The case of the afflicted clergy

THE CASE OF THE Afflicted Clergy.

I Now proceed to examine another of the Pamphlets, by which theſe of the Epiſcopal Clergy, who hate, and malign the Preſbyterians, do load them with reproaches, and aggravate their own ſufferings, beyond all the bounds of Modeſty and Truth: Its Title is, The Caſe of the preſent afflicted Clergy in Scotland truely repreſented. Thus we are Treated by Men of a reſtleſs Temper, who are imbittered in their Spirits, by what inconveniency they are fallen into, from the Eaſe, and Dominion over their Brethren, that they lately had. One Book after another we are Laſhed with: If they would ſpeak Truth, and exerciſe Reaſon, rather than expreſs Rage and Fury, we would bear it; and clear our ſelves in the Conſciences of all impartial Men. But we muſt be content to take things as they are, and defend the truth, and our ſelves, from theſe aſſaults that they think fit to make, of whatever ſort they be. Before I come to the Book it ſelf, I ſhall a little conſider the Preface. He commendeth the Moderation, and Integrity of the Author, and indeed it was needful: For none living could gather either of theſe two good qualities from this Pamphlet. He telleth us of the deſign of that Book, To procure pity from the moſt Charitable Church of England; a begging deſign as I marked on the other Pamphlet. That Men may conſider the Fatal Conſequences of Papal Supremacy in a Protestant Kirk. If he would have his words underſtood, or believed, be ſhould ſhew us wherein ſuch a Supremacy is exerciſed; But railing doth beſt in general Terms. It is alſo, That the Church of England ſhould bethink themſelves how to quench the Flames, leſt it destroy themſelves. Thus they ſow Diſcord among Brethren, and animate England to concern themſelves in the Affairs of our Church, when we do not meddle in their matters. He will have all Scots Presbyterians to be Perſecutors, and chargeth them with thinking that they do God good ſervice when they kill Biſhops. Which Facts, that he aimeth at, the Generality of Presbyterians did abhor, as much as he can do. This is an early teſt of the Moderation and Integrity that we are to expect from this piece. He further proveth our Perſecution, by citing ſome paſſages out of B. Burnet. Whom being a party, we are not to admit as a witneſs againſt us. Yet we acknowledge in his Citations, the truth of ſome rigour that was uſed in theſe times of Broils and Contentions; which Presbyterians do not Generally allow. If we would recriminate, we could leſſen theſe exceſſes almoſt to nothing, by narrating the Barbarity uſed in Scotland by his party againſt us: But I rather wiſh that both may ſtudy Sobriety and Moderation, than defend, or practiſe over again what hath been amiſs. I commend what followeth: His attempting to narrow the differences that are between Presbyterians and Epiſcopal Men in Scotland. In Doctrine we are profeſſedly one, but really there is a party among them who differ from us, eſpecially about the Arminian points: In Worſhip, the difference is very ſmall: Only (contrary to his deſign) he wideneth it, when he falſly ſaith, that ſome in time of Prayer uncover their heads but by halves. Was ever this approved by Presbyterians? What he imputeth to us of fulſome Expreſſions, and vain Repetitions, is a Calumny; if there be ſome on our ſide, there are more on his, who through ignorance, or unſeriouſneſs may be charged with this. It is alſo falſe, that at Baptiſm, we bind the parties to the ſolemn League and Covenant: May be ſome might do it in a time when we had no Government, but it is thought fit among us to make the Word of God the ſtandard of what we believe, and bind our ſelves to practiſe.

§ 2. He eſſayeth to make a parallel alſo betwixt our and their Diſcipline; but in that he is not ſo happy. For tho' we deny not that they have ſomething that looketh like Parochial Diſcipline: And alſo the name of Presbyteries; yet they have but a ſhadow of both: For not only all that power that any of their pretended Judicatories exerciſe is derived from the Biſhop: But the exerciſe of it dependeth on him, and he can ſuperſede it when he pleaſeth: Which if any of them ſhould deny, I can prove by two Inſtances in one Presbytery: Viz. That of Chirnſide. One for habitual Drunkenneſs on the Sabbath day, being cited before the Seſſion, and for diſobedience to them being cited before the Presbytery, while they were managing the proceſs, a prohibition was procured from the Biſhop of Edinburgh, which ſtopt the proceſs, and the Man Drank on, in defiance of both Presbytery and Seſſion. Another accuſed for living with a Woman as his Wife, to whom he was never Married, and being proceſſed by the ſame ſteps as the former; by a prohibition from the ſame Biſhop the Presbytery deſiſted; and the parties continued in their former courſe of Life: And yet this Prefacer hath the Forehead to ſay, that their Diſcipline is the ſame with that of Geneva; and I believe his party will give him little thanks for the condeſcentions he hath here made, as we diſlike them, becauſe not true, nor ingenuous. But we know the deſign of ſuch pretended moderation; it is to load the Presbyterians with the guilt of cauſleſs Schiſm, as appeareth in the ſequel of his Diſcourſe: But when they debate with us about the difference betwixt a Preſbyter and Biſhop, they ſpeak in another ſtrain. It is alſo falſe, that they have Elders who are no Miniſters, theſe among them who are more ingenuous will not allow them that name; much leſs do they give them the Power of Ruling Elders, or own in them the ſame Authoritative, and deciſive Power as the Miniſters have: I know no other deſign in keeping up Seſſions, and Presbyteries in Scotland, but that the people, who have ſince the Reformation been uſed to Presbyterian Government, and can comply willingly to no other Church way, may be deceived with the ſhadow of it, when the thing is cunningly taken away. He ſaith that in Synods all things are carried by plurality of Votes. It is ſo indeed when the Biſhop pleaſeth; but dare they Vote any thing, or can any thing be carried by their Authority, without his Lordſhips conſent? I think none of them will affirm this. He confeſſeth the Biſhop hath the power of Ordination in him; tho' he uſeth to take the conſent of the Brethren of the Presbytery along with him (that this is always to be done he affirmeth; but I am ſure it is not the Principle of Epiſcopal Men:) All this conſidered, let any judge, whether he ſpeaketh truth when he ſaith, that the Biſhop is but a conſtant Moderator. A Moderator hath no Power more than the leaſt of the Meeting hath; only he ordereth the meeting, that all may not ſpeak at once: propoſeth Matters to them, pronounceth, as their Mouth, what is the Mind of the Meeting: But nothing is determined by his Authority; nor are the Judicatories of the Church his Council, as Epiſcopal Aſſemblies are to the Biſhop. We do then maintain, that there is ſuch a difference between them and us, as may juſtifie our not owning of the Biſhops Authority, nor the Authority of the Meetings that is derived from it, and dependeth on it. We never uſed ſuch an Argument to juſtifie Rebellions: It was not the exerciſing Epiſcopal power that cauſed what he ſo calleth; but their forcing the Conſciences of Men, and Barbarous Perſecutions, whereby people were put to the utmoſt extremities. If the Conſciences of his party could plead not guilty, of the Murthers and Butcheries that have happened, as well as the Sober Preſbyterians can, who had no intereſt in them, but to Lament them, and the occaſions of them, it were well for them. If Barbarities be committed now againſt them, we defend them not, nor are they chargeable on the Presbyterians; but on ſome few whom their Perſecution hath enraged. He telleth us of more Hiſtories of the Clergies Sufferings to come out. Our Work is to Examine theſe that now he is pleaſed to offer. If he prove by his Collection of paſſages, all that in his Preface he propoſeth to make out by them, we ſhall ſuccumb in the Debate: But I am ſure ſome of them cannot be proved, other things cannot infer the Conſequents that he draweth from them: But I will not anticipate. What remains of his Preface is a renewing of his begging Addreſs to the Church of England: What they get that way we do not envy: We wiſh indeed the Change of Epiſcopacy (though we will take no unwarrantable courſe to effect even that) but not the Ruine of Epiſcopal Men.

§ 3. The Book it ſelf is odly methodized. We have two leaves called the firſt Collection of Papers. Next a Letter, under the Title of the whole Book: Then the firſt Collection of Papers begun again: And ſo to the ſecond, third, and fourth Collections: But we muſt follow whither he thinketh fit to lead. I muſt here refer the Reader to what I have ſaid in Anſwer to the firſt Book, and the ſecond Letter. Sect. 6. Where it is made appear that the Presbyterians are not accountable for the diſorders that are ſaid to have been acted; Tho all the Stories that are told were true. But becauſe in this Pamphlet we have Atteſtations added to the Narratives that are brought, which is not done in the other, ſomewhat muſt be obſerved concerning that. Which is, that moſtly they are teste meipſo, the Complainant is the witneſs, which is not fair. And often one of theſe Miniſters witneſſes for another, and he doth him the like kindneſs, for requital: Which derogateth much from the Credibility of ſuch Teſtimonies. Further, all of his Witneſſes are the ſworn Enemies of Presbyterians, and in a Combination to defame them: And we have from the Pamphlets now under conſideration a taſte of the veracity of the Men whom we have to do with. If his Witneſſes make no more Conſcience of ſpeaking truth, than the Author, or Authors of theſe Pamphlets do; few thinking Men will be moved with what they ſay. I come now to conſider his particular Stories. He beginneth with the Miniſter of Cumnock, with whom he joineth the Miniſter of Auchinleck: Whom ninety Armed Men forced into the Church-yard, diſcharged them to Preach, and tore their Gowns: And declared, that this they did, not as Stateſmen, nor as Churchmen; but by Violence, and in a Military way of Reformation. Anſ. It is Atteſted under the hands of George Logan of Logan, William Crawfurd of Dalegles, John Camphel of Horſecleugh, George Camphel of Glaisknock, John Beg of Dornal, John Mitchel of Whetſtonburn; all of the two Pariſhes mentioned: That they who did this were not of either of theſe Pariſhes, nor was it known who they were: Only that they were Cameronians, who had ſuffered ſeverely; and were now gathered together on occaſion of an Alarum that then was in the Countrey: Nor had any in theſe Pariſhes any Acceſſion to that practice. And it is to be obſerved, that many of theſe Miniſters entred by a Military Force, as they were ſo put out: particularly the Miniſter of Auchinleck had his Edict ſerved with three Troops of Dragoons: And that People never ſubmitted to theſe Mens Miniſtry, but by the force that was put on them by Armed Men: And they ſuffered very hard things; and yet the people of theſe Pariſhes bore it patiently. In the buſineſs of Machlin he groſly belyeth them: They uſed no violence to the Miniſters Wife; only gravely reproved her for Curſing and Swearing, which ſhe uſed. He paſſeth page 4. to the Presbytery of Dumbartoun, where firſt he telleth us, What Mr. Walter Stirling, Miniſter at Badernock, met with by a Company of Diſſenters. This is a groſs Lie: Theſe five Armed Men who aſſaulted his Houſe (having done the like to a Gentlemans Houſe, and a Countreymans Houſe, the ſame Night, ſeeking Arms, or Plunder) were no Diſſenters, of any ſort or way, but Debauched Men, horrid Swearers, and Curſers, who were of broken deſperate Fortunes; their Names are John Momillan, Patrick Motarged, George Tomoch, Archibald Ferguſon, Archibald Shinning. This one paſſage, duely conſidered, might diſcredit all that is aſſerted in his Book, and expoſe the Author as a malicious Calumniator, deſigning to fix all the Thefts, Robberies, and other Villanies, that are committed in the Country, not only on ſome Presbyterian or other; but on the whole party. It is alſo witneſſed that Mr. Stirling's Pariſh gave him all the help and ſuccour they could in this his trouble. This Mr. Stirling was afterwards deprived by the State, for not Reading nor Praying, after which time he behoved to remove from the Church, and Dwelling-houſe, but to this day liveth peaceably in the Pariſh. Yea Mr. Stirling himſelf diſowned that account of his Caſe which is in the Pamphlet, as what he had no hand in. For the two following Mr. Duncan of Kilpatrick Eaſter, and the Miniſter that was to preach at Boiall: In the Narration of what concerneth Kilpatrick Eaſter, there is a groſs Lie: None touched Mr. Duncan, nor did any perſonal hurt to him: Which is affirmed by them who know that Matter: And may be confirmed by conſidering, that that parties Zeal led them no farther than to rid themſelves of theſe Miniſters who had been ſuch a burden to them. For that Man who was to preach at Boiall; the Truth of the Story is, A great many came with a Burial to the Church-yard; among them, not above ſix or ſeven had Arms, who did always bear Arms: None of them made any Oppoſition: Only they ſent to the Miniſter of the Pariſh to deſire him to give them the Keys of the Church; ſeeing he himſelf could not Preach; He promiſed to do it, if the Heritors ſhould demand them; which ſeveral of them did; and offered to ſuffer him to ſtay in the houſe forty days, if he would give up the Keys: He contrary to his promiſe, refuſed to give them up; but went away that day, and carried away his Furniture, except ſome Lumber which the People after took out of the Houſe, in preſence of his Brother, and Man-ſervant; without doing the leaſt hurt to them.

§ 4. Let us now conſider the Letter, which beginneth pag. 1. excluding what hath gone before. He beginneth with taking notice, that Epiſcopacy was aboliſhed by the Parliament, on account of its being contrary to the inclinations of the People, and ſo may be reſtored by another Parliament. But he ſhould have conſidered, that whatever motive the Eſtates went on, it is declared againſt in the Claim of Right, as a Grievance; and therefore cannot be reſtored without overturning the Foundation of our preſent Civil Settlement. That Presbytery was never Setled by Law, except in times of trouble and danger to the State, by the practices of that Party; I have ſufficiently refuted in my former Vindication on Queſt. 2. P. 11. He taketh notice of a three fold turning out of Miniſters, By the Rabble, by the Convention of Eſtates, and by the Council; For the firſt, he truly ſaith that it was no wonder, being in the Interval of Government (if he had added that it was done by a People rendred mad, by the Oppreſſions of theſe Men who ſuffered from them, he had done well) but he thinketh ſtrange that it was not redreſſed, when the Government was Setled: This is anſwered in anſwer to Account of Perſecutions, &c. Next, he giveth us an account of the diſaffection of the Weſtern Shires to Epiſcopacy, of their compliance when Perſecution grew hot: Which we deny to have been ſo univerſal as he would have it: Tho' I deny not that many put ſome force on their Light: Alſo, their complyances ſo far as to hear theſe men, when they could hear none elſe, is no Obligation on them to cleave to them as their Miniſters: Eſpecially when opportunity was put in their Hands to hear others. Wherefore it is no Imputation, nor blame, that when a Liberty was given for Meeting-houſes, they made uſe of that opportunity. Neither are their Addreſſes to be blamed, wherein they acknowledge the goodneſs of God, and thank men, for that Liberty, which, tho' their due, had been detained from them. Tho' his Wiſe men told them that the Liberty was granted to bring in Popery; Yet as Wiſe men as they, thought, that the beſt way to keep it out was to make uſe of the Liberty, for ſetting people in the right way; and to beware of countenancing, approving of, or concurring in, any thing that might promote Popery: Such as, owning the Diſpenſing Power (which he moſt injuriouſly imputeth to them) and concurring for taking away the Penal Laws againſt Popery, But of theſe things I have ſufficiently diſcourſed in my former Vindication; as alſo of what followeth, that there were few Meeting Houſes at firſt: But that this is a kind of Demonſtration of the Inclinations of the People toward Epiſcopacy, I ſee not; nor underſtand what kind of Demonſtration it is, unlels it be a Paralogyſm: Next he giveth account of Two ſorts of Presbyterians, viz. Hill men (as he calleth them) and others: And doth untruly, and not without Malice againſt the Sober Presbyterians, aſſert, that the former acted more conſequentially to Presbyterian principles: The contrary of which is evident in this, (as in many more things, that might be mentioned) that two or three Preachers ſeparated from all the reſt of the Church, and refuſed ſubjection to their Meetings.

§ 5. In what followeth this Author dealeth more ingenuouſly than the former that I dealt with: For he imputed the Rabling work to the Presbyterians in General; this Man layeth it only on the Cameronians; but even them he foully miſ-repreſenteth; while he ſpeaketh of their Eating and drinking plentifully at the expence of them whom they Rabled: All the Reports that we have of them, give account of their not Laying their hands on the Prey, as it is ſaid of the Jews after Haman's Perſecution, Eſth. 9. 15, 16. But what is here aſſerted falſly in general, we ſhall have after more particularly: Where it ſhall be Examined. In his Hiſtorical account of things that followeth, page, 6th I have nothing to obſerve, but that he prevaricateth in alledging the Prince of Orange's Declaration, Feb. 6. 1689. Which only ſaith that every one ſhall enjoy the Opinion and forms of worſhip, with the ſame freedom, and in the ſame manner as they enjoyed it in October laſt: But ſaith nothing of reſtoring any thing which they loſt, as he alledgeth, but leaveth that to be done by regular and legal Methods. That which followeth, is an account of the tumult at Glaſgow, upon the Epiſcopal Miniſters Reaſſuming the Pulpit, after the Princes Declaration, that none ſhould diſturb one another in matters of Religion: This is more fully ſet down in his 2d Collection of Papers, P. 50. viz. That the Magiſtrates and Miniſters Aſſembled, and reſolved, that the Miniſters ſhould Preach, Feb. 17. as was uſual: In order to this, they, by the chief Magiſtrate then in Town, required the Captain of the Guard to lay down Arms, as the declaration enjoyned; He refuſed: After this, the People that uſed to meet in the Hills, and they of the Meeting-houſes, whiſpered together about their Bloody Deſigns againſt the Miniſter and his People, On the Sunday they hindered the ringing of ſome of the Bells: They publickly threatned the People as they went to Church; they purſued a Miniſter, who eſcaped, by going into a Houſe: The Magiſtrates going to Church found it Surrounded by a Rabble, whom they deſired to go home in peace; but they Railed at the Magiſtrates, and aſſaulted them with Staves and Battons; gave a blow to John Bell one of the late Baillies; the Magiſtrates ordered the Towns Servants and Officers to beat off the Rabble, and ſo went into the Church; in time of Sermon the pretended Captain of the Guard came into the Church, crying aloud that the Town was in Arms: Toward the end the Rabble, conducted by the Laird of Carſland, fired into it: A Boy was wounded in the Face; they brake open the Doors ſearched for the Parſon and found him. They refuſe to go home when the Magiſtrates required them: They took the People out of Church by fours and fives, and expoſed them to the fury of the Rabble: Many were Wounded, and Rudely treated: and not a few Perſons of ſome note, This Narrative (which I have abridged but not altered) is ſigned by James Gibſon Baillie, John Gilhagie, Patrick Bell. For anſwer to all this; it is in the 1ſt. place to be conſidered, that little Faith is to be given to his Aſſertions; and that on two accounts; one is, the lying Stories that he had told of the People of Glaſgow, Page 39. 40. As, that on Thurſday January 17. 1689. The Miniſter did not enter into the Church. Alſo what is ſaid about Mr. Alexander George is falſe. They did no more but ſearch for the Keys of the Church Door and tore his Gown: Which we do not approve. They had been provoked by his Railing in a Sermon againſt our Reformers Luther, Calvin, Knox, &c. Not only ſo, but abundance of Lies are inter-ſperſed in the narrative of the tumult at the high Church, Feb. 17. As that a pernicious Rout ſurrounded the Church: It was only a few Women ſtood in the Church Door. That the Magiſtrates went to the Church with the Miniſter is falſe: For only Baily Gibſon was there: That theſe Women or any elſe aſſaulted the Miniſter, or People, is falſe; for his party were the firſt Aggreſſors: It is alſo falſe that 600 of the beſt quality in Town entered the Church without Arms: For there were not in all above 200; and not 40 of ſuch quality; and they (or many of them) were armed with Piſtols, Swords, Clubs with Nails in the ends of them, &c. It is falſe, that the Miniſters party ſuffered ſuch things as he ſaith. For moſt, and they of the beſt quality, who were there, do acknowledge that no ſuch thing was done to them, but that the Presbyterians conveyed them home in ſafety. Likewiſe what is ſaid of their reſpect to the Prince of Orange's Declaration, is a lying pretence; for it is well known, they have never ſhewed any reſpect to him, nor to his Government, but the contrary is apparent in their whole Conduct. It is alſo to be conſidered that the Witneſſes brought to atteſt the Story, are not competent: James Gibſon was a party, and made a Baily by the Archbiſhop, and all knew the Prelates Inclinations towards the preſent Civil Government. John Gilhagie is lookt on by all as a Fooliſh and Raſh Man, who little conſidereth what he doth: Patrick Bell, and his Brother, were, ſoon after, ſeized for Treaſonable practices; were long in Priſon, and are now under Bail. The truth in oppoſition to his lying Story is this: The Epiſcopal Miniſters in the Town being thruſt from their Churches by the Rabble, before the Government was ſetled, the Provoſt, Walter Gibſon, (who had been choſen by the Archbiſhop) made a paction with the Presbyterians, (for preventing Confuſion) That the Keys of all the Churches ſhould be depoſited in the hands of two Men till the Convention of Eſtates ſhould determine in the matter; inſtead of this, he being abſent (may be of purpoſe) his Brother, Baily Gibſon, hired a Company of Ruffians, armed as is above expreſt; who with one Miniſter (a ſimple Man, whom they prevailed with) went to the Church, and found forty Women in the Door, fell on them and ſadly wounded thirty two of them in a moſt Barbarous manner. The noiſe of this raiſed ſome of the Hill-men, who were in Town, who beat Drums, and got to Arms; this occaſioned the ſcattering of the Meeting-houſes (who were quietly hearing the Word) ſome of the Sober Preſbyterians dealt with the Hill-men, and endeavoured an Accommodation: Only ſome of the Friends of the Women who had been Wounded, could not be reſtrained from Violence: But what they did was nothing like what the Women had ſuffered: The Actors in this Tragedy who beat and wounded the Women, were James Gibſon Bailey, John Bell, Commiſſar Robertſon, George Robertſon, and his two Sons, John Robertſon, John Wat, 〈◊〉 Inglis, Patrick Bell, James Marſhel, John Coats, John Filſhill, John Paterſon, 〈◊〉 Horn, John Aitkin, Alexander Aitkin, James Lies's two Sons, James Robertſon. The Names of the Women who were Wounded, and many of them hardly cured, are, Mrs. Maxwel, Mary Fleckfield, Marion Ewin, Agnes Rodger, Agnes Allan, Elizabeth Linning, Janet Loudoun, Margaret Dalglieſh, Beſſie Jackson, Janet Caſtellaw, Janet Fleeming, Janet Robertſon, Margaret Inglis, Marion Finlaw, Janet Kid, Janet Brand, Chriſtian Lang, Janet Wood, Mrs. Mill, Janet Howie, Margaret Lin, Catherine Lin, Iſabel Paterſon, Janet Young, Margaret Anderſon, Margaret Corſe, Beſſie Fleeming, Griſſel Brown, Beſſie Marſhel, Janet Shearer, Margaret Steven: Some of them are not recovered to this day, now after two years: They all have ſuffered patiently, and wait for a hearing of their Cauſe, by a competent Judge, as was promiſed them all, this was ſufficiently atteſted before John Leckie then Bailie.

§ 6. In p. 7. and 8, Of the Narrative, he telleth us, that inſtead of calling theſe Hill-men to an account for their diſorders, theſe very men coming Armed to Edinburgh, had the thanks of the Houſe given them for their good ſervice, and are ſtill a part of the ſtanding Forces of that Kingdom: This he inſiſteth farther upon in the fourth Collection of paſſages page 90, 91. where he ſetteth down the Act of the Convention. Where he alſo aſſerts that they Acted contrary to the Laws of Religion, Humanity, and of Nations, the Laws of this Kingdom, and the Princes Declaration, in driving out the Clergy being in number about 800 Overawed and Threatned the Electors of Members for the Convention, ruſhed in a tumultuary and hoſtile manner into Edinburgh, &c. And this before they were under the Earl of Leven's Command; hence he is bold to condemn the Acts of the Eſtates approving of them. Here I obſerve a few things (referring the Reader to the Anſwer to Account of Perſecution, &c. Letter 1. § 8.) 1. it cannot be made appear, That that Body of Men Acted what he imputeth to the Rabble, yea it is evidently falſe, for he ſaith they were 8000, and in military order: The Rabble were ſcattered Companies, ſometimes not above ten or twelve, or forty, or an hundred, and that under no fixed command; if there were ſome among them who came to Edinburgh who alſo were the Rabble, 'tis not to be wondered at, for it is often ſo in Armies that are in hoſtile oppoſition one to another. 2. That they were in Arms againſt Law, is falſe: For they were called by the Authority of the States, as their Guard, when their Enemies had gathered a Formidable party into Edinburgh. 3. That they hindered the Election of Members, for the Convention, is alſo falſe. Himſelf and Complices, in their accounts of theſe Elections, aſſign cauſes of ſuch Members being choſen, inconſiſtent with this Force; viz. The negligence of their party. But Oportet mendacem eſſe bene memorem. 4. Tho' they were together before the Earl of Leven got the Command, yet not before they were called together by the Eſtates. 5. That they affronted either the Biſhops, or the Nobility, is more than can be made out: Or that I have heard from any good hand. 6. That theſe Men are part of the ſtanding Forces of the Kingdom (tho' there were no abſurdity if it were ſo) is falſe. They were totally disbanded, a Regiment was indeed raiſed in that Countrey, a long time after: And new Officers were ſet over them: And if any of the ſame Men were liſted Souldiers, it was accidental: But it is well known, that that Regiment hath done more Service to the King and Countrey, than others have done. What followeth page 18. deſerveth but a little Animadverſion; he ſaith the Clergy ſuffered patiently without publick complaint. This and the other Pamphlets are witneſſes to the contrary: Could Men complain more publickly, more unjuſtly, or more pathetically and maliciouſly than they do. He ſaith alſo, that ſome of them ſuffered the loſs of Children; which is above made appear to be falſe, in the only inſtance that was brought. That they ſuffered without any Authority is not denied; becauſe then there was no Authority in the Nation: It was in a ſtate of Anarchy: For the right that he ſaith they have to their by-paſt Stipends; we ſhall not grudge that they get what was legally due to them. But if the Authority of the Nation (in the Convention or Parliament) have determined otherwiſe, I know not where their Legal right can be founded, but this I leave to Lawyers to conſider.

§ 7. The fulſome and flattering Expreſſions in the Presbyterian Addreſs to King James for their Liberty, their approving of the Diſpenſing Power, which he taxeth, page 9. are his own imaginations, other Men can ſee no ſuch thing in that Addreſs. That they never preached againſt the diſorders of the Rabble, is falſe: Though we thought not fit to make that our conſtant Theme. And if but few did it, it was becauſe they who were Actors in that Scene, little regarded the preaching of the ſober Presbyterians: And they ſhould have loſt their ſweet Words. Theſe practices of the Rabble were publickly ſpoken againſt by Miniſters both before they were acted, for preventing them, and after, for reproving them, and preventing the like. That the Presbyterians poſſeſſed their places when called to them, it was their Right; both by their ſtanding Relation to their people, from whom they had been thruſt away in Anno 1662. And alſo by the Act of Parliament giving all Miniſters then put out, regreſs to their Charges: And indeed they who had been by the Biſhops put into their places were Intruders, and if any entered to other places, on the Call of the people, to which they had not ſuch former Relation, there was no blame; becauſe there being no probable regreſs for the former Incumbents, it was not reaſonable that the people ſhould continue deſtitute of the Goſpel. Beſide that there was never a Relation of Paſtor and people between them and theſe Flocks, they never having conſented to ſuch a Relation. For what he ſaith of the Right of Patrons, I think there were but few Miniſters Fixed before it was legally made void: And if they were, we think that Right was only founded on the Law; but was contrary to Chriſts Inſtitution: And it was known to be about expiring, and therefore it was not contrary to a good Conſcience, to accept of a Call to a people, without the Patron. It is true, in that Caſe they could have no Right to the Stipend: But the Conſent of Miniſter and people, the Authority of a competent Church Judicatory being interpoſed, could well fix a Relation between Miniſter and People, without the Patron. He doth next fall heavily on the Convention of Eſtates (for theſe Men hide not their Treaſonable Speeches againſt the preſent Government of the State;) That it is no wonder that many thought that the Deſign of ſome who were zealous for the Revolution, was more to deſtroy the Epiſcopal Clergy, than to ſettle the Nation, or preſerve our Religion, Liberties and Properties. This I leave to them to Anſwer who have power to correct ſuch petulancy: He further laſheth the Convention and the Council, for their Acts with reſpect to the Miniſters caſt out in the Weſtern Shires. Neither ſhall I meddle with him on this Head: He hath not yet done with our Rulers: But blameth them for the Proclamation for Praying for King William and Queen Mary. And puniſhing Men for not obeying it ſo ſuddenly. This I have anſwered on Letter 2. Sect. 17. All that followeth to page 14. is already anſwered in the forecited place: Only he hath a new Argument in Defence of them who did not read or pray, viz. That the Proclamation was not ſent to them from the Biſhops. As if the Eſtates could not imploy what Officers they pleaſed to Authorize, for ſignifying their Mind to the Miniſters, page 14. Even the King ſhall not eſcape his Cenſure; becauſe, while he extended Clemency to Criminals, he did not ſo to the Clergy: Who were neither willing to obey his Commands nor pray for him; nor ſo much as own Him for their King. And it is indeed an Act of Clemency which few Kings ever ſhewed, to allow ſuch to be in publick Churches, and to have the conduct of the Conſciences of his Subjects: I am ſure this is not the way to have the people principled with Loyalty; though that was the main Theme that theſe Men inſiſted on in the former Reigns. What followeth is his obſervation on a Debate in Parliament, about impoſing the Oath of Allegiance, and why it was not impoſed on the Clergy: He ſaith, It was out of reſpect to the Presbyterian Preachers, leſt they ſhould ſcruple it: They being unwilling to come under Allegiance to King William till firſt he had ſetled their Church Government: And he thinks ſome will not take it till the Covenant be renewed. Here is bold judging and cenſuring the ſecret thoughts and purpoſes of the Eſtates: As alſo moſt calumnious Imputations on the Presbyterians; Did ever any of them refuſe the Oath of Allegiance? Have not many of them (even as many as were required on any occaſion) chearfully taken it? And that though the Covenant be not renewed, Did ever any of them move ſuch a ſcruple about it? Yea it is manifeſt, that it is not their principle ſo to bargain with their Kings about Allegiance: For they were ready to ſwear it (and did when called) to Kings who unſetled their Church Government; and who enacted the abjuring of the Covenant. What followeth page 15, 16. about Miniſters being deprived for not reading and praying, is anſwered in Letter 2. Sect. 17. He odiouſly compareth the States dealing with the Clergy, with that of the French with the Proteſtants there, who ſaved their Life and Fortune if they change their Religion; but Compliers here are turned out by the Rabble. Anſ. If he can ſhew that this is done here by Authority, as in France the Perſecution is acted; or that the Proteſtants in France ſuffered in a time of Anarchy, by a people that had been ſo barbarouſly injured and enraged by them: Then ſhould he ſpeak to the purpoſe; otherways his parallel doth no ways hold. They had made themſelves juſtly loathſom, and a burden to the people, who took their opportunity to be rid of them, without ſuch Barbarous uſage of them as they had ſuffered from them. And the Eſtates thought it not fit to impoſe that burden again, on a people who had been ſo cruſh'd by it; what is there here that hath any Affinity with the Caſe of the Sufferings in France?

