his people.

Again, the Presbytery find themselves in duty obliged to testify against
these brethren who some time ago have broken off from their communion,
for their unwarrantable separation, and continued opposition to the
truth and testimony, in the hands of this Presbytery, even to the extent
of presuming, in a judicial capacity, to threaten church censure against
the Presbytery, without alleging so much as any other reason for this
strange procedure, than their refusing to approve as truth, a point of
doctrine, that stands condemned by the standards of the Reformed Church
of _Scotland_, founded on the authority of divine revelation. But, as
the Presbytery have formerly published a vindication of the truth
maintained by them, and of their conduct, respecting the subject matter
of difference with their _quondam_ brethren, they refer to said
vindication, for a more particular discovery of the error of their
principle, and extravagance of their conduct in this matter. And
particularly, they testify against the more avowed apostasy of some of
these brethren, who are not ashamed to declare their backslidings in the
streets, and publish them upon the house tops; as especially appears
from a sermon entitled, _Bigotry Disclaimed_--together with the
vindication of said sermon; wherein is vented such a loose and
latitudinarian scheme of principles, on the point of church communion,
as had a native tendency to destroy the scriptural boundaries thereof,
adopted by this church in her most advanced purity; and which is also
inconsistent with the ordination vows, whereby the author was solemnly
engaged. This, with other differences, best known to themselves,
occasioned a rupture in that pretended Presbytery, which for some years
subsisted: but this breach being some considerable time ago again
cemented, they constituted themselves in their former capacity, upon
terms (as appears from a printed account of their agreement and
constitution, which they have never yet disclaimed as unjust) not very
honorable nor consistent with their former principles and professed zeal
for maintaining the same. Which agreement was made up, without any
evidence of the above author's retracting his lax principles, contained
in the foresaid sermon. Whatever was the cause, whether from the
influence of others (as was said by the publisher of their agreement),
or from a consciousness of dropping part of formerly received
principles, is not certain; but on