A Vindication of the Church of Scotland, Part · Answer 1

A Vindication of the Church of Scotland · Part · Answer 1

p. 14Answer to the Second Letter.

THis Letter is mostly Historical; but such a parcel of false and disingenious History it containeth, as is not easily parallelled elsewhere. We desire nothing more than what he would have us expect, An Account of the State of things among us, which may set things in their true Light: For then we are persuaded the World will be convinced that our Representations are neither unjust, nor calumnious, nor partial. He giveth, pag. 1. a most unjust Account of the Unity that, he saith, was between Presbyterians and the Episcopal Party; while he saith, That all Scots-men were generally of one Communion, and that the Presbyterians (except the Cameronians) had returned to the Episcopal p. 15Church, and were become Hearers, and many Communicaters with her: That there was no separate Meetings kept, at least publickly, but very rarely. This, I say, is most false: For though never any of the Presbyterians would, directly nor undirectly, own Episcopal Government, yet many of the more sober and intelligent among them did not think it unlawful to hear them occasionally, who had complied with Episcopacy; yet they chused rather to hear their own lawful Pastors, though driven into Corners, than these unfaithful Men: And not only so, but there were many Thousands, beside Cameronians, who would never hear them: And that many (who when they had occasion to hear others, made use of that Opportunity) did go to hear these Men, when their Liberty of hearing others was taken away, it is no wonder. Yet this Practice was far less general than he saith, and Meetings of Nonconformists were not so rare (for all the horrid Persecution that they were under) as he would make us believe: Many, who were no Cameronians, kept up their Meetings; though I confess it was no wonder that their Meetings were not publick, when they were by such barbarous Persecutions driven into Corners; and if some, under the Heat of Persecution, stretched their Consciences to comply, it is nothing but that which hath been common among Men of Infirmities.

§. 2. Another Falshood is, that the Party which was then treated severely, was only the Cameronians: Whereas, though they had their share of the Persecution, yet other Presbyterians were most cruelly dealt with; and it was observed, that, indeed, the Spite of his Party appeared most against the most sober of the Presbyterians, as being the Persons most capable to do them hurt. It is also false, that it was the Severity used against them only, that ma… complained of in the Prince of Orange's Declaration, and in the S…o…h Inquisition: One of which Papers (but which of them no Man can know by his Words; and may be such Ambiguity hath been designed) he calleth a most scurrilous Pamphlet. It is also most false and calumnibus, that all Presbyterians in Scotland were of one Principle, only the Cameronians were more ingenuous: For the sober Presbyterians did always condemn many, both Principles and Practices, of that Party▪ Such as that Magistrates and Ministers fall, ipso facto, from their Authority, respective, and Stations, when they are guilty of Mis-managements ▪ and that private Persons may treat them as such, without a …enee of State or Church. That the rest of the Presbyterians condemned the Cameronians for keeping up their Meetings, is also an Untruth, for they also kept up Meetings; but they condemned them for the manner of their Meeting, p. 16with such Contempt of, and bidding Defiance to the Authority of the Magistrate. He giveth a general Account of Argyle's Invasion; But the Ground of the Presbyterians not joyning with him, he misrepresenteth: It was not they, but an irritated Party among them, who had been provoked by the most desperate Hardships, and pinching Necessities, who had smarted for other Enterprizes of that nature. The general and dark Account he giveth of the Concert made at London, by some of the State, and some Bishops, about taking off the Penal Laws, we can make no Judgment of, till that fuller Account be given of it, that he giveth us hope of: But this we know, that the Result of it was, these Men did what they could for taking away the Penal Laws that were against Papists, though that Attempt succeeded not in the Episcopal Parliaments; neither did we ever think that all, especially of the Gentry, and other Members of Parliament, who went along with Episcopacy while it had Law for it, were inclined to Poper…y.

§. 3. He doth most injuriously charge the Dissenters with making a Schism, after that above-mentioned Imaginary Union that he had talked of; and that by first Refusing, and then Accepting of the Toleration granted by King James, which was founded on the Dispensing Power. And after a great deal of pains to fix some Guilt on them in that matter; he concludeth, that both the Declarations, that came out about that Indulgence, being materially, the same, in pursuance of the same Design, and both owning the King's Absolute, Dispensing Power, they were as guilty in using their Liberty on the last Declaration, as if they had done that on the first. For Answer; 1. Let his Friends reconcile him to himself, in saying the two Declarations were, materially the same; and yet that the one required an Oath of them who had Liberty of it, and the other not so. 2. It is well known that the Presbyterians would never meddle with that Liberty, till it was so contrived, as might neither engage them to own the Dispensing Power, nor to any other unlawful Act: For such a Power being asserted in the Declaration, doth no way infer their owning of that Power, by their using the Liberty granted them, after it had been unjustly with-held from them, and which was their Due by a Grant from Christ in the Gospel. What could prompt this Author to affirm, that the Presbyterians were moved at last to use the Liberty granted, because they could no longer be disobedient to the Divine Providence? And that, according to their Divinity, Providential Occurrences make a considerable part of the Rule of Faith and Manners? I leave it to others to guess; for none are more remote from such Principles, than Presbyterians. He next undertaketh to prove, p. 17that Presbyterians did not separate from them (he meaneth, make use of the Liberty granted them) on any Principle of Conscience. If this be well proved, it will give a deep Wound to our Interest, from their continuing in Communion with the Episcopalians some Years before their Liberty, and many some Months after. Answ. His Arguments, 1st are, This Communion was nothing else but Hearing them when they could get none else to …ar; which many, yea, most Presbyterians never scrupled. But let him tell us, if all that time they ever owned these Men for their lawful Pastors; or thought it Duty to forsake them whom they had owned as such, to cleave to these; or that they ever countenanced the Government or Discipline of the Church, which was exercised under Bishops, and by their Authority. If they had done so, it had not consisted with Conscience to separate from them on occasion of a Liberty granted: But if otherwise, it doth clearly consist with Leaving them for Conscience sake; because their Scruple was not simply about hearing, but about forsaking their lawful Pastors, and owning those others as their Pastors, and their Church-Government as Christ's Discipline. Arg. 2. While they continued with us, they acknowledged that their Consciences allowed them. Answ. And well they might, on the Grounds already given: But the fundamental Mistake, on which all his Reasonings are built, is, that he takes such occasional hearing of a Minister to be the Exercise of that Church-Communion that fixed Members of a Congregation have with that Church. Arg. 3. Many thanked God that they were reconciled to us, and frequently protested, all the World should never again engage them in the Schism. Answ. He wisely concealeth their Names (though he saith he can tell them) lest they should contradict him. But that which enervateth his Argument, is, that he inferreth the Practice of Presbyterians (which must be meant of all, or most) from that of many; and he is not pleased to tell us how many they were: Two or three to do so, were many, and too many; and I confess, such as said so, and yet did otherwise, did not act Conscienciously: But I am persuaded, not one of a Thousand of them that were, from a Principle, Presbyterians, were guilty of such jugling; whatever some might do, who (from other Motives than Conscience) owned that way; in whose Actions we are no ways concerned. What he calleth Schism, we say, they are not engaged in who went to the Meetings, but they who had departed from the good old ways of the Gospel-Church, and the Church of Scotland; a Deviation from whose Courses Presbyterians could not own. Arg. 4. Some of the ablest Preachers, a few Weeks before, said, they would never embrace that Toleration, and that they p. 18resolved never to preach more. Answ. I have the Charity to think that this is a Falshood that is too gross to be uttered by a Christian; but the Author might have consulted his Credit, by informing us who these able Men were: If any such were, I doubt they were neither able nor honest; and I am sure, if they were known, they would be abhorred by Presbyterians. Arg. 5. Some, even after the 2d. Edition of the Toleration, continued in their Resolution not to engage in it, and it cost their Brethren much pains to prevail with them. Answ. They who have considered his above-mentioned Assertions, may easily know how to believe this: For my part, I believe not one word of it, save that there were some Men so unreasonable as to be shy of accepting any Liberty granted by the Magistrate; which was far from the general Sentiment of Presbyterians. A 6th Argument he useth, There could be no Conscience in this Matter, seeing we had no sinful Condition in our Communion; we agree with them in Doctrine, the Administration of Sacraments, and have Ordination which is valid; and our main Difference is about the Doxology, Lord's Prayer, and the Belief, rehearsed at Baptism. Answ. For the first of these, We deny it, for it is sinful to subject to Episcopal Government; and without this, no Man could be of their Communion; that is, subject to all the Ordinances among them. Again, though none of these were, removing our faithful Pastors, and setling Intruders over us, did warrant us to wait on the Ministry of the former, and not on that of the latter. That any separated merely on Account of the Doxology, Lord's Prayer, and Belief, I know not; though many would not use them as his Church did.

§. 4. He tells us next of the wonderful Increase of Meetings, and of Meeting-houses; which was very true, but not well consistent with the Account he had but now given of the Disposition of the Nonconformists to comply with the Episcopal Way. It is not usual for a Nation to be born in one Day; but it sufficiently sheweth how the Generality of the Nation, who do much concern themselves in Religion, are inclined: That many in the West went to the Meetings, we deny not; but that few went elsewhere, should not be insinuated. His Branding them with Fanaticism, is expressive of the Spite against them that his Party is eminent for, but hath neither Truth nor Charity to warrant it; for the Men of that Way will vie with any in the Nation, for Sobriety and Soundness in the Faith, and for Ability to give a rational Account of what they hold. But what followeth of the Cause he assigneth for this Concourse to the Meetings, is false (to say no worse of it) in all the parts of it: Never were Men farther p. 19from Compulsion, than they were in this matter: Yea, it can be made appear (which he doth not so much as pretend to for what he affirmeth) that many were restrained from the Meetings, by the power of ill-affected Noblemen and Gentlemen. But it is not fit to rake into this matter, but to forget what caused Differences, that we may now unite in one good Way. He seemeth, p. 12. to ridicule the Presbyterians Grateful Address to King James, and Profession of Loyalty to him, on occasion of the Liberty that he granted them; but I gladly would know by what Topick either of these can be condemned: They gave Thanks for restoring them to their just Right, which had been unjustly taken from them; they professed and practised Loyalty towards their Lawful Sovereign, though of a different Religion from them, and though they had Jealousies of Designs on foot to ruin their Religion and them: While his Royal Authority was not taken away by the Nation, they, as private Men, ought not to question it. That nothing was spolen in Meeting-houses against Popery, is most false: The Preachers there, I confess, neither then did, nor now do make Controversies the constant Subject of their Sermons; yet are at pains, both in Sermons and Catechising, to clear the Truth, against all the Errors of Popery: But their main Word is to deal with the Souls of the People, about those things that do most nearly concern their Eternal Interest; to make them know themselves, and God in Christ, and Salvation through him: For they consider, that the surest way to preserve from Error, is not only to make them know the difference between it and Truth, but to get them to be truly concerned about their Souls, and seriously Religious. To the Falshood of what he affirmeth, he addeth Spite, in enumerating the Causes to which he is pleased to impute their supposed Silence against Popery. Not one of them all hath Truth or Reality in them: Their Respect to Papists, their Influence from the Court, are Reflections which I will not brand with their due Name: Their Ignorance of these Controversies is an Allegation so impudent, that no Man that is not blinded with Rage and Malice could be guilty of. The Can… (that is the Word when such Men as he would ridicule whatever looketh like serious Religion) which he saith they use against Prelacy and Malignancy, and about King Jesus, and the Gospel being banished, is asserted, not because it is so, but because it is a fine Device to defame. Nothing is more rare in our Pulpits, than medling with the late Controversies, which now we would have to be buried; and when they fall in, they are discoursed Argumentatively; and if any, at any time, do otherwise, that is not to be charged on all. There is no Party, among whom some Indiscretion doth not appear in the Conduct of some Men.