§ 8. He pretendeth page 16, and 17. to remove a Miſ-information, given to them of England: That the Clergy were not deprived by the Council for not reading and praying, unleſs they were Immoral in their Converſation: And from this he laboureth to vindicate them. Much of which is anſwered above; only the Reader may know, that this was never alledged, nor given as the reaſon of their deprivation by any of us: Whatever might poſſibly be talked in England, by them who knew little of our Affairs. The Council did not conſider their Immorality, nor freedom from it, but only their obedience or diſobedience to the Law. His ſtory about Biſhop Lighton will not Vindicate the Weſtern Clergy from groſs and multiplied Immoralities: But that is not now the thing under our conſideration. That Scandals were repreſented at Court, as the ground of their deprivation by the Council, is as injurious and falſe, as any thing that can be ſaid. The plurality of Epiſcopal Miniſters above the Presbyterians, he ſeemeth to brag of: But is it any wonder, when twenty eight years ago many had complyed with Epiſcopacy, and all that did not, were driven away, and in that long time many of them were removed by death. Was it not ſo at the Reformation from Popery? How far did the number of Popiſh Prieſts exceed that of Proteſtant Miniſters? But what he hence inferreth, hath no weight; viz. That many of the Epiſcopal Miniſters muſt be removed leſt they ſhould over-vote the others: For a more rational and ſure courſe was taken to obviate it; viz. That the Government ſhould be ſetled only in the hands of Presbyterians, and ſuch as they ſhall receive; which he, or his Fellow Cenſurer of the State had above complained of, and we have vindicated. He concludeth this Narrative with a warning to the Church of England of the Enmity of Presbyterians againſt them, and their hazard from us. And indeed the ſtrain of theſe Pamphlets is moſtly a complaint againſt the King and Parliament, and all the Authority of this Nation, and an Appeal to the Church of England for deliverance from this Yoke: And I hope our Rulers will conſider them accordingly.

§ 9. We now come to conſider the Authors ſeveral Collections of Papers; in which he hath been at a great deal of pains, but to little, or bad purpoſe; as I hope by Examination of them ſhall appear. His firſt Collection is of accounts that he hath had from his Complices, a Company of Men avowed and malicious Enemies of all Presbyterians, concerning their Sufferings from them; and all this atteſted by themſelves, as I above obſerved. He beginneth with the Story of Mr. Bell of Kilmarnock which I have above anſwered on Letter ſecond. Next he cometh to the Presbytery of Hamiltoun: Where it ſeems he findeth three: Mr. John Dalglieſh of Evendal, Mr. James Crichtoun of Kilbryd, Mr. Angus Mackintoſh at Sten-houſe, whoſe Gowns were torn, and they diſcharged to preach: Atteſted by Dr. Robert Scot, Mr. George Leſlie, and Mr. John Denniſtoun. To all which I give no other Anſwer but what hath been ſaid on the like occaſion, That the Presbyterians are not to anſwer for ſuch practices, which were done by ſuch as Sober Presbyterians do not own, nor are owned by them, but rather hated and oppoſed: As alſo that ſo many lying Stories of this kind have been told by him, that it is not worth the while to enquire into the truth of theſe. Men uſe to ſlight what is aſſerted by a common Liar. We have next a general account of the Miniſters of the Presbytery of Irwin; that all their Houſes have been aſſaulted, their Gowns torn, and they diſcharged to preach; many of their Wives and Children turned out of Doors, like to ſtarve by Hunger and Cold in the Winter; ſome forced to fly and lurk, that they cannot meet to make known their Grievances: Only three or four give theſe accounts from their own knowledge, and certain information Signed Charles Littlejohn Miniſter of Larg, Alexander Laing Miniſter at Stewartoun.

One may eaſily anſwer all this without particular information: Conſidering the veracity that is to be found in this Pamphlet, viz. Here is nothing but Generals, and that by report: Perſonal knowledge is pretended but for little of what is Aſſerted. And we have cauſe to think, that theſe were none of them who are of our Communion who Acted theſe things. Then follows the Sufferings of the Presbytery of Glaſgow in the perſons of Mr. Ruſſel at Govan, Mr. Finny at Carthcart; which two Stories are anſwered and found to be forgeries, 〈◊〉 Letter 2. Mr. Blair at Rutherglen, Mr. Gilbert Muſhet at Cumern •… ▪ Mr. David Mill at Cumernald; which we may rationally judge 〈◊〉 be of the ſame ſtamp: Neither have we time to ſearch into all the groundleſs Tales that he thinketh fit either to invent, or to take up from them that deviſe them. But that which he laboureth to ſet off by the Circumſtances of it, is, that January 17. 1689. A Rabble, moſtly Women, came with a deſign to drag the Miniſter out of the Pulpit; he being warned and forbearing, and returning from the Church, was aſſaulted, his Gown and other Cloaths torn The ſame day Mr. Alexander George had his Doors broken, and he being upon his Sick-bed, they had dragged him out of his Bed, if the Provoſt with ten Men had not come to his Relief. Next Sabbath, January 20. there was no Sermon in the City, on the 22d they ſent a threatning Letter, forbidding all Miniſters to preach on the higheſt peril; this is atteſted by Alexander George, John Sage, the Miniſters of Glaſgow. All this is anſwered above.

§. 10. Another Paper of Hiſtory he ſetteth down page 41. of the Sufferings of the Presbytery of Paiſlay, upon the Bedele of Paiſlay; on the Miniſter there, on the Miniſter of Kilbarken, And how Mr. Houſtoun uſurped the Pulpit of Eaſtwood: This atteſted by Robert Fullertoun Moderator, and John Taylor Miniſter at Paiſlay. The anſwer of all this we take out of the Accuſation it ſelf. It was done by Mr. Houſtoun, and his Party: A man who not only is diſowned by the Sobereſt ſort of Presbyterians, but even by the Cameronians; as of moſt unſound Principles, and moſt immoral practices. Followeth a Letter Signed by four Miniſters George Gregory, Francis Fordyce, William Irwine, Miniſter at Kirkmichael, John Hog Miniſter at Ochiltry. What is not repeated out of the former Stories, and anſwered before, is, the People of the Meetinghouſe Battering and Bruiſing the Miniſter of Kirkmichaels Man-ſervant, commanding him to remove with what was his Maſters from the Houſe. Anſ. It is witneſſed under the Hands of David Bell, James Cathcart, Thomas Craig, William Niven; all of that Pariſh: That they were preſent when one Robert Donaldſon with ſome others, came to the Miniſter of Kirkmichlaes Houſe, and that they did not beat, or uſe any Violence to the Miniſters Man ſervant: But only took the Communion Cups from him, and that they two drank together, and ſhook Hands at Parting: And that the ſaid Servant lived there peaceably a year after, and diſpoſed of the Crop of his Maſters Glebe. It is alſo witneſſed under the Hand of John Kennedy, and George Monaught; that the forementioned Robert Donaldſon who was ſaid to uſe Violence in the houſe of the Miniſter of Kirkmichael, was a common Robber, and had Robbed ſeveral Houſes in Carrick: And that he, nor his Complices did belong to no Meeting-Houſe: That they apprehended him and carried him before the Baily Deputy of Carrick who ſent him to Priſon. Is it not a malicious Lye, to impute this Fact to the Presbyterians of the Meeting-houſe? Followeth the poſſeſſing of ſome Churches: Which is above Anſwered. Then we have a large Hiſtory Signed by the Miniſter of Livingſton, Mr. George Honeyman, and John Park Clerk to the Synod of Edinburgh: How 30 Armed men came to his Houſe, Frighted his Wife, who had lyen but eight days in Child-bed, carried away what they thought fit: Took his Horſe and the Beddels Horſe (which they ſent back next day) a month after they ſearched the Houſe for the Miniſter; ſometime after that they Summoned him to Remove: All this we deny to have been done by any of our Communion. Yea the Summons given to him and others for removing (a Copy of which our Author doth furniſh us with) doth ſhew it was done by a party of People who had been enraged by the cruel Perſecutions that they had ſuffered from theſe Men. We are far from approving ſuch Irregularities, but the World will not think it ſtrange that they, who inſtead of feeding their flock, had worried them, ſhould meet with ſuch things from a People ſo highly provoked. I can produce a large Paper of the manifold Sufferings of that Pariſh, by Mr. Honeymans Malice and influence: Atteſted by about thirty Hands, but I forbear, to ſhun tediouſneſs. Such another ſtory we have of Mr. Man Miniſter at Bathgate whoſe Houſe they ſearched, alſo a Neighbours Houſe, at laſt found him, and with threatning by drawn Swords, and Guns preſented, demanded of him the Ʋtenſils of the Church, and Records of the Kirk-Seſſion, Tore his Gown, and Summoned him to remove. This hath the like Atteſtation with the former, Anſ. The People of Bathgate never owned Mr. Man he being placed there only by the Biſhop, without the conſent either of Patron or People, only in time of moſt ſevere Perſecution, many out of fear came to hear him; they were highly provoked by his Perſecuting of them. Of which there are clear and great Inſtances; in his ſtirring up the Magiſtrates, and aſſiſting the Souldiers, to Ruine them. Next Mr. Norman Mokenzie, Miniſter at Mid Calder, and John Park, do witneſs, that January 27. being the Lords day, after Sermon, Eight Armed Men came to his Houſe, but were repulſed by ſome Gentlemen, who were there: In which ſcuffle three were wounded. That Feb. 1. They broke up the houſe, frighted his Wife: Said they would ſee all his Bonds: One of them Thomas Livingſtoun, ſaid he behoved to have his Fathers Bond, for a Summ that he owed to the Miniſter: Finding no Papers they carried away the Church Ʋtenſils, which they commited to the Cuſtody of one in the Town, they Summoned him to remove: alſo they teſtify (which is alſo teſtified in the former Narrative) that none of theſe were of the Pariſh. Anſ. As we do not approve any of theſe things being Acted without Authority; ſo we find this to be a Lying accuſation: For the Men who Feb. 1. came to the Houſe, carried civilly: Telling his Wife ſhe needed not fear: And that they would do no harm to her, or any Perſon in the Houſe. The Bond that Thomas Livingſtoun ſought for, was a Bond that the Miniſter had forced his Father to give for a Fine impoſed on him for Non-conformity. Alſo Mr. George Robertſon, Miniſter at Weſtcalder, had his Houſe ſearched for Arms, and an old Sword taken from him; and was ſummoned to remove, Witneſſed by himſelf and John Park, ut ſupra. Anſ. if this was done, the General anſwers above given is enough to vindicate the Presbyterians in General from the blame of it. and the time of confuſion, and provocations, that that poor ſuffering People had from moſt of that Party, may make us ceaſe to wonder at it.

§ 11. In his ſecond Collection of Papers p. 50. we have account of the practice of the Rabble, after the Princes Declaration, againſt ſome Miniſters who afterward were deprived by the Council; by which inſtances he would make it appear, how little the Presbyterians regarded Authority, when it tended to reſtrain their diſorders. A general anſwer to all that is ſaid under this, may be gathered from what hath been before diſcourſed: viz, That much of what is alledged is either Lies, or Truth diſguiſed, and what was really done, was by Perſons whoſe Actions we are not concerned to defend. He beginneth with the Tumult at Glaſgow, Feb. 17. 1689. Which is anſwered, Sect. 5. The next is of Mr. Gideon Brown Miniſter at Smalholme, atteſted by himſelf alone. But others are offered as witneſſes if need be. Where it is Narrated, that George Dickſon a profeſt Cameronian (which is afterward ſaid to be a Preacher in a meeting) A Cotter to the Laird of Smalholme, firſt ſummoned Mr. Brown, to remove from the Church, and deſiſt from Preaching: Afterward forced him out of the Pulpit, uſing violence to his Son who offered to defend him. He denieth that he perſecuted them as they alledged; but that often he ſaved them from the Laſh of the Law. This ſtory hath its anſwer in it ſelf: For the man was a Cameronian, and the Actions of that party we never approved, neither can, nor will we defend them: beſides, the pariſh do witneſs that he was a violent perſecutor, and give inſtances of it under the hands of credible witneſſes: Which ſhall be ſhewed to any who deſireth to be informed. Our next inſtance is of Mr. William Bullo, Miniſter at Stobo; whom the Rabble uſed moſt Barbarouſly, all the Winter, and frighted his Wife and Children into Sickneſs, and he was forced to lodge in the Fields in the Winter Weather. About the beginning of April, as he was riding through a Village in the Pariſh, there came out of the Houſe of the Preacher in the Meeting houſe, his Servant, and a Rabble, who with Swords and Guns charged him to Stand, he fleeing from them, they fired Guns after him, they mounting on Horſe Back, purſued and took him, they threatned to ſhoot him, and bid him Pray before he ſhould Die. When he told them they were in Paſſion; They ſaid, you Damn'd Rogue, do ye admoniſh us, ſo they Beat him with their Swords, and ſaid they would ſpare him for that Night, and Sentence, and execute him next Morning, ſo, they convened many of the Pariſh, cauſed tear his Gown, diſcharged him to Preach: And on the day that he ſhould have read the Proclamation, they hindred him by force from entring the Church, yet was he after deprived by the Council for not Reading and Praying. Anſ. In this Narrative, are many Lies: which is atteſted by Mr. William Ruſſel, Miniſter at Stobo: As that his Wife and Children fell ſick by fear: None of them were ſick that year. That he lodged in the Fields; for he never lodged a night in the Fields, only one night two young men came to his houſe, he was not within, but in a Neighbours houſe hard by. His Wife ſaid to them that he was in Edinburgh, he withdrew a little and returned as ſoon as they were gone, and ſaid that he would not have fled if he had thought they were ſo few, but have Piſtoled them both; it is alſo falſe that any came out of the Preachers houſe on him as he Rode; but theſe two young men being provoked with his ſpeaking of Piſtoling them, came out of another Houſe, and called to ſpeak with him; He fled, the Preachers man came out to ſee what the Fray was, one of the young Men followed him on Horſeback, did no harm to him, but reaſoned the Caſe with him: He alledging that all the Honeſt men in the Pariſh owned him: They brought ten or twelve whom he Named as ſuch, who yet diſowned him. It is moſt falſe that he was hindred to read the Proclamation; he did read a part of it: It is true ſome moved to hinder him from Preaching, but the Presbyterian Miniſter reſtrained them. It is a groſs untruth, that he was willing to read and Pray, and yet deprived for it; For he ſaid before the Council that he had not Prayed for King William and Queen Mary: That his Gown was torn, is alſo a groſs Lye.

§ 12. The Story of Mr. Little (which nextfolloweth) is above anſwered, in Anſwer to Account of Perſecution Letter 2. Sect. 13 Next we have account of the Sufferings of Mr. Archibald Ferguſon Miniſter at Kirkpatrick, whom the Rabble, Men and Women, Aſſaulted in his Houſe: When he calmly asked the reaſon, they knocked him on the Head with a Piſtol, ſo that he fell: His Wife daily expecting the pains of Child-birth, they knocked down with the Butt-end of a Musket: He received many mercileſs Blows, and was ſorely bruiſed: Himſelf they dragged into a puddle; the Women cut and tore off his Cloaths; even to the uncovering of his Nakedneſs; be at him on the Shins with a Club, commanded him to be gone, and forced him in his Wounds to leave his Houſe, Family, and Church. Before I examine the matter of this Story, I take notice of the bitter Sarcaſms, and cruel Mockings againſt all the Presbyterians, with which it is interſperſed, as if this Fact were to be charged on the Party, who yet do abhor ſuch practices as much as any Men can do. He ſaith theſe Barbarities were committed by the pretended Godly Presbyterians: That they have ſeparated themſelves from the Society of the Catholick Church; becauſe they do not obſerve Eaſter with the ſame ſuperſtition as ſome others do. He addeth, that the Womens Daggers were prepared for a through Reformation: And many ſuch bitter Reflections he throweth out againſt us all; from the irregularities of a wild Party, whom perſecution from his Party had made mad, and in whom we are no further concerned than to Lament their Principles and Practices. A further Anſwer was delayed when this was written, expecting Information from ſuch as know the Circumſtances of this Story: But that Account not being as yet come to Hand, when this ſheet is printing off (by whoſe fault I know not) I can only ſay, that the many Lying Stories that are in this Book, may derogate from the Credibility of this: If it be true, we abhor the Fact, and wiſh that the Actors may be brought to condign Puniſhment for ſuch Inhumanity.

§ 13. In his third Collection of Papers (which concerneth them who complied, and yet ſuffered) he beginneth with Mr. William Hamilton, who firſt at Irwin, then at Kirk-newtoun, was put from his Houſe and Church, by the Rabble, and very hardly uſed. Anſ. That theſe things acted againſt him were not the deed of the Presbyterians, nor approved by the Church, is evident from this, that Mr. Hamiltoun is in good eſteem among the Presbyterians, and is now received as one of themſelves, into a ſhare of the Government with them: Wherefore if ſuch things were done againſt him, it was not by the ſober Presbyterians, but by a ſort of Men who are not of our Communion, and who have ſhewed diſlike againſt us alſo. For the Truth of what he alledgeth to have been done, I can meet with none who can affirm what our Author ſaith; and therefore have cauſe to ſuſpect it as of the ſame ſtrain with others of his Affirmations. He telleth us next how Mr. Samuel Nimmo was hindred to Preach by ſome of the Earl of Argile's Regiment. If this were true, it was the Deed of ſome Cameronians, not approved by the Presbyterians. And I hope hindring a man to Preach (tho we allow not that it be done in a diſorderly way) doth not amount to ſo horrid a Perſecution as he crieth out of. His next complaint concerneth Mr. Selkirk at Glenholm in Tweddale, who Read and Prayed, was threatned by ſome of the meaneſt of the People, to remove from his Dwelling, obtained from them a fortnight for that end, ſome put another Lock on the Church door to keep him out: Of this he had no Redreſs. This we are far from allowing; but ſtill here is nothing like the French Dragooning. He ſaith that he complained and had no Redreſs: But we neither know whom to blame, nor how to make enquiry about the Truth of it, ſeeing he is not pleaſed to let us know who did thus deny Juſtice to him. It is ſufficiently atteſted that this was done by Strangers: that they took two of Mr. Selkirks Elders into the Houſe with them, who might witneſs that they uſed no violence, and that he and they parted peaceably: And that afterward he dimitted his Charge, and the Presbytery gave him a Teſtimonial. Mr. Burgeſs (he doth not tell where he was Miniſter) is the next ſubject of Complaint: His Church was poſſeſſed by the Rabble, ſent by Mr. Walker Preacher in the Meeting-houſe; by the connivance of Mr. Mowat, who is Old and Infirm: The Heretors were offended that Mr Walker invaded Mr. Mowats right. The Rabble hindred Mr. Burgeſs to Preach; and when he objected King Williams Authority, they ſpoke of it with contempt. Anſ. Mr. Mowat, and the Pariſh had called Mr. Walker to his help: The people hearing of the Act for reſtoring the old Miniſters (not conſidering that it was only Voted, but had not the Royal Aſſent, which it afterward had) met in the Church; Mr. Walker diſſwaded them: Yet was forced to Preach to them there: There was no Tumult: the whole Pariſh was met: Mr. Burgeſs's Bedle opened the Church door to them. It is falſe, that any of the people did contemn King William's Authority: There were indeed three young Men, who ſome days after, diſcharged Mr. Burgeſs to Preach: But this was not approved by the reſt: nor was ever any violence offered to him: What the Paper ſaith of Arms, and beating a Drum, is falſe: The Pariſh had been at a Rendezvous; whence they came to a Burial, but that they made uſe of Arms or Drum, at or near Mr. Burgeſs's Houſe, is altogether falſe. The ſufferings of Mr. David Spence followeth, That He was diſcharged to Preach in January 1689. by Strangers, yet continuing till April, he was forcibly hindred to Preach and to Read the Proclamation, on the day appointed for it, though he was willing to do it: On complaint, he had protection, from the Committee of Eſtates; yet in September he was deprived for not Reading. Anſ. In the Records of Council I find him deprived for that he confeſſed he had neither Read nor Prayed: But not a word of the Plea he uſed for his Omiſſion: So that this is to be look'd on as a groſs prevarication, and malicious deſign to defame the Government: For the Rabble hindering him to Preach before he was deprived: We do not approve it, nor was it done by any of our Communion. What is ſaid of ſome Miniſters in the Presbytery of Stranrawer, we ſhall meet with it in a Pamphlet that peculiarly inſiſteth on their ſufferings; wherefore I now paſs over it. Mr. Francis Scot of Tweed-mure was caſt out by the Rabble. This we do not defend, nor are obliged to Anſwer for it. Mr. Aliſon of Rilbucho was caſt out after he had been cleared by the Council, having given all Obedience, and his Goods were deſtroyed by ſome Women; and a Presbyterian poſſeſſeth his Church, neither can he get any redreſs. What application he hath made for redreſs, and who hath been faulty in denying it to him we cannot enquire, for our Author is not particular; but thought it ſafeſt to Reproach the Presbyterians in general Terms. All that remains in this third Collection of Papers is ſome Letters ſent to London to my Lord Elphingſton complaining of the injuſtice done to Mr. Paul Gelly Miniſter of Airth: In that he was deprived by the Council on the Teſtimony of two perjured Perſons, whereas he had given all Obedience, and he hath a good Teſtimony from moſt of the Pariſh. Anſ. They that teſtifie for him are of his own party: They did not teſtifie any thing before the Council in his Vindication: The Witneſſes againſt him were neither accuſed before any Court, nor convicted of any thing that ſhould derogate from the Credibility of their Teſtimony: They teſtified not only that he did not Read and Pray, but that he prayed for the Reſtoration of King James, and exhorted the people to pray ſo in private: And ſaid, That he expected a Reformation, but they had got a wicked Tyranny, and Ungodly Rulers: And that people were not ſecure of Life and Fortune; all this is atteſted by the Records of the Council.

§ 14. In his fourth and laſt Collection of Papers, he hath the Proclamations, Acts of Convention and Council, Addreſſes, &c. That he thinketh may beſpatter the Presbyterians: Theſe Papers need none of my Apology for them. Wherefore I ſhall only take notice of his little Remarks on them, whereby he doth moſt petulantly reproach the Government, as well as the Presbyterians. Some Obſervations he maketh on the Proclamation of the Eſtates for praying for King William and Queen Mary, which are above anſwered: One I now take notice of, which is, That the Presbyterian Preachers were not queſtioned for neglecting to read the Proclamation, and to pray according to it, though others were. Anſ. I know not that any of them were guilty of this neglect: And if any were, there was no Information againſt them; and therefore no puniſhment could follow. He next dealeth with the Addreſſes of the Presbyterians to King James for the Liberty granted them by him; and taketh notice, that they were ready to comply with a Popiſh Prince, and did not keep their promiſe of Duty and Allegiance to him. I take no notice of his profane mocking, in the ſtrain of what he ſaith: But to the thing, I anſwer, They no farther complied with a Popiſh Prince, than to live peaceably under him, and to uſe the Goſpel-priviledge that they had been violently deprived of, which was now reſtored to them; and had not his party their Liberty alſo ſecured to them, by the ſame King? Yea they concurred to ſet him up, and to advance his Supremacy and Arbitrary Power, by which he was put in Capacity to deſtroy our Religion, which we never did: For promiſes of Duty and Allegiance, we keeped them ſo long as he was King, but when the Nation laid him aſide, and chuſed another, the obligation of our Allegiance was changed, and we beſtowed it where the Nation had placed it: As alſo did the Church of England their great Patrons. But this Man and his Complices, declare their diſlike of our King, and Civil Government, on all occaſions as much as they do againſt our Church way. His next effort againſt the Convention and Government, is from a Letter written by the Viſcount of Dundee, whom he calleth The Great, (which is on the Matter an owning of that Rebellion that he was the Head of) the Letter and this Authors remark on it, tend to condemn the Convention of Eſtates of Injuſtice. This matter I have above touched. It is falſe that he was living in peace, and that he was in hazard of his Life by the Rabble. He had gathered a formidable party to deſtroy the Convention of Eſtates, and they gathered a force for their ſecurity: And on this, he and others went away in Arms, and gathered a party in the Highlands. But on theſe things I inſiſt not, my buſineſs being mainly to vindicate the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, in her Principles and Actings. The Act of Council December 24. 1689. I have vindicated on Letter 2. He is pleaſed (and reckoneth it modeſty ſo to do) to call it a great stretch of Justice: Some Mens Necks have been made to ſtretch for a leſs Crime, than thus to reproach the Government. He ſaith, page 85. That the Miniſters outed by the Rabble are caſt out of the protection of the State. That is no further true, than that they were not reponed: The Reaſons of which are given on Letter 2. It is maliciouſly repreſented, That the Rabble, and all their Enemies, were invited to be Witneſſes againſt them who yet were in place. For all were invited, but none were admitted but ſuch as were unexceptionable Witneſſes, Boni & legales homines. Would he have none but his own party to be Witneſſes againſt them who deſpiſed the Government? He would fain ſay ſomething againſt the Prince of Orange's Declaration, page 90. but can find nothing; but that the Rabble grew ſtrong by it, and they who had taken Arms (who were indeed King James's party) were forced to Disband: This is that which grieveth him. What followeth of the Conventions thanks to them that had Guarded them againſt Dundee's Plot, and his obſervations on it, is diſcuſſed above on Letter 2. He obſerveth nothing on the Proclamation for the Faſt, Aug. 24. 1689. But that he calleth it a Canting Proclamation. A word of contempt that theſe Men uſe for any thing that looketh like ſerious Religion. And that Mr. Ramſay, and Doctor Gardine were deprived for not Reading it: Which is falſe: For it was for praying for King James, as the account which he himſelf giveth doth make manifeſt. All that he obſerveth on the Proclamation ordering to whom the Biſhops Rents ſhould be paid (they being now laid aſide) is, That Alexander Hamiltoun of Kinkel, who was imployed as receiver for St. Andrews, was at Bothwel Bridge, and by the Clemency of the then Government had his Life ſpared. If all this were true what doth it make againſt the Presbyterians. He is known to be a faithful Man, and why might not the Government imploy him, ſeeing the former Government had ſpared him: But in truth, it was not ſo much the Clemency of the former Government, as no Crime could be proved againſt him, that ſaved his Life. His laſt Paper, for it ſeemeth that he is now at a Cloſe, and can ſay no more, is a draught of an Act for the Eſtabliſhment of the Government of the Church, given in to the Parliament by the Kings Commiſſioner, which, he ſaith, that the Presbyterians would not admit of, becauſe it reſtrained them from medling in State Affairs. Anſ. Many other Acts, as well as this, were given in, being drawn by private hands, to be conſidered by the Parliament, and were rejected or amended. That the Parliament rejected any of them, it was becauſe they ſaw them, or ſomewhat in them, to be inconvenient; but that he will fix on the particular cauſe, and lay this on the Presbyterians, is ſaucy boldneſs: Not only medling with the deſigns of the Legiſlators, which is not fit for a private Perſon, but with the ſecret thoughts of Men, which is fit for no Creature.

