acceptable to me. And though no member of 
 this Synod can be more averfe than I am, from bearing 
 hard upon the preacher of that fermon ; yet I mull be 
 allowed to facrifice every perfonal regard to the public 
 caufe : While I apprehend that, by feveral paffages of the 
 fermon, a grievous injury has been done to moft unquefion - 
 able tefimonies of the holy Scripture ,—to the glorious Refor¬ 
 mation from Popery ;—and to the Reformation - Tf hnony , as 
 prefently fated among the hands of this Synod . 
 
 In the first place, Iapprehend that, by feveral paffages 
 of the fermon referred to,—a grievous injury has been 
 done to rnof unquefionable tejtimonies of the holy Scripture ; 
 particularly, by fome things in the following quotations, 
 viz “ We underhand the twelve hundred and fixty days- 
 “ in the text (Rev. xi 3.), of the fame period intended 
 (( by the forty-two months of treading under foot the holy 
 (i city, in the verfe preceding the text,—and the forty. 
 
 two 
 
Of AntichriJVs Rife and Rrogrefs . *j 
 
 te two months of the power of the bead, chap. xiii. 5,— 
 “ The twelve hundred and fixty days , evidently are to 
 “ be interpreted of twelve hundred and fixty years. The 
 u great quedion is, when thefe twelve hundred and fixty 
 te days or years commenced? [The fird rife of the Ro- 
 ** man Antichrid, or the commencement of the twelve 
 li hundred and fixty days of the witnelfes prophefying in 
 * c fackcloth, p. 13.] If we knew when they coalmen* 
 11 ced, we could eafily alcertain the period at which they 
 are to expire. Now, as to the commencement and 
 ii expiration of thefe days or years, there are different 
 “ opinions.—There are efpecially two opinions ; one or 
 t( other of which may, perhaps, be the true one. The 
 “ fird opinion is, that the twelve hundred and fixty days 
 (< commenced about the year 300 ; and, confequently, 
 “ expired about the year 1560.—But a fecond opinion 
 ii has been adopted, and defended by the bed expoiitors ; 
 “ namely, rhat the twelve hundred and fixty days or 
 « years,—rather are to be underffood to commence about 
 ic the year 756 ; and, confequently, will totally expire 
 
 « about the year 20.6.-the forty two months of the 
 
 il power of the beaft commenced, or the bead appeared, 
 *( —about the year 756 ; when the Pope became a tem- 
 *< poral Prince, or was invefted with the temporal domi- 
 “ nion of Rome.—Thefe twelve hundred and fixty days 
 « are to be underdood to have commenced about the 
 <( year 756, and confequently totally to expire about the 
 t( year 2016,—the power of the bead to be wholly at 
 
 i( an end.-This is the fecond opinion, in relation to 
 
 “ the commencement and expiration of the twelve bun- 
 dred and fixty days.-—If we might at all judge or de- 
 « termine in fo difficult a cafe, we w ould incline to the 
 “ fecond opinion.” p. 22, 25, 26, 27, 29. 
 
 The firfl opinion, maintained in the eminent Mr Dur¬ 
 ham' s Commentary on the Revelation, by reafoningswhich r 
 however contradi&ed, can never be anfw'ered,—is thus 
 laid afide. And we are referred, in a note, to Bifhop 
 Newton on the Prophefies,—and Mr Lawman on the Re¬ 
 velation, rai'hly copied after by the worthy Dr Guyfe ; 
 as the bed expofitors meant, by whom the fecond opinion 
 has been adopted and defended : Though thefe alleged 
 bed expofitors deferve not, in the prelent cafe, to be 
 named on the fame day with Mr Durham • but ought 
 
 A 2 to 
 
8 
 
 Of AntichrifP s Rife and Prog refs. 
 
 to be conficlered as Romancers, rather than as Expoftors ~ 
 upon this and many other parts of the Revelation 
 
 After all, the commencement of the twelve hundred 
 and fixty days, or the true da e of AntichrilPs rife, is not 
 left to be determined by any human authority ; as it is 
 particularly and fufficiently afcertained by divine authority 
 in the holy- Scriptures. 
 
 This is evidently the cafe in 2 Thief. ii. 6, 7, 8 There 
 the Apoltle (fpeaking of that Man of fin, the fon of per. 
 dition, the Antichr ff) fays ; Ye know what with holdeth 
 that he might he revealed in his time : For the myjiery of ini¬ 
 quity doth already work ; only He who now letteth will let, 
 until he be taken out of the way : And THEN Jhall that wick¬ 
 ed be revealed. Now. it is commonly held as unqueftion- 
 able among Proteftant expofitors, as it was among thole 
 of the primitive Church ; that He who then letted did mean 
 the Roman empire in its Heathen (late,—or the Heathen 
 emperors in their fuccelTion. The Apoltle found it expe¬ 
 dient in writing, not to name Rome-heathen as the party 
 who then letted. But it feetns that he had been more par¬ 
 ticular in Jpeaking; as he fays, v. 5. Remember ye not that, 
 when I was yet with you, I told you thefe things P Immediate¬ 
 ly adding; and now ye know what with-holdeth. Thus 
 according to Salmafius * , the primitive Chriftians, upon 
 what the Apoltle had dilcovered by word and writing, 
 dreaded the fall of the Heathen empire, even amidlt the 
 cruel perfecutions which they fuffered under it ; from an 
 apprehenfion of fomething Hill more dreadful immediate¬ 
 ly to fucceed,—in the revealing of that wicked one, the 
 Antichriftian man of fin. 
 
 But he who then with-held or letted, the fuccelTion of 
 Heathen emperors, was actually 'aken out of the wav,— 
 when the Roman emperor did folemnly come over to the 
 fide of Chriftianity, in the year 313. And this great 
 event, according to the exprefs terms of the above pro* 
 phefy, was to be immediately fucceeded by the revealing 
 of that wicked one ; from thence was to be dated the 
 commencement of AntichrifPs twelve hundred and fixty 
 days. 
 
 1 he fame date of that commencement is likewife un- 
 queftionably fixed, in the twelfth chapter of the Reyna* 
 tlon. — 1'he man-child, there mentioned, cannot be under* 
 Hood of any individual, but only of a coiledive body ; 
 
 being 
 
 * Hornlus, ad Sulpitii Severi Hiftoriam, p. 363. 
 
9 
 
 Of Antic hr ifl 9 s Rife and Progrefs . 
 
 being called our brethren y in the following context. The 
 collective body of Church-members, brought forth by the 
 woman the Church, at the time here referred to,—is faid, 
 in metaphorical terms, to have been caught up unto God 
 and his throne ; which is evidently the fame with the hea • 
 w« from which the great dragon and his angels are faid 
 to have been then caft out: and this can only be applied 
 to the exaltation of profeffing Chriftians, their being rai- 
 fed up to an enjoyment of the laws and authority of the Ro¬ 
 man empire on their fide ; a privilege, which had dread¬ 
 fully belonged to the great dragon, called the Devil and 
 Satan, for about three hundred years before. 
 
 This happy exaltation took place under Conflantine the 
 Great; when he had got poffellion of Rome,-—after ob¬ 
 taining a complete viClory over the bloody tyrant Maxen - 
 tins, who perifhed with an hundred thoufand of his army, 
 on Wednefday the 24th of September 312. For he if- 
 .fued an edift in favour of Chriftians, about the end of 
 that year ; and he renewed it, with fome improvement, 
 about the beginning of the year 313: And had this mat¬ 
 ter finally fettled, through the Eaftern as well as Weftern 
 Empire, by a more general editft, iffued on Saturday the 
 13th of June that fame year ; by which a general peace 
 was eftablilhed in the Church, after a moft cruel and 
 bloody perfecution for ten years immediately preceding,— 
 being the laft, and by far the greateft, of the ten great 
 perfecutions which Chriftians fullered under the Heathen 
 ftate of the Roman empire *. 
 
 But immediately upon this happy event, the woman fled 
 into the wildernefs. As foon as the body of church-mem¬ 
 bers was raifed up to a ftate of profperity in their tem¬ 
 poral concerns, fo foon was the Church reduced to a very 
 new ftate of adverlity in her fpiritual concerns. And 
 this wildernefs condition was to continue for twelve hun¬ 
 dred andfxty days } the fame period before affigned to 
 Antichrift : So that Antichrift’s rife bore precilely the 
 fame date with the woman’s flight into the wildernefs, 
 being immediately upon the downfal of Rome-Pagan. 
 
 Such is the true date of the commencement of Anti¬ 
 chrift’s twelve hundred and fixty days, according to moft 
 unqueftionable Scripture-teftimony : And it may well be 
 furprifing, that any, who have fearched and acknowledge 
 
 B the 
 
 * Triomphe, par Abbadie, torn, I» 
 
io Of AntichrijP s Rife and Progrefs . 
 
 the divine authority of the Scriptures, fhould have ever 
 devifed or (tumbled into any other. 1 he matter (lands, 
 as hath been reprefented, for a matter of divine faith 
 beyond every real ground of controverfy ; even though 
 we had no hiftories of thofe times, for fatisfying us about 
 the particular manner in which Antichrift role or made 
 his firft appearance, fo foon as the laws and authority of 
 the Roman empire were brought over to the fide of Chri- 
 ilianity. But the cafe (lands otherwise; as may be now 
 explained in a very fummary view of thofe times, from un- 
 queftionable hillory*. 
 
 During the iirft three centuries, under Heathen empe¬ 
 rors, no other defoliations of men, as proper office-bear¬ 
 ers in the Church, had been ever heard of,—but HJhops, 
 prejbyters y and deacons; and thefe were only parochial 
 bifhops, overfo many fingle worfhipping congregations. But 
 upon the fall of the Heathen (late of the empire, a per- 
 fjp&ly new and grievous turn was brought about in the 
 univerfal (late of the Church j a turn the molt grievous, 
 however little then underftood and confidered, of all 
 which have ever yet befallen her, fince firft conftituted 
 among the Gentiles: As (he was then turned out of the 
 Chriftian, into an Antichriftian form ; that form which 
 was the proper foundation of the whole Antichriftian fa¬ 
 bric, the proper fountain of all thofe grievous things 
 which (he afterwards fuffered in the Antichriftian Babylon, 
 —and was therefore the true rile of Antichrift. 
 
 When Conftantine found himfelf eftablilhed in the Ro¬ 
 man empire, he turned the government of it into a quite 
 new form ; according to feveral divilions which he 
 made of it, particularly into a number of civil Diocefes, 
 Through the pride and ambition of church-men, the 
 government of the church was then quickly conformed 
 to that o( the (late ; The Church was caft, according to 
 that model, into a quite new form ; by an eftabliffiment 
 of diocefan bifnops, over a number of pallors and congre¬ 
 gations ;—as all'o of other church-dignitaries in a line of 
 (uperior ranks ; archbifhops, metropolitans , primates , and 
 patriarchs or exarchs . And a l’upremacy of rank or 
 honour was immediately affigned to the Bijhop of Rome ,— 
 above all other biihops, archbilhops, metropolitans, pri¬ 
 mates, and patriarchs, even all other church-men in the 
 
 world ; 
 
 * Bower’s Hillory of the Popes, \ol. I, II. III. Sulpitii Severi Hiflo- 
 na* cum notis Hornii. 
 
Of AntichriJFs Rife and Progrcfs. 1 1 
 
 world ; from his being fettled in the metropolis of the 
 Roman empire : which was afterwards improved into a 
 fupremacy of government and jurifdittion, of 1'piritual mo¬ 
 narchy, over them all. 
 
 In the days of Conftantine, or in the time of Pope S\I- 
 vefler, (who was made bilhop of Rome the next year 
 after Conftantine’s eftabliihment of Chriftiatiity, and fur- 
 vived about twenty years).—all this new Antichriftian 
 form of the church was completed : 1 hen, as a late 
 hiftorian of thefe times obferves,—“ The ecclefiaftical 
 “ hierarchy was firft forined, in the manner in which it 
 “ continues to this day 
 
 The myftery of iniquity had been working long be¬ 
 fore, as far back as the apoftle Paul’s time ; there wmre 
 many Antichrifts, in “a fubordinate fenfe of that character, 
 as far back as the apoftle John’s time : or, through thefe 
 preceding ages, The Jintichrifl had been as a child in the 
 womb. But now, he was like a child a&ually brought 
 forth, or come to make a formal appearance in a ftate of 
 infancy ; bearing fuch a proportion to what he became 
 afterwards, as a new born infarjt does to a full grown 
 man. In this infant ftate of Antichrift (an image of w r hich, 
 or the fame as a fort of mummy, is ftill prgferved in the 
 hierarchy of the church of England ), his twelve hundred 
 and fixty years did evidently begin : And it is quite ab- 
 furd, to fix the beginning of them at any remarkable ftage 
 
 of 
 
 * “ Claudius Sejfdius, the Archbifhop of Turin, in a book which he wrote 
 <* againft them, tells us, that thefe£t of the Walden/es (which name, from 
 “ the word vaux which fignifics a valley, belonged unto them as inha- 
 “ biting the vallies of the Alps) took its rife from a molt religious per- 
 “ fon called Leo, that lived in the time of Conjlantiue the Great ; who de- 
 “ telling the covetoufnefs of Pope Sylvtfter, and the immoderate bounty 
 “ of Conftantine, chofe rather to embrace poverty with the fimplicity of 
 
 the Chriflian Faith, than with Sylvefter, to be defiled with fat and rich 
 “ benefices.—And Reynerus Savo, the celebrated Inquifitor,—fays,— 
 “ That among all the fefts, there is nor>£ that hath been fo pernicious 
 “ to the church of Rome as that of the Lconijh ; for fome affirm that it 
 “ began in the time of Sylvejlcr, and others in the time of the apo'ftles : 
 “ Bccaufe they who are of it have a great lliow of piety, live virtuoufly 
 “ before men, believe rightly of the Deity, and obferve all the articles 
 “ of the creed. And Cr.fc'tni, the Francifean Friar, declares their er- 
 “ rors confifted only in this ; that they denied the church cf Rome to be 
 “ the holy mother church, and would not obey her traditions.” Com¬ 
 pendious Hijlory of the Reformation in England, p.8,9.-Thefe Leonijis, 
 
 or Waldenfcs, (the woman then flying into the wildernefs), did afterwards 
 pafs under different names in their fucceffive generations; as poor men of 
 Lyons, Atbigenfes , Lollards : And this fucceffion of witnelTes was main¬ 
 tained, through many horrible perfecutions, during all Antiehrift’s twelve 
 huudred and fixty years; till the glorious Reforoiation from Popery,' 
 
12 
 
 Of AntichriJ?s Rife and Rrogrefs . 
 
 cf his after growth ; when it can be properly fixed, only 
 flt his aforefaid birth and infancy,—his actual rife, like the 
 fun above the horizon. 
 
 And long, very long before the falfe date now alTigned 
 for the commencement of his twelve hundred and fixty 
 days,—Antichriftian corruptions had come to a great 
 height in the Church. According to the hiftorian refer¬ 
 red to,—“ Infignificant rites and ceremonies were be- 
 “ come ellential parts of the Chriltian Religion ; many 
 ** grofs errors and corruptions overfpread and disfigured 
 t( the whole face of the Church : Superftition bore down 
 *< common fenfe ; and the Gofpel had been made to give 
 room to a new Revelation,—monkilh vifions, dreams 
 and romances : the Chriltian worlhip was become no 
 * e lefs idolatrous than that of the Gentiles.” More par¬ 
 ticularly, near four hundred years before that falfe 
 date *,—Jerome called the Church at Rome “ the Senate 
 “ of Pharifees, the Scarlet Whore.” Above three hun¬ 
 dred and fifty years before f, the Church at Rome was 
 diftinguilhed from all others by the character of “ the 
 ** Apofiolic See ,” under a pretence of its being the throne 
 of St Peter , the Prince of the Apoftles, on whom the 
 Church was then fuppofed to have been built. Above three 
 hundred years before {, the Roman Pope claimed “ a 
 “ paftoral vigilance reftrained by no bounds ; but extend- 
 ing to all places where Chrilt was known and adored ; 
 * ( Thus, under the name of paftoral vigilance, he ex- 
 “ tended at once his authority and jurifdiftion over all 
 “ the churches of the Chriltian world.” Near three 
 hundred years before <l faint-'ivorflvp began to prevail; 
 €< to faints, temples and chapels were built and dedicated; 
 t( and men began anew to ferve the creature more than 
 the Creator.” Near two hundred and fifty years be¬ 
 fore |j, the Roman Pope was addrelfed as “ the tnoft 
 ee holy and blefied Patriarch of the whole world, the Suc- 
 t( celTor of the Prince of the Apoftles, the Head of all.” 
 Above one hundred and fifty years before**, he “ recei- 
 u ved appeals from all parts of the Chriftian world ; re-ex- 
 te amining and reverfing, by the authority of St Peter 
 And about one hundred and fifty years before -ff, he was 
 declared by a wicked emperor to be “ univerfal Bifhop y 
 
 *< and Head of the whole Catholic Church.”- u Images 
 
 a or pictures of Chrilt, of the Virgin Mary, of the apoftles 
 
 “ and 
 
 * 3S4. | 400. { 428. § 467- O 51 ?• ** 59 2 • ft 607* 
 
i 3 
 
 Of AntlchrijVs Rife and Progrefs . 
 