p. 20§. 5. His next effort is, a Satyre against the Prince of Orange's Declaration for Scotland; and he fixeth the Original of their Persecutions that he complaineth of, on it: He Characterizeth it as Downe right Presbyterian. He taxeth the Presbyterian Nobility and Gentry's going to London to wait on his Highness: And confesseth them to be the chief Persons, who (upon his Majesties retirement,) so he termeth that which the Parliament called K. James's Abdicating the Government) did confer the Government of this Kingdom on the Prince. This Paragraph is a sufficient evidence of the Temper of this Author, and of those for whom he pleadeth: And yet they have now the Brow to make Addresses to King William, full of the highest Assertions of their Loyalty both past and present. But they who knew their way, don't believe any such Professions; and they who read this Book will, I hope, be as far from giving Credit to them. He now (page 14…) beginneth to tell us of their Sufferings. And what horrid Barbarities were used against them: And is so kind to his Countrey, as to be spareing in this Relation, left he should thereby breed a disgust at his native Countrey. This is shameful Hypocrisie, twisted with Malice; For I hope it will be found, as we proceed, that his big Expressions about their Sufferings will dwindle into Fleabits, in comparison of the Bloody Lashes that others suffered, not long before, from Men of his Tribe. Which I mention not here to excuse, nor extenuate, any irregular Course that some took, nor to plead for retribution to his Party: We had rather suffer ten Wrongs, than do one. It will be found that his Party did indeed expose the Nation to the Reproach of Barbarity, and Persecuting their Brethren: So he doth what in him lieth to bring the same upon the Nation, by his horrid Lies, aggravating of things, and Misrepresentations. Before he came to his particular Stories of that which he calleth, The Persecution of the Clergy, he Prefaceth three things, to render these Passages more odious. The first is, The opportunity that was given for it by King James's Forces, being at that time called into England, to oppose the Prince of Orange, who sometime before that, had landed in England: And the Council at that time dissolved of it self, so that, saith he, in effect, the Nation was without Government. Whatever improvement he may make of this Remark, it may be of some use to us: For it is hence evident (as it is in it self well known) That it was by Force, and not the Submission, or Affection, the Call or Approbation of the People, who should have been their Charge, that his Party enjoyed their Ministry, or any Exercise of it: And indeed, an Army was, for many years, kept up in p. 21time of Peace, to force People to come to hear them. Another thing that I here infer is, That King James's Interest, and that of the Prelatick Clergy, were Embarked together, as are King William's and that of Presbyterians. A third Inference is, That it being an Interregnum, when there was no Government, Tumults and Disorders, though never to be approved, yet are not so much to be wondered at: And indeed, considering our Circumstances (after to be noted) it is a wonder that they had no sadder Effects. There are Men in the World, who being so provoked as that People was, and without restraint from Government, would have avenged themselves on their bloody Persecuters at another rate. But, as we are sorry that there were such tumultuous Actings, so we bless the Lord, that they had no worse Effects. The 2d thing that he premiseth is, The Story of a Massacre, by an Irish Army said to be landed at Kirkcubright, which he Fancieth to be a device of the Presbyterians; and industriously spread by them to be a Colour for disarming the rest of the Country. How that Story arose we are yet in the Dark, I hope his imagination is not sufficient to fix it on the Presbyterians: We know in such a time of Hurry, Fear and Confusion, with which the Minds of all sorts were then filled, such reports as to rise without design or grounds: If any did devise such a Tale, they deserve severe punishment. His three Remarks is on the day that the rabbling of Ministers was set on Foot, which he saith, was concerted to be on Christmas-day; on which many Parties, in several Corners, got together about that Work: And this Circumstance he tragically appeareth; It being a day which brought joy to all People, which was once celebrated by the Court of Heaven; which the Christan Church ever since hath solemnized; and let us remark a few a few things on this fine Notion, (on which this Author seemeth to value himself not a little) 1. I doubt of the Matter of Fact, in this Circumstance, it is like we should have heard of it, if it had been so. 2. That the day was chosen, or concerted, I as much doubt. 3ly, That the day was so celebrated, as he saith, is ridiculous to assert, did the Court of Heaven keep the anniversary Day? That the Church in all Ages keep it, is said without Book; tho' that Institution is very ancient. I know the Birth of Christ was celebrated by the Heavenly Host, and we celebrate it in our thankful Acknowledgments of it, as the greatest Mercies: But that either Christ was born on December 25. or the Heavenly Host did that day bring the glad Tidings of it to the Shepherds, or that any Anniversary day is to be kept by God's appointment, on that account, Quia Scriptum non Legimus, ideo Jussum non Credimus.

p. 22§. 6. He cometh now, page, 16. To his particular Historical account of these horrid Persecutions which are above reported to be unparallelled, That even the French Dragooning cannot equal them: Before I consider them particularly, I observe a few things concerning them in general; which if impartially weighed, may sufficiently stop the mouth of all the Clamour, and let the World see the temper of these Men; and what Unmanly, as well as Unchristian shifts they use to buoy up their sinking Cause, 1. What is here said to be done, is not imputable to the Presbyterians: More than the Drunkenness, Swearing, Whoredoms, Persecutions, that we charge many of that Party with, are to be lookt on as the Crimes of all the Episcopalians: they were done by a few, not Ministers, but of the meanest of the People; they never were, nor are approved, but rather disliked and lamented, by the Body of the Presbyterians, who are as far from disorderly and violent Courses, as any Men are, and who think that a good Cause needeth not the help of unwarrantable means, and that every Man should keep within the bounds of his Station: And that not the People, but the Magistrate and Church-Authority in their several Ways, should rid the Church of bad and unfit Ministers, whatever Reflections we have of the event, viz. Freeing the Congregations from evil Ministers, yet we are far from applauding this manner of doing it. 2. The People who did these things were under the highest Provocations imaginable, to do what they did; yea to have proceeded to farther Severities, which we rejoyce that they were with-held from (we hope, by some measure of the awe of God upon them) for the Ministers had been not only intruded on the People, without their Choice and Consent, and were the mean of depriving them of such Gospel Administrations as they highly valued; but they were the chief Instruments of most horrid Persecutions and Barbarities, that that poor People and their Relations, who lost their Lives by that Persecution, had long and heavily groaned under: as will appear in the following Discourses, and as I hope shall be shewed in a more full account of these matters. Oppression maketh a wise Man mad. It is no wonder then, that it causes them rush into some Practices which cannot be defended, who are neither so wise, nor so good as they should be. 3. These things were acted in an Interregnum; When we had no Civil, nor Church-Government. When one King was removed, and another not yet set up; and this poor opprest and enraged People were chased in their Minds: they had now power (I mean Potentiam, non potestatem) to shake off their unsupportable Yoak, there was no orderly course for bringing that about, p. 23which either was then practicable, or that they could, in those circumstances, have the prospect of: and therefore, tho' it was not allowable, yet it was not to be wondered at, that they relieved themselves, when they saw none else who would or could do it. 4. The Histories that he here bringeth are partly Lies, partly unjust and unfair Representations of truth: and if all were true, can no way amount to such a horrid and general Persecution, as he speaketh of: So that indeed the whole of his account is Clamour and Obloquies, without any cause proportioned to such Complaints.

§. 7. Let us now examine the Matters of Fact, which he adduceth to make out the Persecution that he chargeth the Presbyterians with, The 1. Of them is concerning Mr. Gabriel Russel Minister at Govan, whom some of his own Parish assailed (to several of whom he had done Kindnesses) Beat his Wife and Daughter and himself, so inhumanely, that it had almost cost him his life; carried off the Poors Box, and other Utencils of the Church, and threatned him with worse Treatment, if he should preach any more there. To this I oppose the truth of this Story, as it is attested by the Subscriptions of nine Persons who were present. That there being great Confusion like to be in the Country, they feared the Church Goods might be carried away: They went peacably, and demanded them, offering sufficient security that they should be safely kept and restored to them who should be concerned. This Mr. Russel and his Wife (who both were Drunk, as they used often to be) not only refused, but gave the Men very opprobrious and provoking Language: They essaying to lift the Box in which the Poors Money was kept, Mr. Russel setting his foot on it, and his Wife sitting down on it, they with all tenderness lifted her up, and carried away the Box; but before they went out of the house, they got the Key, and secured what was in the Box. Mr. Russel roared, and beat them with hands and feet: but they utterly deny that any of them did beat either him or his Wife: yea, are they parted from his house, they asked if any thing was wanting, and they could be charged with nothing. This is attested by the Subscriptions of John Murdoch, William Cowan, Zacharias Maxwel, John Keith, John Hill, Robert Burnside, Andrew Shiels, John James Hill. The next History concerneth Mr. Finnie Minister at Cathcart; whose Wife and four or five small Children, they thrust out of Doors at Midnight, tho it was a most vehement Frost. Threw out all his Furniture, and by much intreaty, suffered his Wife and Children to have lodging in the Stable, without a fire; the Children fell sick thereafter. The truth of this matter (as attested by Robert Jamison, David Park, William Gouts. p. 24All living near to Mr. Finnie's House) is, There being that Night an Alarm, as if the French and Irish had landed at Greenock, all the Country got together in Arms. When the Alarm was found to be false, the Parish of Cathcart (though the Gentlemen had desired them to go home, and be in readiness if there should be need) hearing the Prince of Orange's Manifesto was to be proclaimed at Glasgow, went thither, and assisted at the Solemnity; and returning with Joy, made Bone-fires in several parts of the Parish; and at Mr. Finnie's House (he being abroad) made a Bone-fire before the Barn-door, of his Coals: Some of them, who had been greatly injured by Mr. Finnie, went into the House, offered Violence to no Person, only desired his Wife to withdraw; which she did till they were gone, which was about Eight or Nine-o-Clock at Night; when she returned to her House, and stayed in it for a considerable time, and left it of her own accord, without Compulsion. I hope the Reader, by comparing these two Accounts of the matter, may see how a Story may be altered, by the right or wrong telling of it: Yet I am far from approving what they did; but I am sure it is not like the French Dragooning.