§ 15. The concluſion of his Book, conſiſting of five or ſix pages, I ſhall not much be concerned with; he there, more than before (which was needleſs) venteth his Spleen againſt the preſent Government of the State; And that in very undecent terms. He dealeth in moſt of it, with the Obſervator, whom I leave to plead his own cauſe. Though I have above Aſſerted, and Vindicated the Truth of moſt things for which he challengeth the Obſervator. His note about the Earl of Crafurd's Letter, is a groundleſs Cavil. His Lordſhip doth not own that the Council took probation of Crimes of another Nature, beſide not Reading and Praying; but on the contrary, ſaid, that though they who framed the Libels againſt the Epiſcopal Miniſters did ignorantly, in their Libels, accuſe them, either for their Opinion about Church Government, or Immoralities in their Converſation; yet, no regard was had to theſe, nor any queſtion made about them. He next taketh to task a Book Intituled, A brief and true account of the ſufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Epiſcopalians ſince the year 1660. which he ſaith, is written by a true-paced Presbyterian: And imputeth all the Aſſertions, and ſeverity of Stile in that Book, to the Presbyterians. This is an unfair, and injurious, and falſe imputation: Presbyterians diſown both the Stile, and many Principles vented in that Book; it was written by a Cameronian, while that party ſtood at a diſtance from the ſober Presbyterians, and from the Generality of them who bear that Name, as much as from the Prelatiſts. Though on the other hand; we know that there are many undeniable truths in it, as to the matter of Fact concerning theſe Sufferings; which I wiſh he, or any of his party, would undertake to diſprove. But it is ſtrange that this Gentleman ſhould quarrel the ſtile of that Book, ſeeing it is exactly conform to his own, in the bitterneſs and ill nature that appeareth in it: Only things are not there ſo foully miſ-repreſented as in his Paper. The Queries with which he ſhutteth up this his Work, we are the leſs concerned in, becauſe moſt of them are built upon the principles of that Book which we do not own: And others of them, on ſome Actings of this Church in a time when both contending parties run a little too high in the heat of debate: Of which I have ſpoken what is ſufficient in my Former Vindication: Only a few things, not met with in that Paper, I now take notice of, That the presbyterians have riſen twice in Arms in King William's time, is an impudent and falſe Aſſertion: For the firſt time that he mentioneth, it was a Rabble of Cameronians, not in a Body, but here and there, to throw out ſome of the Clergy who had ſeverely oppreſſed them: Of which I have told my Sentiment above. The other, A formidable number in an Hoſtile manner, making an Addreſs to the Council, telling them, That they would not lay down their Arms till the Council had diſcharged all Judicatories to pronounce any Sentence in Favour of Epiſcopal Miniſters. This was never heard of before; and certainly this Gentleman hath either Dreamed it, or Invented it. Page 107. He hath amaſſed a heap of groſs Lies, viz. That they had Voted King William out of the Supremacy: That they have Ʋ • urped it to themſelves, having without his leave Convened at Edinburgh, and Voted themſelves into a free General Aſſembly. That they daily draw up Inſtructions for regulating the Parliament: That they Meet and Adjourn at their pleaſure, For the firſt of theſe, it was not the Miniſters, but the Parliament (to which the King gave his Royal Aſſent) which Voted away the Supremacy: And that, not any Supremacy that is due to any Man on Earth; but ſuch a one as the Pope had uſurped over the Church of God; and which ſome of our Kings had aſſumed, and under the former Government had been ſcrued up to that height that the King might overturn our Religion at his pleaſure. And it is highly to the Commendation of our Gracious King, that he was pleaſed to give to God that which was his, and to reſerve only to himſelf what was Caeſars. For the ſecond, the Presbyterians uſurp no Supremacy, no Legiſlative, nor Coercive Power: They pretend to no more but a Miniſterial Power, in declaring the Laws of Chriſt, by his Authority, and in executing the Cenſures which he hath appointed for the breakers of theſe Laws. Thirdly, It is moſt falſe that they convened in the General Aſſembly without his leave, they had an expreſs Act of Parliament for it, neither did the Aſſembly Meet or Adjourn, without the Kings Commiſſioner at any time; other Judicatories are by Law allowed to Meet and Adjourn, as they think fit; and therefore their ſo doing is not without the Kings leave. We think it no ſmall mercy to have the Magiſtrates Countenance to our Meetings; tho' we think to deny any Intrinſick Power in the Church, to meet about the Affairs of Religion, were to condemn the Apoſtles and to allow Rulers, if they ſhould be either open or ſecret Enemies to the Truth, a power to Ruin all, at their pleaſure. Fourthly, That they either daily, or at all, draw up Inſtructions for Regulating the Parliament, is an Aſſertion ſo falſe and malicious, as none but a Man of this Authors Temper could be capable of: Nor can I imagine from whence he could take riſe for ſuch a Fancy. He hath another foul Untruth; That the Covenant is again Voted the Standard of all pure Religion I deſire to know of him where, when, or by whom, this was done: For they that live in Scotland know nothing of it. His talk of ſome holding that King Charles fell from the Crown, becauſe he brake the Covenant, and King James had no Right, becauſe he took it not; might perhaps be the principle of ſome of the wildeſt of the Hill-men, but never were the Opinions of ſound Presbyterians. His third Query deſerveth little Anſwer. We are far from thinking King William an Idolater; tho' we diſlike the Engliſh Service: And our principles are known, that we owe Loyalty, and have paid it, even to an Idolatrous, (that is, a Popiſh) King. The fourth Query tendeth to engage the Rulers to bear down the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland; that Popery might prevail there; againſt which they have been the greateſt Bulwark of that Nation. His fifth Query quarrelleth the Diſſenters in England for praying for their Brethren in Scotland; how reaſonably this is blamed, let the Reader judge. I never heard that they prayed for Scotland, as their Mother Church. In his ſixth Query, he ſhameleſly blameth Presbyterians for being againſt Toleration, (this I have anſwered in my former Vindication) whereas his own party are as rigid that way as any, except Papiſts, or theſe in Japan. For his laſt Query, which concerneth the Moderation of Presbyterians; it is our deſign and endeavour to grow in this, and in other Graces; and not to confine our ſelves to our own attainments, or to what others had attained who went before us: And to ſet no bounds to it but what the Scripture ſetteth. I hope all this conſidered, the deſign of his Queries is loſt; which is to repreſent the Presbyterians as not Loyal, nor firm to King William. Many wiſe Men think that he hath few in this Nation, beſide them, who are Cordially for his Intereſt.

AN ANSWER To a Pamphlet, Intituled, A late Letter concerning the Sufferings of the Epiſcopal Clergy in Scotland, printed 1691.

THE party finding ſome acceptance with their eaſie Believers, of their former Lying and Reproachful prints, thought fit to add this, as a further knock of the Hammer, to drive the Nail to the head: That it might now be beyond debate with them who will give them Credit without trying the Truth or Ingenuity of what is reported; that the Presbyterians are a Cruel party, and have oppreſſed the Clergy. And indeed this piece is behind none of the reſt in effronted and bold Lies: And to ſay this, might be a juſt Refutation of the whole Book: Tho' no more were ſaid. If they who know our Affairs can but read the Book with impartial Eyes, and if Strangers will give equal Credit to the one party as to the other: Yet leſt they ſhould ſay, that there is no Anſwer to it; I ſhall with much brevity take notice of ſuch paſſages in it as are moſt material. Page 4. There is a notable Lie, viz. He will have it thought that there were no more Nonconformiſts in the Presbytery of Stranrawer, but two Women and one Miniſter (whom yet he doth not own for ſuch, but ſaith he was ſo reputed) this is an Untruth ſo broad-faced, as may diſparage the veracity of the Author, and make all his aſſertions be disbelieved. For many, if not moſt, of the Inhabitants of the Pariſhes in that Presbytery, were Fined, Impriſoned, and Ruined, for their Nonconformity: Dragoons were kept there, as a neceſſary maens to force the people to com •… 〈…〉 ▪ An Account can be ſhewed of above 1000 l. Sterling levied of the Pariſh of Glenluce, for Nonconformity: And ſcarce a Family in Stra • rawer of any Note, but were Fined and Impriſoned, till they paid their Fines. He who after ſuch an impudent and broad Lie, will believe any thing that this Author writeth, on the Authority of his Teſtimony, may alſo believe that there hath been no Perſecution of late years in France. And if any of the diſtreſſed people did at laſt comply, it doth not more follow, that they were Epiſcopal, than it can be concluded, that all the French Proteſtants are Papiſts who were forced to be preſent at Maſs: That there was no Presbyterian Preacher in theſe parts except Mr. Bell, is not ſtrange; ſeeing by the fury of the Perſecutors none might be ſeen: That he had freedom in his mind to hear the Incumbents that then were, and that when the Liberty was given, he ſet up a Meeting-houſe, is a practice not to be blamed: The people generally either could not hear, or did it renitente Conſcientia: And it was but reaſonable that a Miniſter who before could not edifie them, ſhould do it when a liberty was granted for ſo doing.

§ 2. It is alſo a groſs and malicious Lie, page 5. That William Torbran fled to Ireland for the Murther that he had committed on a Child of Mr. Hutchiſon's. Mr. Hutchiſon never charged Mr Torbran with the Murther of his Child; but William Torbran was forced to flee to Ireland to eſcape the ſevere Perſecution that he endured from the Souldiers at the inſtigation of the Miniſter of the Pariſh, ſuch a bold Calumny might be of dangerous Conſequence, if Lex talionis were put in due Execution. Page 5, 6. He telleth a long Story, about Building a Meeting-houſe, and calling another to be Miniſter (at Stranrawer) than Mr. Bell, about which I have no Information; neither is it material, or to our purpoſe. But what he ſaith of Lairds and Ladies by Threatnings compelling their Tennants, and by other indirect means prevailing with others, to concur for maintaining that Meeting, is a ſhameleſs Lie. It's well known, that the People of that Countrey did forwardly, and chearfully go along in that deſign; and generally the meaner ſort ſhewed as much Zeal that way as they of better Faſhion did. If he had mentioned who theſe Gentlemen were who made gain by the Collection for maintaining the Houſe: Or who the two were who beat their Tennants firſt to take the Teſt, and after to leave the Church and go to the Meeting: The truth, or falſhood, of theſe Aſſertions might have been inquired into: But ſince it hath not pleaſed him ſo to do, I hope it will be no breach of Charity to look on them as ſlanderous Forgeries, like unto many paſſages in his Book already noted, or to be noted. It is not enough for this Gentleman to reproach the Presbyterians, but page 7. He moſt maliciouſly belieth his Nation, as if there were neither Law nor Juſtice in Scotland, nor any remedy for ſuch as are oppreſſed: While he ſaith, That they deal no otherwiſe with their Farmers than with Slaves; that if the Tennant die Rich, the Laird muſt be Tutor to the Children. I know not what this Author hath obſerved, but other Scots men are unacquainted with theſe things: And if there be oppreſſion (as alas there is too much every where) I am ſure his own party have a large ſhare of it among them. What he ſo Tragically Painteth out, of Preachers and People going through Pariſhes, where there were no Meeting Houſes; Amounteth to no more than this, that the Miniſters were ſo charitable to People who could not maintain a Miniſter for themſelves, as to go to them, and help them, by appointing their Meetings where ſuch deſtitute People might attend them.

§ 3. He telleth a long Story, pag. 7. Of the Presbyterians Arming themſelves, and inventing falſe Reports to give countenance for their ſo doing: and that the deſign of it was, to ruine the Clergy: This Allegation is above anſwered, being brought in alſo in ſome of the former Letters: And himſelf oppoſeth it, in acknowledging that moſt of the Clergy were turned out before this Arming of the Countrey. Neither are the Papiſts in that Country ſo few as he alledgeth: Eſpecially conſidering them as ſtrengthned by all that owned King James's Intereſt, tho nominal Proteſtants. There was both neceſſity for Proteſtants providing Arms, and it was allowed by Authority, after the Prince of Orange Landed. That One Troop carried all the Papiſts to Goal, I know not: but I am ſure, before the Prince and his Intereſt became formidable (which was the time when the People provided Arms) and while the Epiſcopalians were not diſcouraged from appearing for the Papiſts, many Troops would not have done it. The Perſecution that he ſpeaketh of was, by his own Confeſſion, moſtly (if he had ſaid only it had been nothing amiſs) Acted by the Cameronians: Which leaveth it on them, not on us, to anſwer for it, page 8. That all the Miniſters of that Presbytery, except one who was abſent, obeyed the Proclamation for Reading and Praying, is a bold Aſſertion. For it is ſaid by gueſs: For firſt, They had few or none, to hear them, beſide their own Families: Who then can witneſs that they obeyed the Proclamation, or before whom did they perform this Solemn Action? Secondly, It was witneſſed before the Synod of Wigtoun, April. 18. 1690. That Mr. Cameron Miniſter at Inch, did the ſame day pray for King James, and the young Prince: And that he read not the Proclamation till after the Bleſſing, when the Congregation was a Diſſolving. The Narrative, page 8, 9. Of the Two Commiſſioners treating with Patrick Paterſon to make him Provoſt if he would put out the Miniſter, is moſt falſe: Mr. Paterſon, who is now Provoſt of that Town (1691) denieth that any of the Commiſſioners did ever inſinuate any ſuch terms of his being Provoſt: And theſe two Commiſſioners are known to be Perſons of that integrity, that his Lies will not be able to ſtain them. They did no more than overſee the Election; which by the Convention was enjoined. What he maliciouſly ſaith of William Torbran, we have no more but his word for it: which of how much value it is, may be judged by what already hath been obſerved.

§ 4. The falſhood and malice of what he affirmeth, about the Commiſſioners from Stranrawer to the Convention, bringing from Edinburgh with them a part of the Collection for the Iriſh Proteſtants, is ſo evident as nothing can be more. That Money was according to order, delivered to the Provoſt of the Town: Who diſtributed it Faithfully, to the Iriſh Proteſtants, who were there, according to their ſeveral Neceſſities. And the names of them who received it, with the place of their abode in Ireland, and what they received, was returned to Sir Patrick Murray: And theſe records can make it appear that it was not beſtowed as he alledgeth. He cannot forbear to ſpit his Venome, even on the Iriſh Proteſtants (who had eſcaped the Bloody rage of the Papiſts) becauſe they were not of his way: Which is a Specimen of his Temper and Inclination. He telleth a Story of one Ferguſon a Souldier, who, with ſome others, diſcharged ſeveral Miniſters to Preach: And inlargeth in ſome Circumſtances, not worth our Tranſcribing; of the truth or falſhood of this I have no Information: Nor what ſort of man this Ferguſon was: I eaſily believe (tho not on the Credit of this Author) that there might be a man capable to do ſuch things: But are the Body of the Presbyterians Countable for every thing that a Perſon did, whom they know not, and whoſe Actions they approve not? The ſame is to be ſaid concerning the Iriſh Preacher, mentioned page 10. Whom we know not, nor can we enquire into the truth of the Story, nor into the Circumſtances of the Perſon: He not being named. For what followeth from page 11. to page 18. All the Information that I can find is that the incenſed Rabble did indeed turn out theſe men, and diſcharged them to Preach: Which irregular practices we do no ways approve; but this is not imputeable to the Persbyterians, but to ſome who had ſuffered intolerable Injuries from theſe Men, and whom oppreſſion had driven out of the Limits of patience and ſoberneſs: Neither have we any ground to believe theſe aggravating Circumſtances which he mentioneth, to be •… ue; lying and miſ-repreſentation being ſo Familiar to this Author If the things mentioned be true, we diſown and abhor them, as Barbarous Villanies The Story about Mr. Sommervel at Leſwalt being perſecuted by the inſtigation of the Sheriff of the County, is diſowned by Mr. Sommervel himſelf; and is incredible to every one who knoweth the Gentleman who is thus blamed. The account he gives of ſeveral in the Presbytery of Stranrawer, if all were true, is not ſtrange (tho yet we are far from approving of what was done) for there it was that the moſt horrid Barbarities were practiſed on that poor People, by means of theſe Miniſters; There one might ſee Bodies hanging on Trees by the way ſide: Heads, Arms, and Legs of the poor People who had been Murthered without due courſe of Law, ſet up on Poles, in many places: And is it ſtrange that people ſhould be enraged to ſee ſuch ſad ſpectacles of their Relations; or that diſorderly paſſions, and from them, diſorderly actions, ſhould be the conſequent of ſuch moving Objects? But whether what is alledged be true, or not: I cannot tell, not having got information from that part of the Country.

§ 5. He concludeth his particular Inſtances of this Perſecution page 18. With the account of Mr. Ramſays ſufferings who was Miniſter at Stranrawer. Two things he complaineth of: The firſt is, that Mr. Miller the Presbyterian Miniſter there, Hounded out the Rabble to Trouble, and expel Mr. Ramſay, that himſelf might get the Tithe Herrings. This is denied as an impudent Forgery. And Mr. Millar, challengeth Mr. Ramſey or any elſe to adduce one credible Perſon, who will Affirm that he had any hand, directly, or indirectly, in the trouble that Mr. Ramſay met with, The ſecond is Mr. Maxwel (who had been in Ireland ſome time) when he returned home, Mr. Ramſay alſo and others, could not get their Stipend. Yea the Sheriff incouraged all thoſe to whom they owed any thing to ſue them. Where as he refuſed to hear them when they ſued for their by paſt Stipends: By which means they were Starved out of the Country. Anſ. It was little wonder that they had no Stipend payed them, when they did not ſerve the Cures: Nor that the Sheriff did not Favour them in their ſuing for theſe Stipends; for the Council had by a Proclamation appointed that no Decrees ſhould paſs, about theſe Stipends till the Parliament (which ſoon after was to fit) ſhould determine in that extraordinary caſe. That the Sheriff did excite any to ſue theſe Miniſters, is ſaid without any ſhew of proof: Nor can the Aſſertion of a Perſon who hath written ſo many Lies in a few pages, induce any rational Perſon to believe it, page 19, 20. He offereth to prove all that he hath ſaid, and more, that he might alledge: Which we challenge him to do, as he would not bear the Infamy of that Lying and Slandering that he moſt unjuſtly chargeth the Presbyterians with, page 20. He claſſeth the perſecuted Clergy, into four Ranks: The three former I have taken notice of, in anſwer to the two Pamphlets above anſwered. Of the fourth, which is, ſuch as were put out by the Judicatories of the Church (which this mocker calleth the Holy Inquiſition of the Presbyterian Preachers) he giveth not one Inſtance. I deny not but ſome (and they were but very few) were depoſed, or ſuſpended, by ſome Presbyteries, for inſufficient cauſes: And it is no wonder that ſome Miniſters who were not well experienced in the practical part of Church Government, might commit ſome miſtakes: But this can no ways be charged on the Presbyterians, not only becauſe they were but very few that did ſo; but eſpecially becauſe the Church of Scotland took ſpecial care, both to prevent this practice and to redreſs the grievances of ſuch as made complaint, after they had been thus wrong'd. For in 1689. a general Meeting did enjoin all the Presbyteries to be careful that none of the late Conformiſts be cenſured except for Inſufficiency, Scandal, Errour, or ſupine Negligence in the Miniſterial Work; nor unleſs theſe were ſufficiently proved againſt them; and that if there ſhould be any doubt, either about the relevancy of what ſhould be Libelled againſt any of them, or about the clearneſs of the proof of what any of them ſhould be charged with in that caſe, they ſhould not proceed to a ſentence, but refer the matter to the General Aſſembly, which was to meet. This was what could be done by way of precaution. And for relief of ſuch as pretended to be grieved; whereas ſuch as were Cenſured by Presbyteries (moſt of them I mean, for ſome were ſo guilty in their own Eyes, and to the conviction of all that knew them; that they acquieſced in their Sentence) did appeal to the General Aſſembly, the Aſſembly (not having time to do it) did appoint a Commiſſion of the graveſt, and moſt experienced, of their number, conſiſting of 40 Miniſters and 20 Ruling Elders, to examine theſe proceſſes, and to take off ſuch Sentences as they ſhould find unduely paſſed againſt any Perſon. The Commiſſion hath examined ſome of theſe complaints, and are going on with the reſt; and have Actually taken off the Sentences of ſome: Such as Mr. Spotswood of Abotſrule: Mr. Lyon of Kinghorn: And Mr. Bowis of Abbotſhall: Wherefore we are not afraid of the Printed Account that he ſaith is coming out, (we have as yet heard no more of it) of ſuch as were cenſured by the Church: But are willing that the World ſhould know the whole truth of that matter.

§ 6. He telleth us, page 21. What Mr. Douglas Miniſter at Skirling, ſuffered: In which we are little concerned; For himſelf ſaith that it was the Cameronians that gave him this trouble: only I take notice of his falſe and malicious ſurmiſing, That they lay in wait to Murder him: And of his wicked Inſinuation of Murders and Slaughters committed by that Helliſh Crew. All the Nation know that the work of that irregularly zealous party was to deprive thoſe Miniſters who had been their cruel Perſecutors from their Churches, and that none of them were ever Murdered by them. Let him bring Inſtances, and the full proof that he promiſeth, for what he moſt impudently obtrudeth on Peoples Credulity, and he ſhall have an Anſwer. Not only the men whom he accuſeth may be thus Vindicated in general, but the whole of the Story about Mr. Dowglas is a Forgery: I can ſhew (atteſted by the Subſcriptions of eighteen Credible perſons of the Pariſh of Skirling with the Baily of the Town) a true account of Mr. Dowglas's Caſe, which he and his Party may be aſhamed of: It is to this effect: Never any of the Diſſenters moleſted him, or gave him the leaſt cauſe of fear: All that could be ſo conſtructed, even by the moſt melancholy Fancy, was; two Men, as they went by his door, ſtept in, and asked his Wife, if ſhe had any Monuments of Idolatry, and ſo went away. Never any of his Pariſh did either do, or threaten any hurt to him. The true cauſe of his flying into England was, he had run into ſo much Debt as he was not ſafe in the Nation from Captions; he had lived Intemperately, and Riotouſly: his Bible was laid in pledge for Ale; which lyeth yet unredeemed. His other Books were pledged in Biggar for Banquetting; his Wifes Bible pledged for Mutton; which ſhe redeemed before ſhe removed: His Houſholds Goods are under many Arreſtments. When he went from Skirling, he borrowed a Cloak from a Neighbour, and in the way to Edinburgh left the Cloak in pledge for a Quart of Ale: his Pariſh (tho Diſſenters) did often relieve his Wife in her Neceſſity, and what ſhe got that way, ſhe ſpent in Drinking with Souldiers and others. Let the Reader now judge whether that be a Perſecution like the French Dragooning. Our Authors complaint that no Redreſs was given by the State, to them who complained, is above anſwered, particularly the Letter alledged by him, to have been written by a great Perſon to the Pariſh of Bogie, which Letter was produced in the Council by the Duke of Hamiltoun, this, I ſay, is cleared Sect. 15, Of the anſwer to Account of the preſent Sufferings. What follows p. 23. is a Vindication of the Epiſcopal Clergy from provoking the Presbyterians, or having any hand in their Perſecution in the late Reigns: Where one may obſerve the man to be perfrictae frontis: And that nothing, tho never ſo certainly, and manifeſtly falſe, can choak his Conſcience. He ſaith, The Clergy can defie them to give one inſtance where any Diſſenter ſuffered death, or was any way injured, by the Information or Inſtigation of any Miniſter in Scotland. The contrary of this is notorious to all who have lived in Scotland theſe years laſt by paſt; that all do admire the Impudence of this Aſſertion: Nothing was more common, than for the Clergy to be Inciters to, and Abetters of the Perſecution: By Informing the Souldiers (who were commonly the Executors of the Law againſt Diſſenters) and going along with them, and aſſiſting them in deſtroying theſe poor Sufferers: If inſtances of this be required, many may be given: For a Taſte take theſe few, Mr. 〈◊〉 Ramſey Miniſter at Torboltoun, Mr. Edmiſton Miniſter at Gargonnock, Mr. John Row Miniſter at 〈◊〉 , Purſued their Pariſhes, each of them; alledging their Houſes were Robbed: The firſt, got three thouſand Marks, the ſecond 6000, the third 3000, from the Pariſhes Reſpective; tho it was after found, that Highlanders had Robbed the ſecond; and they were Hanged for it: And that the third had not in his Houſe the value of one thouſand Marks. And no Evidence could be brought that any in theſe Pariſhes were Acceſſory to theſe Acts. To theſe I add a fourth; Mr. Mackenzie Miniſter at Boyal, above-mentioned, went to the Gariſon of the Caſtle of Dumbartoun, and got Souldiers to go with him, and apprehended Robert Nairn in Napierſtoun (the Souldiers affirmed that he procured their being ſent:) This he did ſeveral times; ſo that the very day that the poor man died, they behoved to remove him to another Houſe; where he died, and Mr. Mackenzie would not ſuffer him to be buried in the Church-yard, and cauſed caſt out his Family: ſo that his Wife and ten Children were forced to Lodge ſeveral Weeks without doors in Froſt and Snow. What he ſaith page 24. doth not derogate from what I have aſſerted, viz. He affirmeth, that They were neither Judges nor Parties, nor Witneſſes, nor Accuſers: It is true they did not ordinarily appear ſo publickly againſt them before Civil Courts: Yet did they more privately aſſiſt in Military Execution againſt them; and that moſt frequently: And gave Intelligence to Juſtices of Peace, and others who had Power to Moleſt them. Nothing can be more falſe than to ſay, That When they were commanded by Authority to give in the Names of Diſſenters they generally declined it, till they were forced to it. For every one knoweth, that there were but few who ſhunned it: Moſt of them did forwardly obey this Injunction. Tho I confeſs there were ſome whom no Laws, nor Threats of Men, could prevail with to do a thing ſo unbecoming the Character of a Miniſter of the Goſpel; but theſe were very few. He doth alſo aver, That no Diſſenter ſuffered purely for Diſſenting; but only in caſe of open Rebellion, or in the caſe of Murther: As for Killing the Archbiſhop of St. Andrews. This alſo is a notorious and ſhameful falſhood. Did not all the Presbyterian Miniſters ſuffer Deprivation of their Churches and Benefices (which he and his Party make ſuch outcry about when it is come to the turn of ſome of themſelves) purely for Diſſenting? Did they not ſuffer Baniſhment, ſome of them into Forreign Lands, others from their Dwellings, that they might not be within ſix Miles of their Pariſhes, or a Cathedral. So as hardly they could find a place in the Nation where they could reſide, without hazard from the Laws? Were not multitudes Fined, to the ruine of their Families, for not hearing their pariſh Miniſters, or for Conventicles; and what is this but pure Diſſenting? I hope it is neither open Rebellion, nor Murther. Was not the Highland Hoſt (a Crew of Savage Robbers) ſent into the Weſtern, Countries while the people were living in Peace: Who almoſt laid the Country deſolate, and left no Suſtenance for Man nor Beaſt? Were not many Piſtolled, or Hanged, or Drowned, as they were found on the Highway, or about their Work, in their Houſes, or in the Fields, for no other Cauſe but they would not tell what were their Thoughts of the Inſurrection at Bothwel Bridge; or of the Archbiſhops Murther, while they could not be Accuſed for neither: Or for not diſowning the Sanquhar Declaration (when, may be, they knew not what it was) or for not diſowning the Covenant? And can ſuch people be charged either with open Rebellion, or Murther? What Jury, could find them Guilty of theſe Crimes? Among multitudes of Inſtances of this kind that can be brought (for it can be made appear that above Seventy were thus Murdered in Cold Blood, and without any Legal Trial) I ſhall mention but three for a Specimen. Some Gentlemen (whoſe Names, out of reſpect to them, I forbear to mention) took two Women, Margaret Laughland and Margaret Wilſon, the one of 60, the other of 20 years; and cauſed them to be tyed to a Stake, within the Sea mark, at Wigtoun, and left them there till the Tyde overflowed them, and drowned them: And this was done without any Legal Tryal 1685. An Officer of the Army cauſed ſhoot to death Thomas Richard of ſeventy years, at Cumnock in Kylle, without any Tryal, 1685. The ſame year, in May, Graham of Claverhouſe (who after was Viſcount of Dundee, whom our Author calleth, The Great,) took John Brown of Prieſt hill, in the Pariſh of Moorkirk, being at his Work in his own Houſe, and ſhot him dead, in preſence of his Wife, and that without any ſhadow of Tryal.

§ 7. He taketh occaſion, page 23, 24. to mention ſeveral perſons who are Murthered: As if all this had been done by Presbyterians: As the Archbiſhop of St. Andrews and others. But malice it ſelf cannot charge theſe Crimes on that party; ſome of which they generally lamented, becauſe done by Men who took that Name to themſelves: Tho' others of them were committed by Perſons unknown, as the Murther of Mr. Pearſon at Carsfairn: None in theſe parts can to this day tell who were the Actors in that Tragedy. Some of them by ſuch as were in a declared ſtate of War againſt the King, and all his Adherents, whoſe principles and practices we never approved; and who were Enemies to the Sober Presbyterians, as well as to them whom they called Curates: Some alſo of theſe Murthers were committed on private pique, and for revenge of perſonal injuries done, or alledged to have been done. If it be true which he aſſerteth, page 25. That ſome of the Presbyterians ſince this late Revolution, have proved ungrateful to ſuch of the Clergy, as had done them Kindneſſes, when they were in Trouble, we are far from approving ſuch practices: Neither do we deny that ſome perſons are to be found amongſt us, who are not ſo good as they ſhould be. But that either the thing is true in the general, or that the inſtance that he bringeth is a Truth, we have little cauſe to believe on his Aſſertion. Nor do I think it worth the while to enquire into it. He ſaith, He can confidently affirm, and is able to prove, That the Epiſcopal Clergy all the time (I ſuppoſe he meaneth while Epiſcopacy ſtaid in Scotland) were the only perſons perſecuted, either in their Names, Goods, or Perſons. And all this becauſe ſome who by their Severities were driven into Deſperation, committed ſome Acts of Violence on ſome of them. But if he would prove this Aſſertion for his being confident to affirm it, it is but ſuitable to the whole ſtrain of his Book, and tho' ſtrange, is not rare. He muſt make it appear, that during the late Reigns, never any Preſbyterian was called Fanatick, Rebel, Seditious, (even while they lived peaceably) that never any Miniſter was charged with preaching Rebellion and Sedition, who yet either ſpoke nothing of the Differences of the Times; or taught Loyalty and Obedience in all things Lawful, even to ſuch Rulers as were of different principles from us. He muſt alſo demonſtrate, that no Presbyterians were Fined to the Ruin of their Families, for peaceable Hearing the Word, in a Houſe or in the Fields: Alſo he muſt ſhew that no Presbyterians were Impriſoned, Baniſhed, or carried Captive, and Sold as Slaves, for not hearing Epiſcopal Miniſters, or for Hearing Presbyterians; none of which he can prove: But we can make the contrary of all three evident; and ſhould be at the pains to do it, but that the whole Nation are Witneſſes to the Truth of all theſe.

