refide at Edinburgh, and are brought in to vote upon occafions; and there is ground to question if they be qualified according to acts of Affembly. Wherefore, for remedying and preventing fuch intrusions, they humbly move, That the Affembly fhould repeal the commiffion's fentences appointing them, fuch as may come regularly before them; and difcharge in time coming all fettlements without the confent of elders and Chriftian people; and enact, that no call or fubfcriptions for minifters be fuftained but fuch as are attefted by order of prefbyteries, or verified before them or their committees; and, if the commiffion fhall in time com ing appoint committees to try or ordain minifters without consent of the congregation and prefbyteries immediately concerned, that the faid committees fhall be difcharged to proceed, until the Affembly give their judgment, in cafe the cafes are fifted before the Af fembly by complaint or proteftation: and that appeals from fentences of fynods be not referred in time coming to the determination of the commiffion, but referved for the Affembly's decifion; unleis it be provided that the federunt of the commillion judging therein be fu pernumerary to the fynod in minters as well as elders; it being disagreeable to our principles, that a greater number of minifters should be fubjected to the autho rity of a leffer; and that the commiffion be better res gulated both as to the number and qualifications of elders therein than at prefent; and that the Affembly enact, at appointing of their commiffion, that if any of their actings thali oe found contrary to the acts, conftitutions, and known principles of this church, that they thall not only be cenfured for the fame, but their faid acts thall alfo be reverfed; and, if any proteitation or complaint be entered against their fentences, it thall be fufficient to fift all parties concerned before the General Affembly. Aifo they plead, that the affemby may repeal the 7th act of Affembly 1730, discharging the recording reafons of diffen, as being paft irregui. ly, without confulting prefbyteries, and which oft prove a very heavy grievance to many, if it ftand a force.

1

They complain likewife, that fome judicatories, who have teftified their just displeasure against minifters and probationers, for their unworthy and offenfive practice in accepting presentations contrary to our known principles, have been condemned by the commiffion for it: And therefore defire the Affembly may give an effectual check to fuch dangerous practices, and that none be licensed or ordained that favour this courfe. Alfo they complain of feveral innovations in the method and ftrain of preaching introduced of late by fome preachers and young minifters, which are very offenfive to many of God's people, and an obstruction to fpiritual edification. And, though fome former Affemblies have referred it to their commiffions to bring in an overture thereanent, nothing is yet done; therefore they humbly move that the Affembly may provide an antidote against these evils. They alfo defire the Affembly to emit a folemn warning against Profeffor Simfon's errors, and others which are fpread through the land, in order to prevent the infection of them.

As to the act of Affembly 1732, concerning the method of planting vacant churches (which was then but an overture) they fhew their diflike to it, as it gives much power to Jacobite and difaffected heritors in the fettling of parishes, which is not agreeable to the Scriptures and our known principles: but (fay they) it cannot be turned to a standing act, unless the generality of prefbyteries confent to it, which they hope is not to be expected in this cafe.

CA

Now, though the evils above complained of were manifeft grievances, and the brethrens reprefentation concerning them was drawn up in a humble and modeft ftrain, and figned by 42 worthy minifters, and fe verals of them old reverend fathers, and was prefented in a dutiful manner according to order; yet it is to be regreted that it was not allowed fo much as a hearing by the Affembly; which obliged the petitioners to proteft, and publish their paper to the world. Likewise there was a petition of the fame nature from many hundreds of elders and Christian people given in to that Affembly, which had the fame fate. This ftrange con

duct

1

duct of that and preceding Affemblies towards many godly minifters and people, did exceedingly ftumble many, leffen the regard which was wont to be paid to General Affemblies, and pave the way to the fchifm which foon followed upon it. Yet the Aff. 1732 did not ftop here, but proceeded to turn the overture anent planting of churches into a ftanding act, though evidently difagreeable to the mind of prefbyteries, and the general opinion of the church: which increased the ferment through the land to a higher pitch than ever. Alas! this was not like the conduct of our old fuffering fathers, who dreaded a fchifm in the church like fire, and were careful to prevent and crush it at the first appearance. But when God hath a controversy with a church or people, and defigns to bring a stroke upon them, he ordinarily leaves their leaders to infatuate measures, fo as they have neither skill nor will to take any wife ftep to ward off the blow.