§. 8. The third Story is of Mr. Boyd, at Carmanock; whose Family, he saith, was as rudely treated. And the like was done in many other places. This General we cannot answer, he not being pleased to mention Particulars; but …hat this Gentleman should give these for Instances of incredible Barbarities (as here he is pleased to call them) may help us to understand his Words, and to put a softer Sense on them than they bear; for it is evident that in this Cause his Words are full of monstrous Hyperbolics, if not of plain Forgeries. The Parish of Carmanock had their own former Pastor among them; Mr. Boyd had been a cruel Persecutor of some of them, by causing some to be imprisoned, forcing others to flee, and wander for several Months; they peaceably desired his Family to remove, which they did, leaving only some Lumber in the House, they expected several Months till that also should be taken away; which not being done, and finding that the Parliament had made an Act for the Old Presbyterian Ministers, who had been cast out, to return to their Charges, they took out what remained in the Minister's House, and committed it to the keeping of some of Mr. Boyd's Friends, till he should send for it; and this, that they might repair their House for their own Minister. All this is attested, May 12, 1690. by Francis Park, James Parker, Archibald Park, John Smith, Matthew Park, William Baird. Mr. Robert Bell, Minister at Kilmarnock, is the next Instance of the Persecutions complained of; Whom they kept bare-headed four or five p. 25Hours in a Frosty Day, caused his own Sexton tear his Gown in pieces from his Shoulders, burnt the English Liturgy which they found in his Pocket, and that with much Ceremony, at the Market-Cross. This same Story we have at great length in the 2d Book that I have to answer, called The Case of the present afflicted Clergy; which I shall here consider to prevent Repetition. We are told of Abuses done to Mr. Bell, by a Party of the Presbyterians, now in Arms in Scotland: How they took him going to Riccartoun, made him put off his Hat, called him Rogue and Rascal, said they did these things by the Rule and Law of the Solemn League and Covenant; and other such Speeches they used: That they carried him Prisoner to Kilmarnock; that the Laird of Bridge-house, by the way, reproved them for their illegal Acting, willed them to leave these Men to the Parliament, now to be assembled by the Prince of Orange. That they answered, they would not adhere to the Prince of Orange, nor the Law of the Kingdom, farther than the Solemn League and Covenant was fullfilled and prosecuted by both. That when they came near the Town, they made the Minister pluck off his Hat, threatned to throw him into the Rivir: That they met the Body of their Party, who at the Market-Cross had discharged the Minister to preach any more: That they reproached the Church of England carried him to his House, where they got from him a Common-Prayer-Book; then carried him to the Market-place, where, after some opprobcious Speeches against him, and the Churches of England and Scotland, they burnt the Book, holding it upon the point of a Pike while it was burning: They asked if he were an Episcopal Prelate's Man, and of the Communion of the Church of England and Scotland; which he owned: Then they tore his Gown, required him not to preach any more; which he would not promise. This is all that is material in that long Narration, and his signed at Glasgow, January 8. 1689. Robert Bell. In Answer to all this, I shall give the Reader a Breviate, which is attested by many Persons in that Parish, of Worth and Credit, whose Names shall be subjoyned. They observe his flattering Insinuations on the Church of England, and his most dis-ingenious Imputations, as if these things had been done by the Presbyterians; whereas his own Conscience hath extorted from him, in private Discourse, a Clearing of that Party from such Principles or Practices. They take notice of his small Proficiancy at the College of Glasgow, witnessed by his Master, and several Students: That being some time at Oxford, at his Return he was suspected at London, and elsewhere, by all good Protestants, who shunned his Converse: Yet, by the means of the Archbishop of Glasgow, he was planted at Kilwining, where he preached but one Lord's Day; then got into Kilmarnock by Si…iacal Dealings with the Patron, p. 26his Father giving a Bond for Two Thousand Marks, and he making Exchange of the Glebe: During his being Minister there he preached seldom, residing mostly at Glasgow, sixteen Miles distant, spending his Time in Whistling, Singing, Carding, Drinking, and the like. About this time, a Liberty being granted to Presbyterians, the Parish had recalled their old Minister, Mr. James Rowat, and called to his Assistance Mr. James Osburn, and built a Meeting-house, where the whole Parish frequented: So that never above Twelve of that Parish (consisting of Two Thousand Five Hundred Persons, of Age to be Catechised) did hear Mr. Bell. They shew farther, that among that whole Party who so treated Mr. Bell, there was not one Person that belonged to the Parish of Kilmarnock, save one poor young Man; but that some of the Parish, who never owned Mr. Bell as their Minister, yet did deal earnestly with the Party that molested him, to desist from their Course; but they were in no Case to hinder them by force, both because they were surprized by this Tumult, and because they had been frequently disarmed through the Jealousies of the former Government, and the Party consisted of Two Hundred well armed and resolute Men. They affirm farther, that the armed Party were as much Enemies to the Presbyterian Ministers in the Meeting-houses, as to the Episcopalians; calling them Apostates, and Preachers of the Duke of York's Gospel; with many other unsavoury Expressions: And that they had divers Consultations about the doing the same Indignities to them, that they did to the Episcopal Clergy; and that particularly they did threaten Mr. Osburn, if he did not depart thence. At the same time they fixed a Paper on the Meeting-house at Irwin, threatning to burn it. Farther: Though they cannot evince the Falshhood of all that is here alledged, yet they can prove some things (where they were Ear and Eye-witnesses) that they are false; from which, the Credibility of what they saw not, nor heard, may be guessed at. As that the Service-Book was lifted up on the end of a Pike; there was not a Pike among all that Rabble: That it was done with Shouts and Acclamations, is also false: As also, it is false that any such Words were spoken as Down with the Idolatry of the Church of England and Scotland. And that he was questioned about the Church-Government, is false; nothing was asked, but if he owned Prelacy? To which he faintly replied, Yes. What is said of the Laird of Bridgehouse is incredible, for he never hath shewed such Respect to the Prince of Orange, nor to our Sovereign King William; but often drinketh King James's Health, and hath often Caballed with Mr. Bell, especially when his Cousin Mr. John Bell, and his Brothers Colin Bell p. 27and Patrick Bell, were preparing for their Dublin Voyage; in which they were taken going with Supplies for the Irish Rebels there. These things are Attested by the Subscriptions of John Crawford of Crawfordland, Hugh Hunter, Robert Wright, John Paterson, John Boyd, Alexander Muir, John Adam, Joseph Waugh, Robert Bankhead, John Miller, James Campbel, Andrew Taylor, John Tunahill, Matthew Duncan, John Tunahill, John Armour, William, Robert Paterson. I leave the Reader to make his own Judgment on these Stories, the one avouched by the Person concerned, the other by so many unconcerned Persons, and of known Integrity. And to consider whether from this Tale such Barbarity as is alledged, be imputable to the Presbyterians.

§. 9. I now return to the first Book: The Authors next instance is, Mr. Simpson Minister at Galston, whom they caused to go bareheaded to the publickest place of the Village, and caused him put on his Morning Gown, (the Canonical Gown not being found) which they tore off him, and caused him wade through a River at one of the deepest places, and commanded him not to return. The truth of the matter, is, Mr. Robert Simpson had violently Persecuted several of the Parish; particularly he had caused George Lambe, a very old Man, Janet Lambe, the Wife of James Mill, who was very Infirm, and brought forth a Child ten days after, and James Lambe; to be carried on Carts (not being able to go) to Kilmarnock by Lieutenant Collonel Buchan's Souldiers, and that for not coming to hear; some of their Friends in Resentment of this, did in January, or February 1689. take Mr. Sympson out of his House, and discoursed with him about an hour, he being Uncovered, and put him through the Water of Irwin out of the Parish, but they neither rent his Gown, nor did other Injury to him. These Persons were strangers, except some few of the Parish. This is attested by Hugh Hutcheson Notar, Thomas Morton, John Adam. Next cometh on the stage Mr. Mill Minister at Caudor: he being absent they rent his Gown, Harangued and Prayed before, and concluded with a Volly of Shot. Concerning this I have received no Information, but from what is said, have cause to dis-believe it: Next we have Mr. White Minister of Ballingtrea, whom a Pedler beat on the Face with a Musquet, for speaking to him with his hat on his head; thrust at him with a Sword to the piercing of his Cloaths and Skin, but it went no deeper, a throng being in the Room, and the Actor of it at a distance. To this is answered, that the Parish had no hand in this, tho' he had beat some of them of good note, and had been injurious to severals of them in his Dealings. This is attested by Henry Mackbreath, James Mowat, Hugh Kennedy, p. 28Gilbert Maciltire, John Macqualter: all who have their Testimony from their Minister, that they are credible and famous Witnesses. This is witnessed by the same Persons; that whereas he accused the Presbyterians for beating his Wife, that they never knew any to beat his Wife, except himself, which they have often heard and seen. Our next instance is Mr. Brown Minister at Kells in Galloway residing at Newtoun, whom in a Storm of Frost and Snow, they carried to the Market-place about four a Clock in the Morning, tyed him to a Cart, set his face to the Weather, where he had died, if a poor Woman had not cast Cloaths about him. The Truth of this Story is, that Mr. Brown being beastly Drunk at night, after a little sleep, went to his House at a distance from that Town, and returning in the Morning betimes, was by the Guard taken for a Spie, who were informed that six or seven Men had a little before gone through the River, supposed to be the Earl of Melford; and that they had inquired, if my Lord was at home: And were said to come by Mr. Brown's House: On these grounds, the Prison not being firm, they bound him: This is Attested by Gilbert Gordon, and Lieutenant Kennedy. It is hard to justifie this usage of any Man: But it is yet harder to impute this indiscretion of Souldiers to the Presbyterians. Next we have Mr. Ross at Renfrew, whose Wife with her Infant they threw out the third day after she was brought to Bed. Ans. This Narration is so false, that neither Mr. Ross nor his Wife will own it: Mrs. Ross was brought to bed 17 days before these Men came to the House; they caused the Goods to be removed without any damage to them: And at the entreaty of some of the Town, suffered the Goods to be put into the House again, and Mr. Ross's Family lived peaceably in that House 16 Months after that time. But which is mainly to our purpose, the Presbyterian Minister at Renfrew, hearing of such Disorders elsewhere, had warned his Hearers against them; So that none of them had a hand in this Fact: But they who did it were Strangers, and such as joined with no Presbyterian Meeting. All this is Attested by William Scot Bailly, William Scot Elder, William Armour Elder, John Reidman, Patrick Scot, John Jackson.

§. 10. Next he bringeth on the Stage Mr. Gutherie, Minister at Kier, whose Family, in a rainy day, they turned out, tho' three of his Children were sick; one of a Fever, and two of the Small-Pox, and two of them died upon that Treatment. To this the Persons after mentioned do Answer two things. 1. That he did extremely disoblige and provoke the Parish, not only by his Intrusion against the Will, both of the Gentry and the rest of the Parish; but also by informing against the p. 29People: Who by his means were severely fined: He had a hand in sending out Dragoons who killed four Men, and hanged them on a Tree for 18 days, at the Church of Iron gray: He beat Bessie Smith (he being on horse back, and she on foot) to the great effusion of Blood, and till she fell dead; and after returned to her and beat her, saying, it would heal her. 2. The People being so exasperate, threatned to cast him out of his House, he often promised to remove, but did it not: At last they cast out his Family, without doing hurt to any Person, his Wife through peevishness would not go into another House, tho' earnestly invited by several Persons, particularly the Mistress of Waterside, John Osburn's Wife, and John Hudstons Wife; there was but one of her Children sick at that time, who is still alive. The other two did not fall sick for eight Weeks after that time. This is Attested by Charles Maxwell, John Hudleston, Thomas Hudleston, William Hastings, William Halliday, John Maxwel, John Osburn, John Waugh, John Hudleston, Thomas Mitchelson, John Pagan, John Grant, John Smith, William Waouh, W. D. James M'gie. His last instance is of Mr. Skinner at Daly, They frighted his Daughter, aged about 20, into a Fever, returning after 5 or 6 days, they turned her out of her Bed, pretending to search for Arms, so that she died raving. This is most false; there came indeed, some Persons to Mr. Skinner's house, knocked at the door, which was opened to them by those within, Mr. Skinner ask'd them, what they were come for? Was it to fright him and his Family? They answered, they came only to search for Arms; and that they would do no harm to him, nor to his Family: He told them, he had no Arms, and he commanded his Daughter, Katherine Skinner, to set Meat before them: After they had eaten, they went away without doing prejudice to any in the Family: After five or six days, they returned, and forbade Mr. Skinner to Preach any more at the Church of Daly: Mr. Skinner's Daughter, Katherine, was them sick: One of them look'd into the Bed where she lay, and said, who lieth here: A Woman who attended the sick Person, answered, it is Mr. Skinner's Daughter, who is sick; upon which they all removed, without saying or doing any more. All this is Attested upon Oath, before the Baron Court of Kilbochen, held at Halhil, June 30 1690. The Witnesses were Janet Dalrymple, the Wife of James Mackneben, Anna Abercrombey, the Wife of Andrew Neilson, Gilbert Mackennie Servant to Mr. Skinner.

§. 11. The Author, as lifted up in his own conceit, with such full proof of his point, (as he fancieth) by these Stories that he hath told (tho' most disingenuously and falsly,) doth now page 18. Harangue p. 30upon the Disorders, That they contrived and raised at Glasgow, and at Edinburgh; Citations in Name of the Rable, to remove from Churches and Manses; and thinketh it enough to his purpose, to tell the Person that he writeth to, that these were their common Methods, and that by such means in a short time, more then 200 were thrust from their Churches and Dwellings, and all this can be Attested with the greatest Evidence. It is not easie to Answer such loose Declamations; it is often observed, that some Mens confident Expressions run highest, when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest: Yet some Observations I shall make on this Passage, which may make him ashamed of his Confidence. 1. That they raised, and much more that they contrived Tumults, is an Impudent Calumny; for the Tumult at Glasgow, it was raised by his own Party, who were the Aggressors; and the Presbyterians did nothing but in their own Defence. But of it I shall here add no more, but refer the consideration of it till we come to Answer, The Case of the Afflicted Clergy, &c. Where our Author doth more particularly give Account of it. 2. For the Tumults at Edinburgh, we know of none, but what was made by the Students at the Colledge there, in burning the Pope in Effigie, and defacing the Popish Chappel at the Abbey of Holyroodhouse: Few of these Actors were Presbyterians, tho' they were all Protestants; most of them were Episcopally inclined, and bred under Masters who were of that Profession… and that any Presbyterians who then, or since, had Authority in the State, or Church, did assist in contrivance or management of this matter, we do sitterly deny. 3. If their were Citations in the name of the Rable (which we know not and wish he had attempted to prove it) It was done by the Rable, whose Actions we disclaim, and who were not of our Communion. 4. What he saith, that these were the Presbyterians common Methods, is as false as any thing he hath yet said; or as any thing that can be spoken; and if it be enough that he telleth his friend so, he hath found an easie way of perswading to the belief of whatever he pleaseth. How many were put out by the Rable we know not, but this we know, that most of them who went out, were put out by their own Consciences: For they deserted their Charges without either Sentence, Threatning, or Compulsion. 5. That all this can be attested, we deny; and bid him defiance, to bring half the Evidence for it that he vainly talketh of.