§ 8. He cometh page 26. to a purpoſe (by what courſe he draweth it into his method, I know not) wherein there is ſome place for Argument: But I muſt the more eaſily diſpatch it, becauſe I have debated that point in my former Vindication; in anſwer to the ten Queſtions. It is, he pretendeth to take off the force of a Conſideration that was in the Narrative of the Act of Parliament, whereby the Government of the Church was lately ſetled in the Hands of Presbyterians, viz. That the Reformation of this Church from Popery was managed by Presbyters. To this he ſeemeth to anſwer two things. 1. He denieth the Conſequence. Reply, I know not that ever any did make this the Conſequent; Ergo, The Government of this Church ſhould be Presbyterian; for he may know that Presbyterians fix the Government of the Church on a ſurer, and immutable bottom, viz. Divine Inſtitution: And do hold that whoever were the Reformers, the Church ought to be governed by the Presbyters Acting in a parity. Wherefore all his talk under this Head, is wide from the purpoſe. The true Deſign of mentioning Presbyters to have been our Reformers, is to ſhew that the Government of this Church hath been Presbyterian, even from the Infancy of Proteſtantiſm among us: They being Presbyters who ſetled the Proteſtant Church, and managed the Affairs of it, from the beginning, and ever till unfaithful and ſelf-ſeeking Men, after a tract of time, got that way forcibly ſuppreſt, and Church Domination ſet up for ſome years. His enlargement on this his Anſwer is ſtuffed with Reproaches againſt the Reformation, and againſt the Presbyterians: I ſhall not rake into that Dunghil, for it ſmelleth rankly of a Temper not much inclined to the Reformation, and of an imbittered Mind. His Citation out of Baſilicon Doron, I have clearly anſwered in the paper before-cited. His alledging that the Presbyterians engage Parents, when their Children are Baptized, to bring them up conform to the Covenant, is a groſs falſhood; it is not enjoyned, nor by one of many hundreds practiſed, to mention the Covenant on ſuch occaſions. He ſpeaketh of Rules, and Prayers to purge England of Prelacy and Superſtition, as uſed alſo at Baptiſm, which I never was Witneſs to, nor heard that it was done by any in our Nation: But this Man pleaſeth himſelf with whatever he can deviſe, to expoſe the Presbyterians. He cometh, in the end of page 27. To another anſwer to that which he fancieth to be our Argument for Presbytery, viz. To deny the Antecedent of it; or that Scotland was Reformed by Presbyters. Here the Gentleman giveth us a Specimen of his Argumentative Skill, which will not make any Man admire the Learning of his party, which they ſo much brag of, while their Champions do manage an Argument ſo ſillily. He asketh, Who Ordained theſe Presbyters? Whether Biſhops or not? Anſ. It is an Impertinent Queſtion: For if they were Ordained; the quality of the Ordainers maketh nothing to prove that they were no Presbyters, nor that the Reformation was not carried on by Presbyters. If the Deſign of his Queſtion be, to prove that they were not Ordained, and ſo had no power to Reform the Church: I refer him for Anſwer, to the Learned Claude's Hiſtorical Defence of the Reformation. Who proveth that every Chriſtian hath power to Reform himſelf; and that every Society of Chriſtians hath power to Reform themſelves, from all principles and ways that are contrary to the Word of God: And to ſet up Ordinances among themſelves that Chriſt hath Inſtituted, ſee part 2. c. 4. page 166. and part 4. cap. 1, 3, 4. The ſame is maintained by Calvin, Inſtit. lib. 4. c. 3. 4. Turrit. part 3. loc. 18. queſt. 25. But our preſent Debate needeth not that we ſhould puſh this Opinion ſo far as theſe Learned Authors do. He asketh, If they were not Ordained by Biſhops, where are the Miracles that they have wrought to prove their Miſſion. I ſhall not here alledge (as ſome have done, without being ever Anſwered by any of his party) that there were not wanting among our Reformers extraordinary Appearances of God with them, convincing the World of their being ſent of him. I ſhall firſt take notice of the concluſion of this Argument (if it have any force) which will be, that our Reformation was unwarrantable, as being carried on, A non habentibus poteſtatem. And it is pleaſant to obſerve, that this Author can brangle the Presbyterian Intereſt, by no other Arguments, than ſuch as will, with equal force, ſhake our Reformation from Popery. 2. That Miracles are neceſſary to ſhew a Mans Miſſion, which is not communicated to him in the ordinary way, in reſpect of the Modes, and Circumſtances, none do maintain but Papiſts, and ſuch as in too many things Symbolize with them. John Baptiſt, and ſeveral of the Prophets, wrought no Miracles, and yet had an extraordinary Miſſion. It is only to be expected that they ſhould work Miracles, who pretend to be extraordinarily ſent, to preach a new Doctrine, or bring in a new Office into the Church which is not warranted in the Scripture. Next he will prove, That if they were Ordained by Biſhops, it cannot be called a pure Presbyterian Reformation: His reaſon for this is ſtrange, to drop from the Pen of a pretended Proteſtant. For (ſaith he) I ſuppoſe, which none deny, they were obliged to preach the Goſpel, as the Biſhop who conferred Orders on them, bound them thereunto. Whither will bold Ignorance carry one? Can none deny this his Aſſertion? Do not all, except Papiſts, and a few Papizing Prelatiſts, deny it? If this were ſo, muſt we not condemn Luther, and all the Reformers, who preached the Goſpel otherwiſe than the Popiſh Biſhops, who conferred Orders on them, injoyned. The Inference that he ſubjoineth, is none of ours: We think our ſelves exempted from Epiſcopal Juriſdiction, and obliged to aboliſh that Order; not becauſe the Goſpel was at firſt preached by Presbyters; but becauſe that Order hath no Foundation in the Word.

§ 9. A Goodly Argument he hath, page 28. That Scotland was not Reformed by Presbyters: viz. Some Biſhops Reformed; as Dr. Gordon of Galloway, and Adam Biſhop of Orkney, he bringeth no proof for the former, but for the latter, he was Excommunicated for Marrying the Queen to the Earl of Bothwel; which had been Incongruous, if he had not been of the Proteſtant Communion. Anſw. 1. That two who had been Biſhops joyned in the Reformation, is but a ſmall evidence that the Reformation was not managed by Preſbyters, but by Biſhops. 2. That the one of theſe complyed with the Reformation, he barely aſſerteth, and his proof for the other is inſufficient: Such things have been done; Proteſtants have Excommunicated Papiſts, as Papiſts daily Excommunicate Proteſtants: How congruous this is, I need not now debate. 3. If theſe Biſhops had any hand in the Reformation, it is nothing to his purpoſe, unleſs he can prove that they exerciſed Epiſcopal Juriſdiction in the Proteſtant Church; which no Hiſtory can Countenance; if they Acted as Church-men at all, they Acted as Presbyters, for it is certain, that in the beginning of our Reformation, none exerciſed any Juriſdiction among the Reformed above that of Presbyter. He ſaith, That where there had been Popiſh Biſhops, there Proteſtant • iſhops were appointed in their places, under the Name of Superintendents. Here is a double miſtake: One that the Super intendent, were Biſhops: Another that they were put into the Places and Revenues of the Popiſh Biſhops. The falſhood of both which, I have ſhewed in my Former Vindication, upon Query 1. page 10. That the Revenues of the Popiſh Biſhops were ſetled on the Superintendents, is an Aſſertion that proveth, either that this Author is a Stranger to our Hiſtory or that he regardeth not the truth or falſhood of what he affirmeth. What followeth, page 29. Of the late bringing in of Presbytery into the Reformed Church of Scotland, I have fully diſproved in the place laſt cited, page 3. After the moſt ſpiteful Venom ſpued out, that could lodge in a humane Breaſt, againſt the Presbyteria •… ▪ which it is fit to deſpiſe rather than Anſwer) he concludeth his Letter, with an Aſſertion no leſs falſe than the reſt of his Allegations are; viz. That his party ſuffer neither for Breach of Divine nor Humane Laws; but only for Epiſcopacy. If any honeſty remain with him, it would oblige him to give ſome inſtance or proof, that the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, (for he aſcribeth their ſufferings to their oppoſition to the Fanaticks of the Kirk) did ever trouble any of them, either for their Opinion about Church Government, or meerly for their compliance with Epiſcopacy, when it had the Law on its ſide; on the contrary, we can ſhew, to the conviction of all unbyaſſed Men, that ſuch as have ſuffered by the State, did ſuffer for their Breach of the Law of the Nation, in not owning the King and Queen, as the Law required: And that ſuch as were Cenſured by the Church (except two or three whoſe Sentences were taken off by Superior Judicatories of the Church) ſuffered for the Breach of Divine Laws, viz. For groſs Immortalities: One Inſtance I ſhall give Ex re praeſenti; out of the Presbytery of Stranrawer, about which his whole Letter is Converſant: Mr. Ramſay, late Miniſter at Stranrawer, was by the Synod of Wigtoun put from his place, on theſe Grounds: Frequent Drunkenneſs on the Sabbath day, proved by the Oaths of Baily Vauſe, and Andrew Mackennel: Beating his Wife on the Sabbath, before he went to preach; ſworn by Andrew Mackennel and Robert Gordon; the ſaid Robert Gordon's Wife deponed, that ſhe ſaw, at that time, Mrs. Ramſay Bleeding: Frequent Swearing; proved by the Oaths of Provoſt Row, Baily Vauſe, and Robert Gordon: I ſhould not thus have expoſed Men who once bare the Character of Miniſters; but the Impudent Accuſations of this Scribler, and the obligation that lyeth on Perſons and Churches to neceſſary ſelf defence, do conſtrain me.

ANIMADVERSIONS On a PAMPHLET, called, A Memorial for His Highneſs the Prince of Orange, in Relation to the Affairs of Scotland.

HAving proceeded thus far in contributing my poor Mite, for Vindicating the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and meeting with this Print, of the ſame ſtrain with theſe others above-anſwered; that is, full of bitter and unreaſonable invectives, againſt Presbyterial Government; I could not ſhun making ſome Obſervations on it, whereby Truth and Innocence may be vindicated, againſt Lies and Railing. The deſign of this Print is manifeſt to be, to diſpoſe His Majeſty to preſerve Epiſcopacy in Scotland, and to hinder the Setling of Presbytery: And it is a real and effectual refutation, that our Wiſe and Gracious King hath not found ſuch weight of reaſon in it, as to be moved by it, but hath acted quite contrary to the malicious Inſinuations of this Author. This Paper is nothing ſhort of the reſt; for moſt groſs Falſehoods, in matters of Fact, and moſt injurious Miſ-repreſentations of our Way and Principles. It is ſaid to be done by two Perſons of Quality. One Wit might, by a little labour, have brought forth a more perfect Birth. What is the Quality of the Author, or Authors, for worldly Dignity, I enquire not, but his, or their Moral Qualities may, by the Book, be ſeen. to be none of the beſt. We have, Firſt, a parcel of Falſe and Malicious Hiſtory, as ever was written in ſo few Lines. Next ſome Counſels to his Highneſs. 3. He refuteth a Paper that he falſly calleth, An Addreſs from the Presbyterians to the Prince of Orange: And then concludeth, as he began, with Lies and Railing.

§ 2. The firſt paſſage in his Hiſtorical Account, is a foul miſtake (to call it no worſe) viz. That the riſe of our Animoſities, and why they are Warmer here than in England, is, England was Reformed by the Royal Authority; and therefore their Church was ſuted to the Monarchy: But Scotland was Reformed by Force and Violence, and ſome of the Reformers, coming from Geneva, and Switzerland, inſpired many of their Converts with an Averſion to Monarchy. A Man who taketh Liberty to ſlander at this rate of Impudence, deſerveth rather Chaſtiſement, than an Anſwer. For, 1. With what Brow can he ſay that our Reformers were averſe from Monarchy; or that the Antimonarchical Principle did ever get much footing in Scotland, as we know it did in England; for all their being Reformed by Royal Authority? Did ever Scotland ſet up a Commonwealth, as England once did? It is known what they Adventured and Suffered for the Monarchy, when England abjured it. And what yielding there was in Scotland to the Antimonarchical way, was by Force from England. And it is known to all who lived in thoſe days, that the Presbyterians did cleave more firmly to their baniſhed King, and prayed for him with more Conſtancy and Reſolution, than that party did, who after appeared for Epiſcopacy. 2. That Scotland was Reformed by Force and Violence, is falſe, it was by the States of the Nation, and at laſt confirmed by King and Parliament. The chief difference, as to the Original of the two Reformations, lay in this; that in England, the King (whether from Light, or Intereſt I do not judge) begun a half Reformation: And Royal Authority enlightned the Minds of the people (I ſpeak not of all, but of the Multitude) but in Scotland, Light from the Word of God did move, firſt the People, then the Great Ones, and they prevailed with the King at laſt, Zealouſly to own the Truth of God: Yea, and to defend it in Print. 3. That the Government of the Church of England was ſuited to the Monarchy (that is, as I ſuppoſe he meaneth, framed by a ſuitableneſs to the Monarchy, as the Standard of it) is not its commendation: For that is to make it a humane Contrivance, or worldly Policy, brought into the Church of Chriſt, over which he is the Head; and which is to be governed by his Laws: Whereas the Government of the Church of Scotland was contrived by the Word of God, as the Standard of it; yet was it as much ſuited to the Monarchy as that of England could be: That is, it gave, and giveth to the King, all that power in the State that our Laws gave him: And all that Authority over the Church that is due to any Man on Earth. The Abettors of it preach and practiſe as much Obedience and Subjection to Kings, as others do, and can vie in Loyalty, with their Accuſers, as ſhall after be obſerved. 4. I do not underſtand how our preſent Animoſities, about Church Government ſhould depend on the one way being ſuited to the Monarchy, and the other not, ſeeing this Author (as well as his oppoſites really are) doth highly pretend, to be not only for the Monarchy, but for the preſent Monarch King William. But either he hath a latent Meaning, which hath much Truth in it, or he hath hit on the Truth by gueſs, as Cajaphas did, viz. That our Animoſities about Church Government ariſe mainly from the different Inclinations that are in the two parties toward the Monarchy, as now eſtabliſhed in the Perſons of our Gracious King William and Queen Mary. The ſtrain, both of their Writings and Actings, make it evident that with him the Intereſt of King James, and that of Prelacy are linked together: And their Zeal for the one filleth them with Spite and Animoſity againſt what is oppoſite to the other. And whoſo conſidereth the ſtrain of this Pamphlet, will find that the Zeal that this Scribler pretendeth to for King William, is expreſſed uſually under the general Notion of the Monarchy; which may be underſtood of either of two Monarchies. What he ſaith, that, Buchannan, and others, wrote Books that were condemned for Treaſon, is no Argument: For that which by one party is condemned for Treaſon, by another party, when they have got the Aſcendent, hath been abſolved, as not guilty of that Crime. That the Puritans vexed King James VI. is no further true than that they could not yield to the endeavours of ſome evil Counſellers about him, for overturning the Setled Government of the Church; and encroaching on its Rights. It is true, He at laſt got Epiſcopacy ſetled by the help of ſome, both in State and Church, who were either none of the beſt Proteſtants, or had their worldly Deſigns in promoting that way; but ſtill our Author owneth (on the matter) that the Word of God was not conſulted in this weighty Concernment of the Church: But only his fancied ſuitableneſs to the Monarchy, and Conformity to England. The account he giveth of putting down Epiſcopacy afterwards, and ſetting up of Presbytery, is neither like a Chriſtian, nor like a Hiſtorian: It is perfect railing, while, he calleth the Nobles, that had a hand in it, Ambitious and Factious, the Gentry Prieſt-ridden, and blind Zealots, the Preachers Enthuſiaſticks. The War that he mentioneth, is by all Poſterity to be lamented, but Men as able to diſcern as he, have laid the blame of it on Epiſcopal Tyranny and Uſurpation, and their making many ſteps toward Popiſh Doctrine, as well as Diſcipline. He next giveth account of the Solemn League and Covenant entered into without the Royal Authority, calling Parliaments, &c. Theſe things were done by the Body of the Nation, met in the moſt orderly repreſentative that the time and caſe could permit: And I deny not, but that they were extraordinary Actings, not to conſider now the Morality of them. But let this Gentleman freely tell us, whether his Epiſcopal party be capable of Courſes parallel to theſe which he ſo expoſeth: The Presbyterians under the conduct of the Primores Regni, aroſe againſt their King, in defence of their Religion and Laws; did not the Prelatick party the ſame, and on the ſame account? They were indeed all for Loyalty and Non-reſiſtance, while the Royal Authority ſupported their greatneſs and power over their Brethren, but when ſeven of their Biſhops were touched, it proved another caſe, like that in Ployden, if we be guilty in this, they are not the Men who ſhould caſt the firſt Stone at us. For Barbarities committed by the Presbyterians in theſe times, I know of none, but what are the neceſſary conſequents of a War. But this Man and his Aſſociates, have no other Dialect, whereby to expreſs their diſlike of the Actings of the oppoſite party. He accuſeth them with a Bloody Mouth, of what hath been a thouſand times refuted as a horrid Lie, That the Scots Presbyterians did perſidiouſly give up their King to the Engliſh, who Murdered him: He was the King of the Engliſh, as well as theirs, and they could not withhold him from them: And gave him into their hands, on as good ſecurity, as could be, for his ſafety; and if others dealt perfidiouſly with him they are not to be blamed for it. He hath a hint, as if Epiſcopacy had been ſetled by King Charles the Second, becauſe the Presbyterians refuſed all conditions of peace and pardon: And for the Monarchies ſake. The former of theſe is a great untruth; they never refuſed peace nor pardon; but would gladly have imbraced both: Only they could not buy them at the rate of Perjury: Tho' they never refuſed to diſown any Principles that were indeed Rebellious. Their preaching up Rebellion in their Conventicles, is falſe: They both preached and practiſed Loyalty: Only after many grievous and inſupportable hardſhips, ſuffered for their Conſcience, ſome few of them were prevailed upon by that Temptation, to vent ſome Principles that the more Sober and Intelligent were not ſatisfied with. That puniſhing them who were taken in Rebellion is all the ſeverity complained of, is a Notorious Falſhood, as all the Nation know, and I have above diſproved it.

§ 3. From theſe ſo well laid Foundations, he proceedeth, p. 5. to give His Highneſs ſome Advices; if they may not more properly be called Directions. The firſt, That the Prince being come to ſupport our Laws, is in Honour bound to ſupport Epiſcopacy, which is confirmed by twenty Parliaments. This is Saucy enough: As if His Majeſty had Acted againſt his Honour now that Epiſcopacy is not ſupported. That Epiſcopacy is confirmed by ſo many Parliaments, I much doubt: But am not at leiſure to caſt up the account. But if this Argument be good, Presbytery ſhould be ſupported, as being confirmed by many Parliaments; and now by this Current Parliament: Beſides its Authority from Scripture, which he doth not pretend to for Prelacy. His ſecond Inference from his Hiſtorical Narrative (or rather Railing Accuſation) is, That Epiſcopacy is neceſſary for ſupport of the Government: And that they oppoſe Scots Preſbytery, only as it hath in it many horrid Principles. Both theſe are denied, and cannot be proved, unleſs we take malicious railing for proof. His 3d. That what the late Rulers did was done by Law: And that theſe Laws were made for preſerving the Proteſtant Religion, Monarchy, Humane Society, and Self Defence. It is an eaſie thing to make Sanguinary Laws, and then Murder and Deſtroy Mankind according to theſe Laws: But I have ſhewed in my former Vindication, in anſwer to Query 5. That they exceeded the bounds, even of their own Laws: In the Horrid Murthers that were, in cold Blood, committed by Souldiers, with allowance, on Perſons living in peace. But that theſe Laws were made on ſuch neceſſary grounds as he affirmeth, is an Aſſertion beyond what Jeſuitical impudence it ſelf, hath as yet arrived at: But I ſhall not wonder, if he ſhould aſſert, that the world could not ſubſiſt, except Laws be made for extirpating out of it, all who own the Chriſtian Religion. Cannot the Proteſtant Religion, Monarchy, &c. be ſafe unleſs People be forced to wound their Conſciences by hearing men who had invaded the Pulpits of their Faithful Paſtors? Unleſs Families be ruined who live in peace, and pray for their Rulers, who hear a Sermon in a Chamber, and not in the Church? He affirmeth alſo, under this head, that we value our Church Government more than the Proteſtant Religion. A moſt falſe Imputation: But he proveth it, by three notable Lies: One is, That we complied with the Papiſts, upon getting an Indulgence. We neither ſought it, nor approved the Papiſts being Indulged, nor did we join with them in any thing: We indeed had our Meetings at the ſame time when they had theirs, and ſo had the Epiſcopal men. The other is, the Church of England, and their Party, hazarded all rather than comply, I gladly would know, wherein did we comply, and they did not. They had the exerciſe of their Religion under the ſame Government with us. A third is, We magnifie the diſpenſing power, which they oppoſed. All this I have touched before. This Aſſertion is falſe and injurious: We never approved it, we made uſe of the Liberty granted, becauſe it was our due: But never approved of the power that the Giver of it did acclaim. How they oppoſed it, may be judged by conſidering whether the Contrivers and Promoters of theſe courſes, who were about the King, were Presbyterians or Prelatiſts.

§ 4. The fourth thing (he is now falling from his Inferences and Counſels to the King, to proofs of his Accuſations againſt the Presbyterians) that their Principles prove what he would ſay: And their Principles he proveth in that he is informed that many of them own, that Subjects may force their King to do juſtice; that they are his Judges, and may Dethrone him: that they approve of former Rebellions that the Monarch being forfeited, Kings have no more Power than the People will give them. I obſerve firſt, That all the Grounds that he hath for theſe Accuſations, is, He hath heard it, but from whom, or what cauſe his Informers had to ſay ſo, we muſt not know. If this be a ſufficient Ground to move a Prince againſt his People (as this man deſigneth) let any Judge. 2. That he, and they who have whiſpered this to him, do not impute thoſe to the Presbyterians, as the Principles of the Party; but to many of them: And no body knoweth how many. It may be there are, or have been, ſome who call themſelves Presbyterians, who hold theſe, or as bad things: But the Presbyterians did never approve of all that had gone from among them. 3. What he ſaith about forfeiting of the Monarchy (tho I do not meddle with things ſo far above me) hath obtained with the Church of England, as well as Scotland. And his quarrelling at this, hath a further tendency againſt the preſent Eſtabliſhment, than may be he is willing that every one ſhould obſerve. His fifth effort againſt us is, He taketh notice of Peoples threatning Miniſters (he addeth alſo, Magiſtrates, which I never heard of before) and thruſting them from their places. This was the practice of the Rabble, in ſome places, I have in anſwer to the above mentioned Pamphlets, ſufficiently vindicated the Presbyterians, both from abetting, and from approving of theſe practices: And therefore they ought not to be charged with them. In the ſixth place he would perſwade the Prince, that our numbers are not ſo great as theirs, this I have alſo above Diſcourſed, but I ſhall a little conſider his proofs; one is, 27 Parliaments under four Kings, have condemned Presbytery. Anſ. If that prove, that they were the greateſt number, the like Argument will prove, that we are more numerous now: For the Parliament hath very unanimouſly condemned their way. Next he will prove it, becauſe they were always eaſily overcome in their Rebellions. Sure it was not ſo in King Charles the I. time: And in King Charles the II. time it was not the Presbyterians, but a few of them, that appeared. He ſaith that the reaſon why they appear more numerous here (at London, 1689) is they are all here: That is manifeſtly falſe: neither all the Nobility, nor the Tenth man of the Gentry, beſide the Vulgar, who are the greateſt number, were then at London. His judging of their deſigns of being there, is his groundleſs Fancy; ſuggeſted by his hatred and ill will. His party (forſooth) are ſo modeſt that they truſted to the Laws, the intereſt of the Monarchy, and his Highneſſes juſt ſenſe of things: But others thought that they truſted more to King James's Intereſt, and were more moved by their averſion from his Highneſs: Let the Reader judge whether of the two conjectures hath the more probable Foundation. He alledgeth, that the Presbyterians have raiſed tumults to fright Honeſtmen. This is denied, his party raiſed (or endeavoured it at leaſt) more fearful Tumults. And hence he would move the Prince, to ſend down Forces, under well Principled Officers. That is, Jacobites: But the Prince was wiſer than to Liſten to ſuch Counſel.

§. 5. He next would repreſent us as Perſons who would ſubmit to no Laws inconſiſtent with Presbytery; on the account of the Divine right of Presbytery, and our obligation to it by Oaths: Whereas his Party are readier to comply with any thing that his Highneſs and a Parliament ſhall think fit, for the good of the Kingdom, and ſo pleadeth for a hearing before his Highneſs, or any to be named by Him. This laſt we ſhall never decline. On the former part of this Paragraph, I make a few Remarks. 1. If he mean that we cannot ſo ſubmit to Laws inconſiſtent with Presbytery, as to give active Obedience to them, or that we ſhould do what is inconſiſtent with it; he maketh a right conjecture: But it importeth no more than this, that we Act by a Principle, and are not ſo Unconſcientious as to do what is contrary to our Sentiments; if other men glory either in their having no Principle, in the matter of Church Government, or that they can yield over the Belly of Conſcience, to promote their Intereſt, or to gain the favour of Men; we think ſuch Glorying is not good. But if he mean that we cannot ſo ſubmit to Laws contrary to Presbytery, as to live quietly under them: To ſuffer patiently by them, when we cannot obey them. It is a manifeſt ſlander: For we gave ſufficient proof of that, under the late Reigns: And if any were unquiet under their ſufferings, the reſt, who were the far greateſt part, are not to be blamed. 2. Our Author, and his Party, have very generous Conſciences, which it ſeemeth are influenced by no other Law but the King and Parliaments Opinion, that ſuch a thing is for the good of the Monarchy and the Kingdom: Men of ſuch Principles can eaſily ſave their Intereſt, what ever ſide be uppermoſt. 3. Seeing they pretend to ſo ſupple Conſciences, I fain would know why they do not comply with Presbytery; ſeeing now the King and Parliament have owned, and enacted it, as that which is for the good of the Monarchy, and the Kingdom. Here is a plain declaration, that thoſe men can have no plea for a Toleration to be granted them, or any Exemption from the Government now by Law eſtabliſhed; for their Conſciences cannot be ſtraitned in this matter: And therefore there can be no Imaginable reaſon for a Toleration; But either Humour, or a deſign to carry on an Intereſt contrary to the preſent Eſtabliſhment: which I hope our Rulers will conſider. 4ly. He argueth with his Highneſs, from The averſion that England muſt have to unite with Scotland, if Presbytery be ſet up there. To this I anſwer two things. 1ſt. If the intereſt of Religion have more weight with us than that of the State (as ſurely it will when that promiſe is fulfilled, that the Mountain of the Lords houſe ſhall be ſet on the top of the Mountains) this reaſon will be of no force: It is better that England and Scotland be two different Nations, yet living as Siſters, in concord; than that the Inſtitutions of Chriſt ſhould be thwarted, that they be made one. 2dly. It may be thought ſtrange, that England ſhould refuſe to unite with Scotland in their Civil concernment, becauſe Scotland cannot yield to them in that which concerneth God, and their Conſciences: may not two Nations trade together, and be Governed by the ſame Laws, and yet bear with one another as to their Church ways? But he enforceth this his Argument, by two conſiderations; one is, Epiſcopacy is acknowledged to be the beſt Bulwark againſt Popery. I know this is the Fancy of ſome, who are Bigotted to that way, but on what ground, or who acknowledgeth this, beſide themſelves I know not. The other is, Scotland is Sworn by the Covenant, to extirpate Epiſcopacy in England. Anſw. The Covenant obligeth to no ſuch thing, unleſs England call them to their Aſſiſtance. The Covenant ſetteth Limits to mens Actings, by their Station: If Scotland ſhould meddle with Englands Church Government without their call, they ſhould Act beyond their Station.

