ward off any conviction of his sin that this warning,
should it come into his hands, might be expected to work), they are
guilty of the basest flattery, used by court parasites, stiling him,
"the best of kings, of the mildest administration," as in _page_ 13th;
and acknowledge it, as a particular effect of the Lord's goodness, that
we are privileged with such an one. But is he indeed deserving of such a
character? better than which could not be given to the most faithful
ruler, devoting all his power, as in duty bound, to the support and
advancement of the kingdom and interest of Jesus Christ, that over
reigned. Does he really merit such an encomium, who sacrilegiously
usurps and wears the crown, that alone can flourish on the head of
_Zion's_ king? And is this such a blessing to the church, that an enemy
to her Lord and Head rules over her? Oh! may not the Lord say? "I
hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright."

6. The Presbytery testify against said Seceding party, because of the
sinfulness of their terms of ministerial and Christian communion, as
being partly destructive of that liberty wherewith Christ has made his
people free. By which they have both imposed upon themselves, and shut
the door of access unto the privileges of the church, upon all such, as,
in a consistency with their adherence to truth and duty, cannot accept
of their unwarrantable restrictions. Of this, they gave early
discoveries, as appears from the known instance of that notable,
backslider, Mr. _Andrew Clarkson_, whom they obliged, before license, to
make a public and solemn renunciation of his former principles and
profession, respecting the covenanted reformation.[4] As also, their
rejecting all accessions from his _Laodicean_ brethren, wherein was
contained an explicit adherence to the same, until they did drop their
former testimony. This blind zeal in _Seceders_, against a testimony for
truth in its purity, did gradually increase, until it hurried them on to
a more particular and formal stating of their terms of communion,
whereby were totally excluded all the free and faithful of the land from
their communion, who could not approve of, nor swear the bond, whereby
they pretended to renew the covenants: as in their act at _Edinburgh_,
1744; wherein they did resolve and determine, "That the renovation of
the National Covenant of _Scotland_, and the Solemn League and Covenant
of the three nations, in the manner now agreed upon, and prop