 (< and other faints,’’ which had been commonly fet up in 
 churches, and worlhipped by many, above two hundred 
 years before,—came to be “ commonly and publicly 
 te worlhipped about fixty years * before the falfe date 
 pf Antichrift’s rife now referred to. And about thirty 
 years beforef, when a truly Chriftian Emperor did exert 
 himfelf mofi: earneftly for getting that grofs idolatry pur¬ 
 ged out of the churches ; the Roman Pope made a molt 
 furious oppofition to that holy defign : In fo much that 
 he ftirred up the people of Italy into a date of rebellion 
 againft: the Emperor f; forbidding them to pay tribute 
 unto him, becaufe of his editt againft image-'worflnp ; and 
 he got two councils held at Rome, within the compafs of 
 about two years §,—which palled decrees in favour of me 
 worlhip of images, ordaining them to be worlhipped. 
 About this time alfo||, “ reliques were every where 
 “ fought for and conveyed to Rome ; where the Pop? 
 u built a magnificent oratory for their reception and 
 u worlhip.” 
 
 Such was the ecclefiallical ftate of matters before, and 
 moftly very long before the date now falfely alligned for 
 Antichrift’s rife. And was there nothing Antichriftian, 
 was there no Antichrift, in that woful Hate of the 
 Church ? Let any perfon who fairly confiders all this, 
 judge,—if the Antichrift was not then already grown far 
 up toward manhood ; and if it be not even ridiculous to 
 pretend, that he yet remained to be brought forth or 
 make his firft appearance. 
 
 And for what reafon is the proper rife, the aftual birth 
 and firft appearance of Antichrift, faid to have been about 
 the year 756 ? It is even this, that then “ the Pope be- 
 “ came a temporal prince ; or was invefted with the 
 “ temporal dominion of Rome.” And it is trne that he 
 was fo. For the king of the Lombards had wrefted fome 
 cities and territories of Italy from the worthy fon and 
 heir of the truly Chriftian Emperor, reliding at Conftan- 
 tinople : and the king of France foon wrefted thefe from 
 the king of the Lombards, at the prelfing and pitiful in¬ 
 treaties of the Pope ; who even fent him a letter of 
 earneft fupplication for that purpofe, as corning diredly 
 from St Peter out of heaven : and the Pope, perfilting in 
 his rebellion againft the good Emperor on behalf of image- 
 worlhip, begged a compliment of thefe cities and territo¬ 
 ries 
 
 * 6jr. f 726. J 729. § 730, 732. 0 7J*. 
 
14 
 
 Of AntichrifPs Rife and Progrefs. 
 
 ries from the king of France ; who accordingly did con- 
 flitute him a temporal prince over thefe as well as Rome, 
 by an aft of donation which was brought to Rome in 
 
 755 - 
 
 But what was all this, to the conftituting of the Pope’s 
 Antichriflian character ? Even nothing at all, in itl'elf con- 
 fidered ; no more than a temporal dominion did confti- 
 tute an Antichriftian character in the pried: Melchizedek, or 
 in the prophet David. We teftify againft the civil places 
 and powet* of church.men, as inconfiftent with a beftowing 
 of proper attention upon their fpiritual work ; but it was 
 never imagined that thefe did conftitute an Antichriltian 
 cl^rafter, where not claimed as due to their ecclefiaftical 
 (late : and the Pope as yet made no fuch claim,—when 
 lie requefted and obtained his temporal dominion, as a 
 mere compliment from the king of France. The Pope’s 
 Antichriftian charafter did properly lie in his exalting him- 
 felf above all that is called God, fitting in the temple of God , 
 /hewing him/elf that he is God. It did thus lie properly 
 in his mod extenfive fpiritual or ecclefiaftical dominion, 
 with the manifold corruptions belonging to it,—and in 
 that only. His fmall temporal dominion at that time did 
 not conftitute his Antichriftian charafter, was even no in¬ 
 gredient in it, no way belonged to the fubftance of it ; 
 but was only a circumftance which he and his fucceflors 
 mod carefully improved, or rather mifimproved, to a great 
 ferviceablenefs for promoting their fpiritual monarchy. 
 A fixing of Antichrift’s rife in this temporal dominion, 
 is therefore but a pitiful fiction. And though it was na¬ 
 tural for diocefan biihops, or Epifcopalians, to devife that 
 fiction about Antichrift’s rife ; becaufe they could not, 
 confidently with their proteflion, acknowledge his true 
 rife,—in the eftablifliment of Diocefan Epifcopacy, or of 
 the Ecclefiaftical Hierarchy , in the days of Conftantine the 
 Great: yet an imitating of them as to this matter, by 
 other Proteftants, cannot be fo eafily excu'ed. 
 
 And this new, unfcriptural, antifcriptural fcheme about 
 the rile of Antichrift,—is not to be conlidered as a harm- 
 Jefs though miftaken fpeculation, which may be enter¬ 
 tained without any practical difadvantage : For it necelfa- 
 rily produces a very bad effect, which comes to be explain¬ 
 ed under the next head. As, 
 
 In 
 
*5 
 
 Of the Reformation from Popery, 
 
 In the Second Place, I apprehend that, by feveral paf- 
 fages of the fermon referred to, a grievous injury has 
 been done to the glorious Reformation from Popery : par¬ 
 ticularly in the quotations which have been already made. 
 
 The period of forty-two months , or of twelve hundred and 
 fixty days , meaning fo many prophetical years,—is not fet 
 forth in the prophefy, as comprehending the whole time 
 of AntichrilPs duration. It doth not reach from his firft 
 rife to his final perdition, as is erroneoufly fuppofed in the 
 fermon. It only comprehends the time from his rife to 
 his meridian height, under the firft fix trumpets : while 
 the prophefy contains no definition of the length of time 
 from thence to his total difappearing, or from his begun 
 to his completed downfal ; which was to take place in 
 the courfe of the firft fix vials, under the feventh 
 trumpet. 
 
 That this is the cafe of the forty-two months, or twelve 
 hundred and fixty days, the terms of the prophefy do put 
 beyond all controverfy. For it is only the period in 
 which Antichrift gradually rofe to his full height of abfo- 
 lute and uncontrolled dominion ; pofTefhng the court with¬ 
 out the temple , and treading under foot the holy city , Rev. xi. 
 2. It is only the period during w’hich power was given 
 him over all kindreds and tongues and nations , Rev. xiii. 5, 
 7. And it is the period which expired with the prophefy- 
 ing of the witneffes in fackcloth ; at their triumphant re¬ 
 covery from his great triumph over them, upon the found¬ 
 ing of the feventh Angel, when the vials began to be 
 poured out, Rev. xi. 7,—15. 
 
 Thefe twelve hundred and fixty days being the fame 
 with the forty-two months , which are therefore of thirty 
 days each ; the prophetical year, in twelve fuch months, 
 conlifts only of three hundred and fixty days : and io, 
 every four of the prophetical years fall twenty-one days 
 Ihort of four common years. Thus, the twelve hundred 
 and fixty prophetical years make only twelve hundred and 
 forty two common years,—wanting forty days. Thefe 
 are to be added to the year 313, when Antichrift rofe 
 upon the fall of Rome-Pagan, as before explain¬ 
 ed. And whether the three years and an half, of the 
 witneffes lying flain, fhould be confidered as the latter 
 part of AntichrifFs twelve hundred and fixty years ; or 
 as immediately following upon them, in the dreadful ef¬ 
 fort which he then made to retain or regain his meridian 
 
 height : 
 
s 6 Of the Reformation from Ropery. 
 
 height : Yet there is no need for being more particular 
 here, than in obferving,—that the expiration of the 
 whole did fall in betwixt the years 1555 and 1560 ; wherf 
 the Reformation from Popery was brought to an eftabliih- 
 ment in the Empire, and other countries of Europe. 
 
 It is therefore evident, that Antichrift’s defined period 
 did expire at the Reformation from Popery : And this be¬ 
 ing the moft glorious turn which has evei befallen the 
 Church, fince Ihe was firft extended unto the Gentiles,— 
 it is accordingly celebrated in very diftinguiftied parts of 
 the prophefy ; even in the mod glorious links of the whole 
 chain, from the beginning of the 6th chapter,—till we 
 come forward to the triumphant view of Antichrift’s final 
 ruin, in the 18th and 19th chapters of the Revelation. 1 
 mean that it is fo celebrated in the lad nine veries of the 
 11th chapter, as immediately conlecjuent upon the expi¬ 
 ring of Antichrift’s defined period : and likewife with an 
 additional glory, in the firft thirteen verfes of the 14th 
 chapter of that book. 
 
 An alleged beft expofitor, confidently with his fcheme 
 about the rife of Antichrift, whicn is adopted in the fer- 
 rnon now referred to,—retufes that the prophefy, in the 
 latter part of the 11th chapter, has any refpeft to the 
 Reformation from Popery ; while he confiders the accom- 
 plifhment of it as yet wholly a future event. But incon- 
 fiftently with his fcheme, though not with the truth, he 
 applies the 6th, and fome following verfes of the 14th 
 chapter, to (what he calls) the Protefiant Reformation ; 
 abfurdiy referring to the Church-triumphant, that happy 
 and joyful date of the witnelles which is fet forth in the 
 firft five verfes of the fame chapter : And teaches, as if 
 that Reformation, which really produced the faid happy 
 and joyful date of the witnefles in the militant Church, 
 had fallen within the woful and forrowful period of their 
 prophefying in fackcloth,—inftead of following upon it; 
 or, in other words, as if two contradiiftions could be both 
 true. Yet no confident fenfe can be made of the latter 
 part of the ilth and the former part ol the 14th chap¬ 
 ters, but as both referring to the fame glorious revolu¬ 
 tion in the Church. Both muft, or neither of them can be 
 applied to the Reformation from Popery ; as the true pe¬ 
 riod when Antichrift’s twelve hundred and lixty years, 
 and the prophefying of the witneftes in fackcloth, were 
 juft expired. ' 
 
i 7 
 
 Of the Reformation from Popery . 
 
 Bat, according to the new fcheme, which is adopted in 
 die fermon referred to, Antichrift’s twelve hundred and 
 
 lixty years are not to expire till about the year 2016,_ 
 
 even above tu’o hundred and thirty years yet to come : 
 And hereby the whole glory of the Reformation is, upon 
 the matter, blotted out. 
 
 For if, according to the prophefy, Antichrid’s twelve 
 hundred and fixty years were to expire at his meridian 
 height and begun fall; and if, according to the fermon, 
 they are not to expire till above two hundred and thirty 
 years yet to come;—then the Reformation from Popery 
 mull go for nothing : While AntichrilPs meridian height 
 and begun fall, would thus be confidered as yet all to 
 come, above two hundred and thirty years hence ; though 
 in a grofs contradiction to the manifeft courfe of Provi¬ 
 dence, and the common fenfe of mankind, for above two 
 hundred years bygone. 
 
 But if, according to the fermon, AntichrilPs twelve 
 hundred and fixty years were to expire only at his final 
 downfal, ft ill the Reformation from Popery mult go for 
 nothing. For it is quite unqueltionable, according to the 
 chain of the prophefy, that the accomplilhment of thofe 
 very eminent parts of it which have been referred to, in 
 <the 11 th and 14th chapters, was to fall out immediately 
 upon the expiring of thefe twelve hundred and lixty years. 
 And if they are not to expire till above two hundred and 
 thirty years hence, thefe parts of the prophefy can have 
 110 accomplilhment till then. And thus the Reformation 
 from Popery, though the mod: glorious of all events 
 which have taken place in the churches of the Gentiles,— 
 would come to be conlidered as of no fignificancy or im¬ 
 portance, for deferving the fmallelt notice to be taken of 
 it in the whole prophefy. For if thefe very eminent parts 
 of the prophefy do not diredly refer to it, but to feme 
 future event yet at a great diftance ; there will not then 
 be one palTage or exprellion in all the book of Revelation, 
 which can be juftly pretended to bear any particular ap¬ 
 plication to it. And it is far from being a proper falve 
 for this, that the fermon makes fome account, in a few 
 exprelhons, of (what is called) the Protedant Reforma¬ 
 tion, as the beginning of Anticlirid’s fall; while the fylicm 
 of the prophefy, as mil'reprefented in that fermon, leaves 
 no room for the fmalled account to be made of it in the 
 whole book of Revelation : No account to be made of it, 
 
 C but 
 
18 Of the Ajfociate Synod's Tcflimony . 
 
 but at the expence of diffolving the contexuire of tnat 
 book ; for making it down into the mould of *e vifionary 
 fchemes which ha%e been broached by the alleged belt 
 expofitors;—and fo, by a violent disjointing of the pro* 
 phefy, to find the Proteftant Reformation where it can* 
 not be; in the 12th chapter, and in the ioth and nth 
 verfes of the 16th chapter of the Revelation. And it is # 
 obfervable, that the feveral violences committed upon the 
 prophefy of that book, by the alleged belt expofitors,— 
 are generally rooted in and dependent upon the grots er¬ 
 ror about the beginning of Antichrift’s defined period ; 
 beginning it about the year 756, fo as to make it expire 
 
 about the year 2016. . , 
 
 It may likewife be obferved, as to the fixing upon the 
 year 2016, without any foundation in the prophefy, for 
 putting off Antichrift’s final ruin till a period fo far di¬ 
 stant - that this tends to dafii down all the pleating and 
 fupporting hope which Chriftians, in this period, may well 
 entertain, from comparing Word and Providence, ofthat 
 preat event being a great deal nearer hand. Mr Din - 
 ham fuppofed, that the fourth vial was a-pouring out m 
 his time, above one hundred and twenty years ago. With 
 regard to the fifth vial,—there has been a train of very 
 remarkable encroachments made, by Popilh powers, upon 
 the [eat, the throne, the power and glory of the Anti- 
 chriftian beaft, within about thirty-three years bygone, 
 or fince the peace in 174^ S fuch as had never taken place 
 before in any Popilh countries. And fo there are various 
 reafons, of great probability, for fuppofing that we may 
 not be far from the period of the fixth vial ; by which a 
 final riddance will be made of the Antichriftian intereft.— 
 Rut on this I enlarge not, as not belonging to the prelent 
 defign; which was to reprefent a grievous injury done, 
 by feveral pallages of the fermon, to the glorious Reforma¬ 
 tion from Popery. And, 
 
 In the third place, I apprehend that, by feveral paf- 
 fages of the fermon referred to, a grievous injury ha^ 
 been done to the Reformation-Tefiimony , as prefently fated 
 among the hands of this Synod ; and that upon two diftrn- 
 
 guiihed articles. Afr 
 
 Th efirfi article is relative to the Rupture of the Allo- 
 ciate Synod, in April 1747. And here it is necelfary to 
 
 Dremife a genuine view of that memorable e\ent; Which 
 ‘ 0 yet 
 
Of the Affociate Synod's 'Teftimony. 19 
 
 yet (ball be done in a very fummary manner, without 
 entering into any detail of particulars; as this has been 
 done fufficiently elfewhere, in a publication which I made 
 fome years ago,—and to which I now refer*. 
 
 In the meeting of the Affociate Synod on the 9th day 
 of that month, a number of the members puffed a vote 
 into a Refolution ,—'for tolerating a promifcuous fwearing of 
 contradictory oaths, in the whole affair of a religious pro- 
 feffion ; a prefent fwearing of the religious claufe in fome 
 burgefs-oaths, and of the oath in the bond for renewing 
 our Covenants : By the one, fw r earing to maintain a pro- 
 feffion of religion in communion with the eftabliffed 
 Church ; and by the other, fwearing to maintain a pro- 
 feffion of religion, by way of teftimony again!! her errors 
 and corruptions, in a {late of feceffon from her ;—the 
 one, as being an oath of communion with the eftabliffed 
 Church in her profeffion of religion, upon the matter ab¬ 
 juring the whole Seceffion- teftimony as fuch ; and the 
 other being an oath by which this T eftimony is molt fo- 
 lemnlv avouched, 1 he faid refolution was therefore a 
 
 j 
 
 toleration or allowance, even for a conjunct abjuring and 
 avouching of the whole Seceffion teftimony ; by which 
 that Teftimony was materially dropt : While the faid 
 fwearing of the burgefs-oath, fo tolerated, had been found, 
 by a fynodical decifion which was ftill left {landing,—to 
 be a material renunciation of it by oath. And the pre¬ 
 tence at firft made, as if this fwearing could confift with 
 the bond for renewing our Covenants, was fo grofsly ab- 
 furd; that thefe on the fide of the burgefs-oath foon 
 found themfelves obliged, in their defence of it, to break 
 down the frame of the Judicial Teftimony,—and to throw 
 afide the renovation of our Covenants. 
 