§ 6. He next p. 8. giveth a Teſtimony to the Moderation of ſome Presbyterians (which ſome of his party will not own, and the ſtrain in the whole of his diſcourſe ſeemeth to contradict) He is willing that they ſhould have an Indulgence, but that they have prepared an addreſs for the extinction of Prelacy: This we own: But his Inference is ſtrange, viz. Therefore they can be ſubject to no Law, and the Covenant, tho Illegal and Irreligious, muſt be their Rule. This is ſtrange Logick, from the Mouth of a Champion of that party which pretendeth to have monopolized learning to it ſelf. If Prelacy be extirpated by a Law, and Presbytery be by Law eſtabliſhed (as through the mercy of God now it is) cannot Presbyterians be ſubject to that Law? And I have already ſhewed, how we can be ſubject even to other Laws. It is alſo an unaccountable Inference, that the Covenant (which he moſt wickedly reproacheth) muſt be the Rule, if Presbytery be ſettled: He may know that Presbyterians have no other Rule in their Church Adminiſtrations, than the Scripture. And if any thing in the Covenant can be made appear contrary to that, they are ready to diſown it. For what he ſaith of our Addreſs, it ſhall be after conſidered. The laſt thing that he repreſenteth to the Prince is, That the difference betwixt the Epiſcopal men in Scotland, and the Preſbyterians, is but ſmall: They having neither Liturgy nor Ceremonies, more than the Presbyterians have. We are not for widening the difference; but would bring it to as narrow a compaſs as may be. Yet we muſt not tell untruths (as this Author doth) to deceive them who know not our affairs; by repreſenting Agreement, where really it is not. For the difference betwixt us and them is irreconcileable, without the yielding of one Party, while they are for the Juriſdiction of one Miniſter over the reſt, and we are for a Parity among them. He ſaith, Their Biſhops are in the place of our Moderators; whom we have ſometimes confeſſed may be conſtant. Anſ. This we cannot yield: Our Moderator hath no Juriſdiction, yea no Vote; unleſs where there is an equality. The Biſhop hath a negative Vote. For our Moderator being conſtant, it is contrary to our practice, yea our Opinion is, that whatever Lawfulneſs be in it, it is ſo highly inexpedient, that we can never yield to it. He ſaith, the Presbyters have a free Vote in the Biſhops Election. Nothing can be more falſe. Is not the Biſhop named by the King? And was it ever allowed, that the Perſon whom the King had named ſhould be paſſed by and another choſen? where is then the freedom of Vote? He ſaith, the Biſhops Govern only by Presbyteries and Synods: The contrary is known to every one: The Biſhop taketh their Counſel when he pleaſeth, not elſe. The grounds for complaint and ſeparation from them (ſuch as we made) I have above diſcourſed.

§ 7. He bringeth as a Foundation of moſt of his diſcourſe againſt us, a Paper that he calleth the Presbyterians Addreſs from Scotland to the Prince of Orange. On moſt paſſages of it he hath ſome quibling obſerves, more like a Bouffoon than a Diſputant. If the paper were ours, I ſhould not think his reparties worthy of an anſwer: They are ſo purely, either trifling or railing: but the beſt of it is, he hath pickt up a paper, to which either he, or ſome Body elſe, hath given that Title: But it is none of ours, nor was it agreed to by the Presbyterians, or preſented to his Highneſs. We did indeed preſent an Addreſs, if he hath any thing to ſay againſt that, we ſhall conſider the ſtrength of what he ſhall ſay: But for this paper, it is not only not our Addreſs, but hardly can two papers aiming at the ſame thing, and on the ſame ſubject, have leſs agreement in matter, or words, than it hath with our Addreſs. What he ſaith to fix this paper on us, p. 23. Is a heap of lies: viz. That this Addreſs was agreed to and ſubſcribed in our publick Meeting at Edinburgh: That hearing that the Prince had Communicated with the Church of England, we demurred ſending of it. Not one word of all this is true: Theſe men have taught their tongues, and their pens too, to ſpeak and write Lies. Whence this Paper came I cannot conjecture, unleſs it was drawn by ſome member of the Meeting, and preſented to them, but not approved: For I know, that ſeveral Draughts were privately made, and out of them was that taken which was ſent, and which we own. Upon this conſideration, I ſhall wholly paſs over all that he ſaith on that pretended Addreſs, and ſuffer him to fight with his own ſhaddow. Another moſt impudent untruth he aſſerteth alſo, p. 23. that at London our Commiſſioners deſired ſome Perſons of Quality to ſubſcribe our Addreſs, and would not allow them to read it, till they ſhould Sacredly promiſe to ſubſcribe: and this, he ſaith, ſome of theſe Perſons themſelves told him. We were ſo far from that, that we never refuſed a reading of it to any who deſired it. Yea we gave it to be read by ſeveral Perſons of quality of whoſe ſubſcribing it we had no hope.

§ 8. He next giveth the Presbyterians a few good Words: He would not be Cruel to them, but pitty them as deluded. He ſhall have a meeting from us, in both theſe; He would allow them Indulgence, but yet he requireth, That they ſhould let other Proteſtants live too: That they ſhould yield to ſuch Accommodation as the Learned Proteſtants abroad are not againſt: That they ſhould not abhor the Communion and practices of the other Reformed Churches: That they think themſelves not bound to Perſecute thoſe of the Church of England. We can eaſily yield to all theſe poſtulata, ſano Senſu. For the 1ſt. We not only let other Proteſtants live; but the People we admit to our Communion in all Ordinances; the Miniſters we ſuffer to Preach and enjoy their livings, where there are no perſonal Scandals to hinder it. Yea, ſuch of the Miniſters as will ſecure the Church Government, we admit to manage it with us, and to all Miniſterial Communion. For the ſecond, we know there are Learned Proteſtants abroad who are for toleration to Arminians, Socinians, and what not: We cannot be for ſuch Accommodation: but we differ not from the Generality of the Churches, and Learned Men abroad, in this Matter. For the third, We do not abhor the Communion of any of the Churches abroad, in their Adminiſtrating the Ordinances of Chriſt: But we know that ſome Reformed Churches have practices that we cannot approve; and in theſe practices we can have no Communion with them. For the fourth, we look on our ſelves under no tie (nor Capacity neither) to perſecute thoſe of the Church of England: Nor do we perſecute any of them: We leave them to ſtand or fall to their own Maſter. He now p. 26. cometh very magiſterially, to require ſecurity from us, that we will not by our Sentences, counter-act the Decrees of the Supreme Civil Judicatories; and that we diſclaim that abſolute Supremacy, or Papacy, that the Kirk hath always claimed over Kings and Civil Power. Anſ. Tho we owe no ſuch ſubjection to this Author, as to give him Security in this: Yet when ever our Rulers ſhall demand it of us, we are willing to give all Security: And we diſown any power to counteract the Decrees of our Rulers: And all Supremacy or Papacy over Kings, further than, that the Church, and every Miniſter in Her, hath a Miniſterial power to declare the Laws of Chriſt (not to make new ones of their own) and that all men, High and Low, ought to ſubmit to theſe Laws, and obey them: And whoever will not obey them, fall under the Diſpleaſure of our great Lord and Maſter: Yet that we do not withdraw Subjection, nor due reſpect, nor obedience in all things Lawful, from theſe Rulers who do break the Laws of Chriſt: According to our Confeſſion of Faith, Chap. 23. Sect. 4. For the inſtance he giveth of a ſad difference that fell in between the King and the Church: It was in a time when the People, and their Repreſentatives did alſo contend with the King: And that in a Bloody War: And things run to an undue height, on all hands. The Presbyterians maintain no ſuch Principle as he alledgeth, of the Infallibility of the General Aſſembly, as he ſaith, p. 29. Nor of a Supremacy over Kings. Charity will Bury what is paſt (but ſpite and malice endeavoureth to dig it out of its Grave, and preſent it in the moſt odious dreſs) and every one ſhould, for time to come, Labour to ſerve God in the Station that he hath ſet him in. The outrages againſt his Party, that he chargeth us with, cannot be made out, except what was done by the Rabble, in an Interregnum; and the Actors were none of our Communion. If he had mentioned in particular the Libels againſt the Government, which he blameth in General; we could have enquired into them, and told our thoughts of them. But I may adventure to ſay, that nothing ever came out from among us, that contained either ſo heavy, or ſo unjuſt complaints againſt the Government in the late Reigns, nor did ſo tend to raiſe the very Foundations of that ſettlement, as the multiplied Libels of his Party do by the Government which now is. What remains is ſo pure Railing, that it admitteth of no other anſwer, but to brand the whole of it with this motto, that it is void of Truth and Honeſty. And to his hopes that he expreſſeth of the Worlds judging and the Princes Acting; we oppoſe our confidence of the contrary of both; and our Experience of the Latter to the Immortal Praiſe of the wiſdom and goodneſs of our Gracious Monarch, whoſe heart God hath inclined to favour our righteous Cauſe.

An Examination of the Hiſtorical Relation of the late General Aſſembly, holden at Edinburgh, from October, 16th to November 13th, 1690.

SEveral wiſe men who have Read this Pamphlet, think that the moſt fit refutation of it were (as I ſaid of another ſuch piece) to write on the Margin of every page, Lies and Calumnies. It is mafeſtly ſo unanſwerable to its Title, that no man can have a true Idea of that Venerable Aſſembly, by Reading this Pamphlet. The Author confeſſeth that he was not Eye or Ear Witneſs to what paſſed, and all that he hath is at ſecond Hand: And that as it ſeemeth from ſuch as neither underſtood what they pretend to give account of, nor had the Honeſty to make a true and fair Relation of what was obvious to every mans Obſervation. For, tho he calleth them diſcreet and intelligent Perſont, yet not only the horrid lies with which, by their report he abuſeth the World, do Witneſs the contrary; but we do more than gueſs who they were, and know them to be very unintelligent in Church affairs, what ever knowledge they may have in other things: And that they are Perſons highly enraged againſt Presbyterians, becauſe they imagine that ſome of them had a hand in their being deprived of lucrative places. Even the keeping of the door of the Houſe where the Aſſembly ſate, he miſ-repreſenteth. It was not to keep out Conformiſts; but to keep out others as well as them, that there might be room for the Members of the Aſſembly: And for all the care that could be uſed, there was a very great Croud conſtantly in the Houſe. That ever any were thruſt out of the Houſe becauſe they were Conformiſts, is more than I know: Neither did I ever hear ſuch a Cry, as he mentioneth; tho I was daily there: Tho I confeſs it was not very fit to ſuffer them to be preſent, who, it might be rationally thought, came to mock, or to pick up what they might improve to our diſadvantage. There were in the Aſſembly, very often, ſome Perſons known to be Epiſcopal, who becauſe of their quality, and diſcretion, were not only allowed to be preſent; but had all reſpect given them that could be expected. And ſome of them, of Eminent ability to judge of things, obſerving the reaſonings of the Members, and actings of the Aſſembly, ſaid, If the Presbyterians went on at that rate, they would gain all Scotland to favour them. And I am ſure, that this was ſaid by ſuch as are incomparably beyond his diſcreet Perſons, in every thing that is commendable. It is an aſſertion like to theſe of his gang, which he hath pag. 2. That the Presbyterians exalt the Antho • ity of their Aſſemblies above that of King or Parliament. This is a broad Lie. What he ſaith to ſupport it, of Acts of Aſſe • blies againſt Acts of Parliament; I have anſwered in my former Vindication. •… He next accuſeth us, that we deſired an Aſſembly after the Parliament had ſetled our Government: That is, we are to blame, that we would think of ordering the Affairs of the Houſe of God, ſeeing the Parliament had allowed us ſo to do. Is the Church of England to blame, becauſe they deſired a Convocation to which he maketh our Aſſembly parallel? We deſired to meet for other ends than ſetling the Presbyterian Government: We know it was ſetled by Chriſt long before, as his inſtitution, and that now it had the Civil Sanction by King and Parliament, for its ſettlement.

§ 2. Our Hiſtorian hath quickly forgot his work: for inſtead of telling us what the Aſſembly did, he giveth us account of what the Parliament Acted: And p. 2, 3. He ſeverely Laſheth the Parliament, for ſetling the Government of the Church in the hands of the Preſbyterians alone, and ſuch as they ſhould admit, This conduct I have elſewhere vindicated as moſt rational: And ſurely this was ſo neceſſary, that either Epiſcopacy muſt be continued, or this muſt be done: Now the Convention had voted Epiſcopacy to be a Grievance to the Nation, and in the Claim of Right made it a Fundamental Article in the Government, that it ſhould be aboliſhed: and the Presbyterians being the ſmaller number (many of them being removed by Death, through the courſe of about 30 years, and the hardſhips they endured through Epiſcopal fury; and few coming in their places, being hindred by a ſevere Perſecution) it had been very incongruous, and inconſiſtent with the ſtanding of the Government which they deſigned to eſtabliſh, that the plurality of them who ſhould Govern the Presbyterian Church, ſhould be Epiſcopal. Yet it was allowed by by the State, and determined by the Church, that as many of the Epiſcopal men as were qualified to be Miniſters, and would ſubmit, to concur with, and act nothing againſt Presbyterial Government, ſhould be received into a ſhare of the Government: And ſuch as had Miniſterial qualifications ſhould enjoy their places and benefices, tho they ſhould not ſo far own Presbytery as hath been mentioned. What is then the injury that he complaineth of, done to the Epiſcopal Clergy? None of them are deprived of their places, yea none excluded from Miniſterial Communion, but of their own choice; that they will not ſubmit to terms ſo reaſonable, and neceſſary. They would have thought us (in the former Reigns) very unreaſonable, if we had been ſuffered to enjoy our Churches and Stipends, if we were not Drunkards or Swearers, &c. and yet complained of hard uſage; or if we ſhould have demanded a ſhare in Governing the Epiſcopal Church, and yet would not ſubmit to the Biſhop. He ſaith, the Publick Faith (for even that muſt abide his ſevere cenſure) promiſed them protection, upon their Submiſſion to the Civil Government. Anſ. Can he ſay, That they are not protected in all their. Civil Rights: But it was never promiſed, that whoever would ſubmit to the Civil Government, ſhould be put in Capacity to overturn the Church. To enjoy a place in the Miniſtry is no Civil Right. The Stipend is a Civil thing: but a mans Right to it depends upon his being in the Office, and having the Charge of ſuch a People: But it was never dreamed that a man ſhould be protected to continue a Miniſter, tho he be Ignorant, Scandalous, Erroneous, or ſupinely Negligent. He (according to the Modeſty of his Party, and their reſpect to Authority) ſaith, Their Petition (viz. which was given in to the Parliament that they might have a ſhare in the Church Government) was diſdainfully rejected, and the Act continued as it was. Anſ. Their Petition was indeed rejected, on the grounds that I have mentioned; but without any ſhew of diſdain, and with as much reſpect to them as was due.

§ 3. He cometh now, page 3. to reaſon the Caſe againſt the King and Parliament, becauſe of their ſetling the Government of the Church in the Hands of Presbyterians. What is Argumentative in his Diſcourſe I ſhall conſider: Neglecting the railing that he intermixeth with it, ſuch as, A Presbyterian Tyranny is eſtabliſhed: That they, the Presbyterians, Lord it over their Brethren, more than ever the Biſhops did, or pretended to do: His Reaſons, ſo far as I can pick them out of his looſe Diſcourſe; are firſt, inſtead of fourteen Biſhops now ſixty are ſet up; by which he intendeth, as I ſuppoſe, that the Government of the Church was now ſetled in ſo few Hands as ſixty. Anſ. The falſhood of this is manifeſt: The General Aſſembly conſiſted of an hundred and ſixteen Miniſters, and forty ſeven Ruling Elders; and they were but Delegates from the ſeveral Presbyteries, in which there were ordinarily a greater number that ſent them, than they that were ſent. Now the Government was not (by the Act of Parliament) ſetled in the perſons of Miniſters only, but of Ruling Elders alſo: Many of whom are Noblemen, and Gentlemen of good Abilities: Neither can it be ſaid, that they were ſet up as Biſhops; or acted with their Lordly domination, as will appear from anſwering his following Objections. He next ſaith, Presbyters were ſubject to them who were no more but Presbyters; which hath no Preſident in the Catholick Church. Anſ. It is true, it is not preſidented in the Catholick Church, that one, or more Presbyters, ſhould be ſubject to one who is no more but a Presbyter; which is not our Conſtitution nor practice: But it hath often been, that Presbyters in their ſingle Capacity, were ſubject to them who were no more but Presbyters, acting jointly, in a Church Judicatory; and this is all that is now done. The Presbyterian Church doth not ſubject the Epiſcopal Church to them: Nor doth one Presbyter among us judge one Presbyter among them: But the Presbyterian Church combined, judgeth every ſingle Preſbyter in this National Church. And when he ſhall demonſtrate the Abſurdity of that, we ſhall yield to his Argument. Again, he argueth thus, They who could not be denyed to be lawful Miniſters were excluded from any ſhare in the Diſcipline and Government of the Church; which is contrary to Presbyterian Principles. Anſ. The Presbyterians never held a Principle, ſo univerſal as what he hinteth, about the priviledge of Lawful Miniſters to govern the Church: They never held that a Popiſh Miniſter ſhould be a Ruler in the Proteſtant Church: And they deny not ſuch to be lawful Miniſters: They maintain, that though it belong to all Miniſters generally, to have a ſhare in the Government of the Church; yet there might be ſome Caſes in which (pro praeſenti Eccleſiae Statu) they may be reſtrained from that priviledge: Tho' they are not to be reſtrained perpetually, nor in the ſetled State of the Church. The Presbyterian Church had long been born down, and almoſt exhauſted; they are now, through the Mercy of God, reſtored; they find a great many Miniſters in Charges, who may be uſeful in preaching the Goſpel, but diſpoſed to overturn the Government of the Church, if it ſhould be put in their Hands; is it not rational, that they ſhould ſuffer theſe to preach, for the Church needeth their help: And yet not ſuffer them to rule the Church, leſt they overturn her Settlement? They refuſe none of them who will ſecure the Government, and are otherwiſe qualified for the Miniſtry. Again, tho' we own them as lawful Miniſters; yet we cannot own them as Miniſters of the Presbyterian Church: They have a right to govern the Epiſcopal Church, to which they had betaken themſelves, and left the Preſbyterian Church (tho' their Biſhops, even in it, did not allow them that priviledge) yet that they have a right to rule the Presbyterian Church we deny. They and we agree in Doctrine, and therefore we may teach the Church together: But we diſagree in Government, and therefore we cannot rule together. He ſaith, That Presbyterians hold, that it is unlawful for a Miniſter to part with his Right of Governing. Anſ. But the Church may deny him the exerciſe of that priviledge, if ſhe find him inhabile for the exerciſe of it. He pleadeth alſo, That we blamed Biſhops that they took this Power generally to themſelves. Anſ. We did ſo, becauſe they excluded the reſt; not on account of any ſpecial inhability, but as having no right to ſuch a power, which we maintain to be in all Presbyters alike. If any ſay, that Miniſterial power is quid indiviſum, and the exerciſe of teaching cannot be allowed, where that of Ruling power is reſtrained: I anſwer, this is true with reſpect to the ordinary and ſetled State of the Church; but ſuch an extraordinary caſe of neceſſity as this may warrant ſuch a reſtraint for a time. But if this Argument hath any force, it proveth that neither Preaching nor Ruling ſhould be allowed: and it commendeth the moderation of the Presbyterian Church, which will allow them to ſerve the Lord as they can, when they cannot do it as they ſhould.

§ 4. He propoſeth (tho' not candidly) but doth not anſwer our Reaſons for this conduct. One is, We could not otherwiſe make our Government ſure. And is it not reaſonable that that Government which Chriſt hath ſetled in his Church (as we think) and which the Authority of the Nation hath ſetled, ſhould not be rendred unſafe, by putting it in the hands of the avowed Enemies thereof; when we could exclude them on ſuch rational grounds as have have been mentioned. Another Argument he maintaineth as ours, The Epiſcopal Men deſerved to be thus treated, for their Apoſtaſie. Anſ. I know not who ever brought this Argument: We go not to the rigour of all the Cenſure, that that wrong ſtep deſerved; we would rather conſider what the preſent ſtate of the Church, and the promoting of Truth and Holineſs, and Unity, doth require; than what Men deſerve. We are for moderation, maugre all the reproaches that he, and ſuch as he caſt upon us: Tho' at the ſame time, we think that the Rigour of Church Diſcipline might put more force in this Argument than he is aware of. He inferreth from what he had diſcourſed, That Presbyterians juggle with God and Man; becauſe they hold their Government to be ſo of Divine Right, that they can make no compoſition with Men about it; but when it maketh for the Intereſt, they can make Eſſential Alterations. Anſ. We hold Parity to be of Divine Right, and cannot yield to Imparity: But this Parity is not taken away (as he alledgeth) by excluding them who have rendred themſelves inhabile; more than it is taken away by ſuſpending a Miniſter for any Immorality, or Negligence in his Work. Neither is there here any eſſential alteration in the Government, more than there is in that Caſe. Here is no Jugling, but fair and plain dealing. What he talketh of nine hundred Miniſters excluded, is a miſtake. We exclude none of them, but ſuch as perſiſt in their Principles, and Inclinations, to overturn the Government. Neither is there Inconſiſtency (as he would make us believe) between making Ruling Power Eſſential to a Miniſter, and ſuſſpending the exerciſe of it for a time. We hold, that Rationality is eſſential to a Man, tho' ſome Scriblers be now and then Delirous.

§ 5. From this digreſſion, he returneth to his Hiſtory, page 4. And giveth an account of the meeting of the Miniſters and Elders, antecedent to the General Aſſembly, indicted by the King and Parliament, to be held October 16. 1690. In which Narrative, he doth in ſeveral things, miſ-inform his Readers, and repreſent things to the diſadvantage of truth, and of the Presbyterians. It is a miſrepreſentation, That the Act of Parliament Committed the Care and Management of the Government to theſe few ſurviving Presbyterian Miniſters who had not complyed with Epiſcopacy. For it was to them, and the Elders, and ſuch Miniſters and Elders as they had received, or ſhould receive. Another miſtake is, That the Meeting that preceded the forementioned Aſſembly was called, to lay down methods how a General Aſſembly ſhould be called, and conſtituted, becauſe one could not be had, according to their minds, after the old manner, and ſtanding Rules of General Aſſemblies. Anſ. This Meeting was not called for that end, nor did act any thing to that purpoſe, nor needed they do ſo: For the Act of Parliament had excluded all the Epiſcopal Miniſters from ſitting in the General Aſſembly, unleſs they were taken in by the Presbyterians. All that they did, that could any way concern the Conſtitution of the Aſſembly, was, that Presbyteries ſhould ſend three, or four of their number to the Aſſembly, where they had ſent but two, when there were more Miniſters in each Presbytery; which could no way alter the Conſtitution of the Aſſembly. He giveth a falſe account of the Act of Parliament, by which Presbyterian Government was ſetled; when he ſaith, That by it none had a ſhare of the Government, but ſuch Miniſters as had been removed by the reſtoration of Epiſcopacy. For both Ruling Elders are expreſly mentioned, and ſuch Miniſters as the Presbyterians had received, or ſhould receive. Hence followeth another miſtake; viz. That they were over-ſeen when they admitted others into the Government, and were by that means over-voted. None were admitted but ſuch as the Act of Parliament reached; nor was there any over-voting in the Caſe; for both they who had been turned out by the Biſhops, and they who were after taken in, did generally agree in the ſame Votes. He would revive the old forgotten, and Fatal Diviſion, that rent and ruined this Church, about the Proteſtation and Remonſtrance: But, through the Mercy of God, it is not ſo much as mentioned among us. That ſome of the Remonſtrators, who had been, under that woful Schiſm in the Church, depoſed by the oppoſite party, ſate among us, is true; and we know no reaſon why it ſhould not be ſo; for their Sentences were taken off, long before: And what was moved, and done in that meeting was, that the revoking of theſe Sentences ſhould be now confirmed by this Meeting, as being of more extenſive Authority than theſe which had recalled them. That any of them who ſate there, were depoſed for ſcandalous and groſs Crimes: Or for any thing but their Opinion in that controverted point, and their practice according to it; is more than we know, and unleſs he can make it appear, he ought to be reputed a Slanderer; if he or any elſe ſhall prove it, we ſhall acknowledge our Errour, at leaſt our Ignorance, and ſhall rectifie what we have done amiſs. What he ſaith of Mr. Pitcairn's proteſting againſt their ſitting there, is a groſs miſtake: That Reverend Brother was diſſatisfied with the way of wording the Determination of the Meeting in that Affair, which ſome propoſed; and was a little hot about it; but he was ſoon ſatisfied: Neither did he enter any Proteſtation; tho' he ſpoke of it: Nor did he object againſt the recalling of their Sentences. In all this our Author giveth his Readers a moſt falſe and unfair Idea of our Affairs.

§ 6. Which he doth yet more in what followeth, he telleth us of a Debate betwixt the old and the young Men, which of the two ſhould Rule. A Controverſie that never was ſo much as named in any of our meetings, nor for what I know in private Diſcourſe. Nothing can be more falſe than the ſtory that he telleth; for inſtance in this matter, of a Conteſt between Mr. Rule and Mr. Webſter. No ſuch words were ever ſpoken: And if they had, there had been no truth in them. For what he talketh (in his Marginal Note) of the Contribution of the Siſters, ſavoureth more of Spite than Wit. Some of the Nonconformiſts lived on their own Eſtates, others by their Induſtry in Lawful Callings, yet diligently preaching the Goſpel, others by the Charity of good Women, and good Men too; as our Lord and his Apoſtles did: And his own party are now brought to that Mortification, that I ſuppoſe the Contributions of the Siſters are not deſpiſed by them. He quarrelleth with the Name of the General Meeting that preceded the Aſſembly, as being none of the Names of the Church Judicatories known ſince the Reformation. What if we ſhould ſay, it was an extraordinary Meeting, ſuch as that extraordinary Caſe of the Church did allow: And yet it wanted not Authority neither from God, it being made up of the Officers that Chriſt hath appointed to Rule his Church: Nor from Man, we have then a Liberty granted fot the exerciſe of our Miniſtry, in all the parts of it. We may alſo defend it to be a General Aſſembly of this Presbyterian Church; which differed in nothing from that which followed, but that the one had the countenance of the King and Parliament; this other only that of the King directly, and of the Parliament indirectly: The Parliament having allowed the King a power of granting Indulgence to Diſſenters •… om the Eſtabliſhed way, as was noted on Letter 2. Sect. 16. In his account of the Work done by this meeting, he doth groſly prevaricate, while he ſaith, They preſcribed Rules for trying Epiſcopal Miniſters. They did indeed ſuppoſe that Presbyteries have an Intrinſick power of judging the Life and Doctrine of all the Miniſters within their bounds, and of excluding the unfit, and receiving them that are qualified; but conſidering the preſent paucity of Presbyterian Miniſters (which yet was not ſuch as he would have us believe.) They were ſo far from directing them to try theſe men, that they did wiſely caution them, and ſome way reſtrain them, in this Tryal: For their appointment was, that if, in trying theſe men, the Presbyteries ſhould meet with any Libel the Relevancy of which was doubtful, or if the ſufficiency of the proof were not clear; in ſuch Caſes they ſhould not proceed to a Sentence, but refer the Caſe to the General Aſſembly; which was ſoon after to ſit. What could they do more to prevent Injury to theſe Men; without denying that power of Presbyteries which is their due? He inſtanceth in ſome Presbyteries where were very few Miniſters; we deny it not; but that was but in ſome few places, and at firſt: There are more now, even in theſe places; and in other parts of the Countrey there were even then a competent number in Presbyteries, and in ſome places few or none wanting: As in all the Preſbyteries of the Synod of Glaſgow. That there were ſo few, is not to be wondered at: The whole Nation being but t'other day under Epiſcopacy: The Youth having been generally ſo bred; and the Presbyterians being almoſt worn out by a long tract of time, and heavy Perſecution. There were fewer Proteſtant Miniſters in the beginning of the Reformation from Popery, and yet it was not thought fit that either the Church ſhould be without all Government, or that it ſhould be put into the hands of Popiſh Prieſts while they continued ſuch. He is alſo diſpleaſed with appointing greater Presbyteries to ſend more Miniſters; as being an unequal Repreſentation of the Church. Others will think that this was moſt equal: For the General Aſſembly is the Repreſentative of the Presbyteries immediately (tho' more remotely they repreſent the whole Church.) And therefore where Presbyteries are unequal, their Repreſentation ſhould be ſo too. But by this means ſome part of the Nation were not at all repreſented. Anſ. It could not be otherwiſe, where there were no Presbyterian Miniſters; that place of the Church could not be repreſented by Epiſcopalians; for they neither had by Law, nor could claim in Reaſon, a ſhare of the Presbyterian Government: Neither can this Argument derogate from the Authority of the General Aſſembly over the whole Church; more than the vacancy of a Pariſh can warrant them to plead exemption from the power of the Presbytery, becauſe they have not a Miniſter to repreſent them in it.