§. 12. He doth now, with all the little Rhetorical Artifices he is Master of, labour to make these things credible to his Reader, by taking away what might be any Ground of Doubt about them: Wherefore he undertaketh to shew, That Application was made to Magistrates, p. 31and no Redress: That they were not pure Rabble who acted these things: That these Actors were easily controllable by Authority: That Nobles, Gentry, Ministers had a hand in these things: That they who suffered these things were Men that deserved better Treatment. Let us now attend to his Proof of all these: He saith, p. 19. That Applications were made to Peers who were Privy Counsellors, not gone to London; but he is not pleased to tell us who they were, that the Truth might be enquired into; neither do we know that any Peer, to whom they made Address, was furnished either with Authority or Strength sufficient to repress such Disorders in that Inter-regnum, and time of Confusion: Every Peer hath not Authority over the whole Nation. That these Peers were Privy Counsellors is false, for there were none such at that time in the Nation, the Council having dissolved themselves, and another not as yet constituted. He next tells us of their sending private Accounts to London, but without success, because their Enemies (the Presbyterians) had many ways defamed them, and called all their Letters Lyes and Forg…ries. Here is Non causa pro causa: The true Reason why they then had no Relief was, None at London had the power to do what they designed, more than they had who were at home: That the Presbyterians did mis-represent them, is false. Let us see what was charged on any of them, but what can be made appear. And if our Party would have attempted such a thing, they had many of their own Party who were ready to believe what they wrote, and to improve it to their own Advantage. That any Matters of Fact (Rabbles or Tumults) that were acted then in Scotland, were industriously concealed or denied at London by the Presbyterians, he doth affirm with as little Truth as Honesty: Fain would he retort on us these lying Methods, that he and his Complices have followed; but we are beyond such Reproaches in the Consciences of all that know us, and do not hate us.

§. 13. He beginneth, pag. 20. to give Account of the Prince of Orange's Declaration for keeping the Peace, and how it was mis-regarded by the Presbyterians. And he telleth us of Dr. Scot's Message and Instructions from the Deputies of seven Presbyteries (where it is pleasant to see what pains he is at to apologize to the Church of England for that odious Name) and how the good Party (so he calleth us Ironice) contradicted all the Accounts that they gave of things. (If the Doctor's History of things was of the same strain with what this Author giveth us, I hope the Reader will not wonder that he met with Contradiction.) On this Application the Prince's Declaration came out, though not so full as the Doctor would have had it. That he procured the Declaration, p. 32the Author dreameth: The necessity of the thing required it. That two contending Parties should be restrained from mutual Injuries, in an Inter-regnum, and time of Confusion, was very suitable to that great Prince's Wisdom and Justice: As also that Dr. Scot and his Party got not all their Will, was but Reason. The Presbyterians Disobedience to the Prince's Declaration, he proveth by three Instances: The first is, The Tumult at Glasgow; the true Account of which I have already referred to another place. The Second is, Mr. Little, of Trailslat, about to repossess his Pulpit, was assaulted by Women, who tore his Coat and Shirt off him; and had done so with his Breeches, but that he pleaded with them from their Modesty. I have often said, that we can no ways be accountable for what was done by the Rabble; they were none of ours, and little less unfriendly to us, than to his Party; which is particularly attested concerning them who did so use Mr. Little, of Tinal, or Trailslat. His Third Instance: He quoteth some Men and Women, calling the Prince's Declaration a Sham, and that they knew His Highness's Resolutions. If he had pleased to tell us who said so, we could have enquired into the Truth of what he alledgeth, and have judged by the Quality of the Persons, what weight is to be laid on their Words: If we should be at the pains to print all that the Scum of his Party saith, we might write Volumes of Matter that would make them black enough; but withal, it might make us ridiculous to the World. But that this Author should lay such stress on the Talk of Women, whom no body knoweth who they were, as thence to fancy that they now have a Discovery of the Intrigue of Presbyterians, is no great Argument of his deep Judgment. He next telleth of an Intrigue in the Prince's Declaration (for even His Highness, nor now when he is our Sovereign, cannot escape the Lash of these Mens Tongues and Pens) in commanding all to lay down Arms, save the Garrisons, and the Town Company of Edinburgh. It seems it grieves this Man that King James's Forces must be disbanded; for I suppose he will not quarrel with disarming any of the Presbyterians. But surely here was no Intrigue, but a plain Design that the two striving Parties should not fall on each other in a War commenced by Authority: But that which piqueth him is; that by this means the College of Justice were forced to lay down their Arms, which he will have to be taken up by the Authority of the Magistrates of Edinburgh, and in defence of the Ministers of that City, on whom he alledgeth that the People resolved to fall. In answer to all this, I shall not derogate from the praises of that Honourable Society of Lawyers, and Men about the Law, which he is pleased to give them. But, 1. It was not the Colledge p. 33of Justice, but some of them, who took Arms, some of the chief of them gave no countenance to that Action. 2. It is known that the members of that Society as then constituted were greatly opposite to the Revolution in the Civil state that then was in fieri, and therefore the disbanding of them seemed to be necessary for the peaceable conclusion of that matter. 3. Whether the Arming of the Colledge of Justice was by Authority of the Magistrates of 'Edinburgh, I shall not determine: But the Magistrates as then Constituted were all opposite to the Prince of Orange; and therefore it was no wonder that any Force raised by them should be by him disbanded. 4. That there was a design to fall on the Ministers of Edinburgh, or that the Colledge of Justice armed in their defence, is affirmed on no ground, and without any truth. It was rather on the same design on which the Viscount of Dundee had gathered Forces into the Town (of which above) and it was for opposing of them, and not assaulting the Ministers of Edinburgh, that the Western Rabble (as he is pleased to call them) came to Edinburgh, viz. To defend the Convention of Estates, against the Force that might have hindred their sitting and Acting. That the Colledge of Justice were quarrelled (tho' yet no punishment, nor other effect followed on it) for their taking Arms without Law was no wonder: That the Western Rabble (as he calleth them) were not quarrelled, is as little wonder: For the one was a party of men that should have known the Law better than the other: the one did continue in Arms till they were forced to disband. Which the other did not.

§. 14. Our Authors next Essay, p. 23, is (according to his strain and temper) to nullifie the Convention of Estates, as being unduly constituted, and consequentially that all that they did is of no force, Which is at one Blow to dethrone Their present Majesties, and to unsettle the present Establishment. To what other purpose can his remarks tend, of the absence of so many of the Nobility, the scruples of the best and most Judicious of the Gentry of the Nation had about it, how thin the meetings of the smaller Burghs in many Shires were at the Election; How Industrious the Presbyterians were to get all Elected of their own gang, what methods were taken to impose on the simpler Members, what partiality was used about controverted Elections. I have seen a time when talking at this rate, and by so doing striking at the root of the Government, would have cost one a more severe Reprimand, then is a Paper refutation; but we have the advantage by this passage, that the Clamours against Presbyterians have the same Authors, and Grounds, with these against the Government of the State, which I hope will make them to be otherwise understood, then if they had taken the Presbyterian p. 34Church alone for their Party. After some Historical remarks on the Convention (which I insist not on) he saith that the Rabble which had thrust out the Ministers were thanked by the Convention, tho' not under that reduplication. Tho' this is no effort of his spite against the Church, but against the State, yet I cannot but observe his Malice in it, for we deny that they were the Men that put out the Ministers: and the thanks they had was for their zeal in defending the Convention from that opposite rabble, I mean the 2000 men that the Viscount of Dundee, and others, had gathered together at Edinburgh, to have surprised the Convention, as was above shewed. When the hazard was over, they were, with the thanks of three Estates, dismissed to return to their several homes, and this was all the pay that they got, or were willing to receive, for their service. But he telleth us, that this was done when the Bishops, many of the Nobility, and not a few of the Barrons, had deserted the House. These big words have no more truth in them, but that all the Bishops, and some others of the Convention, who were Enemies to King William, went away, and would not assent to his being called to the Throne: These were the Clergies Friends, being of the same Inclinations with themselves.

§. 15. He now, pag. 24. quarreleth with the Act of the Convention, April 13, 1689, In which all were required to pray for King William, and Queen Mary. And to read that Proclamation in their Churches; and that the Refusers should be deprived of their Churches and Benefices: And that they who obeyed should be protected. From this he taketh occasion to digress very extravagantly, by recapitulating the proofs he had mentioned, that the Rabble were Acted by great Men: Which I have answered: and by telling us some stories that he had heard (may be from some of his twatling Gossips) what the Viscount of Stairs did, and what the Earl of Crawford said, which he bringeth no shaddow of Evidence for; and therefore is to be slighted. For what he alledgeth of the Earl of Crawford's writing Letters to the Rabble to go on, even after April 13. And of the Duke of Hamilton's producing one of these Letters in Council. Answ. This is a false Representation, and injurious to that Noble Earl, who did more for Suppressing the Disorders of the Rabble than others did, or could do; and who acted with Justice and Moderation towards the Party, whose ways he did not approve. The Truth of this Story is, The Minister of Logie was put out of his Church, he had made Complaint to the Council, who had his Case under Consideration, in order to do him Justice; mean while, Lieutenant Collonel Ramsay went from Stirling to Logie with a Party to Repossess the Minister by force of p. 35Arms, and that without any Warrant from Authority. The Earl hearing of this, and meeting occasionally with Lieutenant Collonel Buchan, told him how Irregular it was for Ramsay to interpose in a matter that was depending before the Council, and that nothing could excuse it, but that Ramsay was a Stranger, and understood not our Law, which doth not permit the Military Power to meddle in matters of Controversy between Parties, except when they were imployed by Authority to assist in the Execution of the Law. This Buchan wrote to Ramsay; and Buchan's Letter was produced before the Council, where the Earl defended what he had said. That his Lord wrote to the Rabble, or to any person else, in this matter, is false. The man had little to write when he blotteth Paper with what he ascribed to Sir John Monro of Foulis, if all the Sarcasms thrown out against either Party should be Printed, we would do little else but make such Collections. It is one of this Authors doughty Arguments, to prove the Sufferings of the Clergy: Such a Man Jeared an Episcopal Minister as he passed by on the Street, Ergo, the Suffering of the Clergy from the Presbyterians, are worse than the French Dragooning. He objecteth, that not one Presbyterian Minister hath been heard to condemn the Disorders of the Rabble from the Pulpit. Answ. The Falsehood of this I can testify, ex certa scientia, Often we have condemned Peoples going out of their Line, and Prosecuting good ends by unwarrantable means, and commended Moderation, &c. And prevailed with them that are our Hearers: Tho' they whom he mainly chargeth, will take little notice of what we say. What he saith, that the Rabbling has been approved in the Pulpits of Edinburgh, is more then I know, or can believe, unless (if any be which I know not) one or two imprudent Men, casually imployed in these Pulpits, hath done so, as I know they have spoken sometimes to the Offence of their Brethren. For what was spoken in the High Church of Edinburgh. Which he, according to his wonted respect to the established Law saith, Is De Jure, the Bishops Cathedral, but De Facto, a Presbyterian Meeting-House: That such shakings were the shakings of God, and without them the Church used not to be settll'd. I hope no intelligent Person will reckon these words an Approbation of the Rabble: Nor will think that they import any more, than, that the Lord is pleased often to bring lovely Order out of Confusion, which in it self is very undesirable: as he sendeth Divisions, and maketh a good use of them, so doth he with Rabbling. Next he complaineth, that no Proclamation hath been issued out against them; but because he cannot but know the contrary, therefore he chargeth the p. 36State, that they have not put their Proclamation in the Form and Words that pleas… him. This I observe only to put a note on this Authors seeking occasions of complaint, and his Sawsiness, if not satisfied. But he telleth us, on the contrary, of Two or Three Cameronian Regiments (whereas we never heard of any such, save one, and of that the Officers and many of the Souldiers were men of Sober and Sound Principles, but the Regiment had the fate to be so called) who were Quartered in Perthshire, and in Angus, where should they be quartered but in these Shires, where many of the Inhabitants were Enemies to the State, and daily renewing to the Highland Army,) That they were sent to persecute the Clergy, is most false: Or that they did molest them, more then is ordinary for Souldiers to do to them who are not of their way. And but very few instances, and in very few of these Souldiers, can be given. He designeth to ridicule them (but exposeth his own Folly, Malice, and …lly Credulity) by a story that he hath heard of their refusing obedience to their Officers in exercising, if they use often the the same Words, because they are against set Forms. Such a silly Forgery I should not have Noted (it being known no Regiment is better Disciplined, nor hath done better Service) if it were not to give the Reader occasion to observe the Spirit of our Adversaries, who lay hold on every Tattle they hear, to Reproach us, when they can find no better Arguments to disprove our way.

