lay before the civil government, and get fubftituted in the room of the Patronage Act, and that fome of our great men gave encouragement to expect this. I was then fixed upon no particular rule, but had favourable thoughts of the Acts of Parliament 1690, which at first was propofed to be the rule; and in order thereto, it was thought neceffary to tranfmit the fame to the Prefbyteries by way of overture, that they might confider it, and thereby it would be known how far we could agree about it. This feemed to be pretty plaufible; for the notion I always had of the plan of fettling churches, according to the act 1690, was, That the heritors and elders were to chufe a minifter, with confent of the congregation; and when there arofe any difference about the choice, the cafe was brought to the Prefbytery to be cognofced upon by them, they being impowered to judge what was moft for edification, whether to proceed to fettle the man that feemed to have most of the legal votes, or lay him afide, in cafe others, with the body of the people, continued diffatisfied, and appoint a new moderation: and sometimes they did the one, and fometimes the other, as they judged moft for edification; for the good and edification of the parish, was the great rule the judicatories then kept in their eye in their determinations, which commonly had a comfortable iflue. I am fure this was the fenfe the Church put upon the act 1690, and proceeded accordingly in fettling of churches, for twenty-two years after it was made, and had much peace and tranquillity in following that method. As long as I thought the defign was to keep things upon this footing, I was eafy (the matter not being great) who had the liberty of voting, providing matters were fo managed, that no man fhould be thruft in upon a congregation against their will: but affoon as I perceived the defign was to carry the affair of fettlements beyond the act 1690, I told my mind freely in the Prefbytery, and propofed an amendment of the overture to prevent any fuch defign, which they were pleased to receive and fend over among their inftructions to the Affembly 1732, which I am forry they did not think fit to notice. And now,

when

when I compare the two acts together, I find indeed there is a great difference: For, 1. By the act 1690, the Heretors and Elders are only impowered to name and propose a perfon to the whole congregation: But, by the act 1732, the Heretors and Elders are impowered to elect and call one to be minifter of the parish. 2. According to the act 1690, the election was not to be looked upon as finished, till the man was propofed to the congregation, and their approbation obtained; an i, in cafe this was refufed, the nomination and propofal was to stop, and be laid as an incomplete unfinished affair berore the Prefbytery, that they might give their judgment whether to proceed any further in it or not: But, according to act 1732, after the Heretors and Elders have voted, the election is faid to be finifhed, whether the congregation approve or not; nay, the man is reckoned legally elected and called to be minifter of the parish, before any notice is taken of the congregation, or the matter at all proposed to them. 3. According to the act 1690, and the fenfe which was to be put upon it, if the body of the heads of families did object against the man named by the majority of Heretors and Elders, and fay he had not an edifying gift, or that it was not fuited to their capacities, and that they had not freedom in their confciences to confent to his being their minifter; the Prefbytery judged fuch objections, made by a knowing well difpofed people, fufficient to stop the affair, and to proceed to a new election. All this will appear from our Records, and from the nature and ftrain of the calls given in thofe days. But, according to the act 1732, and the fenfe now put upon it, let heads of families object what they will against the election, if they be not able to prove error or immorality against the man by two witneffes, they must receive him as their Paftor, and fo the body of the congregation have no greater power or influence in the fettlement, than those who dwell in another nation. Yea, according to this act, as it is now fenfed, parishes may be fettled, and fometimes are, by a majority of non refiding and difaffected Heretors, where the whole Elders and People do reclaim and protest against the fettlement: And furely

fuch

fuch fettlements, as they are againft fcripture rules, fo they are a fad hindrance and stop to the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and cannot but be most grieving to all who are zealous for his glory, and who make confcience of praying, as he directs, "Thy kingdom come: Gird thy fword upon thy thigh, O moft Mighty; and in thy Majefty ride profperoufly." Upon which account, I do with the greatest humility and earnestnefs befeech and obteft the Reverend and Honourable Members of the next Affembly, to give at leaft an application of this act, declaring, That it is not the meaning of it to impofe minifters upon congrega. tions, where the elderfhip and body of the people do reclaim, not to contradict our Books of Difcipline and ancient acts of Affembly, as the Affembly 1586, 1596, 1638, 1649, &c. And I would beg (if I could do it, with tears of blood) that they would not make any such act as this, an engine of trouble and perfecution in the Church, feeing no man pleads that it is founded upon the word of God, but only that it is devised as a proper expedient till the Church be delivered from Patronages. And, about what acts of the Church may ministers have liberty to fpeak their minds fo freely, as about those which are owned to be mere human conftitutions.