7. The next fault that he findeth is, The Meeting appointed a Faſt on the Lords Day; and ſaith, That it was the Cuſtom of the Old Presbyterians to appoint all their Faſts on the Lords Day. This laſt is notoriouſly falſe. The reaſon why that Faſt was on the Lords Day, it was the time of Harveſt, when it could not be obſerved on a Week day, without high Inconveniency: Neither do we think Faſting inconſiſtent with the Nature of the Lords Day, Religious Joy and Religious Sorrow do very well agree. His ſtory about the Licenſing the Treatiſe of Ruling Elders and Deacons, is a groſs Calumny; and hath ſeveral Lies in it. 1. The Licenſing of that Book was not the deed of the Meeting, but of the Clerk, without their appointment or knowledge: And he alſo alledged, that the Printer added the words which imported a Monopoly of it. As ſoon as the Book came out, the Meeting were highly offended with the Clerk for this preſumption; not only becauſe he had done it in their Name, without their appointment; but becauſe (as was ſaid publickly in the Meeting, Nemine Contradicente) it belonged to the State to Licenſe Books, and to Monopolize the Printing of them. For this the Clerk was ſeverely rebuked, and hardly eſcaped being depoſed. 2. That the Privy Council checkt this, or called in the Books, is falſe: For their Lordſhips underſtood that it was not the deed of the Meeting; and that the Meeting took care to get the Licenſe taken from the Copies, as ſoon as they underſtood it. Here then we have an Evidence, how gladly the Author would pick quarrels with us, and make us odious; tho' at the rate of telling lying Stories, which every one can contradict. He now beginneth, page 7. to give an Account of the Actings of the Presbyteries againſt the Prelatick Incumbents, between the General Meeting and the General Aſſembly, which ſate in October 1690. He blameth them, That they were more careful to Empty Churches, than to Fill them. This is not true, they endeavoured both to purge out the Scandalous, and ſuch as were like to do more Hurt than Good; and to plant the Churches with qualified Perſons; and ſomething was done both ways: Though we confeſs, planting Work went more ſlowly on than was wiſhed; partly becauſe of the paucity of qualified Men; but mainly through the oppoſition that ſome Men of this Authors Temper made, Viis & modis to diſcourage people from Calling Miniſters: And to perplex that Affair, when ever it was attempted. It is falſe, That none were ſent to the Weſt, where there was moſt need: And that they rather ſeated themſelves in Lothian, as being a better Countrey. There is neither Truth nor Candour in this Aſſertion: Even Galloway (which therefore was moſt deſtitute, becauſe the Incumbents had generally either been driven away, or deſerted) is now tolerably ſupplyed; tho' not ſo well as it ſhould be, or as I hope in a little more time it may be. He giveth a falſe and malicious Cauſe, of the ejecting of Miniſters in the end of page 8. viz. They were conſcious of their own Inabilities, and thought it not their Intereſt to tolerate ſuch as accuſtomed the people to Senſe and ſolid Diſcourſes. No other Anſwer is here fit, but to tell the Reader, That nothing but a fancy, tinctured with Malice and Prejudice, can make one ſo compare them who were caſt out, with them who were put in. His Stories of what this Man or t'other ſaid, when a reaſon was asked of their putting out of Miniſters, and of their Preaching in Meeting Houſes where Epiſcopal Men were in the Church. Theſe, I ſay, are not worth our notice. We will not defend what every private perſon ſaith in Diſcourſe; yea, not what every particular Miniſter ſaith in the Pulpit, (tho' ſome Notes of Sermons he talketh of that I never heard of before, nor am at leiſure to enquire about them.) We can give better Reaſons for both theſe practices, viz. We put out Men, becauſe they are Scandalous, and unfit to Edifie the People, and do rather harden them in Wickedneſs: And we Preached in Meeting Houſes becauſe many, often the moſt part, of the Pariſhes, would not hear the Prelatical Incumbents.

§ 8. There follows a whole Fardel of Lies and Malicious Repreſentations, of the procedure of the Presbyteries: Few Lines in pages nine and ten that do not contain ſome Falſhood or other; as, That Presbyteries ſent out Spies to obſerve Mens publick and private Diſcourſes and Practices. Let them give one inſtance of this, as the act of any one Presbytery: If any private perſon did make ſuch enquiry, we know not, nor can we in all Caſes condemn it: That they received Libels of old Crimes, is not ſo abſurd as he would make us believe: If the Church have not been ſatisfied, nor the Scandal of them taken off. That a Deſign was formed to diſgrace the Clergy: That there was little or nothing made out againſt them; are a couple of falſhoods. The former no man can prove: The latter I have before diſproved; and could give abundance of Inſtances. That the Scandals of one, or a few was charged on the whole party; is an impudent and falſe Aſſertion: He ſaith, That the leaſt defects of Behaviour were heightned to groſs Crimes: And what was no fault we made one by uncharitable Conſtruction. Whether ſome private perſons, who had more Zeal than Underſtanding, might not do ſo, I cannot tell: But he is now ſpeaking of the Actings of the Judicatories; and that any of them did ſo, is falſe. That inſignificant Articles were accumulated to a great height; Is alſo ſaid, but cannot be proved. That ſome Miniſters were charged with Admitting to the Office of Elders, or not Cenſuring Men of Immoral Converſations; Is not to be blamed: The Apoſtle giveth expreſs Directions about the Qualifications that ſhould be required of Elders: And it is certainly culpable to over-look Scandals in any, and more eſpecially in Church Officers: That whatever was offered in a Libel, by any Bigot, was admitted: Is no further true, than that they conſidered it, but what was found to be irrelevant, (as many things were) was rejected: And no man was Cenſured for it. The Libels of Mr. Graham, and Mr. Cooper ought not to have been mentioned by him; for the one had never any effect; nor was the man Cenſured. The other is before the Commiſſion, and the Sentence will be taken off, if it be found to be unjuſt. And I hope Presbyterians are not to be blamed, becauſe ſome leſs Intelligent people do, ſometimes, complain of men, where there is little Cauſe. It is next to ridiculous, that our Author (having no more that he can deviſe againſt us) blotteth Paper, with what was deſigned to be Libelled againſt ſome; when it was not done; And with ſome frivolous Accuſations, that he ſaith, were made; when he cannot tell by whom, or againſt whom: I am weary of Tranſcribing theſe impertinent Recitals, of irrelevant Libels, that were not uſed by Judicatories, as the ground of Sentences: About which he ſpendeth alſo pag. 11, and part of 12. Beſides what I have ſaid, let it be conſidered, that ſome of the Proceſſes on the Libels that he mentioneth, are yet depending and not diſcuſſed: As that of Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Wood: Others of them are diſcuſſed, and the Sentence revoked by the Commiſſion of the General Aſſembly, as that of Mr. Bowes of Abotſhall.

§ 9. He taketh notice pag. 12. That in their Libels they would never give any of the Epiſcopal Clergy the Title of Miniſter; but only of Incumbent. If this be true (which I much doubt) it is but what they do to us, in all theſe Pamphlets that I have under conſideration; and on all occaſions: But I know no Presbyterian Miniſter who denieth them to be Miniſters. The Story that he telleth of what paſt between Mr. Graham and an unnamed perſon, I neither know nor do believe it to be true: And if any ſaid ſo, we diſown it. That the Miniſters always had a hand in drawing the Libels: That they were all of the ſame ſtrain, or that all was concerted among them to diſgrace the Clergy; are Aſſertions as remote from Truth as any thing can be, if this were true, how came it that ſome Libels were wholly rejected, in others ſome things were judged not Relevant: If what he alledgeth was done, ſometimes, by ſome one Miniſter, it is not chargeable on the Presbytery: Far leſs doth it follow, that it was always practiſed. He complaineth likewiſe of the manner of Proceſſes againſt the Clergy: That ſeldom the Accuſer was mentioned to the Accuſed: They always received the Libel, and ſuſtained the Validity of it, before the Accuſed was heard; nor was he ſuffered to be preſent at the Examination of the Witneſſes, and the Witneſſes were all allowed to be preſent at the Examination of every one of them: And the moſt profeſs'd Enemies were received as Witneſſes. Anſ. For the former two, It is queſtionable whether theſe things be required in a Proceſs about Scandal before an Eccleſiaſtick Judicatory; but whether it be ſo or not, I am ſure it was otherwiſe done (for the moſt part) than he affirmeth. For the other two, it is ſo far from being always ſo as he ſaith, that if any •… oceſs was found to be ſo managed; and if Complaint was made, the Sentence was declared void and null; of which after. He bringeth two inſtances of ſuch Irregular Proceedings, viz. Againſt Mr. Heriot of Dalkeith, whoſe Caſe is extant in Print: And an Anſwer to it daily expected (for it is now in the Preſs) to which I refer the Reader. And againſt Mr. Purveſs of Glencorſe, who accuſed the Witneſſes of Malice, as having aſſaulted him in the Pulpit, and that they were admitted to give Evidence againſt him: And he mentioneth what Mr. Selkirk Miniſter at Crightoun ſaid, in Defence of that Conduct: This were certainly blame-worthy, if it were true, but indeed there is no truth in it, for neither did they ever pull him out of the Pulpit, nor take him by the Throat (as is alledged) only he having promiſed them to Preach no more among them, and yet attempting to falfify his Promiſe, they did, without ſuch Violence, hinder him: Neither were ſuch words, or words to that effect, ſpoken by Mr. Selkirk: And ſome of the Witneſſes were rejected; and they who were admitted were purged from Malice, or partial Counſel, by their Solemn Oath. Another miſmanagement he mentioneth is, That if one part of the Depoſition of the Witneſſes ſeemed to prove the Libel, tho the other did exculpate the Miniſter, or extenuate his fault; the one part was marked, and the other not: And he telleth us of an Inſtance of this, in one who is ſince dead: But doth not tell who did ſo, nor againſt whom; and therefore not being able to enquire into it, we paſs it as one of his many Forgeries. However ſuch practices we diſown, as far from our way. I am ſure it was not ſo done, but the contrary, in any Judicatory where I have been a Member. He ſaith, Accuſing Witneſſes were incouraged, and clearing Witneſſes not noticed: But giveth no Inſtances, wherefore I give the ſame reply to it, as to the former. He alſo accuſeth us, That when a Sentence was read againſt a Miniſter at his own Church, the whole Libel was read, tho ſome Articles were frivolous, and others not proved. This alſo is but his Aſſertion, and no way proved. It is our way to read the Sentences, and to put no Article of the Libel in the Sentence. But ſuch as are of weight to bear ſuch a Sentence, and are ſufficiently proved.

§ 10. After all this, I do not deny that ſome of the Presbyteries paſſed Sentence on ſome Incumbents, on ſlender grounds: but I have already ſhewed (Anſ. to the late letter, Sect 5.) That the Church did what they could to have prevented this: And I muſt now tell you that inſtances of this were very few: moſt of the ſentences and proceedings will abide the moſt rigorous examination of unbyaſſed men, who have zeal againſt groſs immoralities: And I muſt further inform the Reader, that where complaint hath been made, the General Aſſembly hath referred to their Commiſſion, to examine ſuch proceſſes, and to take off all Sentences that were ill grounded; which the Commiſſion hath done to three of them, which are all that have as yet come before them. Wherefore ſuch proceedings are not to be imputed to the Presbyterians, but to ſome few among them, who through want of experience in Church Diſcipline, have miſtaken, and are ready to learn more Skill and Warrineſs. P. 14. He giveth account of the carriage of the Epiſcopal Clergy towards the Presbyterians, who dealt with them as is above mentioned: But becauſe he maketh no remarks on it, neither ſhall I. But what followeth I muſt not paſs: It is a malicious reproach of Presbyterians as men of Little Senſe or Learning. Tho he hath the impudence to aſſert this, when ever it ſhall be tryed, he will be found unable to ſtand before their Arguments, And I am ſure he hath given no proof of either Senſe or Learning, in his Book; but many Demonſtrations of Spite and Railing. He ſaith they have loſt their Intereſt in the Nation, are deſerted: That men are aſhamed of them, they are Dreaded as the plague of Mankind; What may be expected from a Tongue ſet on fire of Hell? They are not ſo lookt on by any, but ſuch as he is; whoſe kind reſpects to any man, were indeed a reproach to him: Or by a debauched crew, whom his faction indulged in their Immoralities; to which Presbyterial Diſcipline is a terrour. He ſaith p. 15. That the moſt bigotted and hot-headed were choſen for the Aſſembly: And inſtanceth in two learned men who were not choſen. But it was evident to all beholders, who were capable to judge, and even to the conviction of ſome of his own Party, who had not abandoned all Reaſon, and good Nature, (as this man hath done) That the Aſſembly was made up of many Grave, Learned, and Sober men: And their Actings will prove it in deſpight of his reproaches and obloquy againſt them. The two whom he mentioneth are learned and worthy men: But all could not be choſen: And I know ſome very fit Perſons, out of an exceſs of Modeſty, ſhunned it, and got others choſen. That it was concluded that Mr. George Campbel ſhould be ſhuffled out of the Aſſembly, is an Aſſertion Demonſtrative of a Brazen Forehead, in the Aſſerter: By whom was this concluded? Yea, or wiſhed? For my part, I know them not: Nor never heard of any ſuch motion. His going ſo near to be choſen Moderator (which this Pamphlet taketh notice of) ſheweth, how acceptable he was to moſt of the Miniſters: But there is a ſort of men who ſhould have good Memories; which our Author here wanted. His baſe Reflections on ſome others, that were choſen, do ſhew his own Character: viz. Irreconcileable ſpite againſt all that bear the name of Presbyterians. We could tell of hundreds of his party, for one of ours, guilty of groſs immoralities: And even ſome who were in higheſt places in their Church; of whoſe repentance we have not heard much. But that we ſhould not have mentioned, if it had not been in defence of the Intereſt that he ſetteth himſelf to diſparage. Nothing can eſcape the Laſh of this Authors virulent pen: P. 16. He moſt unmannerly taketh upon him to diſcourſe of the Kings Choice of a Commiſſioner, to repreſent his Royal Perſon in the Aſſembly: And to tell who was the fitteſt Perſon. Where he taketh occaſion to Calumniate the Earl of Crawford; by telling ſeveral groſs Lies about his Lordſhip: As that he rejoyced in the expectation of being Commiſſioner: And ſhewed a grudge at the diſappointment: Such malapart abuſing of any man, by judging his inward thoughts, (for I am ſure nothing of that kind ever appeared in his Lordſhips words or behaviour, but much to the contrary) but eſpecially, to deal ſo by ſo noble a Peer of the Nation, and who is ſo deſervedly honoured by all good men; this I ſay, deſerveth a more ſevere Reprimand, than my pen can give: His Lordſhip did what in him lay to ſhun that difficult Poſt: As alſo the Noble Lord on whom it was caſt, was far from deſigning it. That the Earl ſat in the Aſſembly houſe before he was a Member, doth not prove what is intended by it: For ſo did many others, both Noblemen, and of inferiour quality: Some out of Satisfaction they had to ſee the Church again ſetled on her ancient foundations; others out of Curioſity. That his Lordſhip did officiouſly meddle in all the concerns of the Aſſemblies, before he was a Member; is as remote from truth as Eaſt is from Weſt. The contrary appeared in his Lordſhips often refuſing to give advice when the Moderator deſired it. That letters were written to procure a Commiſſion to my Lord, is likewiſe falſe. It was voluntarily ſent to him from the Town of St. Andrews: He being Lord Provoſt of that Corporatin. We have a further falſe Imputation upon that Noble Earl. That at the Viſitation of the Ʋniverſity at St. Andrews, he uſed the Maſters Roughly, particularly refuſed to ſuffer Mr. Weems, Infirm through age, to lean on the ſtep of a Stair. Anſ. That Noble Earl dealt no otherwiſe with ſuch as appeared before the Commiſſion, than did become his Character: His Lordſhip and the reſt of the Commiſſion, ſat there by Authority of King and Parliament: And therefore diſreſpect to them could not but reflect on the Authority which they repreſented: When Mr. Weems complained that he could not ſtand, he was allowed to remove that he might refreſh himſelf.

§ 11. He cometh now at laſt, p. 17. to his purpoſe, to give account of the Aſſembly: And beginneth with the Sermons that were Preached at the opening of it. He quarrelleth that there were two Sermons: Saying, the Presbyterians can never have their full of Preaching. But the Reader may know that it hath been Cuſtomary in the Church of Scotland (and none but ſuch mockers will reproach them for it) to make the firſt Day of the Aſſembly a Day of Faſting and Prayer; and two Sermons were no ſuperfluity in that caſe. The Sermons he alſo findeth fault with Mr. Cunningham's Sermon, that it was borrowed from Mr. Oliver Bowlis, being a Sermon that he Preached, Anno. 1643. The reverend and worthy Mr. Cunningham, being now at his reſt, cannot anſwer for himſelf; nor tell us what to ſay for him in this particular: But this I can ſay in general (and will be believed by all that knew him, and are capable to judge) that few Miniſters of the Goſpel did outſtrip him in Miniſterial Qualifications: And he needed be beholding to no Man for a Sermon. The other Sermon by Mr. Patrick Symſon, he ſaith, was courſe Presbyterian ſtuff; but as Wiſe Men as he, thought it a Solid Pertinent, and Uſeful Diſcourſe, to be preferred to hundreds of the Jingling, Py-bald Orations that many of his party do ſpend the ſhort Glaſs with. What Supremacy or Authority he aſcribed to the Aſſembly, our Author would fain tell us, but ſheweth by his Expreſſions, that either his Ignorant Informers did not underſtand what was ſpoken. or he did not comprehend what they told him. What was ſaid on that Head, I do not remember; but we aſcribe no abſolute power to the General Aſſembly: That their power is immediately from Chriſt; that is, that no Man giveth it, we own: He falleth p. 18. on the chuſing of the Moderator. Where he taketh occaſion to ſpit all his Venom againſt the four Miniſters who were put on the Liſt, out of which the Moderator was to be choſen: All this I might paſs over; for my buſineſs is not to vindicate perſons, but things: And all who have read thus far in this Book, will be convinced that his Tongue is no ſlander; and the credit of thoſe Brethren is ſuch as he will not be able to Ruine, by his Lies and Reproaches. Wherefore I ſhall touch this part of his Satyr but lightly. Mr. Camphel, he ſaith nothing againſt, and indeed his praiſe is in the Churches: And our Author had met with him before, page 15. And had told only of him, That to pleaſe his Brethren he had been more ſevere againſt the Epiſcopal Clergy than was his Wont. Nothing can be more falſe: He is no Man-pleaſer, and he always had a true Zeal againſt that way, and againſt the Immoralities of ſome of them: And now ſheweth no more of Zeal than is conſiſtent with Wiſdom and Moderation. Mr. Rule cometh next on the Stage, He is called Doctor Rule, becauſe he did practiſe Medicine, and took the Degree of Doctor in it likewiſe, when he had no other way to maintain his Family; yet never giving over the Work of the Miniſtry; but preaching frequently. He was once Independent: That is abſolutely falſe. At Aberdeen, he withſtood the Temptation, when he had great Offers to take the Charge of an Independent Congregation: And in Northumberland (where he had his firſt Charge) he ſuffered no ſmall Loſs becauſe he would not fall in with that way. His want of Latine, and ſp • aking falſe Latine, is falſe. He is ready, as he hath done, to give proof to the contrary, and to compete with this Pretender, when he will: For His Prayers in Latine; they are longer, or ſhorter, as the occaſion requireth; but never ſo ſhort as he alledgeth; neither doth he uſe to pray very long in publick, even in Engliſh. For the Ignorance diſcovered in the things he hath written; I wiſh this Scioliſt would make it appear by a ſolid Refutation: The paſſage that he bringeth for inſtance, he is ready to defend, with all the probability the ſubject Matter is capable of. And if it were a miſtake, it is no proof of Ignorance, to have a different Notion about a paſſage in an Author, from them who follow, as they lead, who have gone before them. If this Momus will make his Cenſure on the True Repreſentation of Presbyterian Government, it is like Mr. Rule, or ſome for him, will give him a fair Anſwer. But leſt all this be not enough to diſparage him, and his Miniſtry, He often venteth himſelf bitterly againſt the Epiſcopal Party: Others think quite contrary, few Presbyterians do more ſeldom mention them, and an Argumentative way, rather than bitterneſs, is his ſtrain. If it can be made appear that he hath done otherwiſe, none ſhall blame him more than I ſhall do. The many particulars he is accuſed of, have obliged me to ſay more in his Vindication than I intended. In the next place he giveth a Character of Mr. Meldrum. He ſpendeth a great many words about him: But the whole matter is in ſhort, That once he complyed with Epiſcopacy, took the Oath of Canonical Obedience (which our Author is told, That he denyeth;) That going out for the Teſt, he left the Epiſcopal Party; becauſe when the Teſt was taken away, he was not permitted to return to his Miniſtry at Aberdeen. The Worth and Integrity of this Man is known to all in Scotland; and acknowledged by all, except them who prize no Man but for being like themſelves. That he complyed once, was a Token of Humane Infirmity: That he hath now left that way, is commendable; tho' it ſtir the Choler of this Scribler. His fourth Man is Mr. Kennedy, who was choſen Moderator, he is called Mr. Kennedy by his own party, and if any familiarly call him Father Kennedy, his Age may bear ſuch a Deſignation; but they who call him Bitter-Beard, do miſtake his Temper. That he was with the Army at Newcaſtle, or received 6000 Marks, is moſt falſe: He was never in England till 1690. when he was ſent, with others to London, with an Addreſs to the King. The Cauſes of his Depoſition 1660. are foully miſ-repreſented. It was only for his Opinion in the matters that then divided the Church. That his Depoſition was never taken off till the Penult day of the Aſſembly, is not the leaſt of the Lies that this Paper is loaden with: It, with others, was taken off ſeveral years before, and this was ratified by the General Meeting ſome Months before the Aſſembly; and all that had been done in this matter was confirmed by the Aſſembly, a day before it was diſſolved.

§ 12. The Moderator being choſen: He telleth of a Competition for the Clerkſhip: It may be, ſome of theſe perſons, that he nameth, might be mentioned in private Diſcourſes; but never any ſuch competition appeared before the Aſſembly: And moſt of them were ſo far from either petition or competition, that they rather declined it when it was mentioned to them by their Friends. He accuſeth the Aſſembly as inſufficient to repreſent the Church of Scotland, as that of Trent was to repreſent the Catholick Church: But he cannot deny that it repreſented the Presbyterian Church; and was all that could be had of a Presbyterian Aſſembly: And we deny not that the Council of Trent repreſented the Popiſh, tho' not the Catholick Chriſtian Church, as was pretended. And indeed there were ſome from all parts of the Nation, even from the Northern Counties of Roſs, Murray, Aberdeen. That there wanted from one or two Counties, maketh nothing againſt the Authority of the Aſſembly: For there are places in the Highlands from which ſeldom or never there have been Commiſſioners at any Church Aſſembly. What Spirit ruled in this Aſſembly, he determineth, with the ſame malice that hath hitherto appeared in his Book; and mocketh at the Prayers that were put up for another Spirit. By this, and ſuch like paſſages, it appeareth what Spirit acteth this Scribler. It is falſe, That the Presbyterians in Scotland have always conteſted with their Kings about the Power of Calling Aſſemblies. Their Kings never denied their Intrinſick Power in this, except when they were influenced by a Prelatical, Eraſtian Crew about them: But on the contrary have ſetled it by their Laws, as the Churches priviledge: As in the Act 1592. which is ratified by an Act of this current Parliament; neither did they deny to the King a Power of Calling Aſſemblies, nor have ever refuſed to meet when called by him: We think it moſt deſirable when the King and the Church agree about this; and it moveth this Mans ſpite, that Affairs were ſo managed in this Aſſembly. The ridiculous Expreſſion in Prayer that he imputeth to Mr. Cunningham, calling it a pleaſant paſſage, is a meer Forgery: That Reverend and Wiſe Man, underſtood well what he ſaid. He is not aſhamed to tell Lies in the Face of the Sun, and to impoſe upon our Senſes; when he not only denieth the Kings Letter and the Aſſemblies Anſwer to it to be publiſhed (both which are extant in the printed Acts of the General Aſſembly) but he falſifieth the Kings Letter moſt palpably, in making the King ſay, That he ſetled the Government, becauſe it was agreeable to the Inclinations of the People. Whereas it is, That Government which was judged to be ſo. And that He would have them do nothing that might diſpleaſe their Neighbour Church: Whereas the Letter ſaith, That Moderation is expected from them by their Neighbour Churches. He maketh no Churches their Standard; far leſs the Church of England; who His Majeſty well knew, were diſſatisfied with the very Being of that Aſſembly; and with all that they could Act, in managing of Presbyterian Government. He doth alſo miſ-repreſent the Aſſemblies Anſwer to His Majeſties Letter; as affirming, That their Government was not only agreeable to the Inclinations of the People, but moſt agreeable to the Word of God Whatever be our Opinion in that (which we neither deny nor: conceal) it is not ſo expreſſed: The words are, We are perſwaded that it is not more agreeable to the Inclinations and Conſcientious Perſwaſions, of all within this Kingdom, who are beſt affected to Your Majeſties Perſon and Government; than it is acceptable to God. He talketh next of an Act deſigned, but never concluded, for aſſerting the Divine Right of Presbyterial Government: And that it was the Legal Government of this Church: I think indeed that all the Aſſembly did concur in this Sentiment, but ſome thought it fit to expreſs it by an Act, and others thought is not expedient at this time; and it is like had regard to his Majeſties ſatisfaction, to whom it might have been uneaſie, in his preſent Circumſtances. What harm was there in all this? Praecepta poſitiva non obligant ad ſemper? He ſaith, It is clear from our Hiſtories, That Presbytery was never ſetled but in Times of Rebellion: And that this is declared in a late Diſcourſe: But if he had pleaſed to read what is written on both ſides, he might have ſeen the contrary cleared in a late Vindication, in Anſwer to that Diſcourſe, what a Member ſaid in Parliament, That Presbytery was the only (or the beſt) Security againſt the Encroachments of Kings; was much diſreliſhed by all that heard it, and ſuſpected to proceed from no good will to Presbyterian Government; nor are Presbyterians obliged to Anſwer for it: The Aſſembly did indeed promiſe Moderation in their Anſwer to the Kings Letter: and nothing to the contrary was ſeen among them; and we know His Majeſty doth expect it from them; Whatever malign Inſinuations this Man uſe to the contrary.

§ 13. He cometh to give the account of the Sermons Preached in time of the Aſſembly, eſpecially before my Lord Commiſſioner. And he is ſo ridiculous, as to take notice of the leaſt word that eſcaped any in the Aſſembly: By which he ſheweth both his Malice, and how little it hath to work upon; when he muſt pick up ſuch things to fill up his pages, as that one moved, that ſome might be imployed to preach in the Churches of Conformiſts in Edinburgh: Which was not ſeconded by any in the Aſſembly. His General, account of Mr. Meldrum's Sermon cannot be anſwered: It was ſatisfying to Intelligent, and Serious, Unbyaſſed Hearers, tho may be, not to prophane Mockers. What one Hamilton ſaid, of want of the Goſpel for 38 Years; I never before heard of; and look on it as invented by our Author, or ſome of his Informers. The reſt of the Sermons (except theſe of Mr. Carſtairs, and Mr. Wylie whoſe praiſes as eminent Preachers of the Goſpel, their Brethren do not envy) he Treateth with that Bitterneſs, Malice, and contempt, that is ſuteable to the Hiſtorical Talent of many of his party. If he had mentioned any evidences of ſuch faultineſs in theſe Sermons, they ſhould have been conſidered: But his Railing Declamations are to be deſpiſed. If the Debauchery of his party did not more tempt People to count all Religion a ſham, than the Preaching of Presbyterians doth, it were well. His bitter taunting of the Prayers of the Servants of God (which is his work. p. 35.) Is neither like to bring Credit to Religion, nor to his Cauſe: Was it ever heard of before, among Chriſtians, that when ſo weighty affairs were in hand, ſpending time in Prayer was fit to be ridiculed: If this be to be vile, we will be yet more vile: And will contemn what may be the ſentiment about it, of ſuch as he mentioneth. I am ſure they whom he thus ridiculeth, minded nothing but to ſeek help of God to manage his work right; and the Lord was pleaſed to help them to pray, and a return of their Prayers was not wanting. An unſavoury expreſſion he mentioneth, to have been uſed in Prayer (p. 36.) Which I do not remember to have heard; but it is not unuſual for this Hiſtorian to Coyn, where he wanteth wherewith to reproach us. He blameth The ſlow proceedings of the Aſſembly: And if more haſte had been made, he would certainly called it Raſhneſs, and precipitation: For he hath a mind to find Fault. He talketh of differences among us which were ſmoothered. Was ever ſo many men met, where there was no different apprehenſions of either the matters, or the way of managing them, or the wording of things? and was it not prudence to compromiſe what might tend to a difference? but let his malice prompt his Critical Skill to its utmoſt Capacity, I hope he cannot ſhew that we did not agree in what was material, or that we could not bear with one another in what was of leſs moment. Our receiving them who had broken the Unity of the Church, and were called Cameronians, he endeavoureth to turn to our reproach. It is true they gave in a Paper that we were not pleaſed with, to ſatisfie their own miſtking Conſciences, and to quiet the People whom they had led aſide: We were far from approving that Paper, but did expreſly condemn it: And accepted them on another which they gave in, which contained nothing but their Submiſſion to the Church, and their promiſe of endeavouring to preſerve the Unity of it. Who can blame this? and is it not the exerciſe of that moderation which becometh the Goſpel? But that they were told, that they had done us good ſervice, or that any inſinuation was made of approving of their former way, is among the reſt of his falſe Repreſentations which his Book is ſtuffed with. For what end he taketh notice of the competition about Mr. Semple, I know not: For here is no matter of reproach: Only he miſrepreſenteth the debate about allowing ſome Miniſters to go to Northumberland, at the deſire of the People there: Much more was ſaid for it, than he mentioneth; and what was of more weight: And what he doth notice is falſely narrated: There was no mention made of planting the Goſpel in England: He whom our Author imputeth this to, never thought that they of the Church of England had not the Goſpel: Nor was it ſaid that between Berwick and Newcaſtle they wanted the word of God; but, that the Presbyterians wanted the Ordinances of the Goſpel; not being allowed to enjoy them with the Church, unleſs they would comply with humane Ceremonies in the Worſhip of God; which they could not do with a good Conſcience. What was ſaid of the Practice of Piety in thoſe parts, I do not remember; I know there are not a few in that place of the Country, who may be in the Judgment of Charity, thought to fear the Lord: And there are alſo many, yea, a far greater number, of whom the Aſſertion he mentioneth is true. The truth is, this Author hath inured himſelf to the fouleſt Lies and Calumnies, that he can hardly ſpeak or write Truth. A further inſtance of this is, p. 39. That when before Voting it was deſired that the Moderator might pray (not for drowning the Noiſe of the Aſſembly, but for direction from the Lord in a caſe that was doubtful and of moment to the Church) Mr. Kirtoun ſhould have ſaid, What needs all this fool praying? Mr. Kirtoun uſeth not to ſpeak of prayer with ſuch contempt, and if he had ſo ſaid, it had not paſt in the Aſſembly without a check, and indeed he is in this be •… ed.