 Moreover, the aforefaid refolution was puffed and per¬ 
 petrated in the moft irregular manner ; even in a manner 
 quite fubverfive cf the conftitution of the Court. For 
 thefe who made it were a minority of the Synod, even in¬ 
 cluding fome of them who were diredlly parties,—but af- 
 fumed a vote in their own perfonal caufe , over the belly of 
 proteftations to the contrary y. And they made it by a 
 
 C 2 vote 
 
 * Difplay of the Secelfion-Teftimony, vol. II. 17,—in. 
 
 f It was their own perfonal caufe in which they fo aflumed a vote ; be¬ 
 ing a vote for a refolution that they themfelves ftiould not be found fault 
 with for their having protefted againft, and Rill carrying on a practical 
 oppofition to the Synodical decifion in April 1 746,—which had con¬ 
 demned a prefent fwearing by Seceders , of the religious claufe in fome 
 burgefs-oaths. 
 
20 
 
 . Of the Affociate Synod’s Tejllmony . 
 
 vote at their own hand, while both the moderator and 
 clerk were abfolntely declining to take any part in that 
 bufinefs : and while the protefters againft the putting of 
 fuch a vote could take no part in it, or could not open a 
 mouth,—when thele parties get one of their number to 
 take up and call the roll, and another of them to mark 
 the votes. 
 
 An oppofition to this courfe was all along earned on, 
 in a very folemn manner, by the majority of all acting 
 members on that occalion ; even including the faid parties, 
 who fo iniquitoufly and violently took upon them to aft : 
 Yea by the majority of all who had any juft title to act in 
 the depending caufe, or though all who were non liquet 
 had been reckoned over to the other lide. And this op- 
 pofmg majority having contended moll earneftly againft 
 that courfe, by reafonings and proteftations, but to no 
 good effeft ; while the aforefaid refolution was rufhed in¬ 
 to, with a violent and uncontrollable trampling upon the 
 whole proper form and order of the Court : 1 hey there¬ 
 
 fore found nothing remaining for them, in fuch an extra¬ 
 ordinary cafe, but to withdraw, —after getting a call by 
 the laft moderator *, to meet next day in a lynodical ca¬ 
 pacity. Nor was there any pollibility of their fitting ftill 
 a moment longer, but in a mold abfurd as well as unduti* 
 ful condition ; that of allowing the violent and then un¬ 
 controllable votes of twenty ([even of them parties), to 
 prevail againft the protections of twenty three members, 
 —who were in the Ifate of proteflers againfl the putting 
 of fuch a vote, as to the whole matter and manner of it. 
 
 The time of that withdrawing was indeed the moll cri¬ 
 tical moment which has ever taken place,—with regard 
 to the proper Hate of the AlTociate Synod, and of theRe- 
 formation-Teftimony among their hands ; that whole caule 
 being then hurled over into the gulf of the aforefaid re¬ 
 folution, as a grave in which it was apparently to ly for 
 ever buried. During the progrefs toward that woful ifue, 
 previous to the day on which it was accompliibed,—thofe 
 who contended againft it were brought to their wits end ; 
 as feeing nothing before them but a ruin of the Lord’s 
 work among their hands. At a mod accidental meeting, 
 for a few minutes, in the morning of that day,—a beam 
 of light did break up upon them ; giving them a general 
 
 view 
 
 * The then prefent Moderator perfifted in his filence on that occanon. 
 
Of the AJfociate Synod’s Tejlhnony » 2 1 
 
 view of the canfe and confitution of the AfTociate Synod, 
 as what would ly properly among their hands,—if all re¬ 
 gular oppofition fbould prove ineffedual, for (topping the 
 courfe of thofe on rhe other fide : while it was firft in 
 this meeting, that they came to know the number of fuch 
 as were refolved to oppofe it. 
 
 But there was no fort of concert among them, not fo 
 much as a mouth opened, about any particular fteps which 
 (hould be taken by them in the courfe of that day. A dif- 
 fent and two protef at ions were afterwards made by three of 
 them ; jult w'hat occurred that day to each, as being then 
 proper and necelTary : And though no others of them 
 (even not one as to any other of thefe three), had any 
 previous knowledge that fuch (teps would he taken ; yet 
 they were immediately clear for declaring adiierenccs, 
 whiclvthey feverally did. In like manner, when the Lift 
 moderator, immediately after voting the woful refolution, 
 read a declaration and protection, containing the call 
 which has been mentioned ; not one of them but himfelf 
 knew, that he was about to take fuch a (lep *: Yet, as 
 he indantly withdrew, they were clear to follow his ex¬ 
 ample ; which they immediately did, and met next day 
 according to the call which he had given them,—the 
 whole Stcefflon-Tfihmnv and Synodical Confitution , being 
 now left entirely among their hands. 
 
 The Lord did thus lead them on, flep by (iep, as fo 
 many blind men t by a way that they knew not , in paths 
 that they had not known,—making dat'hnefs light before tfam, 
 and crooked things Jlraight : I be more of God appear¬ 
 ing, rhe lefs there was of man, in the courfe which they 
 were directed and enabled to take. In this method, the 
 only method for it which then remained practicable,—the 
 original confutation of the Aflociate Synod, with the Re- 
 formation-Teftimony among their hands, wasinftantly, and 
 moft unexpectedly, got taken up alive out of the grave in¬ 
 to which it had been hurled ; And the confequence has 
 been anfwerable. For the laid conftitution and I eltimo- 
 ny (till remain with this Synod; and the Renovation of 
 
 our 
 
 * It had never been thought of by himfelf, till the fii ft long feienmt 
 of that day was over. And this was likewife the cafe with the ot<.er mi- 
 nifter who, immediately before the voting, read the fecoad of the two 
 protejiations before mentioned : The otner of theft ovo having been 
 made verbally during the firft, and put into writing againft the fccond 
 fedcrunt. 
 
22 
 
 Of the Affociate Synod's Tejlimcny'. 
 
 our Solemn Covenants has been carried on very univerfal- 
 ly and frequently in their congregations.—But the Synod 
 of the feparating brethren has proceeded in their courfe 
 of apoftafy, with a train of outrages committed upon the 
 Secefhon-caufe ; till that matter has blued of late, in whaC 
 they call a Re-exhibition of the Tftimcny: By which the 
 acts about the dohirinc of grace , and for the renewing of our 
 Solemn Covenants, are thrown out of the Secefhon-caufe ; 
 and the Judicial Teftimony is varioufly corrupted,particu¬ 
 larly by molt fraudulent and eflential forgeries,— fuch as 
 could not have been perpetrated on a civil deed about 
 mens fecular rights, but upon the pain of death *. 
 
 When therefore I lock baeje upon the aforefaid con¬ 
 duct and fupport w ith which the Lord blefied the con¬ 
 tenders for liis caufe, on the 9th of April 1747 ; I am 
 not alhamed to avow, that 1 confider the fame as the 
 molt dittingnifned article of the Magnalia Dei, of the 
 great things of God , in the courfe of the Seceihon : And 
 which ought to be held in a moil thankful remembrance 
 among all pofterity in the Seceflion body ; as being the 
 immediate fountain from whence the perpetuating of the 
 Secellion-caufe among the hands of this Synod has flowed, 
 all along from that day to this. 
 
 But a very different view is given of that matter, by 
 feveral paflages of the fermon referred to ; particularly, 
 by thel'e following, viz. “ The unhappy rupture or 
 “ breach, which lb early happened in the Seceding bo- 
 “ dy, has been much improved againft the Teftimony 
 i( and caufe in which we are embarked.—The mournful 
 “ breach in the Afl'ociate Synod deferves, indeed, to be 
 IC lamented and bewailed to the lateft ages. We have 
 tc reafon to confider that difmal event, as a providential 
 te intimation of what was to befal the generation. Mat- 
 li ters were fo ordered by a God of judgment, that a 
 “ ftumbling-block w as laid in the way of the generation ; 
 
 “ and 
 
 * About four years ago, I publifhed a Difplay of that Rc-exhibitiou. 
 Some time afterwards Mr John Broivn at Haddington, publifhed an Anfwer 
 to that Difplay,—in the form of a Letter to me ; fuch as could admit of 
 no better reply, than what lies very obvious in its own very lingular ex¬ 
 travagance and futility. His principal argument againft me lies in the 
 clofe of his letter ; where he, upon the matter, alligns me over to ever- 
 lafling damnation,—for the concern which 1 have had, in oppofing the 
 defections of his Synod !—But nothing needs to be furpiifing ,in one who 
 could ftand up for defending the atrocious forgeries of that infamous Re- 
 exhibition. 
 
Of the Affociate Synod’s Tefiimony. 23 
 
 u and they judicially left to harden and confirm them- 
 <c felves again!! that good caufe in which we have era- 
 11 barked. 1 hus, that mournful difpenfation befpeaks 
 <( not fo much, perhaps, diffatisfadion with the parties 
 ** between whom the rupture happened, as difpleafure 
 “ with the generation among whom they live, and who 
 “ fo violently oppofe their 1 efiimony. Whatever fiaful 
 “ hand either the one party, or the other, or both, had 
 <l in the breach ; God had an all-wife, unerring, and 
 11 over-ruling hand in it.” p.-\ 5, 36. 
 
 By the above pafiages, this whole affair concerning the 
 Affociate Synod is fet forth under very black charaders ; 
 as the unhappy rupture or breach , to be lamented and bewail¬ 
 ed to the latejl ages,—that difmal event,—that mournful dif¬ 
 penfation. It is accordingly fuppofed to be an evil which 
 both parties were equally left to fall into, as a flumbling - 
 block for a judicial hardening of the generation : Both 
 parties are left to be confidered, as equally objeds of the 
 Lord’s diflatisfadion in that matter: And both of them 
 are equally fuppofed to have had a finful hand in the 
 whole ; all of them judicially left to a finful courfe, for 
 a ftumbling-block to the generation. 
 
 Such is the view given, as a comprehenfve view of the 
 whole affair ; by which the memory of the Lord’s great 
 goodnefs, on that occafion, is blotted out : And this 
 great indignity has been done to the fame by a minifler 
 of this Synod, not behind their backs,—but folenanly in 
 their very face, when he was preaching before them as 
 their laft Moderator ; putting a (lamp of infamy, before 
 their eyes, even upon the immediate foundation of their 
 prefent hate. Very unhappy, difmal, mournful, lamen¬ 
 table things, accompanied the faid rupture ; as hath been 
 above reprefented : But this was no reafon for having 
 the Lord’s great goodnefs, on that occafion, buried un¬ 
 der the fame bad characters.—Many difmal and mourn¬ 
 ful things accompanied the Reformation from Popery ;—- 
 many difmal and mournful things accompanied the Refor¬ 
 mation in this ifland, toward the middle of the laft cen¬ 
 tury ; many difmal and mournful things accompanied the 
 Revolution, toward the dole of that century : And there¬ 
 fore all the glorious works of God on thele occafions, 
 which ought to be ever remembered with thankful 
 praile ; all thefe might as well be fhuffled in under the 
 
 characters 
 
24 Of the Afj'ociale Synod’s Tejlimony. 
 
 characters of tlifmal and mournful things, to be lamented 
 and bewailed to the dated ages. 
 
 Upon the whole, with regard to the fgnal work of God 
 for this Synod, on the 9th of April 1747 ; I hereby en¬ 
 ter niy tedimony and proteftation againd all dijfembling or 
 defaming of it, fitch as is meant in the lad quoted paflages 
 of the i'ermon. 1 his I reckon the more incumbent up¬ 
 on me,—that I now remain alone in this Synod, of all 
 who were engaged in the contendings of that day ; the 
 only other furviver of them, in Earldon prefbytery,—• 
 having been incapable, for fouie years, of attendance upon 
 the Synodical meetings. And when I have lived to fee 
 any rife up in this Synod, for burying the remembrance 
 of what the Lord then wrought for us; (even mod ab- 
 furdly, while they cannot imagine any other procedure by 
 which the true Synodical conditution and caufe could have 
 been fupported in that jundure,—or prelerved from the 
 fame ruin on all hands, which it has fallen into among the 
 feparating brethern) : 1 mud confider this as a new call 
 to me, and as laying a new obligation upon me,—for 
 prelerving, unto the end of my courfe, a thankful re¬ 
 membrance, and commemoration of the Lord’s merciful 
 and gracious orderings on that memorable occadon. 
 
 The fecond article of grievous injury which has been 
 done, by feveral padages of the faid I’ermon, to the Refor¬ 
 mation teftimony as prefently fated among the hands of this 
 Synod,-^- is relative to their exercife of difcipline in the 
 cafe of the feparating brethren; about which it contains 
 the following padages, viz. “ The procedure of this Sy- 
 “ nod againd their Burgher brethren, has been much 
 “ improved againd the Caufe and Tedimony in which we 
 li are engaged.—Admitting this Synod to have erred in 
 te the matter of cenfuring the Burgher brethren, why 
 “ Ihould this be urged or improved to the difadvantage 
 
 < c of our Tedimony ?-It is a principle received in all 
 
 “ Protedant churches, and particularly among us, That 
 “ all Synods and Aflemblies may err; and, in particular 
 i( indances, do err. An approbation of the cenfures in* 
 “ flifted on the Burgher brethren, never has been made 
 << a term of communion, either miniderial or Chridian 
 <( communion, among us. All that is required of ns, in 
 “ relation to this controverfy, in order to miniderial com- 
 t( munion with this Synod, is, that we be fatisned in our 
 
 ** confidences 
 
Of the AJfociate Synod's ‘Teftimony, 25 
 
 *< 
 
 n 
 
 K 
 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 confciences concerning the decifion of Synod in April 
 1746, finding the religious claufe of the burgefs-oath 
 inconfiftent with the teftimony, p. 36, 37.’’ Now, 
 
 1. It is a great miftake, that nothing is required among 
 us for minifterial communion, in relation to the contro- 
 verfy with the feparating brethren,—but a profefiing of 
 fatisfa&ion with the faid decifion of Synod in April 1746. 
 For every minifter and elder is required, at his ordina¬ 
 tion, to “ acknowledge and promife fubje&ion to the 
 ** Affociate Synod,—as prefently conftituted in a way of 
 ** teftifying againft the finful management of the prevail¬ 
 ing party in the Synod, at fome of the firft diets of 
 their meeting at Edinburgh in April 1747 ;’ 3 and to 
 
 declare that he doth “ approve of, and purpofe to ad¬ 
 here unto and maintain the faid Teftimony, inhisftation 
 and capacity Such is the profeftion, as to this mat¬ 
 ter, which every minifter and elder, to this day, is re¬ 
 quired to make at his ordination : A profefiion fo mani- 
 feftly inconfiftent with the reprefentation, already con- 
 fidered, which the fermon makes of the breach in April 
 1747,—that fuch a reprefentation of it is, upon the mat¬ 
 ter, a giving up with that ordination-vow. 
 
 2. It is admitted, by the above quotation,—that the 
 Synod did err , in the infixing of thofe cenfures referred 
 to. Their adverfaries get a full allowance to judge, that 
 they really did fo. And while it is evident, from the 
 contexture of the above quotations, that the preacher fa¬ 
 voured this judgment; I have likewife a further reafon, 
 from particular information, for faying fo : That when a 
 brother, to whom thefe paffages of the fermon were 
 communicated in manufcript before preaching it, infilled 
 that, inftead of admitting this Synod erred ,—it might run, 
 fnppojing but not granting that this Synod erred ; yet the 
 preacher would not admit of the propofed correction. 
 And thus, the whole contendings of this Synod for pre- 
 i'erving the great truft committed unto them, in the afore- 
 faid exercife of difciplir.e, as well as in the affair of the 
 preceding breach,—are all delivered over, by the lump, 
 into a date of infamy and reproach. 
 