§. 16. He further raileth at the Proclamation, April 13. saying, That by it all the Deeds of the Rabble are justified, and permission, and encouragement given to them to go on. One would think this needeth clear proof, instead of which we have a full Evidence to the contrary, in that very passage of the Proclamation which he citeth, which is, The Estates do prohibite and discharge any injury to be offered, by any person whatsoever, to any Minister of the Gospel, either in Church or Meeting-House, who are presently in the Possession and Exercise of their Ministry. Whereby, saith he, all who were formerly thrust from their Churches are intirely excluded from the Protection of the Government. Let any unbyassed person judge whether what he affirmeth, or the contradictory of it, be proved by this passage of the Declaration: It is evident that the very Design and Strain of it, was to protect these in Churches (who were the Episcopalians) from further progress of that disturbance from some hot and irregular Persons, which some of their Brethren had met with: And it was but reasonable that the Presbyterians (who then had the Meeting-Houses) should share in the same Favour. That they who were put out by the Rabble in the Interregnum (which did now terminate) were not by this Proclamation restored, can in no sense, p. 37be construed either to justify what was done, or encourage to do the like: Other men have learned Logick that teacheth them to infer the contrary, viz. A tacite blaming of what was done, and express forbidding the like in time to come. That the Presbyterians Preaching in Meetings, was directly contrary to Law, is false: They had the Authority of King and Council: And, while the Act of Supremacy was in force (as it then was) the Parliament had given the King Power to do in the external Policy of the Kirk, what he thought fit: And therefore he had Power by the Act of Parliament, to give Liberty to Dissenters. And it is contrary to the avowed Principles of his Party, who not only promoted this Act, that screwed up the Supremacy to the height, but pleaded always, till it crossed their Interest, for the King's absolute and dispensing Power. In confirmation of this, he citeth another Proclamation, August 6. 1689. Restoring such Conformists as had been thrust out by violence, after April 13. Can any Man hence infer, that the former Proclamation gave Liberty to put out Ministers by Violence: And not rather that it condemneth what had been done that way: And yet the man hath the Brow to value himself upon this as a full and concludent proof. Are ye satisfied now? saith he; No, Sir, and I think none else can be satisfied with this Inference, whose Wit is not a Wool-gathering. But 'ex super abundante, we shall yet have more proof; It is from a passage in an Address to the King, of the greatest part of the Members of Parliament, complaining of the want of Ministers in the West, where most had been put out by the Rabble. I shall not trouble the Reader with observing the silly Quibbles that he strains at, upon some passages of this Address: But to shew how unconsequential this proof is. 1. This Address was no deed of the Parliament, or of the Presbyterian Party, but of a few. 2. There is nothing in that Address, that either approveth of the disorderly way of putting out of those men, or incourageth to go on in so doing: What he citeth is meerly matter of Fact related, that the West was desolate, that is, in great want of Ministers; can any rational man think that it thence followeth, that they who said so, do approve of the manner of putting them out, what ever thoughts they may have of the inconvenience of restoring them; of which in its due place. We must take farther notice of the Superfoetation of this Authors invention, to prove his point: The Council on Christmas Eve, 1689. (Our Author is a great Observer of days, which, it is like, the Council had no respect to) discharged all Inferiour Judicatories within the Kingdom to give Decreets for the Stipend, 1689, to these Ministers who p. 38were out of Possession on April 13. reserving the Determination of that Case to the Parliament. Who but our Author, could thence infer, that they approved of the Summer way of putting out those Ministers, nothing doth thence follow, but that the Parliament might judge of the conveniency of reponing them. On this occasion he dilateth on the Misery of those Suffering Ministers, and putteth the question, Can any History shew a President for their Case? Was ever Christian Minister so treated in a Christian Kingdom? To these his questions, I answer Affirmative, viz. The Presbyterian Ministers, anno 1662, were worse treated, when upwards of 300 of them were put out, and no allowance given them at all. And yet worse, when afterward it was enacted that none of them should live within six Miles of his former Parish, not within six Miles of a Corporation: So that it was hard for not a few of them to find a Habitation, where they Lawfully might be in the Nation; But all of them were driven, with their poor Families, from their Habitations, from among their Friends and Acquaintances, who might shew them Mercy in their Distress, to seek shelter among Strangers: And this was done in the beginning of Winter, when it was hard to remove a Family. But comparing their Sufferings, that they make such outcry about, with ours, which we bare patiently; we may observe, that some are so tender of their Worldly Accommodations, and ease: that they will complain more of the scratch of a Pin, than others will do of a deep Wound by a Sword.

§. 17. We have, page 30. An evidence how resolute this Gentleman is to be unsatisfied with whatever is, or shall be done, either by the State, or by the Church, as they are now established; For when the Act of the Estates dischargeth any Injury to be offered to any Minister now in Possession of his Church; he quarrelled at this Restriction, and putteth a N. B. to it, They behaving themselves as becometh, under the present Government. Did ever any Government allow protection to any on other terms: Yea, it is not usual, under any Government, to give a Pass to any to travel on the Road without Let, or Molestation, without this express restriction. But what followeth is one of the highest efforts of Malice, blinding the mind, and depraving the apprehension of things. Which is, that giving them protection on their good behaviour, is to enjoyn the Rabble to fall on them if they should not read the Proclamation, and pray for King William and Queen Mary. And the Man hath the brow to say, That no Man without doing Violence to his own Sense, could put a better Construction upon it, but I perswade my self, that unbyassed Men will p. 39judge, that no Man without doing Violence both to his Reason and Conscience, can put such a Sense on it as our Author doth. For the Council did what in them lay to hinder all disorders of the Rabble. The State, more than the Church or Ministers, the King, the Council, and Parliament, are still Adversaries that this Hero will cope with. The Council required the Ministers of Edinburgh to read, and obey the Proclamation on April. 14. Being the Lords day, after the forenoons Sermon: Which required praying for King William and Queen Mary, by Name: And all the Ministers besouth Tay to do the same on April 21. and these be North Tay to do it on April 28. where as it was enacted on the 13 about twelve a Clock, and came to the hands of the Ministers at Edinburgh late on Saturday, or on Sabbath morning: Some (as he was told) and we know many things were told him which were not true) not till they were in the Pulpit. This he thinketh absurd, because, the Bishops in England would not enjoyn their Clergy to read Proclamations Fide implicita, and because the Parliament of England gave the Clergy there sever'dl Months to consider the like Case. He might know that tho' the English Bishops be admired, for advantage, by him and his Party, yet their practice need not be a Standard to the Scoth Council. And that the Parliament of England thought they had reason for what they did: And the Council of Scotland thought the same of what they did: The case, tho' of moment was plain enough, neither was it a Surprize to any of those Men, for the thing was long in Deliberation, and known to be so, before it was enacted: Few in the Nation, if any there were, who were not then at a point, whether they would own King William, or adhere to King James. Except such as were resolved to do either, as it might more serve their Ends. What is said of the Peoples going out of the New Church when the Clerk read the Proclamation after the Blessing; is not to be wondered at, for after the Blessing People use not to stay. And it is like it was design'd to be read to the Walls, by uttering the Blessing before reading of it. The Ministers example in not reading it himself, it is like, did influence such as used to hear Men of his stamp. And of such was that Congregation then made up.

§. 18. We now enter upon the Execution that was done by this Proclamation, which this Epistle doth lay heavy load on the Council for. Far less reproaching of the Justice of the Nation would have cost a Man his Neck in the former Reign. The first instance he bringeth is of Doctor Strachan, late Professour of Divinity in the Colledge of Edinburgh, who when accused for not Reading and Praying p. 40as enjoyned, pleaded, that in the Claim of Right it was found, that none can be King, or Queen, of Scotland, till they take the Coronation Oath: And that K. James had forfeited his right to the Crown by Acting as King without it. That the State had only named William, and Mary, but neither the Crown was yet offered to them, nor they accepted it, nor had they taken ehe Coronation Oath, and he wish others were deprived, who used the same defence, and added that they were willing to pray for King William and Queen Mary, as soon as they had accepted, and had taken the Oath. An answer to this might more be expected from some Statesman, who knoweth the reason that the Council were determined by in this matter. It is known that the exercise of the Government had been long before tendered to the Prince, and that his Highness had accepted and exercised it. That the Estates sat by his Authority, that the Nations Representative had then owned him as their King, and therefore it was a contempt of the Authority of the Nation for any Man to refuse to own him, when called to do so. Further, it is a material mistake of the words of the Claim of Right: Which doth not say, None can be King or Queen, but that none can Exercise the Legal Power, till thay have taken the Coronation Oath. It is certain, that on the Death of a King, his Rightful Successor is King; and may be Prayed for as such; and such Praying may be injoyned, even before taking of the Oath: The same may be said of One chosen, and proclaimed by the Supreme Authority of the Nation: which is the Case now in hand. That these Men promised to Pray for K. William afterward, is false, and the Committee deprived none who were willing so to engage. The petulant liberty that he taketh to disparage the Council that was nominated by the King after he had accepted of the Government, I remark, but insist not on. He now, in the end of pag, 32 Returneth to the Rabble, his misrepresentation of things in General I stay not on, he is secure he cannot be refuted but by denying the truth of them: But his particular accounts of these things, I shall examine. The first Instance that he giveth is, of Mr. Mc Math Minister of Leswade: On whom one night as he was going from Edinburgh to his own House, 4 Fellows fell: Pierced him with Bodkins and Auls, so that he had ten or twelve Wounds in his Belly; filled his Mouth, till they had almost Choaked, him with Horse-Dung; and left him in that sad condition. If one should consider the Ineredibility of this Story it might save the labour of a Refutation, or evincing the falshood of it. He hath not told us who these four Fellows were, nor whisher they were p. 41Presbyterians, or not; must all the Robberies and Assassinations that are committed on the high way, by unknown Persons, be charged on the Presbyterians: Such Insinuations will better evince the Spiteful humour of our Adversaries, then the disorderliness of Men of our way. Next, is it probable, that a Man should have 10 or 12 wounds in the Belly with Auls or Bodkins, and none of them Pierce the Peritoneum, which would readily prove mortal? And yet Mr. Mc Math neither was sick, nor died, nor was any Indisposition visible on him next day, but what was the effect of his being Drunk overnight, which all that knew him do Affirm was very Customary to him. I wish our Author had told us who ever saw these Wounds, or the Scars of them. It is attested by his Neighbours as followeth: We under subscribers, declare, that we came of purpose to see Mr. Mc Math's pretended Wounds: The Gate being shut, we went to the House of Mr. Robert Trotter, his Precentor, who going to him, returned with this answer, that, he freed the whole Parish, and knew not who they were that injured him. At Lasweed December 6. 1690. James Currie, Adam Alexander, Gawin Hunter, James Simson. I declare that I saw Mr. John Mc Math, betwixt six and seven a Clock in the Morning, following that Night wherein he pretendeth that injury was done to him, at his own Gate, as he used to be, witness my Subscription at Lasweed, December, 6. 1690. Andrew Finlawson. For this Andrew Finlawson, was challenged by Mr. Mc Math: Which he also testifyeth under his hand. Also James Simson declareth under his hand, that he saw Mr. Mc Math on the Street, 2 or 3 Days after he was said to be Wounded: And that People going on the Road from Edinburgh told him that they saw Mr. Mc Math Drunk that Night, as he came from Edinburgh, Likewise we have it under the Hand of John Young Merchand in Fisherraw, that at the time when it was said that Mr. Mc Math was Wounded, he went to see him (being his Cousin) and saw no appearance of Sickness or Wounds, and that when he went out of Mr. Mc Maths House, Mr. Richard Hyslop, shewed him the place where Mr. Mc Math fell, and got his Face dawbed with Dirt: And that when Mr. Young said, That he had heard that Mr. Mc Math had this done to him by some Persons, Mr. Hyslop (his Neighbour and Friend) said, there was no such thing. It is also to be observed that not a few Persons who came to see him in his Wounds, were not admitted. Besides all this, we have Proofs well attested, to evince the horrid immoralities of Mr. Mc Math, such as Lascivious carriage towards several Women, Drunkenness, Imbezelling the Collections for the p. 42Poor, taking another Man-Horse and Saddle from his Servant, by the way, and giving out afterward that he found the Horse, which he restored, but kept the Saddle 40 days, denying it, till it was like to come to a publick hearing, and then restored it. I hope the Reader by this time, can see what weight is to be laid on the Histories brought by this Author; and what sort of Men they are whose quarrel he espouseth: Though we are far from approving Irregularities and Injuries, whether done against good or bad Men.