§ 14. The account he giveth of Mr. Campbels tranſportation from Drumfries, to be Miniſter at Edinburgh, and Profeſſor of Divinity in the Colledge there, needeth little Animadverſion, ſave that by giving ſo lame an account of the Debate about the Inward Call, he would repreſent us as having little knowledge in theſe things. The Inward Call was not ſaid to conſiſt in the things he mentioneth; but, in being qualified by a ſufficiency of gifts for the Work, and in the inclination of the Mind to ſerve God in that Work; both which are from the Lord. It was ſaid, that the Church was Judge of the former; and that when one had theſe qualifications, and alſo the Outward Call from the Church; if he pretended averſion, or want of the other part of the Inward Call; viz. Inclination, he muſt give ſome reaſon for that averſion: For the Lord uſeth not to work Inclinations, or Averſions in men, which are without reaſon: And of theſe Reaſons the Church is alſo Judge: For the Spirit of the Prophets is ſubject to the Prophets. It will now appear, that either the Author, or his Informers did not underſtand what was ſpoken on this Subject: Or that they did prevaricate in repreſenting it. About the Earl of Crawford's receiving a Commiſſion from the Town of St. Andrews to repreſent them as Ruling Elder in the Aſſembly; I have ſaid enough above to ſtop his mouth, and to refel what he here ſaith; only he addeth, that Joy might be ſeen in my Lords Countenance when be received it; which none could perceive, except ſuch as can fancy any thing that their ill-will ſuggeſteth to them. For my Lords ſeeking time of Deliberation till Lammas, as Mr. Campbel had; it was not intended as what he ſought with expectation, but as an expreſſion of his wiſh; and of his diſlike of allowing ſo much time to Mr. Camphel, to the great detriment of the Colledge; at which others alſo were diſſatisfied, tho' they quietly acquieſced in the determination of the Aſſembly. For the Petition from Dundie, it was not ſaid, They had not the Goſpel; for they had one Miniſter. What is recorded of that paſſage is, that the Presbyterian Congregation in Dundie, made Application to the Aſſembly, complaining that they wanted two Miniſters, and deſiring that the Aſſembly would take care to ſupply thoſe Vacancies. But that the Moderator, or any elſe, ſaid, that there was no true Miniſter in Angus, is a falſehood, like moſt of his other Aſſertions: For none of us deny the Epiſcopal Miniſters to be truly Miniſters; tho' we think a Biſhop alone ſhould not Ordain. It is alſo falſe, that any ſuch expreſſion was uſed by the Aſſembly, as, offering the Goſpel to the people of Angus: The words are, that they ſhould go to Angus, and travel in the Work of the Goſpel, in Vacant Churches, and where they ſhould be called. This is far from ſuppoſing that the Goſpel was not in that County; or that there were no Miniſters there. It is of the ſame ſtamp, that he maketh the Moderator tell two young men, who had been preaching in Angus, and had ill reception there; That as they had offered the Goſpel to that people in the name of the General Meeting, ſo they ſhould now offer it in the name of the Aſſembly. We offer the Goſpel to all whom we preach to, in the name of Chriſt, and not in the name of men. Another Imputation of the ſame kind is, that the Moderator ſaid, We will plant Miniſters in Dundie, whether the Town-Council will or not. I do not remember that ſuch words were ſpoken, or words to that effect: But if they were, what the Moderator ſaith, is not always the mind of the Aſſembly; but only when a thing is propoſed, and aſſented to, either by Vote, or by Silence. He tells us, p. 34. Of Mr. William Spence, who conformed, but fell off from the Biſhops, becauſe denied an Augmentation of Stipend: He ſpread Papers againſt them; they depoſed, and excommunicated him. This man was ſent by the Aſſembly, to preach in Angus. Anſ. That Mr. William Spence fell off from the Epiſcopal party on the account mentioned, is utterly falſe: But it is the way of theſe men, when any fall from their way, from conviction of Conſcience (as many have done) to aſcribe it to ſome other Cauſe: And it is but ſuitable to their temper, who know not what it is to concern their own Conſciences in ſuch matters. Their Depoſing and Excommunicating him, was for his breaking off from their Communion, and his expreſſing his Reaſons, and for ſpeaking againſt ſome of their practices, which galled them: And therefore the General Meeting, Octob. 11. 1687. After exact ſearch into the grounds of his Sentence, did find and declare it to be void: and this was ratified by the General Aſſembly, Nov. 12. 1690.

§ 15. He telleth us of a Letter from Aberdeen, Deſiring Miniſters to be ſent to them, and complaining that the Goſpel had not been preached among them for thirty years. And Mr. Meldrum heard this read in the Aſſembly, and did not Contradict it. which the Author heavily agggravateth. This is another Groſs miſ-repreſentation; like the former: Neither they who deſired Miniſters, nor they who ſent them, did any way ſuppoſe that Aberdeen had not the Goſpel, or Miniſters; bur that the Presbyterians there wanted a Miniſter, and deſired to be ſupplied: Which was accordingly taken care of. That Mr. Meldrum was not ſent to Aberdeen, was no neglect of him; the Church of Scotland intending him for other Work: For the City of Edinburgh, and Colledge of Glaſgow, are Competitors for him, before the Commiſſion of the Aſſembly. The former malevolent Repreſentation he reneweth, p. 36. (in the ſecond numbring; for from p. 33. to 40. the pages are twice numbred) viz. That ſome were ſent to the North to offer the Goſpel to the Northern Shires. The words are as the former, That they ſhould travel in the Work of the Goſpel in Vacant Churches, or where they ſhould be called: So that it is an Impudent Aſſertion (which followeth) that It was propoſed, ſtated, voted, and determined, in theſe terms, that they ſhould go and preach, and make offer of the Goſpel. It ſeemeth this Author hath his Deſign, if for a little time he can perſwade ſome in England of theſe things: Tho' he knoweth his Lies can be diſcovered by us who are Ear-witneſſes; and that his Villany would come abroad at laſt. This he not only aſſerteth, but layeth weight on it, as ſufficient ground for ſeparating from us, as perſons who teach another Goſpel, p. 37. He pretendeth to give an account of the Aſſemblies dealing with them who had appealed to them from Presbyteries, as being injured by them: And here he cannot find matter of reproach in the Letter ſent to the King, to ſatisfie His Majeſty in this matter; but he mentioneth a draught of that Letter propoſed, which was appointed to be amended: This is to pick Quarrels. A draught of a Letter ſo worded, as he ſaith, or of that importance, I do not remember of, but ſeeing he confeſſeth it did not pleaſe the Aſſembly, why ſhould it be brought to their Reproach? It is a groſs Lie, That they were referred back to the Presbyteries and Synods from which they had appealed, (that I confeſs had been abſurd:) They were all referred to the Commiſſion, except ſuch as the Aſſembly diſcuſſed; and that of Mr. Heriot, which was referred to the Synod. In which Synod, when his Caſe was tryed, the Presbytery of Dalkeith, as a Party, was removed, although Mr. Heriot in his printed Paper hath the Impudence to deny that they were removed. That it was thought grievous to Presbyteries to queſtion the Juſtice and Legality of their Proceedings, is alſo falſe; for then no Appeal could be received from them, nor any Proceſs re-examined by a Superior Judicatory; which yet that was done. The Affair of Peebles (that he next mentioneth) is ſo far from being proof of their unwillingneſs to canvaſs the Actings of a Presbytery, that it is an evidence to the contrary; ſeeing they did take that buſineſs into conſideration, and not having time to diſcuſs it, did refer it to the Commiſſion, who did ſo determine in it, as both parties did quietly ſubmit. It is true, when it was brought into the Aſſembly, ſome moved that it might be firſt ripened in the Committee, which was readily complied with. Neither was there any conteſt about it between my Lord Commiſſioner and the Aſſembly; as he falſly inſinuateth. The printed Information that he mentioneth, had a printed Anſwer by Mr. Vetch: They were both conſidered by the Aſſembly. There were a great many Heretors on both ſides; it is true, none who were of the Duke of Queensbury's Quality; but his Grace had not his Reſidence in the Pariſh. The paſſage in Mr. Vetch's Anſwer, from which he thinketh he hath ſo much advantage, maketh nothing for his Deſign. For it was not ſaid, That a Call from the greateſt part of the Pariſh, could not be had to a Presbyterian Miniſter; But that a Call from all could not be had (tho' even ſo it was too general an Aſſertion, for many Pariſhes there are in Scotland, where Presbyterians are called without a diſſenting Vote) and doth it hence fellow, that the people are not generally for Presbytery; becauſe in many Pariſhes (yea if it were in all Pariſhes) there are ſome of another mind; or becauſe in ſome Pariſhes, moſt are againſt it: I do not intend to dip in that Affair; nor to conſider the Merits of that Cauſe; but do refer the Reader to the Papers that are printed on both ſides; only I affirm, that the General Aſſembly, nor their Commiſſion, cannot be blamed in this matter, ſeeing both parties acquieſced in their Sentence. Mr. Meldrum's reſolution (againſt Obtruding himſelf on a people againſt their will) is conſonant to the Sentiments of his Brethren, and yet the Nation may enjoy Presbyterian Miniſters: For there are many more places willing to receive them, than there are men to occupy ſuch places. If there was a Laick (as he ſpeaketh) who either Lectured to the Neighbourhood, or ſaid, That the people of God may ſin, but the wicked muſt not ſin; we diſown both his Uſurpation, and his Doctrine. But the Truth of the matter of Fact we muſt take from him on truſt; tho' it is like he hath either invented it, or it hath been told him, by no body knoweth who.

§ 16. That the Aſſembly was ſo puzled, as he ſaith, about the Appeals of tth Epiſcopal Clergy, is falſe: And the Compariſon that he uſeth is Odious, and Malicious: They were no other way ſtraitened about them, but that they wanted time to examine them all: And on that Account alone referred them to the Commiſſion: Some of them, he confeſſeth, they ventured upon: And theſe he quarrelleth with. And, Firſt he giveth acoount of the Caſe of Mr. Mitchel and Mr. Lesk: But not with that Candor that becometh. He miſ-repreſenteth the Act of Parliament that gave riſe to this debate, It was not to repoſſeſs ſuch as were put out for not compiying with Epiſcopacy alone; but ſuch as were put out in, or ſince 1661. for Non-conformity, or not complying with the courſes of the Time. All that the Aſſembly had to judge was, whether Mr. Mitchel was legal Miniſter at Turriff in 1661. And they found that clearly proved, whence it followed; that Mr. Mitchel by the Act of Parliament, had right now to return to his place, which had been poſſeſſed by Mr. Lesk: It was proved that Mr. Mitchel was legally ſettled in Turriff: That he was unjuſtly Depoſed by the Presbytery about 1655. That this Sentence was taken off by the Synod of Aberdeen, in which the presbytery of Turriff is; and that in July 1661. he was Depoſed by the Synod of Aberdeen, for Noncompliance with the Courſes of that time. Whence they concluded, that he was Rightful Miniſter of Turriff, and the Act of Parliament allowing ſuch as were put out in 1661. did allow him to return to Turriff. It is falſe, that the Reaſons of the Sentence were refuſed to be given him, (Mr. Lesk) for he demanded an extract of the proceſs, and Sentence, and the Clerk was appointed to give it. He complaineth that That the Act of Parliament gave acceſs to the Presbyterians who had been poſſeſſed of places, tho the Epiſcopal men had complyed with the Civil Government: And was it rational that they ſhould poſſeſs the Rights of other Men, becauſe they comply with the time? was not the ſame done in England 1660; If Mr. Kirtoun had uſed his priviledge, in emptying his Church for a fitter perſon than it was poſſeſſed by, it was not againſt Law: Mertoun was his Charge till he was tranſported to Edinburgh. But the Truth is Mr. Kirtoun went not to Mertoun, till the Epiſcopal Miniſter had left it, as knowing he had no legal Right: And when Mr. Kirtoun went thither, and got right to the Stipend of a year and half: He gave the years Stipend to the Epiſcopal Miniſter, who had left the place; and the half year to the poor. Mr. Sleerie's Caſe cometh next, which is not truly narrated: It is falſe that he was deprived of his Church, for he was never orderly ſettled in it; neither in the Epiſcopal, nor the Presbyterian way: It is alſo falſe, That he was diſcharged the exerciſe of his Miniſtry: He may preach whereever he hath an orderly Call: Only he is diſcharged to exerciſe it at Fawkirk: and in the bounds of the Presbytery of Lithgow, unleſs he be allowed by the Presbytery: And indeed it is not allowed that any man ſhould Preach within the bounds of any Presbytery, without their allowonce: Mr. Sleerie acknowledged his Fault in continuing to Preach there, having no orderly Call, nor being permitted by the Presbytery; and declared (before the Sentence) his willingneſs to forbear Preaching there: And the Aſſembly, upon his deſire repreſented his want to my Lord Commiſſioner, and the Earl of Crawford; and they promiſed to deal for ſome Relief to him, from the Council, For asking him about the Doxology, and whether he repented of his conformity. I do not remember it, I am ſure it was not appointed by the Aſſembly to be done. The following proceſs againſt Mr. Forſyth, our Author approveth, as the only juſtifiable Act of the Aſſembly. It is well they pleaſe him in one thing at leaſt. Mr. John Mackenzies caſe he narrateth very unfairly; hardly any came to hear him: And he had no due Title to that charge, becauſe his Edict (which even by the Epiſcopal way, ſhould have been ſerved at Kirkliſtoun) was ſerved at St. Andrews; So that the people of Kirkliſtoun had no occaſion either to object againſt him, or to conſent to his being their Miniſter: And he ſeldom preaching to that Congregation, the Presbytery removed him from that Church, but did not take away his Miniſtry; he appealed to the Aſſembly, but did not proſecute the Appeal: Wherefore the Aſſembly could not ſhun confirming the Sentence of the Presbytery. What is ſaid to have been ſpoken about the matter, by this and other perſons, I am not concerned to enquire, nor do I know, or believe to be true, what he confidently ſetteth down. As to what he ſaith of Mr. Heriot, I have above told why he was referred to the Synod: About Mr. Wood, he doth not tell the truth, he was neither referred to the Presbytery nor Synod; but to the Commiſſion of the Aſſembly, who have taken his Caſe into conſideration.

§ 17. His invective wit ſtoppeth very low, having little to work upon; when he taketh notice, that among the Miniſters who were to be called from abroad, as having Relation to this Church, one was mentioned who was dead, and another who was priſoner in Dunkirk: As if every Member of the Aſſembly were obliged to know the Hiſtory of every private perſon. That the Presbyterians ſet light by Learning and Knowledge, and do often run it down: And that Zeal for the good Cauſe is the chief Qualification, and inſtead of theſe, is an Aſſertion ſo notoriouſly falſe, that nothing but Malice could prompt him to it. Our Intrants to the Miniſtry are able to vie Learning with the Epiſcopal Candidates, and are far before them. That Brewers and Illiterate Trades-men are ſet up to be Miniſters, is falſe, and ſlanderous. I deny not but ſome who in the late Perſecution were forced to follow other Imployments for a livelihood, have now reſumed their former Studies: But they are not admitted, without giving good proof of a Competency, at leaſt, of knowledge in the Scriptures, and in the Controverſies in Divinity. And the ſame fate hath befallen his own Party, that he reproacheth us with. Some of them now follow other Imployments; particularly ſome are turned Brewers; as Mr. Norman Mackenzie late Miniſter at Midcalder, and Mr. George Henry late Miniſter at Corſtorfine, have ſet up a Brewery in the Suburbs of Edinburgh; which I mention not to reproach them (for it is commendable to follow a Lawful Calling rather than to be Idle, or to be chargeable to others) but to ſtop the mouth of this Reviler. The Inſtance he giveth of Mr. Ruſſel in his Tryals, that he denied the Major of an Enthymem, that he deſired the terms of the Minor of a Hypothetick Syllogiſm to be explained, which was, Sed verum prius: That the Presbytery ſaid, that he wanted Learning, yet he had Grace; and upon that admitted him: Every word of this is falſe. Every Miniſter in that Presbytery is ready to witneſs the contrary: And I have what I affirm under the hand of one of them who was preſent at all his Tryals; whoſe underſtanding and veracity, none who knoweth him will queſtion. Mr. Ruſſel hath the Teſtimony, that he hath a meaſure of Learning which is no ways deſpicable: That he hath a very good gift of Preaching and Praying. His complaint, p. 48. Of the Deſolation of the Colledges, and the inſufficiency of theſe who are placed in them, is ſurely not from Knowledge, but from Malice, and a reſolution to reproach; it is a Fooliſh conteſt, who are the more Learned: Till it can be put to the Tryal. Not only the eſteem of knowing, and impartial men (neither of which properties this Author hath given proof of in his Book) and the Judicia of Learning that any have given, muſt carry it: To both which, men of our ſide can appeal, when they are compared with their Predeceſſors; whether in knowledge of Books in any part of good and uſeful Learning, or in Capableneſs to direct the Studies of the youth: Yea in Grammar and knowledge of any of the learned Languages: Tho' I think neither party hath much cauſe to brag of their Abilities: Except in compariſon. It is a baſe Calumny, to call the Presbyterian Spirit, Narrow, and an Enemy to Knowledge; much more is it ſo, to Aſſert, that we count it impiety to call commonly received Principles into queſtion: Or that we reckon a free and Rational inquiry into the Reaſons of them to be Dangerous. It is the bent of our ſtudies to ſearch the Scripture, and to conſult ſound Reaſon, both that we may know what is Truth, and how it appeareth to be ſo. It is an Ignorant miſtake, to ſay, that we count the Carteſians and other Syſtems of new Philoſophy, to be groſs and Damnable Hereſie. there are among us who have oppoſed many of the old, commonly received, Ariſtotelian Principles, more early and, may be, with more ſtrength of Reaſon, then ſuch as he are capable to do. For the Carteſian Syſtem, he might know (but that his knowledge is ſo narrow as to be confined to his own Party) that there are Presbyterian Carteſians, as well as Epiſcopal Carteſians. For mine own part, I very much value many things in that Learned and Thinking Author; but I durſt never ſwallow down all his Notions, as I ſee ſome men do. I averr and will maintain it; that ſome of them lead to Atheiſm, others to unhinge ſome of the Truths of the Goſpel; others are without ground or reaſon, tho' they be of no dangerous Conſequence. But his impertinency hath led me into this Digreſſion. I wiſh he had told us who are Enemies to Mr. Gregory, whom we (as he doth) do eſteem the Learned Profeſſor of the Mathematicks in Edinburgh. They of Edinburgh are ſo far from being his Enemies, that they have adventured to keep him in his place, which ſome think to be againſt Law. Who they are that ſay, the Mathematical Sciences are uſeleſs, or dangerous; I know not: If I ſhall meet with any ſuch, I will contradict him to his Face. It is another Calumny, that we ſlight the Hebrew, and other Oriental Tongues: We do highly prize them, and wiſh they were much more common than they are, both among his party and ours. For thruſting out Mr. Douglaſs, the Profeſſour of them: Himſelf and others can bear witneſs, that the Commiſſion of Parliament for viſitation of Colledges, did, with much reluctancy, remove him from his place, and were earneſt that he ſhould have qualified himſelf. He knoweth alſo, that the Magiſtrates of Edinburgh, who are Patrons of the Colledge, have offered to readmit him to that Office, If he will qualifie himſelf, as the Law requireth, and that ſome of the Maſters of that Colledge, who are Presbyterian, have often, and earneſtly dealt with him that he would not refuſe the proffer that the City hath made to him, and that the place hath been now a year kept Vacant, and a door left open for him to return: So much do we value men of Learning. But Presbyterians have no diſpenſing power: And the Law is plain. The Favourable aſpect that the Jewiſh Synagogue caſteth on Epiſcopacy, we deny not: But it looketh as broadly toward a Papacy. That the Trade of Books is fallen on the occaſion of this Revolution, is his groundleſs Fancy. For in Edinburgh there are of late more Bookſellers than were before, but I am ſure in 1661. and 1662. I have heard Bookſellers ſadly complain of it. The Books that he mentioneth as The ſtandard of Presbyterian Learning, We do not deſpiſe: But it is known that there are no Books truely valuable, among his Party, but ſuch as we uſe, and that diligently; when many who Brag of their Books are worſe Imployed. The Sermons of Presbyterians, he taketh ſome pains to diſparage: The Sermons that were Printed here, were ſo appointed by Authority; and are able to endure the Cenſure of rational Men; not of railing Scriblers, who reſolve to Cenſure, and to condemn all on that ſide, without Wit or Diſcretion, the Collection of Sermon Notes that he ſpeaketh of, if it be of what was indeed ſpoken, and candidly repreſented; we fear it not (tho' neither his Party, nor ours, can anſwer for all that is ſpoken) if it be of the ſtrain of this Pamphlet; that is, a heap of Lyes and Railing, We will diſpiſe it. Mr. Clerks Sermon, that he ſpeaketh of, I have not Read: He is able to anſwer for himſelf: His ſpeaking with contempt of Mr. Gray's Sermons, ſheweth his skill in the things that concern the Actings of Grace in the Soul. Ye know of whom it is ſaid, that they cannot diſcern the things of the Spirit of God.

§. 18. He had thus far digreſſed, wanting matter to fill up his Hiſtory. He now returneth to the Aſſembly p. 51. A Debate about an Act againſt private Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, he repreſenteth as he uſeth to do, that is, falſly and without Ingenuity. That the private Adminiſtration of Baptiſm was, by Mr. Rule, or any elſe, called Sorcery and Charming, is groſly falſe. He profeſſeth he never ſaid nor thought ſo, and I who heard all that he ſaid on that Subject, heard no ſuch Words; nor Words to that effect. But here is an Evidence of the Learning, and Judiciouſneſs of this Pretender to Learning, or of his Wife Informers: May be, he might ſay, that many who were bent for private Baptiſm, are ſo ignorant, as to look on Baptiſm to have its effects ex opere operato, or as a Charm, and this is taken for ſaying, that private Baptiſm is a Charm. He doth falſly repreſent Mr. Kirtons Words: He did indeed plead againſt that Act, but his Diſcourſe was neither ſo unpoliſhed, nor ſo peremptory, as our Author maketh it. It is falſe, that Baptiſm in the Countrey cannot be had but on Sundays. A Miniſter may Baptize every day of the Week, if notice be given to the Congregation to meet for hearing the Word: If any Miniſter do refuſe to Baptize a Week day, ſo as in no caſe he will do it, he hath no Countenance from this Act. I know not why a Miniſter may not call the Congregation together to hear the Word, on occaſion of Baptiſm to be Adminiſtred: If few come, it is their own blame; and needs not hinder that Ordinance. We did not ſcruple to Baptize in private, when we, with all the Ordinances Adminiſtred by us, were driven into corners; but we always held that this Solemn Ordinance of God ſhould be as publick as the other Ordinances are; it being a Seal of that Covenant, which is held forth by Preaching of the Goſpel, we think it ſhould not be done in a Corner, when the other is publickly diſpenſed. But I ſhall not now fully diſpute this point: If any of our Opponents pleaſe to let us hear their Arguments againſt it, we ſhall conſider them. The Story that he telleth; of a Child ſent away from the Church unbaptized, becauſe it was not brought to Church till about the cloſe of the Sermon: This Story, I ſay, is not true, nothing is more ordinary with us, than that the Children come late, even when the Sermon is almoſt ended: Yea, ſome of us have Baptized Children whom we knew not of till the other Children were already Baptized: The Child that he ſpeaketh of, was not preſented to be Baptized, till after Prayer, and Pſalms, and the Bleſſing; and the People were diſmiſſed, and the Miniſter was gone out of the Pulpit. It is falſe, that the People are Diſpleaſed with this: It is but ſome of them, and theſe either the leſs Intelligent, or ſuch as are inclined to the Epiſcopal way. That Mr. Kirtoun did Preach againſt the Superſtition of the Ceremony (viz. of Baptiſm) is not only falſe, but ſo conſiſtent with his way, and Principles, that it is a wonder that this Author could alledge ſuch a thing; or be ſo forgetful of what Mr. Kirtoun had ſaid, as himſelf relateth it, but in the former page. The Aſſembly appointed a Liſt of Acts to be drawn which were fit to be obſerved: And this Authors malevolent pen repreſenteth this, as if They durſt not approve of ſome Acts, and yet would not cenſure them. Whereas they intended no more, but that there being many Acts ſuted to the time when they were made, but might be inconvenient for this time: Others that were fit for our Circumſtances, might be diſtinguiſhed from theſe; and is not this a common practice in Parliaments, without having ſuch malicious Reflections made on it. That We receive all the Acts of Aſſemblies as if they were Scripture; and pay no leſs regard to them; Is an Aſſertion as falſe as any thing can be ſaid.

§. 19. He giveth account of the Commiſſion of the General Aſſembly, pag. 53. but as he doth of other things; that is, without Truth or Honeſty: About the manner of Election he prevaricateth; but it is not worth the while to examine theſe Circumſtances: It is a groſs untruth, that They were to have full and ſupreme Power, to Act in all things that relate to the Church: The contrary is evident from the Inſtructions given to them by the Aſſembly, which himſelf ſetteth down: For the ſeventh and eighth Articles of them are; 7ly, That this Commiſſion do not meddle in publick Affairs; or in any thing not expreſſed in their Commiſſion: Which is hereby declared to be given them in Hunc finem only: And pro praeſenti Eccleſiae Statu. 8ly. They ſhall be anſwerable to, and cenſurable by the next General Aſſembly; and ſhall continue till November next: If there be no General Aſſembly before that time. Is it not evident from this, That our Author either underſtandeth not the meaning of plain words; or that he is not careful to ſpeak Truth? Their Moderation or Rigidity (which he very poſitively, and confidently determineth about) muſt be judged of by their Actings: I am ſure the plurality of them are look'd upon as Men of very Moderate Principles! But no Presbyterian can be moderate in this mans Opinion. In the Liſt of them he alſo miſtaketh; for many were on both Commiſſions: Whereas he maketh the two to conſiſt wholly of different perſons; but that is not material. His account of the Debate about the Inſtructions to the Commiſſion, I need not examine: What was concluded, is that which we are concerned in. His Account of the Inſtructions is moſt falſe and abſurd. It is ſtrange prevarication ſo to corrupt and falſify a Paper in the Tranſcribing of it. Take for example, the 2d Article (which he maketh the firſt) He hath it, That they ſhall take into their Cognizance all References and Appeals, not diſcuſſed in the Aſſembly, and ſuch matters as have been tabled before the Aſſembly. Where he maketh two ſorts of things to fall under their conſideration: Whereas in the true Copy nothing but what is expreſly referred to them is mentioned: It is thus, To take into their Cognizance all References and Appeals, and other things, which being ſtated before this Aſſembly ſhall by them be ſpecially referred to the ſaid Commiſſion, to determine the ſame. The Debate that was in the Aſſembly about the ſixth Article; about taking in the late Conformiſts to Miniſterial Communion, he doth alſo Miſrepreſent; it is falſe that it was ſaid, That by theſe Inſtructions, Repentance for Conformity, is required as a Condition. For that ws debated in the Committee; and it was determined to be left out; becauſe the worſt of them would be readieſt to profeſs Repentance: Which they who acted from a Principle could not do. He obſerveth from the Inſtructions, page 57. That the Commiſſion was mainly deſigned againſt the Epiſcopal Clergy. I deny not that it was deſigned againſt ſuch of them as were unqualified for the Miniſtry, to caſt them out: And againſt ſuch of them as were Enemies to the Eſtabliſhed Church Government, to keep them from a Capacity to overturn it. But it was rather deſigned for them who fall not under theſe Characters, to take them in among us. That Presbyterians had Malice agaenſt them, or ſuch Deſigns to ruine them, as he alledgeth, is evil ſurmiſing: And in this he judgeth of others by the temper of his own mind.