 I cannot fuppofe the preacher to have admitted of an 
 erring upon the head of Iniquity as to the merits of the 
 caufe, or the grounds upon which the cenfures proceed- 
 
 D ed; 
 
 * Form via, xii. 
 
26 Of the AJfociate Synod's Tejlimony. 
 
 cd : For he acknowledges the iniquity of a prefcnt fwear- 
 ing of the religious claufe in fome burgefs-oaths among 
 Seceders. And what could be a matter of iniquity, of 
 inoft fcandalous iniquity in any church ; if it was not fo, 
 
 _that a number of miniflers overturned their whole pro- 
 
 feffion, and broke down the frame of their church-ffate, 
 in their way of making and profecuting a defence of con- 
 tradiftory oaths upon the whole affair of a religious pro- 
 fellion ? 
 
 And I will not fuppofe the preacher to have admitted 
 of an erring upon the head of Incompetency , as to the exer- 
 cile or objects of difcipline. For he will not refufe, that 
 it was properly the Affociate Synod which exercifed the 
 fame : And that it was competent for nineteen minifters, 
 with their elders in that Synod, to exercife difcipline upon 
 twelve of their brethren in a courfe of fo very fcandalous 
 behaviour.—Nor is it fuppofable, that he will refufe 
 church-members or brethren , in a ftate of offence, to be 
 the proper objects of church-difcipline ; and that the more 
 eminent they be, or the more ufeful they have been, they 
 are (till more proper objects of difcipline,—becaufe their 
 offence is thereby the more aggravated and pernicious : 
 While church-cenfures do no way meddle with their 
 greatnefs, or goodnefs, or gracioufnefs; no way interfe¬ 
 ring with their interefl: in the invifible church. 
 
 But I know that feverals, now in communion with this 
 Synod, do make no fcruple of charging them with having 
 erred, in the faid exercife of difcipline, upon the head of 
 Rafhncfs; as if they had proceeded undeliberately or ha- 
 ftily in that work. Yet no charge can be more unrea- 
 fonable : While there was even a very extraordinary 
 meafure of deliberation and patience, as to the courfe of 
 their procedure; in many diets of conference with prayer, 
 for upwards of three years. 
 
 The only other fort of error which I can fuppofe, and 
 which 1 do fuppofe to be properly meant, in the prefent 
 cafe,—is an erring upon the head of Inexpediency : As if 
 fome now rifen up, and at their eafe,—were endued with 
 more wifdom about thefe matters, than the Lord bleffed 
 his fervants with in thofe days ; though they have not 
 had fuch accel's to know and be affected with the ftate of 
 matters which then took place,—nor have given any evi¬ 
 dence of being more ferioufly and fuitably exerciied in 
 a Iking wifdom from above, upon this fubject. The expe¬ 
 diency. 
 
*2 7 
 
 Of the Affociate Synod's Teflimony . 
 
 diency, at that time, was to be determined according to 
 fcriptural rules and the conjunctures of Providence,— 
 without any regard to confequences ; which, as men could 
 not forefee, could no way belong to the rule of their 
 duty. And yet I know of no confequences lince, which 
 do really militate againd the expediency of what was then 
 tran faded. 
 
 Yea, I think it very evident,—that there was never as 
 great and remarkable expediency and neceffity in any 
 other cafe of difcipline, within the date of the Seceflion. 
 
 -For, though the fcandal was of extraordinary and 
 
 very pernicious heinoufnefs ; yet no fooner was an en¬ 
 trance made into a calling of the feparating brethren to 
 an account for their condud,—than a clamour began to 
 be raifed by them, and thofe on their fide, againd that 
 procedure : The manifeft import of which w r as, to call a 
 general reproach upon the difcipline of the Lord’s houfe; 
 to have it fubjeded to the charaders and pleafure of men, 
 made an objed of abhorrence, and funk into a date of 
 odioulnefs,—as much as if there had been nothing falu- 
 tary in its nature, nor any foundation for it in the Holy 
 Scriptures. And while it was prefumed by them, that 
 the higher excommunication might be the iflue ; this 
 Bible-cenfure, in particular, was mod odioudy mifrepre- 
 fented and calumniated,—even the Scripture-terms of it 
 being expofed, as objeds of detedation and rage. The 
 Synod was therefore Ihut up to one of two things,—either 
 to let the whole ordinance of difcipline link into reproach ; 
 or to ftipport it, to maintain a Tedimony for it, to dil- 
 play the banner of Chrid’s authority over his own houfe, 
 —by proceeding in the exercife of difcipline, according 
 to all the extent of fcriptural inditution and warrant. 
 And there was no room left for them, in this cafe, to 
 doubt the expediency of that procedure; leaving events 
 to the Lord. 
 
 I mud likewife obferve, that an injury is done to this 
 Synod and the miniders of it, by the undidinguilhing te¬ 
 nor of this declaration ; that “ an approbation of the 
 “ cenfures inflicted on the Burgher brethren never has 
 u been made a term of communion, miniderial or Chri- 
 il dian communion, among us.”—Three things are to be 
 didinguiihed here; a pofitive approbation , a pofitive difap - 
 probation , and a want of full clearnefs for the one or the 
 other. And it is very true, that a pofitive approbation, 
 
 D 2 in 
 
2 8 Of the Affociate Synod's Teflimony. 
 
 in the prefent cafe, has never been required from any in¬ 
 dividuals as a term of communion ; while they profefled a 
 having of no clearnefs for a pofitive difapprobation. Yet 
 a politive difapprobation, as to fome fteps of judicial pro¬ 
 cedure about caufes of a private nature, may very well 
 confift with both minifterial and Chriftian communion. 
 But as to the prefent cafe, of a mod public nature, affe£i> 
 ing the whole prefent Hate of the Lord’s work among 
 the hands of this Synod ; I abfolutely refufe that any 
 reafon has been yet given, and I hope never will be gi¬ 
 ven, for fuppoling,—that a pofitive difapprobation may 
 be admitted of as confident with communion in this Sy¬ 
 nod, or with the enjoyment of fealing ordinances in any 
 of their congregations. Nor do I fee how any perfons lo 
 difpofed can, honeftly and confidently, feek or hold com¬ 
 munion, minifterial or Chriftian, among us. A minority 
 in the Synod may be allowed of as non liquet , or as not 
 having a full clearnefs upon the one or other fide : 
 But if a majority in the Synod were once come to be even 
 in that ftate, they would then have changed their ground ; 
 fo far as not to be properly fupporting the character of 
 the fame fynod which was engaged in the former contend- 
 ings for the Lord’s caufe among their hands. 
 
 For my own part, I freely declare, that I ftill reckon 
 the difcipline of the Lord’s houfe, as then exercifed in 
 the cafe of the feparating brethren,—to have been a fpe- 
 cial article of the word of Chrifl’s patience , in the afore- 
 faid circumftances: And that I confider any difajfeBion to 
 it, now appearing among minifters and people, as a weighty 
 reafon,—why a (landing acknowledgement of it, and a 
 ftedfaft adherence to it, lhould alfo be reckoned a fpecial 
 article of keeping the oJoord of ChriJI’s patience in the prefent 
 time. 
 
 I am confcious, that none can be more defirous than I 
 am,—for having this Synod and thofe in communion with 
 us, brought into a ftate of coalefcence with the minifters in 
 the Synod of the feparating brethren and thofe in com¬ 
 munion with them ; if it could be effe&ed upon honeft 
 terms, confiftent with truth and duty. Projects of coa¬ 
 lefcence, with which fome minifters of this Synod are par¬ 
 ticularly acquainted, have been lately agitated among 
 fome people of both communions,—in joint meetings: 
 But, fo far as I underftand, thefe projects are all calcula¬ 
 ted for feducing the people in communion with us from 
 
 their 
 
Of the Affcciate Synod's Te/Hmony. 29 
 
 their witnefiing profeffion ; and for bringing about an, 
 apoftafy on the part of this Synod,—that their contend- 
 ings on behalf of the Lord’s work among their hands, for 
 about thirty-five years bygone, fhould be buried in obli¬ 
 vion. It is a plaufible way of doing, to talk of lome con- 
 ccffions to be made by this Synod for healing the breach : 
 Yet I know of no conceffions which they can make in the 
 prefent cafe, but fuch as muft imply fome falling from their 
 own fledfafnefs. And I know of no proper coalefcence in 
 this cafe, but fuch as the Lord prescribed to Jeremiah ; 
 Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. 
 
 I hope we lhall maintain a warm attachment of heart, 
 toward all whom we find evidencing a zeal for the pecu¬ 
 liar dodrine of the Gofpel,—the dodrine of grace reign¬ 
 ing through righteoufnefs utito eternal life , by Jefus Chrifl 
 our Lord; whatever be their external denominations: 
 But we may not gratify that difpofition of heart, by pro- 
 mifcuous communion with them ; fuch as cannot tonfift 
 with a proper teltimony againft the grofs errors or cor¬ 
 ruptions in which any of them are, at the fame time, in¬ 
 volved. And I hope we fhall never be left to turn fo 
 fimple, as that we may be befooled out of the Lord’s 
 caufe among our hands by fair fpeeches,—by loofe and 
 lamenting declamations about peace, love, and unity. 
 
 I have now finilhed the Memorial and Remorf ranee, 
 upon this affair, which I reckon rnyfelf obliged to make : 
 Yet having been fo far from feeking to make a party for 
 it, by endeavouring to draw any of my brethren into a con¬ 
 currence ; that none of them, nor any perfon betide my- 
 felf, has known fo much as a line of it, rill in my prefent 
 reading. And I now leave my brethren to behave con¬ 
 cerning it, as they thall fee caufe ; while I do not appre¬ 
 hend a prefent expediency of entering into any conten¬ 
 tion with them upon that fubjed. If any of them lhall 
 find a need, as I do, for exonering themfelves upon this 
 whole affair,—or, particularly, upon the head of the 
 aforefaid grievous injury done to the Reformation-Tefti- 
 mony as prefently dated among the hands of this Synod ; 
 they have a prefent occafion, perhaps the propereft that 
 they may exped, for declaring it.—But, as it cannot be 
 refuted that this matter belongs to the Synod’s bulinefs, 
 while refpeding a fermon which was officially preached 
 before them ; and as members have always been allowed 
 
 to 
 
30 Of the AJfociate Synod's Tejiimonf. 
 
 to exoner themfelves, by getting what they thought ne- 
 cefiary for that purpofe marked in the minutes, about 
 what was diffatisfying or difficulting to them in any bufx- 
 nefs tranfafted ; and as the necenary length of what is 
 given to be marked cannot alter the nature of it, only 
 adding fomewhat to the bufinefs of the clerk : I there, 
 fore crave, that the Paper now read, or at lead that part 
 of it which refpefts the prefent date of the Tedimony 
 among our hands, may be allowed a place in the records 
 of this Synod, for my Exoneration *. 
 
 Adam Gib. 
 
 * I had weighty reafons for not attempting to bring forward this af¬ 
 fair, in any other form than that of a perfonal exoneration ; which, for 
 other reafons, I decline to exprefs. 
 
 Edinburgh; May i. 1782. P. M. 
 
 Mr Gib reprefented. That he had a paper prepared 
 for being read before the Synod at their prefent meeting; 
 and craved that it might be agreed to give him an oppor¬ 
 tunity for reading the fame at a public federunt in the 
 Church, to-morrow before-noon : which, after lome con- 
 verfation, was agreed to. 
 
 Eodern Loco ; May 2. 1782. A. M. 
 
 In confequence of the agreement at the lad federunt, 
 Mr Gib read a paper before the Synod ; being a Memo - 
 rial and Remonf ranee about a Sermon which had been preach¬ 
 ed at the opening of this Synod in April 1779, and which 
 he told he had got into his hands in printfince theladmeet- 
 ing of Synod :■—Bearing his apprehenfion that, by feveral 
 paflages of the fermon, a grievous injury has been done to 
 mof unquejh enable tefimonies of the holy Scriptures ,—to the 
 glorious Reformation from Popery ;—and to the Reformation . 
 Teflimony, as prefently fated among the hands of this Synod: 
 and craving that the faid paper, or at lead the lad part 
 of it which refpefts the prefent date of the Tedimony 
 among our hands, may be allowed a place in the re¬ 
 cords of this Synod, for his exoneration. After fome 
 
 reafonings 
 
Of the Ajfociate Synod*s Tejiimony . 31 
 
 reafonings upon this fnbjeft, the Synod declined allowing 
 the two firft parts, blit agreed in allowing the faid laft 
 part of the paper now read to be recorded in their mi¬ 
 nutes for his exoneration ; and alfo that any members 
 might have an extract of the lame, if they defire it, for 
 their perufal, betwixt and next meeting of Synod : The 
 tenor whereof follows, viz. (as on p, 18-30.) 
 
 Extracted by James Mori son, Syn. Clk. 
 
 It was not till after a good deal of reafoning, or rather 
 oppofition,—that the iali part of the above-mentioned 
 Memorial and Remonjlranee was admitted to a place in the 
 Synod’s records. What was infilled for, inflead of this, 
 will come to be obferved in the following remarks. I 
 was forry, on the preacher’s account, that he had no other 
 appearance to make,—than in floods of bold declamation 
 againft the appearance then made by me, as if it had been 
 criminal or fcandalous. The rudenefs with which fome 
 efpeufedhis quarrel, was what I bore with great indifferen- 
 cy—as refpeSing myfelf; but I could not help being other- 
 wife difpoied. concerning the deviation thus made from 
 what I reckoned incumbent on all the members of the Sy¬ 
 nod, and the whole Sece!tion-body,—with regard to the 
 caufe of God among their hands. 
 
C 32 3 
 
 A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 LAST PART 
 
 “OF THE FOREGOING 
 
 MEMORIAL and REMONSTRANCE. 
 
 r | '''HIS Anfwer, or, as the Author calls it, Apology,— 
 JL will be properly introduced by the following Copy 
 of the Synodical Minute concerning it. 
 
 Edinburgh, Sept. 5. 1782. 
 
 “ On Mr Gib's reading the Remonstrance, part 
 * ( whereof was allowed to be recorded in the minutes of 
 “ lad meeting of Synod,—an allowaiice having been gi- 
 
 i( ven to Mr-, in like manner to read a paper at 
 
 “ this time, in,,anfwer to the charges brought againft 
 “ his Sermon referred to in the faid Remonfirance ; Mr 
 
 * e - read a paper accordingly, in vindication of his 
 
 “ Sermon againft thefe charges : And the Synod allowed 
 
 “ that part of Mr-’s paper to be recorded in their 
 
 “ minutes, which contained an anfwer to that part of. Mr 
 “ Gib’s paper which is recorded in them ; delaying the 
 “ further confideration of the affair till afterwards : And 
 “ that part of Mr-’s paper is as follows, viz.” *. 
 
 Such 
 
 * Mr- having come up to the laft federunt of the Synod, on the 
 
 5th of September 1782; lie then read his Anjwer (after I had gone our), 
 
 irons a paper which teemed not ealily legible by himlelf,_and 110 way 
 
 legible by the clet k. "1 lie Synod allowed it to be recorded in their mi¬ 
 nutes ; omitting a patt of it, relative to thofe parts of the Remonjtrance 
 which had not been fb recorded: But they gave him back his paper, for 
 
 his getting a proper draught of it returned-During the meeting of 
 
 Synod in May 1783, the clerk received that draught. But he dkfnot 
 then produce it: Becaufe he fiippoled, that the Synod could not admit 
 of this new paper without a new rending ,—for which he could not well 
 find an opportunity, amidfl the hurry of other bnfinefs; and becaufe the 
 Author was not piefent, for anlwcring any cjueflioris concerning it. 
 And of this he informed the Author by a letter.—When the Synod was 
 again met, on the 4th of September 1 783; the clerk produced that 
 
 draught, 
 
Anfwer to the Loft Part of the Remonjlrance. 3 3 
 
 S UCH is the relu&ance with which I make this public 
 appearance before the Reverend Synod, that it was 
 within a few days of its meeting before I could prevail with 
 myfelf to put pen to paper on this painful fubject. Could 
 I have feen it confident with duty, inclination would 
 have prompted me altogether to decline this difagreeable 
 talk. My Reverend Father Mr Gib fawjneet, in a writ¬ 
 ten fpeech, which he read at lah meeting of Synod, part 
 of which has obtained a place in the minutes,—to attempt 
 to find leveral errors in a ferrnon which I had the honour 
 to deliver before this Synod on the 27th of April 1779, 
 and which fmce has been publilhed. As I was unexpect¬ 
 edly reduced to a fituation that rendered it incompetent 
 for me to ac*, as otherwife I would have done, at lalt 
 meeting; the Reverend Synod, I hope, will now indulge me 
 to fay a few things in the entry, for my exoneration. 
 