§. 19. Some other he nameth, who were Rabbled, but giveth no particular account of what was done to them; such as Mr. Burgess at Temple, Mr. Mackenzie at Kirklistoun, Mr. Hamiltoun at Kirknewtoun, Mr. Nimmo at Collingtoun, Mr. Donaldson at Dumbarton, (some of whom we shall afterward meet with,) &c. And a whole Presbytery in Galloway. I hope a particular answer is not expected to these. And for the General Assertion, the Reader must be strangely byassed, if before he have thus far proceeded, he doth not understand this Authors Dialect; that is, if he hath not learned to disbelieve every thing that he affirmeth, unless it be sufficiently vouched: That is the least punishment due to one, who hath so often, and so soully, prevaricated in his Assertions; wherefore we may justly reject all these as Forgeries; as two of them I can sufficiently disprove. Mr. Mackenzie was never Rabbled, only at the time he was at Kirkliston very few of the People heard him: And for Mr. Hamiltoun he never was Minister at Kirknowtoun: If the People have at any time refused to hear him, when he was to Preach transiently there, this is no Rabbling: He is a Man for whom we have due respect, and he is now received into Ministerial Communion by the Presbyterians. The rest I know nothing of, but three Instances he giveth us more distinctly, which obligeth us to a more distinct and particular Answer. The 1st. is, Mr. Macgil of Kilsyth, tho' he had obeyed the Proclamation, The Rabble hindered him to enter the Church; my Lord Kilsyth's Factor raised a Force to defend him: in the strife, one of the Rabble was killed: The Factor went to Edinburgh, and told the Com…rce of Estates what had happened: The Lord Rosse being Preses of the Committee, thinking the Person Killed to be one of the other side; said, it would be hard to get that Murther punished: But at last, understanding that it was one of the Rabble, changed his Note, and aggravated the Business. The next day the Rabble fell upon Mr. Macgil's House, destroyed his Furniture, Books, and Papers, plunged his Hat and Peruke in the Churn, among Milk, emptied out his Meal, and a Chamber Box among it. So that he suffered loss to the value of 150 pound Sterling, and to this day p. 43hath got meet her Reparation nor Protection. The truth of this story is, some Souldiers had hindered Mr. Macgil to Preach, they being gone, he on the Lords day, intended to reassume his Pulpit: some of the inferior People gathered together, and refused to let him enter; but used no other Violence: My Lord Kilsyth's Factor caused beat of Drum, and gathered a great many Men in Arms, and assaulted the People that were in and about the Church door, and killed one of them: This matter was tryed before the Lords of the Justiciary, who found both Parties guilty of a Riot, but the Factor to be more guilty, as having with Arms fallen upon them who had no Arms, and killed one of them: He was fined, and declared incapable of any publick Imployment. For the Stories about my Lord Ross, and the Peoples so abusing Mr. Macgil's House and Goods, we must receive them on the Credit of this Author, (id est) Look on them as his own Invention, or that some Body had told him: For I can find no ground to believe one word of what, in these, he affirmeth. His other two Tales, of Mr. Craig, and Mr. Buchannan, I find no ground to believe. But on the contrary that they (at least Mr. Craig) were put from their charges by a Sentence of the Presbytery, and that for gross Scandals, and obstinate refusing to submit to the Discipline of the Church; as can be made appear by their Processes yet on Record. The account that he giveth of those two Ministers (being also Heretors, who have Vote in Election of Members of Parliament) their appearing for King William; by Voting for such as Voted him into the Throne: This, I say, is a foul Misrepresentation; for these two Ministers (especially Mr. Craig) entered a Protestation, at the Meeting for Election, that whoever should be chosen, should fall from their Commission, if they transgressed the limits set to them by the Electors: And that they should do nothing in prejudice of King James, nor Prelacy, nor the Test. It is true they Voted for the Laird of Houston, who in the Convention, Voted for King William, and for Presbytery: But it is known, that these two persons have often said, that the Laird of Houston is a perjured person, for they had his Engagement to Vote for Episcopacy. And when there was a vacancy by the death of one of their Commissioners, at a second Election, these two Gentlemen Voted for a known Jacobite, who had a little before, been actually in Arms against King William, but now was freed by the Indemnity. It is also known, that since it was Enacted, that the Oath of Allegiance to the present King and Queen, should be imposed on all Electors, neither of these two Ministers have appeared.

p. 44§. 20. Our Author catcheth hold on all the occasions he can find (whether offered, or not) to reproach us: Wherefore he taxeth our Address to the Parliament, given in, in July 1690, which he taketh to have had its rise from the Councils delay to deprive non complying Ministers, being very unpleasant to Presbyterian Preachers: This is a strange mistake (to call it no worse) for in that Address there is not one word of complaint of such delay: Nor of Petitioning that the Council would deprive any of these Men. But on this Address he giveth us the best Specimen he can, of his Critical Skill; with what Success let us consider. He passeth the Preface of it with his mocking at our owning the Prince of Orange for the Instrument of our great Deliverance, and as our King: This we are not ashamed of: Let him and his Complices gnash their Teeth at it. He saith, We Miscall the Bishops, which is false: We gave them no Names of Reproach, but relate the Hurt that they have done in this Church; which we are able to make appear. The first thing that he reproveth in the Petitionary part of the Address is, Our desire that this poor Oppressed Church may be freed from such Oppressours and Oppressions: And what harm is in this? do not they complain of Oppression; which yet it may (and I hope shall) be made appear, that their Sufferings were not once to be compared to ours. We press no mans Consciences as they did, nor force them to compliance, by Prisons, Finings, Banishment, and yet greater Severities. He next Narrateth our desire of Setling the Church in the Hands of Presbyterians; his Note is, This is nothing like Prelacy. Why doth he wonder at that: Had it been a wise observation, for shewing the absurdity of their Attempts, for Setling Prelacy: This is nothing like Presbytery. But yet a greater Absurdity he observeth in our Address, viz. That we Petition, That the Church established, may be allowed to purge out insufficient, negligent, scandalous, and erroneous Ministers. His strong Argument against this is in a Parenthesis: And what Apostle (saith he) if ye give them a Presbyterian Jury, shall not come within the compass of one of these four. Such ignorant Malice is not to be answered, but despised. We esteem all the Apostles (except his Predecessor Judas Iscariot) as much as he or his party can do: And we know, that not only the Apostles, but some who have complyed with Episcopacy, may, and have escaped all these four, even by a Presbyterian Judicature. But I am weary of such trisling. He afterwards falleth more heavily on these four Qualifications of Ministers, in p. 44. where we shall attend him, being obliged to follow this his interrupted Method.

§. 21. He now, page 36. Re-entreth the Lists with the Council, p. 45as the great Persecuters of the Clergy. He complaineth of the undue transmitting of the Proclamations to the Ministers who were to give Obedience to it; alledging, That there came but six Copies of it to Fife. His Voucher for this is, he is credibly told it. But we have already found that he hath been told a great many Lies, and that credibly enough too, for a Man of his large Credulity; which is as receptive, when ill is spoken of Presbyterians, as that of any Papists, with respect to the Legends. If these Proclamations were not so dispersed as was fit, it was not to be wondered at: For many of the Servants of the late Government were still in place, with whom the Ministers concerned might have correspondence: That they might not see such Papers in time. But this can best be answered when we come to particulars. Then he narrates the Councils proceeding in the Indictments, and Interrogatories, putting all in the most odious and ridiculous dress that he can devise; which yet he can fix no blame upon: Only his uncivil Reflection on the Earl of Crawford, is like the spirit of this Author. That Noble Earl is Master of so much Sense and Reason, as that he could not ask whether they mentioned in Prayer the Sirname of the King and Queen. Tho' I know such an Expression might have inadvertently dropt from a person no ways contemptible, as that which is a word of course. That they were Censured for neglecting thus to Pray; what wonder is it, seeing the Law expresly required it. And is it to be thought strange, that the Law should require this, when it was notour how disaffected most of these Men were, and how openly they owned King James's Interest? Was it ever heard of, that any Government allowed Persons to hold Publick Places, who would not own the Government under which they lived? The former Government took the Lives of such as shewed the least scruple in this matter, so far was it from allowing publick Places, or Benefices to any such. Next he complaineth that they were put out for not Reading and Praying as enjoyned, If either the Proclamation was sent to them, or it came to their Hand, or if they had knowledge of it: And here we have an Instance of Mr. Guild, Minister at Northberwick, who had Prayed but not Read; and he telleth us of half a dozen more such Instances, but we must not know them, lest we examine them. What to think of his hidden Instances, I know not; but Mr. Guild was not deprived simply for not Reading at the time appointed; but because he declared before the Council, that he was not free to Read it afterward: This is Attested by the Records of the Council. He bringeth Instances of them who had Read and Prayed, but not on the p. 46Precise day, who were deprived. Mr. Hay, Minister at Kinneucher, (our Author or the Printer mistaketh the Name of the place) Mr. Hunter at Sterling, Mr. Young at Monyvaird, Mr. Aird at Torryburn. This is strange prevarication, Mr. Hay was deprived for not Reading and Praying, and for Praying for the late King James, and for Reflecting upon the Estates: witness the Records of Council; which say that all this was fully proved: Mr. Young confessed before the Council, he did not Pray in the Terms of the Proclamation, till the Sabbath after he was cited to appear before the Council. Mr. Aird was deprived for Praying for King James as our Natural Prince, and Praying that God would send back, with a Hook in his Jaws, that Tyrant that had come to Invade these Lands; meaning King William; all this proved, (and that of Mr. Young) and Recorded in the Books of Council. For Mr. Hunter I find nothing of him in the Records, but the Reader will easily judge, by what is already said, how far our Authors Assertion is to be believed in such a matter. That it was not asked them whether they would obey for time to come, is not strange: in Civil Courts amendment useth not to a…tone Crimes committed. Therefore his story of the Magistrates of Perth desiring of my Lord Crawford that their Minister might be reponed, is wholly Impertinent: Beside the Authors most uncivil. Treatment of that Noble Earl, saying he turned Hussie, which is far from both the Natural Temper, and Civil deportment towards all, that his Lordship is Commended for, by all who know him, and do not hate him; as this man seemeth to do, by taking all occasions (and seeking them) to quarrel with his Lordships actings. What he after imputeth to my Lord, that he said to a Minister, it was enough to deprive him, that he Prayed not for the King, as is directed, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. Was no Derogation (if it was exprest as is Alledged) from the Authority of that Scripture: for when the Apostle requireth us to Pray for Kings, and the Law requires us to Pray for this King, and not for his Competitor: The one of these do not hinder the other, for Subordinata non pugnant: nor doth it derogate from the sufficiency of Scripture as our Rule, to say, that some more may be required, in some exigents, to particularize what the Scripture doth in general hold forth. Even the zeal of the Noble Lord that he is pleased to set as the Butt of his Malice, this Author reproacheth; when it appeareth either for the service of his Prince, or for purging the Church of such as were a reproach to her; while he doth expose my Lords care to get the Council to meet at its appointed times. But I give too much to his impertinencies by thus notioing them.