That act of the Aff. 1732 did greatly inflame this poor church for two three years: but feeing at that time unanswerable arguments were brought against it in feveral pamphlets and fermons then published, to which we adhere, and feeing likewife it was repealed by a fubfequent Affembly, as contrary to the mind and rules of this church, and prejudicial to it; we fhall not here infift much upon the evil of it. Only in regard there are many diffatisfied with the repealing of it, and alledge it was the fame with the act of Parliament 1690, for which the church had great regard for many years, we hall fhew the manifeft difference that is betwixt them, both in the words, and the fenfe which was put upon them. The act 1690 runs thus; "That in cafe of the vacancy of any particular church, and for fupplying the fame with a minifter, the heritors of the faid parith (being Proteftants) and the elders, are to name and propofe the perfon to the whole congregation, to be either approven or difapproven by them; and, if they disapprove, that the disapprovers give their reafon, to the effect the affair may be cognofced upon by the Prefbytery of the bounds, at whofe judgment, and by whofe determination, the calling and en

try

try of a particular minifter is to be ordered and concluded." The act 1732 being notour, we shall not refume the words, but obferve the difference in these things; 1. The act 1690 is by a civil court, the act 1732 by an ecclefiaftical; and though it might be expected that the latter would in their acts keep clofer by the rule of the word than the former, yet the act 1732 is more diftant from that rule than the act 1690, in regard the at 1732 tends more to fpoil congregations of their rights, and countenance intrusions upon them, than the act 1690 doth. 2. By the act 1690, the heritors and elders are only empowered to name and propofe a perfon to the whole congregation; but, by the act 1732, they are impowered to elect and call one to be minister of the parish. 3. According to act 1690, the election was not to be held as finished until the man was propofed to the congregation, and their approbation had; and, if they difapproved, the affair was to ftop as unfinished until the prefbytery give their judgement whether to proceed further in it or not but the act 1732 holds the election as finished by the votes of the heritors and elders, and the man to be legally elected and called to be minifter of the parish, before the confent of the people be asked. 4. By the act 1690, and another foon past after, to explain it, all unqualified or dif affected heritors were excluded from voting; but, by act 1732, all heritors whatfomever, whether hearers or not, were allowed to vote, if they were not profeffed Papifts: fo that, in many parishes where the difaffected heritors were fupernumerary to the other, they had power to thrust in a minifter upon a well affected congregation. 5. For what appears from the words of the act 1690, the heritors and elders might have acted as diftin&t bodies in the nomination, and the one might have had a negative upon the other therein, and fo the heritors nomination would not be valid without the concurrence of the body of elders; for by the act the man was to be named by the elders as well as by the heritors! but, by act 1732, it was exprefsly provided that the heritors and ciders fhould ele&t in a conjunct body; fo that, confidering the fuperior number and influence

of

of heritors in most places, minifters might be chofen where the elderfhip and whole body of the congregation reclaimed, as frequently has happened. 6. The act 1690 and the act 1732 differed prodigiously as to the fenfe and meaning put upon the words thereof. The execution of the act 1690 being intrufted to prefbyteries, the fenfe they then put upon the approbation of the congregation, and the Reafons of the difapprovers, was far from the late fenfe put upon them: by their approbation the church then understood their judgment concerning the candidate's gifts of preaching and prayer, that they judged them fuitable to their capacities, and adapted to their edification; and if the body of the congregation difapproved the man nominate, and gave for their reafons, that his gifts were not edifying to them, nor fuited to their capacities, and that they could not in conscience confent to his being their minifter: fuch reafons, given by a knowing well difpofed people, were then judged fufficient to ftop the affair, lay afide competing candidates, and to proceed to a new election. But, by the fenfe put upon the act 172, no reasons or objections could be received but againft the man's life or doctrine; and, if the people did not prove error or immorality against him by witneffes, they muft receive him as their paftor: fo that by this fenfe the people had no more interest or concern in the fettlement of their paftor, than thefe of any other congregation; which is moft abfurd, and different from the fenfe of the act 1690.

Our noble patriots at the Revolution, being fenfible of the violent intrutions which had been made upon parishes under Prelacy and Patronage, they did in the year 1690 reftore Prefbyterian government, abolith patronages, and put the people's rights under the guardianfhip of prefbyteries, who then took fpecial care of them, according to our known principles; fo that their fettlements gave general fatisfaction. Our judicatories then understood the act 1690 as defigned to deliver parishes from the intrufions made upon them under patronages, and to restore them to their primitive liberty, according to the word of God. This is evident from the Affembly