 With all due deference to this Synod, to which I have 
 in a folemn manner promifed, and am ever ready to fhew 
 fubjeUion in the Lord ; I muff be allowed to fay, the 
 Synod appeared to me to lofe their way, in allowing Mr 
 Gib to introduce this affair in the manner he chofe to do 
 it. A fecret fufpicion that he had me partly, and only 
 partly in view, prevented me from oppofing his extraor¬ 
 dinary requilition in another manner than I did. Cheer¬ 
 fully ihall I fubmit to Mr Gib himfelf, whether, after all 
 he has read, he can produce from the records of any well 
 regulated church, a precedent for it, or a ftep parallel to 
 it, all circumftances confidered. In this and every other 
 inftance, I am ready to treat my Reverend Father with 
 all the refpe£t due to his age, abilities, and ufefulnels. 
 But I mult fay, his conduct at lalt meeting of Synod ap¬ 
 peared to me in a very bad light. I confidered it as an 
 
 E . infult, 
 
 draught, with a letter from the Author: In which letter, he refolutely 
 urged the recording of his paper, as formerly allowed; faying alfo,— 
 
 “ The paper I fcnt you, I atteft as a faithful copy of the paper 1 read to 
 “ them.” S me contended, hut without efFcft,—againft the raflinefs of 
 recording that new piper, without having it firft read: For it was car¬ 
 ried, to left in the Author’s atteftatien,—of its being a faithful copy „ 
 from that which he had read before them, in September the preceding 
 year. And it was appointed that this paper fhoulil (land on record; not 
 in the minutes of the then prefent meeting, nor of the next before when 
 it was fent up,——but fo far back as thofe of the meeting in September 
 i 782, which are never of courfe to he read again in the SjnoJ. 
 
34 Anfwer to the Laft Part of the Remonftrance. 
 
 infult, not only to me, but alfo to the Synod. I confider- 
 ed him as my father and friend, to whom in difficult cafes 
 1 might apply for advice ; and I acknowledge my obliga¬ 
 tions to him in this refpect, in repeated indances. I be¬ 
 lieve his zeal for the good caufe in [whichj he and I are 
 embarked, prompted him to take this dep. But what 
 a pity is it, that ever he ihould allow his zeal to operate 
 in a manner calculated for reflecting diihonour on the 
 caufe he is fo felicitous to promote ? 
 
 Has my Reverend Father acted confidently, or as the 
 Setiptuie diiects, in this affair? He heard the lermon de¬ 
 livered ; and will do me the juftice to own it is publiffied, 
 almoft word for word as it was delivered. No lefs than 
 three years elapfed poderior to the delivery, and two 
 years and nine months poflerior to the publication of it, 
 before he acetified me of error in it. During that long 
 interval he allifted at facramental occafions, he fat down 
 at tne taole of the Lord with me : I he very day prece¬ 
 ding that on which he impeached me, he not only fat in 
 Synod with me, but voted for my tranfportation from one 
 congregation under the infpeftion of this Synod, to ano- 
 thei. Ate thefe things confident? Is ]VIr Gib, or any 
 other man, aole to reconcile them ? One tiling efpecially 
 adonifhed me. My Reverend Father read in Synod a 
 long paper, containing a number of charges againd me, 
 and abfolutely refufed to allow me to fee it; that I might 
 either confefs the do&rinal errors with which he charges 
 me, or repel the charges he brings againd me. Is this 
 conform to the practice of any impartial court, civil or ec- 
 clefiadic? If this be admitted for a precedent, what mud 
 the confequences be? I beg my Reverend Father for one 
 moment to fuppofe bimfelf in my place. I know he is 
 capable of feeling. I o his feelings as a man, as a Cliri- 
 dian, as a minider, I appeal. 
 
 I come now to the paper itfelf. The Synod will, al¬ 
 low me to fay two or three words, in relation to the ge¬ 
 neral drain of it. And, fird of all, I am at fome lofs to 
 account for the indirect manner in which I am attacked. 
 Why does not Mr Gib name me ? Again, does not his 
 iutei pretation of the pa.ffages of the ferinon, on which he 
 founds his charges againd me, imply a want of common 
 candour ? Many of the mod intelligent of my fathers 
 and brethren in the minidry, have fpoken with me about 
 
 that 
 
Anfwer to the Lajl Part of the Remonflrance. 3 5 
 
 that part of my fermon which relates to the Burgher- 
 controverfy; and not one of them has had the penetra¬ 
 tion to difcover the miflakes Mr Gib pretends to have 
 found in it. I have repeatedly read the condemned parts 
 of it, in as unprejudiced and impartial a manner as I 
 could ; and I cannot yet fee that they will admit of the 
 conftruclion he has put upon them. But for every mode 
 of expreffion ufed in it, I will not plead. Had I thought 
 the terms I have ufed would have given the fmallefl: offence 
 to any of my Fathers or Brethren, I would have ufed 
 other ones. I can fincerely fay, I had not the remotefl 
 thought of advancing one fentiment oppofite to the prin¬ 
 ciples of this Synod ; with which, particularly in relation 
 to the controverfy with the Burghers, I am fully fatisfied. 
 What inclines me the more to think my Reverend Father 
 has imbibed fufpicions of my orthodoxy, and by thefe has 
 been influenced in interpreting certain paffages in my fer¬ 
 mon, is the oblique hint at fome late meetings between 
 the Antiburghers and Burghers in the fouth of Scotland ; 
 at two of which I was prefent. But why fhould Mr Gib 
 credit every little ftory he hears? He has had repeated 
 opportunities of converfation with me, fince I attended 
 thefe meetings. If he was diffatisfied either for my at¬ 
 tending them, or any thing I was reported to have ad¬ 
 vanced at them; he certainly ought to have told me. In 
 that event, I fhould have endeavoured, as far as poffible, 
 to fatisfy him. It is well known to the members of the 
 congregation with which I was lately connected, and 
 within the boundaries of which the meetings were held, 
 that the motion for the keeping them did not originate 
 from me. I gave no encouragement to the motion, when 
 it was made. I never had the fmallefl hopes of the 
 meetings accomplifhing any valuable end. Neither am I 
 confcious of yielding any one of our principles, at thofe 
 meetings. I never intended to do fo. I have not heard 
 
 O 
 
 of one perfon. Antiburgher or Burgher, that attended the 
 meetings, the laft of which was numerous, who has al¬ 
 leged I did fo. As for the excommunication, 1 did not 
 fee that I was called either to juflify or condemn it. It 
 did not appear to me, to affe& the merits of the caufe. 
 Accordingly, I rather confidered it as out of the queftion. 
 I took occafion to tell the Burghers prefent, it was not 
 made a term of communion among us; and therefore, on 
 
 fuppofition 
 
36 Anfwer to the Lafi Part of the Remonfir ance . 
 
 fuppofition any of them were to join with us, they would 
 not be required to approve of it. This is the fubfiance 
 of what palTed in relation to it. The conftitntion of this 
 Synod never was a queftion, or fubjcct of converfadon, at 
 any meeting I attended. I had not the fmalleft doubt of 
 it; and would have refufed to be prefent, or to aft at 
 any meeting that would not have admitted it.—Another 
 thing confirms my fufpicion, that Mr Gib was difpofed to 
 put the mod unfavourable interpretation on my words, 
 lie finds great fault with me, for fpeaking of the breach 
 in the Synod under the notion of an unhappy rupture, 
 a morn mu! dilpcufation, a difmal event. Strange! Does 
 Mr Gib think it was a happy breach, a joyful difpenfation, 
 a chl'nable event! Certain I am, he did not always think 
 fo. A very few years have elapfed, Tince he publilhed 
 to the world a work in which he exprefsly defigns it, 
 “ that melancholy event.” Prefent Truth , vol. ii. p. 4 g. 
 I hefe things premifed, I (hall now confider the con¬ 
 demned parts of the fermon. 
 
 I am not called to anfwer the firfi part of the paper, 
 relating to the commencement and expiration of the 1260 
 days, of which the text fpeaks. I fubmit to my Fathers 
 and Brethren who have favoured my poor fermon with a 
 reading, whether they could have wilhed me, or it was 
 poffink ioi me, to give a preference to the one opinion 
 with greater modefty or deference. I can fafely fay, if 
 I had my wifh, I could fee Mr Durham and Mr Gib be¬ 
 fore me, on every text from which I fpeak in the pul¬ 
 pit. But I would not engage, in every infiance, to fol¬ 
 low either the one or the other. 
 
 It is only the lafi part of the paper I am required to 
 anfwer. 
 
 Now 110 finall fatisfafiion to me, that I am called 
 to Ipeak on a fubjecl, my views of which all along have 
 been fieady and uniform. I have been difficuked" about 
 othei things : But as to the merits of the controverfy 
 between the Antiburghers and Burghers, I cannot fay I 
 have had a doubt. I am perluaded that, in the contro- 
 vei.y about the religious claufe in the Burgefs-oath, the 
 Buighers Iojl their way. When they, in concurrence with 
 us, cornpofied and publilhed to the world a Teftimony for 
 the covenanted principles of the Church of Scotland, and 
 a bond for the renovation of our Covenants in a manner 
 
 correfponding 
 
Anfwer to the Lafi Part cf the Remonjlrance. 37 
 
 correfponding to our times and circumlfances, they put 
 their hand to the plough. But when they undertook to 
 defend a prefent {wearing of the religious claufe of the 
 Burgefs-oath, they began to look back; and have fmce 
 drawn back. To learn the fentiments of our modern 
 Burghers, was one particular thing I had in view, in at¬ 
 tending the meetings referred to. What I heard from 
 them at thefe meetings, convinced me more than any 
 thing I had read or heard, of the truly perplexed and be¬ 
 wildered fituation to which they had rendered them- 
 felves. They appeared truly felicitous to be in the right 
 way; but utterly at a lofs to know whether they were in 
 it; and, if they were not in it, how to find it. I am fully 
 fatisfied, that an approbation of a prefent {wearing the 
 religious part of the Burgefs-oath, carries in it a virtual 
 renunciation of the Secefiion-teftimony. The very paf- 
 fage Mr Gib quotes from Jeremiah’s prophecy, had often 
 recurred to my mind ; efpecially about the time of the 
 forefaid meetings ; and appeared to me [to] have in it a 
 peculiar applicability to the prefent cafe. I do believe 
 the Lord is befpeaking 11s, in relation to our Burgher 
 brethren, thus ,—Let them return unto thee , but return not 
 thou unto them. Is Mr Gib, or any other member of Synod, 
 now fecretly faying; Can you reconcile thefe fentiments 
 with the palfages quoted from your fermon ? I anfwer, 
 —Whether thefe fentiments and the quarrelled parts of 
 my fermon be confiftent, I leave the Reverend Synod to 
 judge. But one thing I mull fay, both for tnyfelf and 
 my fermon; fo far as I can recoiled:, I did not mean, in 
 the fermon, to contradid thefe fentiments, or any one of 
 them. This gives me occafion to obferve, that Mr Gib’s 
 interpretation of certain parts of my fermon proceeds 
 from a miftake of my defign in them. I did not at all in¬ 
 tend, as he insinuates, to give a general account, or a 
 comprehensive view of the controversy in this Synod, 
 about the religious claufe of the Burgefs-oath. I had 
 two things mainly in view. Firji, To point out the im¬ 
 portance of diftinguifning between the merits of the con- 
 troverfy about the Burgefs-oath, and the manner of con¬ 
 ducting it. When I fuppofe that both parties might have 
 a Sinful hand in it, I am far from thinking that both had 
 an equally Sinful hand in it, or that both erred in one re- 
 fped. I have all along confidered the Burghers as erring, 
 
 not 
 
38 Anfwer to the Laft Tart of the Remonfirance, 
 
 not only in the manner of managing the controverfy, but 
 in relation to the merits of the caufe. That this Synod 
 was altogether innocent in the manner of managing the 
 matter, no member of it will prefume to fay. In the 
 fecund place, I confidered the occafion on which the fer- 
 mon was delivered, as of all others the fitted, for contra¬ 
 dicting a motion [notion] which almoft univerfaliy pre¬ 
 vails among the Burghers; and appeared to me to refleCt 
 diftionour on this Synod;— i. e. That this Synod requires 
 every perfon in connexion Or communion with it, to ap¬ 
 prove of all the ftcps taken in the cafe of their Burgher 
 brethren; particularly, their proceeding againft them to 
 the higher excommunication. Thefe are the things I 
 had chiefly in view, in thefe parts of the fermon my Re¬ 
 verend Father is pleafed to quote and condemn. Am I 
 not intitled to a fair and candid hearing? And my fermon 
 to the mod favourable interpretation my words will bear? 
 When I fuppofe the one party, as w'ell as the other, 
 might have, in one refpeft or another, a finful haycl in the 
 controverfy, is it fair thence to infer, that I confidered 
 both parties as equally finful ? Is it confident with other 
 parts of my fermon, to fuppofe this w'as my view ? Does 
 it at all comport with my profedion, or the place I occu¬ 
 pied on that occafion ? When I admit finful management 
 on the part of this Synod, do I allow any more than the 
 members of it, in a very folemn manner, confeffed long 
 ago? I had faid ,—“ Admitting the Synod erred in the 
 « matter of cenfuring their Burgher brethren, why 
 t( ihould this be improved to the difadvantage of our 
 « Tedimony ?” The truly harlh interpretation my Reve¬ 
 rend Father puts on thefe words, I forbear to tranfcribe. 
 I fhall only fay, he ought to have laid greater drefs, than 
 be does, on the connexion in which they are introduced. 
 So far as I can recolletd my fentiments at the time of 
 compofmg and delivering the fermon, I only meant to 
 make the fuppofition, in order that I might reafon with 
 our opponents on their own principles. If I had declined 
 a correction offered by a member of Synod, it was becaufe 
 I faw no necedity for it. As for the extent of the for¬ 
 bearance the Reverend Synod can exercife towards mem¬ 
 bers that labour under difficulties in relation to the ex¬ 
 communication of the Burghers, the Synod can bed afeer- 
 tain it. Whether it be confident for the Synod, to tole¬ 
 rate 
 
 / 
 
Anfwer to the Laft Part of the P.emonjlrance. 39 
 
 rate members that difapprove of that rneafure, if any 
 fuch be among us, the Synod itfelf mud determine. I 
 Ihall only fay, I did not mean either to juftify or condemn 
 it. My Reverend Father has formed different conjec¬ 
 tures, to account for my fcruples in relation to it. But 
 he has not hit on the true reafon of my hefitation. If 
 I had the fame view he has, of the nature and proper 
 objefts of the higher excommunication, I would not lieli- 
 tate, as I do, about the propriety of inflifting it on the 
 Burghers. 
 
 One paffage of the fermon Mr Gib has corre&ed, with 
 greater juftice than any thing yet mentioned. I had faid, 
 —“ All that is required of us in relation to this contro- 
 u verfy, in order to minifterial communion with this Sy- 
 “ nod, is, that we be fatisfied in our confciences concern- 
 tt ing the decifion of Synod in April 1746; finding the 
 iC religious claufe of fome Burgefs-oaths inconliftent with* 
 “ the Teftimony.” I ought to have added, “ It is re- 
 “ quired of every minifter and elder among us, at his cr- 
 “ dination, that he acknowledge and promife fubje&ion 
 “ to the Alfociate Synod, as prefently conftituted, in a 
 “ way of teftifying againft the finful managements of the 
 “ prevailing party in the Synod, at fome of the firit diets 
 “ of their meeting at Edinburgh in April 1747 ; appro- 
 “ ving of, and purpofmg to adhere unto and maintain the 
 “ faid Teftimony, in his ftation and capacity.” But let 
 any impartial perfon take the account I give, of what is 
 required of us in order to minifterial communion with 
 this Synod, in connexion with other parts of my fermon; 
 and then fay, whether, for my omitting an article, or part 
 of an article of the formula, the charity which thinketh 
 no evil could infer a difaffection to the principles, or any 
 part of the principles of the Synod. How I came to 
 omit the foregoing article of the formula, I will not at 
 this diftance of time pofhively fay. I apprehend I had 
 not, when I compofed the fermon, confulted the formu¬ 
 la. I had only, from my memory, infected what I took 
 to be the radical or principal part of the article. An en¬ 
 gagement to teftifiy againft the finful managements of the 
 prevailing party in April 1747, certainly follows of courfe 
 from an approbation of the decifion in April 1746. Of 
 one. thing I am certain,-—my omifiion did not proceed 
 
 from 
 
40 Anfwer to ihe Lqft Part of the Remonjlrancc . 
 
 from any objection I ever had to the omitted part of the 
 formula. 
 