p. 47§. 22. He will now, pag. 38 Return to his thread (which he had broken off to reach the Earl of Crawford) and he blameth the Council for allowing the People to Cite the Ministers who had not Read and Prayed, before the Council. What harm was in this? May not any of the Kings Subjects make complaint of breaking of his Law? This is not to be compared with what his Party did, when in Power, who made Souldiers Judges and Executioners of some of the Laws against Nonconformists: Yea, committed the power of Life and Death to many of them. He telleth, that immoralities were libelled, tho' the Council Judged nothing but not reading and Praying, yet the Lybels were kept in retentis. Ans. The Council Acted Rationally, and with Moderation in this. They could not reject Libels which they had called for by their Proclamations; and if any thing was in them that was not ejus fori, they passed that without Notice. Is it not ordinary to all Courts to pass Sentence on one Substantial part of a Libel, sufficiently proved, tho' other parts of it be neither relevant, nor proved. What he surmiseth of Church Judicatories sustaining these Libels as sufficiently proved already, is refuted by the Event; no such thing hath been done. And it might have been silenced by the known Principle and way of Presbyterians, who are against such Illegal Actings: But we must be made black by his evil surmisings, when he can find no other way to do it. Every thing Acted by the Government is evil in this Gentlemans Eyes: Wherefore a third Proclamation falleth under his Lash, whereby Heretors in a Parish, (tho not living in it,) Sheriffs, and their Deputies, Magistrates of Burghs, Members of Parliament, in their respective Bounds, might Cite Ministers who had not Read and Prayed. What harm in all this? May not such call for Justice against Offenders? The Council were still Judges whether any offence were committed or not. But now that he is in a quarrelling strain, even the Nations humbling themselves before God for Sin, and Fasting and Praying to implore his Mercy, stirreth the Choller of this Momus. His 1. Imputation to it is, It was designed for a Choaking Morsel. Who made him the Judge of Hearts and Designs? It was designed for humbling the Nation, and Imploring Mercies from the God of Heaven: And that it was not designed as a Tryal of Mens Compliance, is evident from this: That he cannot Instance in any Person that ever suffered for not Observing it. But our being thus reproached, is but what better then we have before met with from such as he is, Psal. 69.10. When I wept and Chastened my Soul with Fasting, this p. 48was to my reproach. Next he blameth this Fast, That it was on the Sabbath Day: We deny not but that another day of the Week is better for Fasting: But we know no Law of God that is broken by Fasting that Day; whatever he, or any other think in the contrary. When he shall please to bring his strong Reasons for his Opinion, they shall, I hope, be considered. The Reason why that Day was pitched upon was, it was Harvest, and a very bad and dangerous Season, and it was not fit to take People off their Work on a Week day, when the loss of a day might have hazarded their Corn: And People would have been under Temptation to neglect the Solemn Duties of the day. Further, he chargeth the Proclamation for the Fast, with bad Grammar, and a good stock of Nonsense, and for Unministring and Unchristning the whole Regular Clergy. This is the Title that the Episcopal Ministers use to Dignify themselves with, (tho' now they walk not by the Rule of the Law, as formerly they did deviate from that of the Scripture) and them who owned them. If he had pleased to tell us what Words or Expressions, in the Proclamation, are thus faulty, we should have treated him as a Disputant, but seeing he thought not that fit, we must entertain his Discourse, as Hezekiah commanded the Jews to do, by that of his Patron Rabshakeh, such Language is not to be answered. We find nothing in that Paper but what is good Grammar, and good Sense. It may be some parts of it contain such Spiritual matter, and in which the inward Exercises of the Soul is so concerned, as a Man who is alien from the Life of God, doth not understand, and therefore may count it Non-sence. I suppose he will reckon this to be cant: But it is not mine, but the Apostles, Eph. 4.18. That it complaineth of the withholding of the Spirit in the work of Conversion, is not meant of Episcopal times only, tho' then it was observable: But he, and Men of his Temper, use not to trouble themselves with such thoughts, and therefore they think strange that others do. That two Ministers of Edinburgh were deprived for it, that is only for not keeping the Fast, is absolutely false. The story of the Laird of Brodie, acting as Accuser and also as Judge, is like the rest of his Forgeries, or Hear-sayes.

§. 23. This Epistler now telleth us, pag. 41. That he hath done with his History, what he next falleth upon is a Recapitulation of what he had said, and determining what shall be for the future, viz. That none of the Episcopal Clergy shall be spared, but all who entered by Presentation from a Patron or a Collation from a Bishop must be p. 49turned out. This his Prediction he Establisheth on several Grounds, such as they are: One is, a nameless Counsellor said to his Cusing a Minister, (who also must not be named) that he was glad that their Minister had not complied, for the Resolution was that none of the Episcopal Clergy should be spared. The strength of this Argument lieth on this, that none can find out the truth or falshood of the Anticedent, viz. Whether such a thing was said or not; Yet I am sure it is easie to deny the consequence: for all Counsellers are not Infallible, nor know the mind of all the rest, where never any conclusion about the matter was made at the Board, as in this case is certain. His other Argument is, some Argyle Ministers were put out for not Reading and Praying, and on after-complyance, they have the offer of other Churches, but must not Re-enter to their former charge. Ans. There was reason enough for this, from the Credit of the Councils Authority; which should have been Baffled by putting those Men into the same Charges; the sentence being that they should Preach no more in these places; which was shunned by admitting them to other places; especially considering that it was not the Council, but the Church that was to admit them. A 3d. ground is, He is told the Statesmen are clear for this Resolution: An usual Argument with this Learned Author, on which he useth to build very weighty conclusions: But other wise Men think it fitter for Fools and Children. He hath yet a 4 ^th Ground. Dr. Robertson, and Mr. Malcom, Ministers of Edinburgh, have made great complyances, and sent to the Presbyterian Clubs, that they might be admitted to sit in their Presbyteries; and yet this could not be granted. Ans. 1. It is an impudent falshood to affirm that either of these two Ministers sent such a Message, or made application to any Presbyterian Judicatory: For their Clubs we have none for Drinking; and any who casually meet for conference, have no Power to receive, or answer, such addresses: Neither was it ever heard among us, that either of them spoke, or sent, about that matter, either to any one Minister, or to more than one met together. 2. Suppose that they or any other in their circumstances, had made such complyances, and such application; we have declared that we will receive none to Rule the Church with us, but such as are qualified for the Ministry, have been diligent in that work (if they have been before imployed in it) are free of Scandal and Errour, and who will submit to, concur with, and be faithful to the Presbyterian Church Government: Wherefore he must not wonder if we reject some Complyers, for we know that the worst of men are often readiest to comply with what they hate, and have violently opposed. p. 50But for men so qualified, as is above exprest, who shall make application to us, Our Assembly hath declared that we will reject none of them. And we have acted accordingly, in receiving most of such as have applyed. For the two Persons that he mentioneth, one of them is now removed by Death, and was never molested by us: The other is deposed, for declining the Authority of the Commission of the General Assembly, when he was cited to answer to what Immoralities he was charged with.

§. 24. His next undertaking is, to Vindicate the Scots Episcopal Clergy from the account that hath been given of their Lives and Abilities. Two Accusers of these Brethren he taketh to Task, p. 43. The Prince of Orange (he saith) in his Declaration declared them Generally Scandalous, and Ignorant. This is to belye that Illustrious Prince, who is now our Gracious Soveraign: when he is thus Treated, what may others expect? The demerite of which Crime I leave to the Law to determine. That Declaration speaketh of many, not of all, nor the Generality. The other sort of Accusers he maketh the good Party (it is his Ironical, and Sarcastick Designation of the Presbyterians) If any of us have Printed or Published false Stories of them (Odd Stories, which he chargeth us with, may be true Stories) let us know them, and the Author of them, and what is asserted shall either be proved, or our fault in so saying acknowledged. We never charged them all as such: we know there are Sober and Learned Men among them. We know also that such general Assertions, and indefinite Accusations of Men cannot be proved: And it is unfair dealing on all hands: Neither do we deny that there may be found among us, some unconsiderate Persons, Men or Women, who have been too General in their rash discourses to this purpose: but who can answer for all that is said by every individual, with whom they live in Communion: I am sure he, nor his Party, cannot: Nay, nor can they make good what is commonly in Print, and by their Chief Men, usually charged upon us, as if we were all Ignorant. Nor can this Author make good what we have met with, and what he after saith of us, neither can he prove the General, and indefinite Assertions that he useth concerning the Learning and Piety of his Party. I am unwilling to enter into such a debate, where so little can be proved, or disproved: Tho' in matters of principle, the more General the conclusions be they are the more Scientifick; yet it is quite contrary in matters of Fact, such as this is. But we must follow as he leadeth. I shall observe some few things in his Discourse in the Praise of his Party. He saith, page 43. Since the Reformation, the Church of Scotland was never generally so well provided with Pastors, as at the beginning p. 51of the present Persecution. This he confesseth cannot be demonstrated; which is truer then most of what he writeth beside; but other Men will as confidently, and with more truth, Affirm, that she was far better furnished at the beginning of another Persecution, viz. 1661, and 1662. Neither Assertion can be proved without going through all the individuals, and considering, and making Faith concerning all their qualities, which is a work not to be undertaken. Wherefore we must leave it to the Sentence of him to whom both Parties must give an account, and to the Sentiments of the World of unbyassed Persons, who have known this Nation, and the Affairs of it. He will now vindicate his Clergy. 1. From Ignorance, and that by the Tryals they must go through before they be admitted to the Ministry. Ans. Tho' we do not charge all of them with Ignorance, yet this Argument cannot vindicate any one of them. For, 1. Ad hominem; That would prove all the Presbyterians to be Learned, whom yet he reproacheth as Ignorant. For they all pass through exactly the same steps of Tryal. 2. Ad rem, it is not the kind of Tryal, or the multitude of the parts of it, which sheweth a mans ability: But the Accuracy that is used in management of it; and the Faithfulness of the Judges who must determine upon what is observed in the Tryal. This he hath not asserted. And if he should, we have but his word for it: Of the veracity of which this Book hath given but small proof. Another Argument for their Abilities, is their Education, which he far preferreth to that of the Presbyterians: They being consined to the Dutch Divinity, and making the Common-place-Men the Standard. Whereas the Episcopal men, after the way of England (If this Insinuation had been left out, it might have spoiled much of the design of the Book, and lessened the Favour and Beneficence of our great Patrons) take the Scriptures for their rule: and the Ancients, and right Reason for guides, for finding the Genuine sence of that rule. Whereby they come to have their thoughts better digested. Ans. I wish he had told us more plainly what he meaneth by the Dutch Divinity, for there is Divinity taught in Holland, (I mean Arminianisme) which his Party do generally fall in with, and ours as generally do dislike. But for the Divinity publickly Authorized and Taught in Holland, and which was agreed to by the Synod of …or…, where were Brittish Divines, and therefore might be called Brittish Divinity: We own it as Scripture Divinity, the Divinity of the Ancients, and the Divinity that right Reason doth Countenance, above any thing that is contrary to it. For the Common-place-Men (whom he so despiseth) we value them as Men eminently Learned, and p. 52have not yet seen the Works of any of his Party, wherein the Form of Sound Words is more clearly and fully held forth, nor more Learnedly Defended against the Assaults of all sorts of Adversaries. Yet we never made them our Standard, nor did consine our Studies to them. Let us know what Books (that are of value) they Read, which we neglect. What parts of Learning (that are truly such) they can pretend to, which be not found among us. (the Reader I hope will not misconstruct this confidence in boasting: It is from the same provocations and necessity, that moved the Apostle in the like case: Neither do I speak thus of my self, but of the many worthy Men who own the way that I profess) It is a most injurious Insinuation, as if we did not also take Scripture for our Rule (no men contend more for it then we do; and if his Party did so indeed, as they pretend, and in all the Controversies of Divinity, as they do in some, we should have fewer debates with them) and that we do not make use of right reason, and of the Writings of the Ancients, as helps to understand the rule, is false. We both profess and practice this: Tho' at the same time, we do not pretend to make Reason the rule of judging of Truth, or of the sence of Scripture, as some Socinianizing Divines among them do: Neither do we make the Fathers the Rule of judging of truth, as many of them, with the Papists, do; we study their Writings, and make use of them; and give all that Authority to them that is due to humane works; yea, all that they require should be given them, or that they gave to them who were their Fathers, and went before them: but we reserve a Liberty of Dissent, when any thing occurreth in them which is inconsistent with plain Scripture, found Reason, or the Analogy of Faith: Considering, that the Fathers (particularly Augustine, that great Light of the Latine Church) do often advise to receive their word no further than it is consonant to Scripture, and do always call People to judge by the Scriptures alone, and to refuse to be determined meerly by the Authority of men, tho' never so Learned or Holy. It were easie to multiply Citations to this purpose, if it were not to digress. Aug. Ep. 19. Ad Hier. denieth to be concluded by the Authority brought by Jerome against him out of some Greek Fathers, and pleadeth that Jerome was of the same mind. And Aug. lib. 11. Contra Faust. Quod genus literarum non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate legendum est. We use them in our Studies, tho' we think it not fit to intersperse our Sermons, so much as some others, with Greek and Latine Citations out of them: We think Scripture Authority is most Convincing, and Affecting. He will p. 53now prove the great abilities of Episcopal Men. Because of them who had been Presbyterians, and conformed 1662. They were generally of Presbyterian Education, and the ablest among them; and yet if they were examined with them who after had Episcopal Education, he will lay an even Wager, yea three to one, that Impartial Judges would determine in favour of the latter sort. Ans. 1. Tho' I deny not that some of them who Conformed were of good Abilities: Yet that either the best of them were beyond such as did not Conform, or that generally there were such, is absolutely, and notoriously false. 2. That they who arose after them, in the Episcopal Church, went beyond them, in Abilities, whether ye compare the generality, or the best on both sides, is so false, that no Man will affirm it, but he who can say what he will. And it is known that they were generally the Men who got the chief places, both in the Church, and Schools. I instance Mr. Sharp, Mr. Fairful, Mr. Scougal in the Church, Mr. Cant, Mr. Charters in the Universities. 3. His Learned Argument, laying of Wagers I will not meddle with, I leave it to Women and Children. His conclusion from all this is, That the Episcopal Party understand the Christian Philosophy better, and that Philosophy was never understood nor Preached better in Scotland, then under Episcopacy. Ans. I thought the Commendation of a Minister had been rather to understand Christian Divinity, then Christian Philosophy: But we must not wonder that Men so strongly inclined to Socinianism, speak in the Socinian Dialect, with whom Philosophy, That is, the Improvement of Reason, overtopeth Divinity, that is Divine Revelation, for indeed that which goeth for Religion among some Men, is nothing but Platonick Philosophy, put into a Christian Dress, by expressing it in words borrowed (some of them) from the Bible: And the Preaching of some Men is such Morality as Seneca and other Heathens taught, only Christianised with some words. I confess this Philosophy was never much Preached by Presbyterians: Yea the Apostle disowneth it as not his Work in Preaching. He (and we endeavour to imitate him) Preached Christ Crucified, 1. Cor. 1.23. Not the Wisdom of this World, but the Wisdom of God in a Mystery, which even the Princes of Philosophers (as Plato, Aristotle, &c.) understood not. It is true we Preach Obedience to the Laws of Christ; That is, Holiness in all manner of Conversation: But with that respect to the Righteousness and Strength that we look for from the Lord Jesus, That maketh it another thing than the Philosophy that he ignorantly talketh of. And if that Preaching of Philosophy p. 54that he valueth himself, and his Party upon, be the Excellency of a Minister, we are not Ambitious of the Victory in that point: Tho' may be, we understand even that, as well as our Neighbours do.

