bly 1712 their approving the comiffion's addrefs to the queen against patronages, in which are thefe words: Whereby your majefty may plainly perceive the act 1690 abolishing patronages must be understood to be a part of our Prefbyterian conftitution, fecured to us by the treaty of Union for ever; and that the Parliament 4690 was fincerely defirous only to restore the church to its juft and primitive liberty in calling minifters in a way agreeable to the word of God." That this was the fenfe put upon the act 1690, appears alfo from the form of calls then constantly made ute of by the church, which is printed in our larger overtures, and runs thus: "We the heritors and elders of the parith of

have agreed, with the advice and consent of the parishioners, to invite, call," &c. No call could then be received without that claufe," of the confent of the pa rifhioners." No doubt the words of the act 1690 might have been perverted to the peoples hurt in fome hands: but the church being allowed to explain and execute that act agreeably to their own principles, as they then did, the people continued easy under it, as finding their rights fafe, their confent always neceffary, and no intrufions made upon them. This confent of the people, in fettlements, had been judged neceffary by this church in all periods fince the reformation.

Object. Those who favour intrusions, object, "That by act of Affembly 1649, fettlements might fometimes be made contrary to the inclinations of the majority of the people, if their diffent arofe from caufelets prejudices; and confequently that minifters might be fettled against the mind of congregations, in cafe they had nothing to object against their life and doctrine."

Anf. We must certainly understand and explain the act 1649, by the known principles and practice of the church at that time, and by the 2d book of Difcipline, which the Affembly 1649, and the whole church, had feveral times fworn to in the national covenant. In that 2d book, our church doth three or four times declare for the confent of the congregation as neceffary in fettling of minifters, as allo against intruding any man upon them contrary to their will; and doth affirm

that

that this order of fettlement is according to the word of God, and the practice of the apoftolical and primitive kirk. And that famous Affembly 1638, which abolished Prelacy and restored Prefbytery, did explain the national covenant as binding us to maintain the 2d book of Discipline, December 8th. Likewife the Affembly did, within ten days after, exprefsly renew their declaration for the peoples rights, by their act December 18th, viz. "That no perfon be intruded in any office of the kirk, contrary to the will of the congregation to which they are appointed." And that the Pref byterians of that period were of the fame mind, appears from the 8th act of Parliament 1640, by which they reftored to prefbyteries the patronages of thofe parishes which the bishops had poffeffed, but with this falvo. of the interest of the parishes, "That they be fettled upon the fuit and calling of the congregations," according to the acts and practice of this church. And from the Affembly 1642 their act, Auguft 3d, for making lifts of probationers for patrons to chufe upon; they ap pointed, that "Prefbyteries, with the confent of the most or best part of the congregation concerned, fhall make up the lift of fix willing to accept." And by the directory for the ordination of minifters, agreed upon by the Affembly at Westminster, and approven by the General Affembly 1645, the candidate is appointed to preach' three feveral days, and to converfe with the people among whom he is to ferve, for the end that they may have trial of his gifts for their edification; and afterwards they were to fignify their confent to the Prefbytery as they found caufe. From which it is evident, that church-judicatories then allowed the people to judge of the suitableness of the candidate's gifts for their edification, and held their confent neceffary to his ordination. And that the Affembly 1649 were of the fame mind, is plain from their fwearing to the 2d book of Difcipline, which declares fo ftrongly for the confent of congregations in fettlements, which furely they would be careful not to contradi& by their act. They indeed lodged the election in the hands of the feffion; VOL. IV.

3 H

but

but at the fame time appointed them to ufe all poffible tenderness for obtaining harmony in the congregation, and to proceed to a new election, in cafe the major part of the congregation diffented from their choice, if their diffent was not grounded on caufelefs prejudices. Now thefe elders, who were the electors, being the reprefentatives of the people, and the most eminent in the parish. for piety and knowledge, would doubtlefs previoufly confult the inclinations of the better fort, particularly the communicants, who are properly the members of the congregation; and, if they found that the most knowing and religious part of the congregation was for the fettlement, they might reckon that the caufelefs prejudices of others, not complete members of the congregation, were to be lefs regarded. We are firmly per fuaded the church in that period were far from reckoning it a caufelefs prejudice against a man, if the most religious or knowing part of a congregation declared their diffent from the feffion's choice, because they found the preacher's gifts unfuitable for their edification; no, in that cafe, the feffion would have been appointed to make a new election. The people then were not confined to objections only against the life and doctrine of the candidate, but allowed to diffent from and object against the election itself, and give what reafons or grounds for it they thought proper; and, if the feffion could not fatisfy them after all pains taken, they proceeded to a new election. All this appears from a known pamphlet, printed anno 1733, intituled, "Account of the method of electing a minifter to the parish of Strathmiglo, in two inftances in the years 1654 and 1655, in a letter to the minifter there." If it be asked, What is then to be meant by causeless prejudices mentioned in the act 1646? Anf. Any groundlefs or trifling objection against a man, because of his mean extract, low ftature, bodily infirmity or blemish; or becaufe of fome groundlefs report, or the ftrictnefs of his walk, zeal for his principles, or the like: in which groundlefs prejudice the Affembly might judge that ignorant and unreafonable people were not to be too much indulged; though at the fame time they en