 Upon the whole, I take this opportunity to declare, 
 that it is an attachment to the principles of this Synod 
 that induces me to continue in connexion with it. I am 
 for peace; and therefore, if this difagreeable affair be 
 profecuted any farther, all the bad confequences of it 
 mufl be imputed to others, not to me. Jufhce to myfelf, 
 and my poor fertnon, obliges me to infift, that this fhort 
 vindication or apology for both be allowed a'place in the 
 minutes of Synod. 
 
 (Sic fubfcribiiur) - - 
 
 / 
 
 1 
 
 REMARKS 
 
I 4 * 3 
 
 REMARKS upon the Answer to the Lajt 
 Part of the Precedent Memorial and Re- • 
 MONSTRANCE. 
 
 T HE foregoing Anfwer or Apology confifts of two 
 alrnoft equal parts, the firfi: of which is wholly ta¬ 
 ken up in perfonal abufes and inveBives ; and the other 
 carries on the fame drain, in a tampering with the fubjedt 
 of debate. 
 
 I. The Apologifl has thought fit to treat me, through 
 more than one half of his paper, with feveral grofs, yet 
 unprovoked abufes. He charges me with having com¬ 
 mitted an infult , not only to him , but alfo to the Synod : With 
 having allowed my zeal to operate in a manner calculatedfor 
 re fie Bing dijhonour on the caufe 1 am fo folicitous to promote : 
 With not having aBed confifently , or as the Scripture direBs , 
 in this affair ' With committing things fo inconfiftent*, 
 that neither I, or any other man , is able to reconcile them : 
 With having ufed him in fuch a manner, as doth imply a 
 want of common candour: With having been infuenced by 
 imbibedfufpicions of his orthodoxy ; while I credit every little 
 Jlory I hear : And with having been thus dfpofed to put the 
 moji unfavourable interpretation, a truly harjh interpretation, 
 on his words. 
 
 For repelling the feveral inveBives, by which he en¬ 
 deavours to fupport thel'e abufes ,—the following Remarks 
 are propofed : 
 
 i. He inveighs againft me as not having aBed conffent• 
 ly, or as the Scripture direBs; in that I had delayed to 
 bring any charge againft his fermon, though I heard it 
 delivered, till three years afterwards,—yea till two years 
 and nine months after the publication of it: And in that, 
 during this long interval, I held adts of minifterial and 
 Chriftian communion with him ; and that the very day pre¬ 
 ceding that-on which 1 impeached him, I fat in Synod with 
 him,—and voted for his tranfportation from one congre- 
 
 F . gation 
 
4 2 Remarks on the foregoing Anfwer . 
 
 gation to another. And he adds, “ Are thefe things 
 
 confident ? Is Mr Gib, or any other man, able to re* 
 “ concile them ?” 
 
 But he muff have feen thefe things mod eafily recon. 
 c ileable, even perfectly confiftent, without any occafion 
 for catechizing me after this manner ; had he recollected 
 what he heard, in the introduction of the paper which I 
 read before the Synod,—and what I had faid to himfelf, 
 about fix months before. And I ihall now explain that 
 matter a little further. 
 
 During his delivery of the fermon, I was in my family- 
 feat ; where I had diftindtly heard other fpeakers in the 
 pulp.t : But, from feme dulnefs of hearing for feveral 
 \ears, and the rapidity of his fpeech,—I could not be ab« 
 folutely certain about all the terms of any one fentence 
 of an ordinary length, and had no knowledge of many 
 Sentences which he uttered ; fo little reafon had he to 
 appeal to me, that the fermon <e is publifhed almoft w r ord 
 “ for word as it was delivered.” I indeed took up fo 
 much of w r hat he laid about Antichrif* s period, as gave 
 me gieat offence : But I did not hear what he laid about 
 Synodical affairs in fucb a manner, as to form any pofi- 
 tive judgment on that fubjeft. When come in to my 
 houfe from the place of worlhip, and in the prefence of 
 feveral brethren,—I expreffed fome diffatisfadlion at what 
 ^ had heard, upon the firft of thefe points ; not being 
 tnen capable ol remarking any thing on the other : And 
 that point which gave me great offence in the time of 
 hearing, did not then make fuch impreffion upon me as 
 might have produced any further effedt. For I made no 
 fuppofition of a future publication of the fermon ; and 
 
 as vox emijfaperit, words uttered are foon forgotten,_I 
 
 imagined that, as to any effect, it would foon become as 
 if it had never been. Nor was I fo ridiculous as to think 
 that a difterence of fentiments betwixt the preacher and 
 me, about the method of calculating Antichrift’s period, 
 (the only point in his fermon which I then fufficiently un« 
 demood ^ or matter of offence),—might juitly interfere 
 with miniilerial and Chriftian communion betwixt us! 
 Neither have I fo learned the nature of church-union, 
 as to iuppofe, that even the prefent (late of matters be¬ 
 twixt us might warrant a breach of that communion,— 
 either in judicatory, or otherwife. 
 
 The 
 
Remarks on the foregoing Anfwer. 43 
 
 The fermon having been publifhed at above forty miles 
 diftance from me, I never faw it till fome time after the 
 meeting of Synod in Auguji 1781. Whether I had ever 
 before heard of the publication, I cannot now recollect; but 
 am certain that 1 had never made any enquiry for it, when 
 it was accidentally brought to my houfe in September that 
 year,—upon which I foon perufed it. On that, or the 
 next month, the author called for me ; when I told him 
 how lately I had got his printed fermon ; and exprelfed 
 to him my great diffatisfaction with it, in all the matters 
 of which 1 have (ince complained : And I pofttively told 
 him that, if I Ihotild live till the next meeting of Synod, 
 I would find myfelf obliged to take a public notice of it 
 before them. What I particularly found fault with w ? as, 
 the general declaration on the title-page, of its having 
 been publified by defire; and, upon enquiry, he named cne 
 brother to me, as the only perton meant. 
 
 It is thus molt evident, that I made no avoidable de¬ 
 lay about complaining of the fermon ; that I complained 
 of it to hirnfelf, as foon as I was capable of doing fo : 
 And that I embraced the very firft opportunity which I 
 got for complaining of it to the Synod, in May 1782. 
 
 And fo great was my averfion from a public controver- 
 fy on this fubjeft, that, fo far as I can now recollect, no 
 other conliderations then upon my mind could have pre¬ 
 vailed to engage me in it,—but from the notification in 
 capitals on the title-page of the fermon, that it was Pub- 
 lished by desire. —No reader could imagine, that the 
 delire of only one perfon was meant: But every reader 
 mult fuppofe, that it meant the defire of hearers ; and 
 mull naturally conclude, that the publication was by de¬ 
 fire of the members of the Synod, to whom efpecially the 
 fermon W’as preached,—the notification being fo w ide as 
 might include them all. And what conftru&ion could this 
 naturally bear, among fuch as have no accefs to know bet¬ 
 ter; or what conclulion might well be drawn from it, 
 by fuch as may perufe the lerinon when we are all off 
 the ftage ? 1 hey could not rationally mifs to take it as a 
 certain evidence concerning many members of the Synod, 
 and as (at lealt) a ttrong prefumption concerning them 
 all,—not only that they had then gone over into the Epif- 
 copalian and vifionary fcheme about the leading prophe¬ 
 cies of the Revelation ; but alfo that they had gone into 
 a ftate of apollafy, with regard to their former con- 
 
 tendings 
 
44 Remarks on the foregoing Anfwcr. 
 
 tendings for the caufe of God among their hands.--. 
 
 1 his confideration (truck me fo deep, that I could not 
 excufe myfelf from applying the beft antidote in my power 
 againft thefe obvious and defamatory conclufions. 
 
 2 . He inveighs againft: me, as if I had interpreted cer¬ 
 tain paffages of his fermon,—not ingenuoufly, according 
 to what I found expreffed there ; but as influenced, byJuf- 
 pcions of his orthodoxy, which I had otherwife imbibed . 
 Yet I have put no interpretation upon any of thefe paf- 
 lages, but fuch as the words muff naturally bear; which 
 alfo he has not yet pretended to corretft : And I neither 
 needed nor entertained any thing concerning him in my 
 mind, for influencing that interpretation, but what necef- 
 farily arofe from the words themfelves. 
 
 He has extracted the above reproach, from what he 
 calls <( the oblique hint at foine late meetings between 
 “ the Antiburghers * and Burghers * in the fouth of 
 * l Scotland, at two of which he w'as prefent.” And a 
 very oblique foundation this was, for the far-fetched in¬ 
 ference which he draws from it : That, when I occa- 
 lionally mentioned fome projects of coalefcence in thefe 
 
 meetings, I added,- <{ with which fome minifters of 
 
 ie this Synod are particularly acquainted .” But no bet¬ 
 ter foundation could be got, for the charge of difingc- 
 nuity now laid againft me. 
 
 He indeed gave me a general account of this affair, as 
 what he had been put upon by fome of his people ; and 
 reprefenred an advantage which he had gained at thefe 
 meetings,—in feeing, more clearly than ever before, that 
 the Burghers are not Seceders. —But it would feem, ac¬ 
 cording to him, that I have been fo inconfiftent, as never 
 to have told him that I was diflatisfied with his attendance 
 upon or conduct at thefe meetings ; though I had repeat¬ 
 ed opportunities for doing fo. If he means, that I did 
 not enter into any controverfy or quarrelling with him 
 upon that iubjett ; it is true : For, when I compared it 
 with what I had then lately read in his fermon,—I rec¬ 
 koned the matter too public and extenfive, for being ad- 
 jufted in any private difcuffion betwixt him and me. Yet 
 
 hq 
 
 * There is now a neceflity for ufing thefe terms of denomination, in 
 order to a being readily underflood without circumlocutions; though they 
 were originally a fort of nicknames impofed upon the parties, not affu- 
 med by them. They might be more property diltinguilhed by the charac¬ 
 ters of Seceders and Rcceders . 
 
45 
 
 Remarks on 
 
 the forg¬ 
 
 oing Anfuers. 
 
 he might have taken it as a fignifying of difTatisfa&ion, 
 when I objected to him, concerning the propofols on both 
 Tides for a coalefcence which he gave me an account of,—- 
 that thefe abftradfed from all regard to the Synod’s con- 
 tendings in the cafe of their feparating brethren, on and 
 ever fince the 9th of April 1747. 
 
 He had no occafion for bringing in his favourable ac¬ 
 count of the Burghers, as any way belonging to his pre- 
 fent controverfy with me : For 1 will heartily acquiefce 
 in every thing that can be faid to their advantage, con¬ 
 fidently with truth. But I fuppofe he needs not expedfc 
 much thanks from them, when he reprefents them as 
 quite unfettled, and void of confidence in their way ; by 
 his faying,—“ They appeared truly folicitous to be in 
 “ the right way, but utterly at a !pfs to know whether 
 ** they were in it ; and, if they were not, how to 
 
 find it.” 
 
 According to his own account, the Conjlitution of our 
 Synod was not mentioned ; and fo, an acknowledgement 
 of it had no place among his propofals for a coalefcence, 
 at any of the aforefaid meetings. But it is truly aftoniili- 
 ing, that he fnould fay ; u 1 would have refufed to be 
 
 prefent, or to add at any meeting that wouid not have 
 “ admitted it.” For he certainly never did, nor can 
 find any one Burgher, really of that denomination, who 
 w’ould admit of the faid conftitution ; as this could not 
 but mean a giving up with the prefent flate of their own 
 religious profeflion : And it is well known, that they 
 maintain a profefTed adherence to their Synod’s adt of 
 nullity about the conftitution of ours. 
 
 But it is not my prefent bufinefs, to enter into a parti¬ 
 cular confideration of the unfair dealing which the Stcef- 
 fion-Teftimony has met with, though without the propo- 
 fed effedl ; in fome other late coalefcence-meetings, held 
 by fome minifters of both communions,—all originating 
 from the Apologift’s example. 
 
 3. He inveighs againft me, as having attached him in 
 an indireEl manner; “ Why (fays he) does not Mr Gib 
 “ name me?” But my defence in this matter, whatever 
 it may be to any others, continues quite fatisfying to my- 
 felf.—Without naming the preacher , I fpecified the fer- 
 mon complained of ; as having been preached at the open¬ 
 ing of the Synod in April 1779, by their laft moderator: 
 And this was no attacking of him in an indirect manner ; 
 
4 6 Remarks ou the foregoing Anfwers • 
 
 if that fhould mean a leaving any way in the dark, wh<§ 
 was the preacher meant- But I did not name him, be- 
 caufe he was not my objeX. The Synod might call him 
 to an account for his fermon/if they thought it proper to 
 do fo : Yet 1 did not mean to undertake any procei's 
 againit him on that fubjeX. The Sermon only was my 
 objeX : And it would have been all the fame to me, with 
 regard to my complaining of the fermon ; whether the 
 preacher was {fill alive, or in the houfe appointed for all 
 living.—This was the reafon why I left a blank for his 
 name, when writing over the title of his fermon. And 
 as I apprehend that his name can bear no honourable 
 mention in this caufe, I hill choofe that no notification of 
 it fhould be made by me : Wherefore I have left a blank 
 for his fubfcription of his apology ; and blanks for his name, 
 in the copy of the Synodical minute concerning it. 
 
 4. I am very fingularly inveighed againh, in the fol¬ 
 lowing words, viz. “ One thing efpeciaily afionilhed me : 
 “ My Reverend Father read in Synod a long paper, con- 
 taining a number of charges againh me, and abfclutely 
 “ rrfufed to let me fee it ; that J might either contefs the 
 e< doXrinal errors with which he charges me, or repel 
 “ the charges he brings againh me. Is this conform to 
 “ the practice of any impartial court, civil or ecclefiahic ? 
 “ If this be admitted as a precedent, what mult the con- 
 “ fequence be {” And, upon this head, he appeals to 
 my “ feelings,—as a man, as a Chrihian, as a minifter.” 
 
 It is not very eafy to abftain from fevere language, in 
 repelling the above ftory : But the reader Jhall be left 
 to his own reflexions upon it, after being informed how 
 the cafe really hands. 
 
 In the clofe of the paper referred to, I craved that 
 the whole, or at leaf! the lah part of it, fhould be allow¬ 
 ed a place in the records of the Synod. In oppofition to 
 this, it was urged by feverals,—that I fhould put the 
 paper, or a copy of it, into the preacher’s hand ; for his 
 making an anfwer to it, or what defences he fhould think 
 proper. ‘This indeed I abfolutely refufed; as I could not 
 allow the matter to be injurioufly debafed, into the hate 
 of a private or perfonal caufe betwixt him and me. But 
 I told, that he could foon have from the Synod—an ex- 
 traX of the whole, or fuch part of it as they fhould allow 
 to be recorded : Or that, if this fhould be thought more 
 proper,—I would let him, among others, have the whole 
 
 of 
 
'Remarks cn the foregoing An/wets• 47 
 
 of it in print ; and that with all pra&icable expedition.— 
 Such is the fair part which I then afted, inltead of the 
 fictitious part which is fo boldly appealed to my feelings ; 
 and which, indeed, could hardly have got too bad a 
 name. And as I could not allow that the public caufe, 
 for which I was pleading, Ihould be taken down into a 
 debate before the Synod as a private or perfonal caufe 
 betwixt him and me ; I have likewife refolved, for rea- 
 fons which are to me more than fuffieient,-—that I will 
 not enter into any debate with him at that bar, about the 
 perfonal caufe of thofe abufes which he has now commit¬ 
 ted upon me : While I can fee no effe&ual method of de¬ 
 fence remaining for me, in this cafe, but that which I 
 now take. 
 