§. 25. He acknowledgeth page 46. the Immorality of the time of Episcopacy in Scotland: But layeth the blame of it upon the Presbyterians; but from so absurd and Ridiculous Topicks, that I am almost ashamed that they should have been mentioned by a Man pretending to Learning. The 1 st. is, Presbyterians made Rebellion and Presbytery Jure Divino, and baffled Peoples Credulity, and hindered the Success of the Gospel. Ans. 1. Presbyterians always abhorred Rebellion, so far were they from asserting a Divine Right of it. What Disorders were in the Nation, that could be called Rebellion, was the Fruit of Episcopal Fury, more than of Presbyterians Disloyalty. Some (whom Presbyterians pitied for their Sufferings, but did not approve their Actings) made stirs because of that Oppression from such as he is, which maketh a Wise Man mad. The Jus divinum of Presbytery we own: But understand not (till we be illuminated with this Learned Authors singular Speculations) how this can baffle any Mans Credulity, or be the cause of Profaneness. Neither can we easily guess what he means by Baffling Peoples Credulity: Nor are we curious to enquire into the abstruse Sense of the Phrase, if it have any Sense at all. 2. I hope the Immorality was not among them who owned the Divine Right of Presbytery … If no more Drunkenness, Whoredom, Swearing, &c. had been found among others then among them, there had not been Ground for his Complaint, as indeed there was A 2d. Proof he bringeth: The Schisme made by Presbyterians caused Immoralities. Ans. That Schisms cause Immoralities, and are a great let to the success of the Gospel, I deny not? But the Schisme that hath been among us was made, and is fomented, to this day, by his Party, not by us: We hold to the good way that this Church was settled in; they treacherously set up (by the help of the Civil Power) an opposite way: And not only so, but they imposed Complyance with it on the highest Penalties, and with the out-most Severity: The Consciences of some could not yield to this Barbarous Treatment; such therefore must be reckoned Schismaticks; with the same reason on which Papists impute Schism to Protestants, who cleave to the Ancient Scripture Christianity, and cannot receive their Additions to it, nor depravations of it. Hence that he citeth out of Irenaus, belongeth to himself, not to p. 55us. But that he hath the Brow to ascribe the meek Calm Spirit of the Gospel, to his own Party, and the contrary to ours, is beyond comprehension, to any who knoweth the Bloody Laws that the Bishops assisted the making of, and the inferiour Clergy assisted and instigated the Execution of: Which all Scotland knoweth, and most of the Nation cryed shame upon. The contempt of the Ministry he imputeth to pleading Gods Authority to all their unaccountable Freaks: Whereas indeed it came from the Atheisme, and Debauches of the Clergy, that he his defending: If any intituled bad ways to Divine Authority, it was not Ministers, but some weak Christians, who had been horribly oppressed, and were driven beyond the Bounds of Reason and Soberness by the usage that they met with. His last thing on this head is, He challengeth an equal number of Presbyterians and Episcopalians, to a dispute, for Trial of their Learning: Which we shall not decline, if he will find a way to make it practicable.

§. 26. He will next (page, 47) purge the Clergy from Immorality, and that 1st. By recrimination. There is one Man among us, Mr. Williamson who hath played Tricks beyond what can be shewed in any Episcopal Man, and yet he is not Challenged, but in esteem. Ans. Suppose this were true, The Faults of one doth not blacken a whole Party of Men, so much as those of Scores, or Hundreds, which yet were born with under Episcopacy. 2. What these Tricks were, he doth not tell us, and therefore what he saith, is to be look'd on as Slander; Mr. Williamson is deservedly esteemed among us, as a Man of a good Conversation, and while it is so, we Love and Honour him; if he or any other can make what he alledgeth to appear; he shall see Justice done. Another Topick is, An Edict is served in the Congregation, inviting every one to object what they can with Truth, against a Minister before he enter. Ans. This is not always done: The Edict of Mr. Mackenzy who was placed at Kirkliston, was served, not there, but at S^r. Andrews, 30 Miles distant: Nor were ever the People of Kirkliston put in a Capacity to object. Again, we know many People will not object against a bad Man; but Love such as will Patronize their wickedness. His third Topick is, They are Deposed if a Crime be proved against them. Ans. I deny not, but this hath been sometimes done; but so rarely, as was next to nothing. All this then is an Insufficient exculpation of his Clergy: Especially it is so notorious that there are many gross Immoralities among them, that few of his own Party can deny it. Another Topick is, The pains that p. 56was taken in the Diocess of Glasgow, by Bishop Lighton and Doctor Burnet, and yet they could find none but one to be Deposed, and that not without some Suspicion of Injustice. Ans. What Truth is in what is here asserted, I know not: This Authors word goeth not far with them who have read his Book: Or how impartial the Judges, and others were who had the Management of that Affair, we know not, but all who have lived in that Country, even they who are no Presbyterians, do know, that much more guiltiness was to be found. Negligence is the third thing that he undertaketh to clear the Clergy from: Which he doth by saying, There are no Pluralities, nor Non-residencies in Scotland, and they generally Preach twice every Lords-Day. Ans. May not a Minister be counted Negligent who doth not visit Families in the Parish, nor the Sick, or otherwise distressed; or who doth not Catechize the People? So we reckon in Scotland, whatever they do in England; to satisfie whom alone this Book is Calculated. He is as slight in clearing the Clergy from Errour, viz. Because they could sign the 39 Articles of the Church of England. So can many do who every day Preach against the Doctrine contained in these Articles: We know that Socinians, Arminians, and some Papists sign, and Swear, Assent and Consent, for a Livelyhood, who yet are unsound in the Faith. He confesseth, There are many among them who are not inclined to be every day talking to the People, of Gods Decrees, and absolute Reprobation, and Justification by Faith alone, in the Presbyterian Sense, and think their Hearers may be more edifyed by other Doctrines which he nameth. Ans. If he mean no more then what he expresseth, his Discourse is Impertinent, for who ever blamed any as Erroneous because they insisted not always on such Subjects: We do but rarely, yet sometimes, instruct the People, about the Decrees of Election and Reprobation: Imitating the Apostle in both. But if he mean (as he must if he speak to the purpose) that the absolute Decrees of Election and Reprobation; both praeteritum, as an Act of Soveraignty, and Praedamnatum as an Act of Justice, are not to be held forth, or taught to the People, we abhor this as unsound Doctrine, and look on him as a pitiful Advocate for the Orthodoxy of the Clergy: Yea he is unjust to them, for I know not a few of them who served under Bishops in Scotland, are far from these Arminian Tenets, tho' many of them incline that way. For Justification by Faith alone (what he meaneth by the Presbyterian Sense of it I know not) we hold nothing is our Righteousness but the Satisfaction, and Merits of Christ, and p. 57that neither Faith, nor Works can stand in that stead to us; and that his Righteousness is made ours, not by Works, but by Faith: Tho' we say, that this Faith can never be without the Works of Holiness. If he deny Justification by Faith alone in this sense, we judge him erroneous, and as many of his Clergy likewise as are of the same Sentiment: But I am far from thinking that all the Clergy are of his Opinion in this.

§. 27. His next flash is to free the Clergy from Persecution: Which he manageth with a confidence, in asserting falshoods, and denying known truths, beyond any degree that any sort of Men (except Jesuits) have arrived at. He is bold to affirm the Persecutions under Presbyterie in former times, and now, to be beyond what was under Episcopacie. Let him tell us who hath been imprisoned, fined, to the impoverishing of such as were Rich, banishing for not Preaching against the light of their Consciences, or for hearing the Word Preached. Who hath been pistoled by the high way, and while about their Lawful imployments, for refusing to declare their Opinion in matters controverted; and yet this was frequent under Episcopacy: And it was not for rising in Arms alone (tho' that was from the force of necessity caused by Persecution) that men suffered: So that it is the highest of affrontedness, to ask, dare any men say than Presbyterians suffered any thing for Conscience sake these 27 Years? That the Clergy did as little toward the Execution of these Laws as they could, and did no more but inform what the Law obliged them too, is most false. The Bishops concurred in making these persecuting Laws; And many (not all) of the Inferior Clergy did officiously, and maliciously, instigate Magistrates, and Souldiers, and did assist them in the Persecution. The instance of Sir John Riddle of Riddel's carriage towards Mr. Chisholm, is false: Sir John neither said any such th…ng to Mr. Chisholm, nor had ground to make such acknowledgement of favour received from Mr. Chisholm: Which I have good ground to aver. pag. 50. He maketh a ridiculous Recapitulation of his former defences for the Clergy, and asketh some impertinent Questions, which could be answered if they could be understood, and pag. 51. He is at his predictions again. That the Church will not be so well planted, nor the Gospel so well Preached: That the State shall not be in peace, nor our King sit securley (which King he meaneth, we are less to guess) on His Throne, nor have his due; That the Church of England shall not want a Thorn in her Side, that there shall never be Peace, nor Union, while there Dagon (Presbyterie) standeth in the Temple, and all this he foretelleth on no p. 58less hazard then his being deceived by experience, and mistaking of his measures: What security the Reader hath by these Pledges, he may judge: He concludeth his Letter that he hath omitted a hundred things proper to have been inserted: And I conclude my Observations upon his Letter, affirming, that he hath inserted several hundreds of things which might have been spared, without derogating from the Honesty and Veracity of the Letter.