join all poffible tenderness in dealing with parishes to bring them to harmony, even then when a leffer part of the congregation diffent from the election without relevant objections.

But, lafly, Seeing this objection from act 1649, is commonly brought to countenance the intruding of men. who force themselves in upon reclaiming parifhes, by accepting and holding faft by prefentations; we take this occafion freely to own, that a congregation's offence against a man for evident tokens of "earthly mindednefs, greedy of filthy lucre, and unconcernednefs for the fuccefs of the gofpel, is not a caufelefs prejudice;" as for inftance, when there is a golpel door open for preachers to get accefs to parishes, for a man to defpife that door, and chufe rather to enter by the door of a prefentation and violence, and thereby endeavour to thrust himself in upon a congregation against their will, fecure a title to their stipend fo as no man elfe can have it, keep faft his hold against all perfuafions and entreaties, keep the people long without gofpel ordinances, bind the heavy yoke of patronage upon their neck, and hinder them from getting a minifter whom they love and defire; now, when a man acts fo directly against the intereft of the gofpel, the advantage of precious fouls, and his own profeffed principles and engagements; and when a congregation diffents from his fettlement upon these grounds; we cannot fay their diffent is grounded upon caufelefs prejudices: nay, they are fo well grounded, that the day hath been, when churchjudicatories would have ftopt their mouths who would be guilty of fuch things.

Object." Though it be wrong for preachers to take fuch methods, yet judicatories are under neceffity by the law to fettle them, or keep parishes vacant." Anf. 1. Seeing intrufions into churches are contrary to fcripture, reafon, and our profeffed principles, no laws or commands of men can oblige us to be acceffory to them: for, feeing Christ commands us to do all for the edification of his flock, we must never act for its deftruction, as intrufions manifeftly are. Whenever human laws

3 H 2

do.

do clash with the Divine, it is indisputably "better to obey God than man."

2. There is no law yet in being, that obligeth us to intrude men into churches: for though there be an act past in 1712 for reftoring patronages, yet it doth exprefsly referve to the Prefbytery and church judicatories the power of judging of the Prefentee's qualifications and fitnefs for the charge to which he is prefented. Now, the power of judging of a man's qualifications must not be reftricted to these which render him fit for the miniftry in general, but must be extended to qualifications neceflary to make him fit for being minifter of the parish to which he is prefented; becaufe a man may be fit and qualified for one charge, that is not fo for another. Now, if a Prefbytery do find that a prefentee is incapable of anfwering the defign of a gofpel-minifter to a parish, and is in no condition to inftruct or edify their fous, by reason of his offending them, or their incurable averfion to hear him, or fubmit to his miniftry; they may fafely judge that fuch a man is not qualified nor fit to be fettled in that parish, and therefore may fet him afide. And if, in cafe of an appeal, the Affembly affirm the Prefbytery's sentence, the law is most exprefs and clear, that the cause must take end as the Affembly doth decern, according to act 7. Parl. 1567, which act is confirmed by act 1. Parl. 1581; and this act is again ratified by act 1. Parl. 1592, which act is ratified by act 5. Parl. 1690, and stands ftill in force, being not only ratified by the Union, but also confirm ed by queen Anne's law in 1712, for establishing patronages. And as the General Assemblies of this church have been always before 1712 in poffeffion of the forefaid power, fo well fecured to them by law; fo alfo, fince that time, their fentences concerning all prefentations have been fubmitted to and held as final. From which it is evident, that judicatories are under no force by law to make intrusions or violent fettlements. Why then should church-men, who ought to be guardians of the church's liberties, go about to deftroy them by violent proceedings? Is it not foon enough for church

courts