 5. I am inveighed againfl, as having a£led fo unwar¬ 
 rantably in this whole affair, committing an infult to the 
 Synod and him,—that it is fubmitted to myfelf, for felf- 
 condemnation ; whether, after all I have read, I can pro- 
 duce from the records of ary well regulated church , a prece¬ 
 dent for it, or a Jlep parallel to it, all circumfances confidered. 
 But a declaiming againff the equity of any meafure, from 
 the topic of uninfpired precedents or parallels, without 
 any direct evidence of its iniquity,—can only ferve the 
 purpofe of defamation. And nothing ever had a prece¬ 
 dent or parallel, all circumfances confidered ; for every 
 cafe mud have fome peculiar circuniltances belonging to 
 it : While we have as good a right to make precedents, 
 in obeying the calls of our providential circumftances,—as 
 any fallible men who went before us. Yet if the Synod 
 had, as General Affemblies, a Committee for purity of 
 doElrhie; or one for acting in the Church, like Grand Ju¬ 
 ries in the State,—making a prefentment, when they think 
 fit, of public faults or grievances : There might be fome 
 reafon for alleging, that the complaint about the lermon 
 Ihould have originated in fuch a Committee. But, accord¬ 
 ing to our fituation, every one was left, in the prefent 
 cafe, to take the courfe which he Ihould think proper,—- 
 for delivering his own foul. After all, can there be any 
 want, or yet can there be any need of precedents or pa¬ 
 rallels, —for eflaying to be valiant for the truth upon the 
 earth, for holding that fajl which we have ; for taking the 
 firft opportunity, of endeavouring to check a falling from 
 6 ur own fedfafnefs ? Or may it be declaimed againlt as 
 unprecedented, unparalleled, —that a member of Synod 
 
 endeavoured 
 
48 Remarks an the foregoing Anfwers* 
 
 endeavoured to put his brethren upon a neceflfary vindi¬ 
 cation of a public caufe, which could not be honeftly 
 fhuffled over into a perfonal caufe of any one ? When the 
 Apologift ihall find a worthy precedent or parallel, of a 
 Synod being opened by a fermon—containing a defama¬ 
 tion of the charaEleriftical ground of their Synodical exijl - 
 ence ; it will then be loon enough for him to declaim, in 
 his prefent manner, agaiuft fo much as one finding fault 
 with fuch conduct. 
 
 But he reckons my conduct, in this matter, fo unwar¬ 
 rantable,— diat (fays he) “ the Synod appeared tome 
 “ to lofe their way, in allowing Mr Gib to introduce this 
 “ affair in the manner he chofe to do it.” Yet how can 
 they be fuppofed to have loft their way, in che prefent 
 cafe ; when the way which they took was the only way 
 which they could take,—confidently with the nature of 
 the Court, and the unquestionable right of members ? 
 Common order requires that a member, w’ho has any thing 
 new to propofe, fhould not bring it forth in the midft of 
 other bufmefs; that he Should do fo, at the opening of a 
 federunt, or in the interval of other caufes: Or that, if 
 the hearing which he wants may be of fome considerable 
 length, he Should defire a time to be fet for it. This 
 was what I fought and obtained : And I did not feek it 
 as a matter of favour , but of right; while the Synod had 
 no juft pow'er, to refufe a granting of my defire.-Ac¬ 
 
 cording to the efl’ential freedom of the Court, every mem¬ 
 ber is entitled to a hearing, in the order which has been 
 mentioned, upon whatever he may have to propofe. He 
 cannot be confined, in his fpeaking, to a caufe already 
 tabled ; nor can he be obliged to tell in the firft place, 
 what caufe he defigns to propofe and fpeak upon. When 
 once he is heard, the Synod may entertain or repel what 
 he has faid, as they fhall lee caufe ; yet a hearing, with¬ 
 out any previous limitation, they cannot refufe him, but 
 at the expence of forfeiting their character : While a 
 member would he betraying his unalienable privilege, in 
 fubmitting to fuch a reftraint upon his freedom of fpeech. 
 In the Britilh Houfe of Commons (whofe freedom is not 
 greater than that of the Synod fhould be) every member 
 is at liberty, when not interrupting other bufmefs,—to 
 {land up in his place, and call the attention of the Houfe 
 to whatever he thinks proper ; fo that a refufing to hear 
 him would be confidered as fubverfive of their Conftitu- 
 
 tion.— 
 
49 
 
 Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers . 
 
 tion.—And thus the Apologift had no reafon to apologize, 
 from his peculiar circumftances, for his not having oppo- 
 fed, in another manner than he did, what he calls my 
 extraordinary requiftion : Nor has He ever been confidered 
 as of fufficient Ignorance and Effrontery, for fetting up his 
 face to make and maintain an oppofition to fuch abfolute 
 freedom of fpeech. 
 
 But while he fuppofes the Synod to have loft their 
 way, in allowing me to be heard ; I ihall leave it to the 
 reflexions of thofe who carried a recording of this paper, 
 —whether or not they have loft their way : when defiling 
 their minutes by fuch a defamatory paper ; fo much made 
 up of perfonal abufes and inveXives, which are of no con¬ 
 cern to the caufe before the Synod,—but as ferving to 
 wound it through my tides : While I am thereby repre- 
 fented, and now recorded in the minutes of the Synod, 
 even as one under a ’want of common candour ; that is, a 
 want of common ingenuity or purity of mind ,—which means- 
 an unworthineis for being owned, either as a minifter or 
 church-member. 
 
 II. The Apologift proceeds, in the fecond half of his 
 paper, w'hile carrying on the fame abufive and inveXive 
 ftrain as in the firft,—to tamper a little w’ith the fubjeX 
 of debate. 
 
 As to the firft part of my paper, about the commence¬ 
 ment of Antichrift’s twelve hundred and fixty days ; “ I 
 “ fubmit (fays he) to my Fathers and Brethren,—whether 
 “ they could have wifhed me, or it was poflible for me, 
 “ to give a preference to the one opinion with greater 
 “ modefty and deference.” But there is a difference be¬ 
 twixt modefty and gloflinefs of language; while the al¬ 
 leged modefty plainly amounts to no more,—than a man¬ 
 nerly w'ay of ftepping up to take his place, among thofe 
 whom he abfolutely calls the bef Exp ftors: and it mat¬ 
 ters not, with whatever deference the one opinion is pre¬ 
 ferred ; when the preference is abfolute.-As to the 
 
 laft part of iny paper, he Ihould not have faid, that he 
 was called or required to anfwer it ; while he was only al¬ 
 lowed to do fo. More particularly, 
 
 lft, After all other things which he mentions, he adds; 
 
 One paffage of the fermon Mr Gib has correXed, with 
 t( greater juftice than any thing yet mentioned r l hat 
 js, according to his account of matters, with greater ju- 
 
 G ftice 
 
5 © Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers. 
 
 fUce than none at all. What I had corrected was, his fet- 
 ting forth all that is required of us for minifterial and Chri- 
 ftian communion, in relation to the controverfy with thefe- 
 parating brethren,—as nothing more than an approving of 
 the Synod’s decifion in April 1746, concerning the religi¬ 
 ous claufe of fome burgefs-oaths : Omitting a molt materi¬ 
 al part of the fame article in the Formula ; which requires, 
 concerning the finful management of thefe brethren in 
 April 1747,—that there be a profefled approbation of, and 
 adherence unto the Teftimony then made and maintained 
 aga nlf it. This omiflion he takes with, as what he can¬ 
 not now account for ; further than as it may be charge¬ 
 able upon a very ftrange defedt of his memory,—in corn- 
 poling and preaching his ferinon, and getting it tranfcri- 
 bed for the prefs ! i hat the “ omillion did not proceed 
 “ from any objection to the omitted part,” is what can¬ 
 not poffibly be reconciled with his view of the breach in 
 the Synod. 
 
 But it is very odd for him to pretend, that “ an engage - 
 11 merit to reflify againft the finful management of the 
 “ prevailing party in April 1747, certainly follows of 
 <( courle, from an approbation of rhe decifion in April 1746.” 
 For it is mod certain, and certainly appeared in coalef- 
 cence-meetings,-—that multitudes will give way to the ap¬ 
 probation in rhe one cafe ; while refolutely fet againft the 
 engagement in the other. And who is more fet in oppofi- 
 tion to that engagement for teftifying againft the faid fin¬ 
 ful management in April 1747, than a lurviver of the 
 feparating brethren ; who yet is fatisfied with the decifion 
 in April 1746,-A-having i'oon profelfed forrow for, and 
 retraced his proteftation againft it? An alleging that 
 one of thefe things certainly follows of courfe from the 
 other, ferves a prefent purpofe of apology ; but whatever 
 it Ihould do, its actually doing fo, is quite contrary to a 
 very general truth of fatfts. As matters have always gone, 
 and are ftill further going,—fatisfadlion with the Stand 
 which was made for the Secellion-teftimony in April 1746, 
 will by nomeans infer fatisfa&ion with the Stand w hich was 
 made for it in April 1747* And may ordination-vows 
 continue to fecure the inference! But a refufal of having 
 had “ any objection to the omitted part” of the forefaid 
 article in the Formula , cannot be a fufficient apology for 
 preaching and printing down the real import of it; being 
 protejlatio contraria fa So, 
 
 And 
 
Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers . 51 
 
 And afiy appearance of jnflice, in my correcting of the 
 faid omiflion, is foon walked quite away : By fuppofmg 
 me to infer from it, what no impartialperfon, having the 
 Charity •which ihinketh no evil , could infer. And what is 
 this ? It is u a difaffeciion (on his part) to the princi- 
 “ pies, or any part of the principles of the Synod !” But 
 fuch an inference from his omiflion I never made ; and it 
 never entered into my mind to make it, as will be further 
 explained in a little. 
 
 idly , He had faid,— (< Admitting this Synod erred in 
 i( the matter of cenfuring the Burgher-brethren, why 
 ** fhould this be urged or improved to the di fad vantage 
 “ of our Teftimony !” And he now fays ,—“ The tru- 
 tf ly harfh interpretation my Reverend Father puts on 
 “ thefe words, I forbear to tranferibe.” But why? Is 
 it of fuch profane harfhnefs, as does not become a fober 
 perfon to repeat ? Or rather, did not this way of (peak¬ 
 ing about it, ferve a purpofe for giving a very bad opi¬ 
 nion of it, to make it be fuppofed a good deal worfe than 
 it is ; while many heard him in September, who did not 
 hear me in May 1782?—But, if the reader is pleafed to look 
 back on that alleged truly harfh interpretation , he will find 
 it amounting to no more than this ;—that the above paf- 
 fage of the fermon admits the Synod to have erred, in 
 the inflitfling of thofe cenfures mea t ; that their adver- 
 faries are thereby fully allowed to judge fo ; that, accord¬ 
 ing to the contexture of the other quotations made along 
 with it, the preacher evidently favoured this judgment : 
 And that this was further evident, from his having refu- 
 fed (which he does not deny) to admit of a propofed al¬ 
 teration in the manufeript of the fermon before it was 
 preached ; that inftead of admitting this Synod erred, it 
 lbould run,— -fuppofmg , but not granting this Synod erred ; 
 while this was all the fuppofition neceflary, for reafoning 
 with opponents on their own principles. 1 he brother 
 who propofed that alteration, faw a neceffity for it; but 
 the preacher, it feems, faw none, according to the 
 fcherne which he was upon. And it is now referred to 
 every impartial reader, if the faid interpretation contains 
 any thing more than the mere import of the paflage inter¬ 
 preted; ascompared with other quotations at the fame time 
 madefromrhe fermon, and particularly, with the faid refu- 
 fal: Andif anyone word of the connexion ffl which the pal* 
 fage is introduced, has any tendency to mitigate that inter* 
 
 G 2 preration. 
 
52 Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers. 
 
 pretation.-But nothing more is neceflary for ^fla blifii- 
 
 ing the jultnefs of it, than that the Apologift has not of¬ 
 fered to diiprove or contraditt it, in any one article,— 
 not finding it confident with his fcheme to do fo ; which 
 appears to have been his chief reafon for not tranfcribing 
 it. The interpretation is not alleged to be falfe ; and as 
 to any pretended harjhnefs of it, I have no tafte for 
 
 fmoothings which do not confift wdth plain Englifh ;_I 
 
 mu ft be allowed to fay, that black is black. And it’is a’ 
 matter of haelancholy confideration, that the character of 
 the Synod, as to their proceedings in this cafe, fhould be 
 blafted,—by fuch pitiful Ihuffiing and fhifting. 
 
 I have not any occafion here, for a particular reafon- 
 ing about the cenfures referred to ; or what of them is 
 mainly levelled at, the Higher Excommunication. —In ge¬ 
 neral, he means not either to jujtify or condemn it ; but 
 confiders it as to be out of the quejlion t in our controverfy 
 with the Burghers. And fo, the pppearance which the 
 Synod was enabled to make thereby, for the Teflimony 
 among their hands, and the credit of that divine ordi¬ 
 nance,-—fhould be left to link into oblivion. 
 
 He obferves, that, among different conjettures which 
 I had formed, I had not hit on the true reafon of his hefi- 
 tatiori. Yet, according to any fignification which he 
 makes of that truereafon, it muftlie in his difagreeing to the 
 latter part of my conjecture upon the head of incompetency . 
 —All the fignification which he makes of it, lies in thefe 
 words ; “ If 1 had the fame view he has, of the nature 
 “ and proper objetts of the Higher Excommunication, I 
 i( would not hefitate as I do, about the propriety of m- 
 “ fli&ing it on the Burghers.” Now, I had plainly told 
 my view of that matter : But he is not pleafed to tell 
 his; further than as it mufl be fuppofed contrary to mine. 
 And the contrary view can only be,—that brethren , though 
 contumacious in a hate of rnoft fcandalous iniquity, are 
 not proper objetts of this cenfure ; if they have been emi¬ 
 nent and ufeful , if they be great and good or gracious : Be¬ 
 ing a cenfure interfering with their interejl in the invifible 
 church. And if this be his view,—if that cenfure is to 
 proceed upon a judgment about the gracious and myftical 
 flate of brethren, about which w r e cannot judge ; the 
 controverfy is thus, upon the matter, thrown overboard, 
 into a bottomlefs ocean of ablurdity and nonfenfe. 
 
53 
 
 Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers, 
 
 3 dly, The principal matter of the prefent debate, is,— 
 the Breach of the Affociate Synod, on the 9th day of April 
 1747. And w hh refpeft to this, 
 
 1. The Apologirt is pleafed to twit me with an afto- 
 
 nilhed and aftonilhing queftion, which the reader may try 
 to reconcile with ingenuity and difcretion : “ Strange ! 
 
 <l does Mr Gib think it was a happy breach, a joyful dif- 
 <e penfation, a defirable event ?” He puts this queftion, 
 upon account of my having found fault with him,—for 
 calling it “ an unhappy rupture, a mournful difpenfation, 
 <( a difmal event.” From this he infers the above mani- 
 fe(t reproach; as if I now thought it happy, joyful, de - 
 firable. u Certain I am, (fays he), he did not always 
 i{ think fo;” which imports, that I now think fo. And 
 where does he find a ground for that certainty ? In this ; 
 that, by a publication which I made fome years ago, I 
 defigned it “ that melancholy event.” But he needed 
 not to have gone fo far back, for a ground of that cer¬ 
 tainty ; becaufe, in the very paper which he is now an- 
 fwering, I had laid,—very unhappy, difmal, mournful, 
 4t lamentable things accompanied the faid rupture.”— 
 And he had no reafon to fuppofe, that I confider the 
 courfe then taken by the feparating brethren,—as happy, 
 joyful, defirable! Though I cannot, with him, include like- 
 wife the courfe then taken by thofe on the other fide,— 
 Under the characters of unhappy, mournful , difmal! 
 
 2. He fays ; “ When I admit (infill management 011 
 u the part of this Synod, do I allow any more than the 
 (t members of it, in a very folemn manner, confeffed long 
 tc ago ?” And it is true, that they folemnly confeffed 
 {inful failings, in their manner of contending againft the 
 courfe of the feparating brethren : While no (inful men 
 ever did any good thing, without fome reafon for fuch 
 confeffion refpedting it. But they never confeffed, with 
 regard to the matter of this contending, what the fermon 
 teaches ; that it was an evil which they were left to fall 
 into, as a {fumbling block for a judicial hardening of the 
 generation,—objeCfs of the Lord's diffatisfa&ion, in that 
 whole matter ! 
 
 3. I am attacked with a grievous outcry, about my in¬ 
 terpretation of thofe paffages in his fermon which I found 
 fault with : As if I had put a confruElion upon his words, 
 which he cannot yet fee that they will admit of. [What he 
 Upbraids me with, in this matter, about many of the moft 
 
 intelligent 
 
rj Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers* 
 
 intelligent of his Fathers and Brethren , exceeds my compre- 
 henfion ; for I was not pretending to find hidden miflahes, 
 but was complaining of open mifr.eprefentations, in the part 
 of his fermon referred to : And thefe whom he means 
 could therefore have no room for an exercife of penetra¬ 
 tion about the former, hut for honefy of behaviour about 
 the latter ; their fuppofed want of which, I leave to a dif- 
 cuflion betwixt him and them.] “ Mr Gib (lays he) was 
 “ difpofed to put the molt unfavourable interpretation on 
 « my words.” And he puts a queftion, meaning a tlrong 
 affirmation,—“ Does not his interpretation of the paffa- 
 << ges of the fermon, on which he founds his charges 
 “ a^ainft me, imply a want of common candour ?” He 
 
 adds)_“ Am I not entitled to a fair and candid hearing, 
 
 “ and my fermon to the moft favourable interpretation 
 “ my words will bear ?” And he, with his fermon, cer¬ 
 tainly are lo ; but it remains, and will ever remain to be 
 proved,—that I have committed any breach of their pri¬ 
 vilege in that matter. 
 
