e of these brethren, for a time, gave
up with further practical communion with the other, namely, Mr. _Hugh
Innes_, late of the _Calton, Glasgow_; while yet it was observed, that
both used a freedom, not formerly common to them, anent the present
authority, in their public immediate addresses to the object of worship;
which, together with their apparent resiling from part of their former
testimony occasioned stumbling to some of their people, and terminated
in the separation of others. Foresaid latitudinarianism and falling
away, is also sadly verified, in the conduct of another principal member
of their pretended Presbytery, who has professedly deserted all
testimony bearing for the reformation principles of the Covenanted
Church of _Scotland_.[5]

At last, after their declared interviews for that purpose, these
brethren have patched up a mank agreement, which they have published, in
a paper entitled _Abstract of the covenanted principles of the Church of
Scotland, &c._, with a prefixed advertisement in some copies, asserting
the removal of their differences, which arose from a sermon on _Psal._
cxxii, 3, published at _Glasgow_,--by a disapprobation of what is
implied in some expressions hereof, viz., "That all the members of
Christ's mystical body may, and ought to unite in visible church
communion."

Here is, indeed, a smooth closing of the wound that should have been
more thoroughly searched, that, by probing into the practical
application of said sermon, the corrupt matter of communion with the
Revolution Church, in the gospel and sealing ordinance thereof, might
have been found out; but not one word of this in all that abstract,
which contains their grounds of union, and terms of communion. Nothing
of the above author's recanting his former latitudinarian practices of
hearing, and thereby practically encouraging, that vagrant Episcopalian,
_Whitefield_; his communicating, which natively implies union, with the
Revolution Church, in one of the seals of the covenant; nor his public
praying for an Erastian government, in a way, and for a reason, that
must needs be understood as an homologation of their authority. On which
accounts, the Presbytery testify against said union, as being
inconsistent with faithfulness in the cause of Christ; and against said
abstract, as, however containing a variety of particulars very just and
good, yet bearing no positive adherence to, nor particular mention of,
faithful wrestlings a