§. 20. He looketh on all the Facts appointed by Presbyterians as deſigned to enſnare the Epiſcopal Men; and ſaith, that they Faſted for Strife and Debate. Their Witneſs is on high, who knoweth that other Motives engaged them to Faſt and Pray: Even ſuch things as are of common concernment to all who have true Zeal for Religion. But this Gentleman, and others of his Stamp, did not uſe to keep Solemn Faſts for the concernments of the Goſpel: Only ſometimes they had Faſts with the reſpect to the Weather; or when there was like to be a bad Harveſt; which we condemn not: But think there are greater things that ſhould move us to ſuch Duties. It ſeems he knoweth no other ground of Faſting, but either averting of ſome outward Judgment; or ſome politick deſign. He mainly challengeth the Faſt appointed by the Aſſembly, becauſe in the cauſes of it, mention is made of Epiſcopacy; the ſetting up of which is complained of; on account that it was always grievous to this Nation, and that it was done without the Churches conſent, and contrary to Acts of National Aſſemblies. As alſo, that a great decay of Piety was viſible under it. This is all that was ſaid of Epiſcopacy in theſe cauſes of the Faſt. This Faſt, he ſaith, Epiſcopal Men could not obſerve, without looking on Epiſcopacy as unlawful: As the cauſe of much Impiety; as defection from God and his truth: Nor without blameing the Church of England, and other Proteſtant Churches; yea the Catholick Churches from the Apoſtles to Calvin's time. Anſ. 1ſt. What ever be our Sentiments about Epiſcopacy, nothing is here expreſſed that needeth to ſtumble them who think it a lawful Government in the Church; and there are ſome of that Principle, who will ſay as much as is here ſaid. Norhing is here ſaid of its unlawfulneſs, nothing of its influence on Impiety: But only of its obſerved unſutableneſs to this Nation, and of ungodlineſs having been de facto its concomitant. 2. If any did conſcientiouſly ſcruple the Obſervation of the Faſt, on the grounds mentioned, I ask who of them have been Puniſhed by the State, or Cenſured by the Church, for this omiſſion: The Church thought fit to lay Peoples duty before them, yet uſing all lenity toward them who cannot ſee their duty. It was quite otherwiſe in former times, when his party had the Rule. 3. The ſetting up of Epiſcopacy was more ſinful in this Nation, than it could be elſewhere, becauſe of the Oath of God that the Nation is under againſt it: Not in later times only; but in the time of King James the 6th, who cauſed the whole Nation ſwear the Shorter Confeſſion of Faith called alſo the National Covenant; where it is Abjured. 4. All this ſheweth, that we do not meddle with the Church of England, in this matter; but keep within our own bounds: And therefore ſhe hath no cauſe to be offended with us, more than we have to blame her, for ſetting up Epiſcopacy. 5. His big words of other Proteſtant Churches, and the Catholick Church to Calvin's time, are the Dialect of his Party: Whoſe confidence of Aſſertion, and ſtrength of Argument, in this matter, bear no proportion: Which we are ready to try with him, when he pleaſeth. The Councils Act for Obſervation of this Faſt, he doth alſo moſt cauſeleſly, and petulantly ridicule: What is more congruous than when the fear of God doth not perſwade men to their Duty, that a civil Court ſhould deal with them by a civil Penalty? The conteſt about the Printer to the Aſſembly he cannot let paſs; tho' he can get no advantage there againſt the Presbyterians: But that they muſt have a Printer diſtinct from the Kings Printer. It hath always been the Cuſtom; and our Kings never diſallowed it. We are far from contending with the King about it, nor do we plead a Divine Right for it. The Debate between the two Printers before the Council we are not concerned in. Only I obſerve his Malicious Lye, That the Earl of Crawford maintained, that the King ſhould yield to the Aſſembly. His Lordſhip is far from ſo owning the Church, as to deny to the King any reſpect that is due.

§. 21. After Apology for the length (he ſhould have rather excuſed the Diſhoneſty and Impertinency) of this Epiſtle; He ventureth yet upon two or three things. The 1ſt. is, the Aſſemblies appointing an anſwer to be made to theſe Pamphlets of the oppoſite Party (which this Paper containeth) where he is much miſinformed: Mr. Meldrum was never enjoyned this task: Mr. Pitcarne had it laid on him, but after many Months, it was not done: And ſo they laid it on another; Not on him with the Aſſiſtance of others; as this Author ſaith. That Mr. Meldrum juſtified the Rable in a Sermon, is ſo far from his Temper and Inclination, that none will Affirm it, but ſuch an one as this Hiſtorian. He ſaith, we will never prove any material Circumſtance, in matter of Fact to be falſe; I affirm and have made it appear that few, if any of them are true. His next particular is the moſt Notorious falſhood that can be expreſſed by Tongue or Pen. viz. That the taking off the Sentence of Depoſition againſt ſome Miniſters, eſpecially Remonſtrators was propoſed, but laid aſide in the General meeting, and now done in the end of the Aſſembly. It was done in a meeting of the Brethren of the Synod of Lothian (for them within that bounds) and in the General Meeting for them, and all others in Scotland: And what the Aſſembly did was a Ratification of what had already been effectually done: What he alledged Mr. Gilbert Rule to have ſaid, in the Aſſembly, on this head, is a wide miſtake; he only pleaded, that the Act ſhould not be ſo General, as to comprehend all who were cenſured in the times of theſe differences, becauſe ſome might, at that time, be cenſured for uncontroverted Scandals (tho' he did not pretend to give Inſtances of any who were ſo Cenſured) but that the Act ſhould only reach them who were Cenſured on account of the Differences, Hinc inde. That this revocation of theſe Sentences was not propoſed in any of their avowed meetings, till the general Meetings; is not ſtrange, for indeed they had no avowed meetings before: Tho' we think their meetings might be avowed before God; but not ſo before his party, who were their cruel Perſecutors. It was done, as is above expreſſed, and confirmed by the General Meeting: And Ex abundanti, Ratified by the Aſſembly. Whence it is evident that no derogation could be inferred thence, either from the Miniſtry of any who ſat in the Aſſembly, or on the Aſſembly it ſelf, as he malevolently ſuggeſteth. His laſt particular is about the two Commiſſioners, whom the Aſſembly ſent to the King: Where he hath ſome Malign Reflections, both on them who were not ſent, and on them who were ſent. That any were Jealous of Mr. Carſtairs, is a baſe Calumny. His Integrity and Skill in the conduct of ſuch Affairs, is known, and valued by all his Brethren who know him. It is as foul a Calumny that they who were ſent were gratified by it; or had deſigns of their own, nothing but Malice could ſuggeſt ſuch a thought; For what could they expect: Or what could they obtain by it? Had they Ambition (one of them being paſt 60.) to ride poſt to London in the beginning of December, they could expect no higher Poſt in the Church, than they now are in. He will Characterize them alſo: One of them he had before expoſed as far as his Malice and VVit could invent: The other he can find nothing againſt; and therefore his ſpite prompteth him to reproach his reverend and worthy Father; whoſe praiſe is in the Goſpel, whoſe name is precious in the Church, and is above the ſnarling of ſuch a Curr: Nor one word of what he ſaith in that matter is true: And the contrary is declared by ſome of the Courtiers that attended the King when he went to viſit Mr. Blair, when he was ſick, and on his Bed. VVhen his Majeſty came into the Room. they who were preſent told, that though they had been long about Court, they never heard a more Handſom Complement, then Mr. Blair gave unto the King; nor more becoming a Divine. A Chair was ſet at the Bed ſide, for the King, in which his Majeſty ſat down; after he had talked a little with Mr. Blair, his Majeſty drew the Chair nearer while he ſat on it; But that ſuch words were ſpoken by Mr. Blair, as is alledged, is moſt falſe. I ſhould not have ſtayed ſo much on this, but that the Reader may take notice, what a Spirit of Lying hath poſſeſſed this Phamphleteer; and what ill will he bears to the Living and to the Dead, who have born the name of Presbyterians. He is now at laſt come to the Diſſolution of this Aſſembly: VVhere he would have it thought, that the Aſſembly did deſign to call another without the Kings Commiſſioner, who was ſitting among them, which was never thought nor deſigned. As his Book is full of Lies and Slanders; ſo his Epilogue is an abridgment of them all; doth amaſs them in one; while he ſaith, That no material Falſhood can be charged upon him: The Reader will eaſily judge of this aſſertion by what hath been ſaid; of his Ingenuity alſo, and of his hating to tell a Lie. I leave what hath been ſaid on both ſides to the Candid Judgment of the Impartial Reader, and to his Judgment who is a God of truth, and hateth the Lying Lips; and do joyn with him in his concluding Prayer (as I could do with little that he hath hitherto ſaid,) That the Lord would pour out his Spirit on us (and on the other party too,) That our Land may have peace, that the Diviſions of our Church may be healed, and our Confuſions may be wholly removed, and Order and Government may continue among us.

POSTSCRIPT.

AFter theſe Sheets were Printed, ſome Informations were ſent me, which could not be inſerted in their proper places, and therefore are here ſubjoyned. Concerning Mr. Ferguſon of Kilpatrick, (who is mentioned, Caſe of Afflicted Clergy, &c. Sect. 12.) is no further true, than that five Men and fix Women came to his Houſe (being provoked by his continuing to Preach and Pray for King James after he had been diſcharged ſo to do by the people) and when he refuſed to come out to them, they beat him on the Head, and on the Legs, and tore his Cloaths: But the Blows were ſuch, as one that was his Friend did teſtifie, that he was more feared than hurt by them: For his Wife, it is falſe that they beat her. Only one of them held her while they ſo dealt with her Husband as aboveſaid. Whence it is evident, that tho' their practices are no way to be defended, yet they are groſly belyed by this Pamphleteer.

I have alſo further Inſtances of the Clergies acceſſion to the Perſecutions of the Presbyterians under the late Reigns (which is ſo impudently denied Late Letter, &c. Sect. 6.) As that Mr. Graham Miniſter at Lochmabane, Mr. Brown Miniſter at Dryſdale, and Mr. Thompſon Miniſter at Applegirth, uſed to ſtand by Graham of Claverhouſe (after Viſcount of Dundee) while on the Bench to judge the perſecuted Presbyterians for Noncompliance with the courſes of that time; and whiſper in his Ear, the effect of which was obſerved to be the greateſt Severity againſt ſuch as they were moſt diſpleaſed with on that account. Alſo, Mr. Andrew Hamiltoun, when a poor Man, with his numerous Family, having fled from his Dwelling, took ſhelter in another poor Mans Houſe in Midleby, cauſed him to be caſt out thence, ſo that he was forced to lodge by a Dyke-ſide with his Family, while two of his Children were ſick of the Small Pox. Likewiſe Mr. Vallance Miniſter at Johnſtoun, having perſecuted Robert Dunwoody, ſo as he was forced to flee to England; when he returned, would not ſuffer him to live in the Pariſh, unleſs he would go to Church; ſo he fled to Applegirth. where Mr. Thompſon would not let him ſtay, unleſs he would hear him Preach, and the Mans Wife being ready to bring forth her Child, the poor Man, againſt his Light, was forced to hear: This is atteſted under the mans own Hand. One who had time, and would be at pains to collect ſuch Inſtances, might find thouſands: But this is deſigned to be done by it ſelf.

In Vindicating the Miniſters whom he reproacheth in the Hiſtory of the General Aſſembly; I deſigned Brevity, eſpecially not finding that what was laid to their Charge was of much moment; and that malice was obvious and obſervable to every unbyaſſed Reader, in all that he ſaith of them: Only the things that he ſaith againſt Mr. Meldrum, are of more weight; but that Reverend Brother being at a great diſtance, I had not opportunity to be informed of the Truth of matter of Fact: But he having heard he was Reproached, ſent me the following Vindication; which I give you in his own Words, which are ſufficient to ſhew what a Lying Spirit doth poſſeſs the men with whom we have to do.

Reverend and Dear Brother,

SOme Months are paſt, ſince I heard of a Pamphlet publiſhed on deſign to expoſe our late General Aſſembly to contempt; for which end, I am told, the Author of it doth impudently miſrepreſent the Actings thereof, and injuriouſly reflect on diverſe of the Members of it, among the reſt, they ſay he bedaubeth me; I have diligently ſought for a ſight of it, but hitherto could not obtain it, nec prece, nec pretio. It ſeemeth theſe Men reſolve (though you told them of it before) to hold on their way, of ſpreading theſe reflective Pamphlets in England, keeping them as ſecret as they can here in Scotland. where the falſhood of the matters of Fact are known, and they might ſoon have their ſhame and lying diſcovered; but they know that bold calumniating, eſpecially where there is no contradiction; nor knowledge of the contrary will make ſome blot cleave to a Mans Fame.

I was glad to hear you intended to give a juſt reproof to the Author of that Pamphlet, and an Anſwer to the Calumnies contained in it. And a Friend having (when he could not obtain for me the uſe of the Book (tranſcribed, and ſent to me ſome part of it relating to me, I judg'd it duty to offer to you my Animadverſions thereon, which, if it come not too late, you may cauſe to publiſh: This I do not ſo much for my own Vindication, as for the Truth and Churches ſake, which he endeavoureth to wrong and wound through my Sides.

I profeſs I do freely forgive him any perſonal Injury done to me, and in ſome Conformity to my Saviour, Luke 23. 34. Pray Father, forgive him, for he knoweth not what he doth. Yet I think I can not be blamed if in Obedience to the Apoſtolical precept. Tit. 1. 13. I rebuke him ſharply, ſeeing he is ſo guilty of the firſt part of the Character given to the Cretians there, Verſe 12. For I do ingenuouſly declare that Narrative concerning me is full of Lies, and where he toucheth at Truth, he ſo diſguiſeth it, that it appeareth a quite other thing than it was.

I find no leſs than ten or eleven Lies in a few Lines, for he Aſſerts; 1. That I with Mr. Meinzies did at St. Andrews upon a Conference with the Biſhop of that See, ſubſcribe the Oath of Canonical Obedience. 2. That the Biſhop of St. Andrews did by a Letter under his hand, aſſure the Biſhop of Aberdeen of this. 3. That Mr. Meldrum himſelf was the Bearer of it. 4. That Dr. Keith did make Intimation of our aforeſaid Subſcriptions in the Old Church of New Aberdeen. 5. That we our ſelves were preſent. 6. That I ſo far deſerted the Principles of the Covenant and Scottiſh Presbyterians, that I did Swear and Subſcribed the Declaration when I was admitted Rector of the Mareſchal Colledge of Aberdeen. 7. That I ſtruck in with the Presbyterians out of pique, becauſe I was not permitted to return to the Exerciſe of my Miniſtry in Aberdeen. 8. That I broke off all Correſpondency, with thoſe of the Epiſcopal party, even my moſt intimate Acquaintance. 9. That I vented my ſelf, as bitterly, and ſeverely againſt them, as any Presbyterian whatſoever. 10. That Pique, Intereſt and Popularity, were my Temptation. 11. That at firſt I pretended, I would only attempt to reclaim the deluded people of the Weſt, from their Errours and Extravagancies, all which I confidently averr are groſs Untruths and Lies.

I am not ſenſible that I have given theſe Men, any cauſe or occaſion ſo to abuſe me, nor can I ſee any great advantage to their cauſe thereby, and tho' there were Truth in theſe charges, wherewith he endeavoureth to defame me, yet of all Men in the World, the Prelates and Prelatiſts in Scotland, ſhould be moſt aſhamed to upbraid me therewith: The moſt of their Biſhops and Clergy having contrary to moſt ſolemn and ſacred Oaths, received the abjured Prelacy, and renounced and abjured their former Oaths, and ſome of their Biſhops having ſubmitted to Re-ordination, to the great Scandal not only of this but other Reformed Churches, and contrary to the example of their Predeceſſors, in the days of King James the VIth. Yet I judge no Man for his Principle or Motives, but leave that to God and their own Conſciences, tho' this Author Intruding in Gods Throne, is bold to judge of my Heart, and to ſay, It was Pique, Intereſt and Popularity that moved me.

The Falſhood of his Aſſertions will appear by a true Narrative of the things to which he ſeemeth to relate, which I ſhall give with due Candor and Simplicity, not being afraid humbly to Appeal not only to the Judgment of all Men who know the things; but to the All-ſeeing God of Truth, to judge betwixt Him and Me in this Matter.

I was Ordained Miniſter of the Goſpel in the Honourable City of Aberdeen, Anno 1659. by the laying one of the Hands of the Presbytery. And when Prelacy was reintroduced in this Land, Anno 1662. I was ſtopt in the Exerciſe of my Miniſtry, before the firſt of October by that ſame Act of Council, which laid aſide divers Hundreds of worthy Miniſters of this Church, and obliged us to retire twenty Miles diſtant from our own Pariſhes, becauſe we had not received Preſentation from the Patron and Collation from the Biſhop, The condition of which, was the Oath of Canonical Obedience.

It's falſe which this Author ſaith (and may be reckoned as the twelfth of his Lies) that Mr. Meinzies and I did only heſitate at firſt, upon the Oath of Canonical Obedience, for we never had any heſitation, or doubt upon it, but were clear and poſitive in our Judgment againſt it, and expreſt it as we had occaſion. It's true we did at the firſt offer Submiſſion, and to join in Presbyteries and Synods, thinking this was but the ſame, which worthy men had done before the year 1638. Not diſcerning, as others who ſuffered did, the difference betwixt the State of things, Anno 1662. And before the year, 1638.

Tho this ſtop in the exerciſe of my Miniſtry, was fourteen days before the Biſhops Synod, yet at that Synod when he did paſs Sentence of Depoſition, againſt Learned and Pious Mr. Meinzies, for not Subſcribing the Oath of Canonical Obedience; tho he offered Submiſſion: The Biſhop was pleaſed to join me in the Sentence, tho neither preſent nor cited to be preſent. Whether Biſhop Mitchel did Vindicate this his Illegalk and Unjuſt procedure by that lovely Proverb our Author mentioneth, Fides ſit penes Authorem, But I was nothing moved with this Sentence.

Sometime after this, I retired to the Country twenty eight Miles beyond Aberdeen, yet in the beginning of December, there cometh to me a Summons before the ſecret Council, as was ſaid by the procurement of the Biſhop of Aberdeen, alledging he could not appear on the Streets of that City for fear of the People Irritated, as was alledged, by their Paſtors whom they had loſt. At that time were cited, alſo the famous and worthy, old Mr. Cant, and his Son Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Meinzies. The good old man got a Teſtificat that he was not able to Travel. The reſt of us went South with no leſs hazard than our Lives, it beign a grievous Storm and Tempeſt. Mr. Alexander Cant falling unwell compeared not. When Mr. Meinzes and I compeared, the Earl of Midletoun then Lord Commiſſioner, and the Earl of Glencarn Lord Chancellor, and others of the Council, finding that there was nothing to lay to our charge, and hearing from us, that we were willing to join in Presbyteries and Synods, did by Act of ſecret Council recommend us to the Biſhop of St. Andrews, to be reſtored to our places.

When this was preſented to the Biſhop of St. Andrews, he readily promiſed to obey it, but never ſpoke to us one word of the Oath of Canonical Obedience. Yea I would ask any judicious Perſon, if it was probable that (knowing our peremptory declared Reſolutions againſt it) either the Biſhop of St. Andrews would have inſiſted to require, or we conſented to Subſcribe that Oath, when we had an Act of Council in our Favours, and at the ſame time they had publiſhed a Treatiſe, entituled, a Plea for Submiſſion to the preſent Government, wherein they made offer of diverſe Conceſſions to them who would ſubmit. But the Biſhop of St. Andrews, being then ready to go from Edinburgh to St. Andrews, deſired us in our return for Aberdeen, to call for his Letter, which he promiſed ſhould be ready for us. But neither when we came to St. Andrews, did he ſpeak to us of Subſcribing the Oath of Canonical Obedience, nor did we ſubſcribe any Paper to him, nor ſtay with him one quarter of an hour, it being late, and he ſtudying his Chriſtmaſs Sermon, and we to go over the Ferry. Nor did his Letter to the Biſhop of Aberdeen bear any thing of our Subſcribing that Oath, neither would I have been the bearer of ſo mauifeſt an untruth. Yea when in his Letter he had written, that we were willing to own the Government, I refuſed to receive it, unleſs he added this Qualification (ſo far as to join in Presbyteries and Synods) to which he agreed, when we would take it on no other terms.

Neither did Biſhop Mitchel after our Return, inſiſt any more on our Subſcribing the Oath of Canonical Obedience; but having called together ſome Miniſters, there was a paper drawn out of the words of the above-mentioned Letter, which Paper indeed we did Subſcribe, and I hear ſome of that Party, whether out of Curioſity or ill will at me, have ſearched for it among Biſhop Mitchel's Papers. But I value not what uſe they make of it. That Paper the Biſhop ordered Doctor Keith to read publickly in Aberdeen, Thinking thereby to leſſen our eſteem among the People, but that deſign failed, none of us were preſent at the reading of it. But the next Lords day when I appeared firſt to Preach, I told publickly (Mr. J. P. then Biſhop of Roſs, being preſent) that I conceived that I had yielded to nothing, but what I firſt offered.

But ſeeing this Author is not only injurious to me, but to learned and Pious Mr. Meinzies; whoſe memory is precious to me, beſide all that I have ſaid for his Honour, I add that not only the Teſt, but the Subſcribing of this Paper, was grievous to that good man before his death, and although I was then at South, I had it afterward, from a worthy Perſon and Friend of his who had it from himſelf. And I can ſay of my ſelf, I did lament becauſe of it ſeveral years before that, and altho this Author deſign me no favour, yet as ſometimes we are more obliged to our Enemies, than to our friends ſo here he giveth me opportunity to tell the World, that I repent for the Subſcribing of that Paper. Altho I never Subſcribed the Oath of Canonical Obedience. But being then young and paying too much deference and reſpect to a friend who drew it; I did the leſs ſeriouſly conſider either the Words or matter of it.

I confeſs I afterwards was in Friendſhip with Biſhop Scougal who was a Learned and moderate Man, I did alſo ſit in Presbyteries and Synods, thinking my ſelf free to join in theſe Duties to which I was Authorized by my office, altho there had been no Biſhop in the World, nor do I think that by this I payed formal Canonical Obedience, ſo that the aſſerting of this, may be reputed a thirteenth of this Authors lies Yet if he or any elſe can ſhew me wherein I have complied contrary to my Principles, or to the juſt offence of others, which I have not confeſſed already, I am ready to acknowledge it was my fault, but this I can ſay, the Biſhops themſelves did not judge me a favourer of Prelacy, and my intimates knew me to be Presbyterian in my Principles, and I did never wittingly deſert theſe Principles. For it's a manifeſt untruth which this Author aſſerts, that I ſwore and ſubſcribed the Declaration when I was admitted Rector, in the Mareſchall Colledge in Aberdeen. I neither took it then, nor at any other time, anent which I appeal to all records. Nor indeed was it required of me, nor did the Act mention Rectors.

It was not the leaſt Cauſe of my refuſing the Teſt, that I was obliged thereby to declare, that there lay no Obligation on me, to endeavour any Alteration in the Government of the Church. For I profeſs I did judge it Duty in my Station, and according to my power, did endeavour to promote the Alteration, and the removal of Prelacy. And do not deny, I did Bleſs God, and Call the people of Aberdeen to Bleſs him for the removal of it, and pray that it may never return. But that ever I uſed Bitterneſs or Severity againſt any of that party, this Author cannot prove: And all who know me, do know theſe are things which I abhor, and my deſire is to promote Meekneſs and Charity among Men:

Theſe alſo, who were of the Prelatical way, and Intimately acquainted with me, know the Falſhood of what he ſays of my breaking off all Correſpondence with them in any thing which Civility and Friendſhip obligeth me unto. Yea, I am confident not only they, but all of that way, who know me, will allow me this Teſtimony that whenever they deſired, yea, on all occaſions according to my p[ower, I was ready to do them Acts of Kindneſs. And when I was laſt in Aberdeen, the preſent Incumbents of that place and I did Friendly Viſit one another. It's true one of them being occaſionally in a Neighbours Houſe, came to me as I lighted from my Horſe, and deſired me to preach for him the next Lords day (but neither he nor any elſe did it afterwards:) And I hope he will not ſay, but I gave him a Civil, and as I conceive an Anſwer which might have ſatisfied him.

As for what this Author ſaith, That it was Pique which moved Me to ſtrike in with the Presbyterians, becauſe I was not permitted to return to the Exerciſe of my Miniſtry at Aberdeen. This is a preſumptuous aſcending Gods Throne, to judge my Heart, and Motives. As alſo what he ſaith afterward. That Pique, Intereſt and Popularity, were my Temptation: I can comfortably ſay, He that knoweth all Things, knoweth this is falſe. It was Conſcience, and not ſuch baſe Motives that moved Me: And I think I may obtain Teſtimony from theſe who know me both in the North and Weſt, that they have other Thoughts of me than that I am led by ſuch baſe Motives. It's true the Town of Aberdeen, to whoſe kindneſs I always was, and am on all occaſions, much obliged, when they conceived any hopes of obtaining my regreſs to them without any Obligation or Oath, did move for it. But neither this Author, nor any elſe can prove that I did deſire it, or made any Applicatiom to the Biſhops for it. How far ſome of the Biſhops complied with a great perſon of the Popiſh perſwaſion, to obſtruct that deſign (tho it was known that it was difference of Religion that engaged him againſt it) the Town of Aberdeen know in part, and I leave it to the Biſhops own Conſciences to judge. For ingenuouſly profeſs I never had any Pique at them on that account, nor was it Pique, but Conſcience, which moved me; to joyn with the Presbyterians, for I being ſuch in my judgment, and about a year after the time, he ſpeaks of, by an unexpected Providence, receiving an Unanimous Call, from a Noble Perſon (who alſo was Patron of the Pariſh) and other Heretors and Body of the people of the Pariſh of Kilwinning, an united Pariſh, which for divers years had been vacant; I did by the Approbation of the Presbytery of Irwin, come and Labour among them in the Work of the Goſpel. Yet there is more than one falſhood inſinuated by this Author, in that which he ſaith in the beginning of this Paragraph, concerning Me, that ever ſince King James's Indulgence I did Preach in a Meeting-houſe, for it was a year after that Liberty was given, that I entered here, and for theſe two years without the Reluctancy of any, have Preached in the Church. It is true in the year 1688. the Congregation Aſſembled in another Houſe than the Church, the Law not allowing us the ſame; tho' all that time it was empty, except that Mr. Bell, being after my coming here preſented by the Biſhop, came and Preached to his opwn Servant, and two or three more (who were ſollicited to hear him) at two ſeveral times in the Forenoon, and went off in the Afternoon; and having for that obtained half a years Stipend, was preſented to another Church, where he had little better Reception.

It is alſo falſe which he ſaith, in the end of this Paragraph, that at firſt, I pretended that I would only attempt to reclaim the deluded people of the Weſt, from their Errours and Extravagancies. Perhaps he deſigneth by this, to breed in the people a diſlike of me. But I hope they will not believe him. And it is moſt falſe that ever I expreſt my ſelf ſo concerning the people of the Weſt, or my deſign in going among them. My deſign was to Preach the Goſpel of Chriſt, and to advance Truth and Holineſs, and Peace and Love among Men. I acknowledge, if a Miniſter find any Errours, or Extravagancies among a people, his endeavour ſhould be to reclaim them, but I bleſs God this Author cannot juſtly charge this Congregation with theſe things.

As for what he ſaith, was foretold by a Perſon of Quality, and great Worth; I neither know of whom he meaneth, nor yet the prediction, and perhaps this is of the ſame kind, with the reſt of our Authors Aſſertions. Sure I am diverſe Perſons of Quality and Worth, to whom I did ſhew my Call, did approve my Acceptance of it, tho' in their Affection, they regrated my going from the North.

In fine, tho' this Author hath ſaid that it could not be denied that I carried my ſelf well, and gained the good Opinion of all, while I kept my place at Aberdeen; and inſtanceth me as a judicious Perſon, tho' under Temptation: Yet he is ſo diſcreet in the end, as to repreſent both this people and me as enſnared in extravagant Fooleries; but I forgive him. It is a ſmall thing for me to be judged of Men; better than I have been rated as Fools. But in love to his Soul I commend to his Meditation, Mat. 5. 22. and Rev. 22. 15.

I am really weary in inſiſting ſo long on things relating to my Perſon. I do acknowledge the World would be at no great loſs tho' I were buried in the Duſt, and my Name in Oblivion, and were it not for my reſpect to the publick Intereſt, which this Author endeavoureth to hurt by expoſing me, I ſhould not have troubled my ſelf, and the Reader with this Vindication, being hopeful that his defaming of me cannot hinder my acceptance, nor the ſucceſs of my Labours, where I am known.

I hear, there are ſome other things, in that Pamphlet, which relate to me, but my Friend gave me no tranſcript of them, nor have I ſeen the Book, and I am told they are of no great Moment, and but By-blows to me, while he is reflecting on other Perſons and Things, and perhaps you may ſufficiently Vindicate them without my help.

I am told he acknowledgeth I preached a Sermon for Moderation, but added ſuch Cautions as made all ineffectual. To which I ſhall only ſay, I know none that deny, but there is need of Caution, leſt Men under the Name of Moderation degenerate to Lukewarmneſs, and excluding of Zeal; but I know no Caution I gave which had not a Scripture warrant. And if this Author had heard it, I think he hath good will enough to repreſent it, could he catch at any ſhadow of ground for it.

I am alſo told, he reflects on me about a Paper ſaid to be given in to the General Aſſembly, wherein it ſhould have been ſaid the Goſpel had not been preached in Aberdeen theſe 30 years, but not having ſeen the Book, nor any Tranſcript of that matter I can give no diſtinct Anſwer. But as it's related to me, it ſeemeth of a Piece with the reſt of his Aſſertions; only to ſatisfie any ſober perſon, who may be ſtumbled at ſuch an Expreſſion, I do publickly profeſs, I am ſo far from thinking ſo, or approving any who ſhould think or ſpeak it, that I Aſſert and Declare, I have in that time often heard, to my great Comfort and Edification, the Goſpel both plainly and powerfully preached at Aberdeen.

But I fear I have wearied you, and ſhall only add that I ſhall not ceaſe to pray the Lord would preſerve you long to do him ſervice in his Church, and ſhall continue,

Your Brother, and Servant, in the Lord, G. M. Kilwinning, September 28. 1691. FINIS.