Object." If Minifters be diffatisfied with the acts and Conftitution of the Church, they fhould withdraw from her, and give up their legal privileges."

Anf. 1. Though this be the common talk of fome, there is no warrant for this courfe in the word of God; for the fcripture directs us, when we fee things wrong in the Church, to plead with our Mother, but not to dif own her forthwith, or renounce communion with her. 2. Thofe who talk fo now, would be most ready to ac cufe Minifters, if they did withdraw, of making a fchifm and feparation without juft caufe. What! would they fay, "Is the Church fo Heretical, that they will not hold communion with her? are fuch small mistakes, juft grounds of feparation? why did they not proteft against what they judged wrong, and continue ftill within the Church, as feveral of our brave ancestors did in former ages?

Object.

Object. They may plead with their mother, but muft not fpit in her face.'

Anfw 1. I am indeed for a decent and refpectful way of pleading with our mother. 2. If fome good men fhall use a rougher way of dealing than others, in teftifying against what is wrong, it ought not to be termed a fpiting in their mother's face, nor made a ground of fevere cenfure. If our ancestors, in former ages, had been fo narrow and rigid in their way of thinking, what had become of Mr Knox, Craig, Davidfon, Welsh, Bruce, the two Melvils, and many others?

Object. The Church's Acts must be obeyed, her fentence execute, and the fence of her authority maintained; otherwife fhe cannot be preferved from the greateft errors and diforders. We must not see the authority of the General Affembly ruined.'

Anfw. 1. As for my own part, I was always for maintaining the authority of the General Affembly as facred and inviolable, feeing it is of fo great confequence to the preferving of peace and unity in this church; I have been forry to fee it attacked, or badly used; but, if we would truly preferve it, let us be tender of it, in the making of acts or decifions; being careful that either they be evidently founded upon the word of God, or, that there be nothing in them contrary thereunto.

2. When any rule is tranfgreffed which hath nothing but church-authority to fupport it, church cenfures fhould be gently used, seeing rigour in that case doth ruin authority more than maintain it: We do not read of any church destroyed by her lenity and forbearance in such cases; though feverals have been ruined by screwing up authority too high. We may fee, by long experience, that severe dealing is not the way of convincing men of conscience and zeal of their mistakes: and, by the way, it is a little surprising to fee fome, whofe difcourfes breathed forth nothing but moderation, peace, charity and benevolence toward their fellow-creatures, all of a fudden metamorphofed in their tempers, and breathing forth rigour, severity, perfecution and bitter fpeeches against their brethren who differ from them but a little in their way of thinking. Ah! what poor changeable creatures are we!

If

3. If we would have the Affembly's authority maintained, we must take care in making acts of general concern, that none of the Church's fences or guardian rules be broke through, fuch as that excellent one, A&t 9. Affemb. 1697, in which, "For the fafety of the doctrine, worship, difcipline and government of this Church, it is appointed, enacted and declared, that before any General Affembly of this Church fhall país any Acts which are to be binding rules and conftitutions to the Church, the fame acts be firft propofed as overtures to the Affembly, and being by them past as such, be remitted to the confideration of the feveral Prefbyteries of this Church, and their opinions and confents reported by their Commiffioners to the next Affembly, who may then pafs the fame in Acts, if the more general opinion (N. B.) of the Church, thus had, agree thereunto." Now thus guardian Act hath been in force these thirtysix years, and hath been regarded as a fundamental rule and bulwark of our happy conftitution; and, if it be broke through in the making of any act orrule, how can we expect that fuch an act will be regarded as a binding rule and conftitution to the Church, legally enacted? and this seems to be the cafe with refpect to Act 1732; for of forty nine Prefbyteries who gave their opinions concerning it, there were no more than fix Prefbyteries in all Scotland for it. Some of them indeed were for it with amendments, but generally thefe would have altered the nature of it very much from what it is, had they been gone into.

4. In all ages the wifeft ftates and governments have in many cafes thought fit to relax their authority in cenfuring the difobedient; and this hath been so far from ruining their authority, that it hath contributed to preferve and establish it. How many of the Ministers of Scotland were guilty of difobedience to the Affembly, 16c6, at Linlithgow, who appointed them to accept of conftant moderations; and to the Affembly, 1618, who appointed them to receive the Five Articles of Perth ? Did ever the Church carry the matter fo far, as to fufpend or depofe any of the difobedient brethren? Or, was the authority of the General Aflembly ruined by fuch connivance?