 1 he whole ground, befide what has been confidered, 
 upon which he founds the faid accusations, is referied to 
 in thefe words : “ Mr Gib* s interpretation of certain 
 <e parts of my fermon, proceeds from a mUlake of my de- 
 « fign in them.”—And where lies the pretended mifiake > 
 In what is immediately fubjoined ; “ I did not at all in* 
 << tend, as he infmuates, to. give a general account, or a 
 « comprehenfive view' of the controverfy in this Synod, 
 “ about the religious claufe of the Burgeis-oath.” But 
 as 1 never imagined, fo 1 never infinuated, nor ever gave 
 the remote!! occafion for luppofing that I infinuated luch 
 a thing : And let an) judge then, on which fide the nnftake 
 lies. 
 
 With regard to a quotation which I made from his fer¬ 
 mon, I faid ; “ Such is the view given, as a comprehen- 
 “ five view of the whole affair.” But of what affair ? 
 The only affair which has any appearance of being refer¬ 
 red to by thefe words, is the atlair of the breach in the 
 Affociate Synod. I did not pretend that, in the quota¬ 
 tion which I fo interpreted, he was giving any account, 
 any view at all, of the controverfy about the religious 
 claufe of the Burgefs oath : And I did not fqppofe, that 
 there was any controverfy betwixt him and me about that 
 claufe,—or about the decifion concerning it in April 
 1746. 
 
 But 
 
55 
 
 Remarks on the foregoing Anfivers. 
 
 But he fays not one were! againft the fairnefs of my in¬ 
 terpretation ; that the faid quotation “ gives a view, as 
 ** a comprehenfive view of the whole affair” of the 
 breach in the Synod, according to his notion of it : So 
 comprehenfive,—that ail particulars on that fubjelt, muff 
 be uuderffood as comprehended in the generals there ex- 
 preffed. And the account, the view which he there gives 
 of that matter, cannot be otherwife uuderffood than.as 
 fo general and comprehenfive,—according to any prin¬ 
 ciples of common fenle He does not yet deny it. And 
 may I be declaimed againff, as dealing in a “ moft un- 
 “ favourable interpretation,” under “ a want of com- 
 “ mon candour ;” becaufe I take his words in the only 
 fenfe which they can naturally bear,—and which, through 
 his whole apology,' he never controverts ? 
 
 According to him, the whole conduit of both parties, 
 in the affair of the faid breach, falls under the character 
 of fnfiilnejs: Bur, fays he,—“ When I fuppofe the one 
 “ party, as well as the other, might have, in one relpell 
 “ or another, a finful hand in the controverfy i is it fair 
 “ thence to infer, that I confidered both parties as equal- 
 
 ly finful ?” And who inferred this? I never did, nor 
 appeared to do fo. I had inferred that, according to 
 him—it was “ an evil which both parties were equally 
 “ left to fall into ; equally fuppofed to have a finful hand 
 “ in the whole :” And the equality which I mentioned, 
 plainly meant the whole of the conduit of each party, as 
 fuppofed to have been finful. But as to an equality of 
 the fitifulnefs , 1 laid not a w ord : I leave it to an infinite¬ 
 ly higher Judge, to make a comparative effimate of fins ; 
 as to what they are in themfelves, and by reafon of le- 
 veral aggravations. ' 
 
 4. “ I had in view (fays he) to point out the import- 
 <( ance of ciiffinguifhing between the merits of the contro- 
 * l verfy about the Bnrgeis-oath, and the manner of conduft- 
 “ ingit.” And there is,nodou'tt, a great importance of diftin- 
 guilhihg between a good caufe and the managements con¬ 
 cerning it; fothata ciifapprovingof fome things anufs in the 
 latter, may not be luffered to interfere with a maintain¬ 
 ing of the former But, according to his view of diffin- 
 guilhing between thefe things, while the Synod is allow¬ 
 ed to be right as to the merits of the controverfy ; both Tides 
 are confidered as wholly -wrong, with regard to the man - 
 ner cf conducting it, He is “ far from thinking, that both 
 
 “ had 
 
5 6 Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers, 
 
 t( had an equally finful hand in it, or that both erred in 
 i( one refpeft:” No; he “ confiders the Burghers as 
 (i erring, not only in the manner of managing the con* 
 troverfy, but in relation to the merits of the caufe.” 
 Yet ftill he takes no notice of any other difference be¬ 
 tween the parties ; of any other than a finful hand , of 
 any thing better than erring in the cafe of the other par¬ 
 ty ,—as to their manner of managing the controverfy.— 
 And while he does not acknowledge them as having been 
 any way innocent in their manner of managing, he con¬ 
 cludes his view with this infipid off-come ; “ that this Sy- 
 “ nod was altogether innocent, in the manner of managing 
 ** the matter, no member of it will prefume to fay.’* 
 Certainly none will. But they have to fay, that they ob¬ 
 tained mercy of the Lord to be faithful in that bufmefs ; a 
 fay, for which the Apologift’s view of matters leaves no 
 room. 
 
 5. The Apologift is at a deal of pains to defend his 
 orthodoxy,iwhere I had never, direftly or indiredlly, made 
 any attack upon it. This idle defence he makes over and- 
 over : “ I had not the remotefl thought (fays he) of ad- 
 fC vancing one fentiment oppofite to the principles of this 
 “ Synod ; with which, particularly in relation to the con- 
 <e troverfy with the Burghers, I am fully fatisfied ;— 
 fi as to the merits of the controverfy, I cannot fay I 
 “ have had a doubt;—neither am I confcious of yielding 
 <c any one of our principles, at thefe meetings” with the 
 Burghers ;—it is an attachment to the principles of this 
 “ Synod, that induces me to continue ip connexion with 
 “ it.” And I never fufpeded any thing to the contrary % 
 l never gave him the fmalleft occafion to fuppofe, that I 
 had imbibed fufpicions of his orthodoxy in that matter: I ne¬ 
 ver inferred, or feemed to infer (as he pretends) from 
 any parts of his fermon,—that he had a dfajfeclion to 
 the principles , or any part of the principles of the Synod ; par¬ 
 ticularly in their deciiion of Jpril 1746, about fome Bur- 
 gefs-oaths. But, after making an amplified profeflion 
 of his fentiments concerning the Burghers, as having lof 
 their way in the controverfy about the religious claufe in the 
 burgefs-oath; he adds: “ Is Mr Gib, or any other mem- 
 “ ber of Synod, now fecretly faying; can you reconcile 
 “ thefe fentiments with the pallages quoted from your fer-, 
 mon?” Yet no perfon of common fenfe could either 
 openly or fecretly fay, or even imagine,—that thefe things 
 
 have 
 
57 
 
 Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers . 
 
 have even the fmalleft appearance of inconfiftency, for 
 affording any bufinefs about reconciling them. He, how 
 ever, anfwers ; “ Whether thefe fentiments and the qnar- 
 “ relied parts of my fermon be confident, I leave the 
 “ Reverend Synod to judge: But one thing 1 muft fay, 
 
 “ both for myfelf and my fermon ; fo far as I can recol- 
 “ left, I did not mean, in the fermon, to contradift thefe 
 “ fentiments, or any one of them.” And who fays, or 
 fuppofes, that he did ? 
 
 Why, then, all this unoccafioned and impertinent apolo¬ 
 gy ? I will not charge him with a deceitful intention, fo 
 long as I can fuppofe a moft unaccountable inattention. 
 But I will charge his apology with a mod deceitful tenden 
 cy,—to impofe upon the Synod, upon hearers and readers 
 cf it ; by fhuftling out, or keeping the thumb upon the 
 true fubjeft of debate,—and Ihuffling into its place, ano 
 ther fubjeft which was never controverted betwixt us.—• 
 'The prefent controverfy betwixt him and me is not about 
 principles , but about practices; not about any prefent Doc 
 trines, but about fome pnf Doings: Some happy fafts, con¬ 
 cerning the melancholy breach of the Affociate Synod in 
 April 1747. The fermon gives a general view of that 
 breach ; which he doth not refufe to be a comprehenfive 
 view of the whole affair, according to his apprehenlion of 
 it: And I had interpreted the fame, as meaning,—that 
 thereby this whole affair , concerning the Synod r is fet forth 
 under very black characters ; by which the memory of the 
 Lord’s great goodnefs on that occafion is blotted cut. 
 
 Now, he makes not the fmalleft attempt to correft my 
 faid interpretation. After all the occafion which I had 
 given to him, and all the further confideration which he 
 has taken of this affair,—it is to be remarked , as very re¬ 
 markable ; that he has not yet one good thing to fay, of 
 what the Lord did, and enabled his fervants to do, on the 
 faid occafion,—for fupporting their Synodical ftate, and 
 the Seceflion-teftimony among their hands: He has not 
 one good word to beftow on that fubjeft ; but ftill leaves all 
 to be confidered as finful on man’s part, and judicial on 
 God’s,—acknowledging no difference between the oppo- 
 fite parties, but as to degrees of finfulnefs in their conduct: 
 Amidit all profeffions of orthodoxy in an attachment to 
 the principles of the Synod, he takes care not to let one 
 w ord drop in favours of die faid praife-worthy procedure ; 
 —which can mean nothing Ihort of a fettled inclination to 
 
 H have 
 
5« 
 
 Remarks on the foregoing An [were. 
 
 have the reputation of it funk.-Thus, after all his out a 
 
 cry againfl: me, about want of common candour, and raofl un¬ 
 favourable interpretation ; inlteaci of pretending to give the 
 (mailed reafon for thefe heavy charges, he has fully jufti- 
 fied the whole conftruftion which I had put upon his words : 
 Neither alleging any falfehood of my interpretation ; nor 
 offering any more favourable interpretation that he could 
 have wilhed me to make *. 
 
 It is a ftrange way of doing, to profefs a connexion 
 with the Synod from an attachment to their principles ; 
 and yet to defame their memorable procedure on the 9th 
 of April 1747,—through which only the true Affociate 
 Synod, and their fupportof thole principles, come to have 
 a {landing and prefent exigence. It is as if one fhould 
 profefs an attachment to all the good principles in the 
 ltandards of the Proteftant Churches ; and yet defame all 
 the great doings of God and men, by which the erection 
 and maintenance of thefe flandards has been brought 
 about in the Reformation from Popery,—becaufe of the 
 many difmal things which accompanied the fame. 
 
 1 he main difference betwixt the Apologift and me, is 
 about the Lord’s great goodnefs, —in the conduit and fup- 
 port with which he blelfed his fervants at the forefaid 
 breach ; as to the Teltimony then given by them againfl 
 the finful courfe of their feparating brethren, now called 
 Bur ghers : A Teftimony which all minifters, probationers, 
 and elders of our communion, have folemnly vowed to 
 maintain. It is thus a difference about the works of the 
 
 Lord, 
 
 v Mv whole interpretation of the preacher’s do£hine abont the Aflb- 
 ciate Synod, is quite conformable to an advcrtifement prefixed to his fer- 
 nion: where he tells,—that “The difcourfe is intended” (among other 
 things) “ to rectify certain miftakes many labour under, in relation to the 
 “ natu e and defign of the Teftimony in which the author, and others 
 “ with whom he is connected are engaged; and in relation to the terms 
 “ of communion among them.” It is evident, that he means fuch mi- 
 ftakes among perfons of other communions. And how doth he fet about 
 the rectifying of thefe fuppofed miftakes ? It is by endeavouring to per- 
 fuacle them,—that the Synod’s contendings for that Teftimony, or their 
 manner ot maintaining it, in the controveriy with their feparating brethren, 
 on the 9 th of April 1747, and afterwards; that thefe things are now of 
 no concern, in the terms of communion among us : But that they are at 
 freedom to confider all thefe things as faults or mifmanagements, yet fuch 
 as may be overlooked in the prefent ftate of fallibility ; fo far as not to 
 prejudice them againft taking part with us in profecuting the fame Tefti¬ 
 mony as to the matter of it, without any regard to that former manner of 
 
 doing fo-.Such is the real amount of his fr.id doctrine, when turned 
 
 JUto plain Englilh. 
 
Remarks on the foregoing Anfwers. 5 g 
 
 Lord, the operation of his hands , on that memorable occa- 
 fton : And it comes to this,—the quarrelled fermon is for 
 having the memory thereof killed and buried ; while I 
 contend for having it kept alive, and exhibited as a hand¬ 
 ing matter of thankful commemoration. This caufe is of 
 great importance, in my view'; I cannot facrifice it to any 
 l’pecious pretenfions ; 1 cannot excufe myfelf from effaying 
 to fupport it, with plainnefs and freedom of fpeech, while 
 
 confcious of no perfonal animofity or prejudice.-The 
 
 Apologift fays, in his conclufion,—“ I am for peace ; and 
 “ therefore, if this difagreeabJe affair be profecuted any 
 <e farther, all the bad confequences of it muff be imputed 
 <f to others, not to me.” But any man will be for peace, 
 where it only means, according to the prefent fenfe of it, 
 a being left uncontrolled in a wrong courfe : And the 
 Apologift has no reafon to fuppofe,—that any bad confe¬ 
 quences of his not fubmitting to the juft control which 
 he now meets w ith, can be imputable to any but himfelf. 
 For my part, I have no intention to profecute this affair 
 any farther than I have now done. Nor have I any am¬ 
 bition for getting the laft word in any caufe ; refting la- 
 tisfied when once I have, as I think, got my mind fufii- 
 ciently explained : And defpifing the vanity of every at¬ 
 tempt, for getting the plain reality and truth of things 
 fweeped away—by an inundation of fhuffling and abulive 
 words. 
 
 To conclude ; I am willing to partake in any difrepute, 
 which the good Caufe that I plead for is now lying under; 
 
 I want not to be in a better eftimation ; I am fatislied to 
 be out of falhion, fo far as it is,—concerned that I may 
 he faithful unto death. But I know' that the time is co¬ 
 ining, and I hope much nearer than the Apologift ima¬ 
 gines ; the time when what remains to be fulfilled of the 
 eighteenth chapter, and the prophefy of the nineteenth chap¬ 
 ter of the Revelation ,—will have a glorious accomplilh- 
 ment: And then it is that the credit of the Reformation- 
 work in thefe lands, of all the teftimonies in behalf of it, 
 of all the bicod by which thefe have been fealed, of the 
 Seceflion-teftimony, and of the Lord’s great interpofal 
 for it now in debate,—that the credit of all thefe will be 
 fully reftored ; and my name, fo far as its prefent con¬ 
 nexion with thofe interefts fhall then be known,—will, 
 at the fame time, be abundantly vindicated. At the date 
 of this publication, I want but the difference betw’ixt the 
 
 Ii 2 old 
 
60 Remarks on theforegoing Anfwers. 
 
 old and new ftyles, of what the Pfalmift mentions as the 
 common period of old age ; and I am not fuppofing that 
 1 may live to lee the morning of that day of the Son of 
 man. But, notwithftanding the manifold and horrible 
 darknefs of the prefent time,—I will fing concerning it, 
 in imitation of the Roman poet, and with a far better ap¬ 
 plication than he : 
 
 Afpice venturo latentur ut omnia feclo ; 
 
 O mihi tarn longe maneat pars ultima vita , 
 
 Spiritus et quantum fat erit tua dicere facia ! 
 
 Virgil. 
 
 O let my foul inceflantly prefage, 
 
 1 he blifsful glories of the coming age ! 
 
 May yet my life till then protra&ed be, 
 
 With ftrength and fpirit ftill enough in me 5 
 To fee and praife that end of prefent crimes, 
 
 The hopeful dawning of thofe happy, times ! 
 
 \ , , ; 
 
 P. S. On the 12th and 13th pages, fame evidences are 
 given, of AntichrijVs having grown up to an high lfa- 
 ture,—long before the period fixed on in the Sermon, as 
 the year of his birth : To which may be added, that forty- 
 five years before, or in the year 71 1, his growth was 
 come to fuch a height, in the perfon of the Roman Pope, 
 — that “ the Kmperor Jufinian even kilfed his foot; a 
 i( token of refpeft which had before been paid to the 
 tl High-pried among the Pagans.” 
 
 W ALCH’s Hijiory of the Popes, p. 100, Hi. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
V 
 
 * 
 
 
 
V l 1 ,’!