and avers, that the fynod have either induftriously declined entering into the merits of the cause, viz. What it is to be lieve in the blood of Chrift? What claim gofpel- hearers have to this blood of atonement, in contradiftinction to fallen angels &c. or, in their explication of it, have evidently run into the Neonomian scheme, by turning the gofpel into a new law, or preceptive difpenfation. The paper concludes thus: "I do hereby, in my own name, and in name of all that do or fhall adhere to me, proteft against the forfaid act of fynod for doctrine [xvii. 157.], as it ftands in connection with the preamble of the prefbytery of Edinburgh's overture, as it is in itself, and as explained and illuftrated in the forefaid appendix and illustrations [xvii. 568.]; and further protest against the feveral cenfures and fentences paffed against my doctrine, and against me for maintaining there of, [xvii. 157, 8. 409. xviii. 413]; and, in general, I protest against the whole of the fynod's unbrotherly and hard conduct toward me in the management of this affair, and in particular against this fentence of depofition and leffer excommunication now paffed and I hereby do appeal from this fynod, to the true and faithful Witness, to be called and judged by him in his time and way; and thereupon take inftruments." After reading the paper Mr Mair withdrew; and the fynod appointed the fentence to be intimated in the Affociate congregation of Orwell, on the fecond fabbath of May, by Mr Alexander Blyth minifter at Kinclaven. To the author of the SCOTS MAGAZINE. SIR, Edinburgh. IN N the paper which Mr Thomas Mair read before the Affociate fynod, he charges them with having run into both Arminian and Socinian errors, into Inde pendent principles, and into the Neonomian scheme. As to Independent principles, Mr Mair has not yet shewn how he founds that charge, and this is the first time he has brought it forth. As to Arminian and Socinian errors, his charge, fo far as yet Vol. XIX. appears, is inferred from that of the Neonomian fcheme, as implied in it; and his charge as to this laft, is founded upon their alledged turning of the gospel into a new law, or preceptive difpenfation. It is on this bottom only that all this charge against the fynod is built: and all the ground he has hitherto pointed out for alledging that they have turned the gofpel into a new law or preceptive difpenfation, is precifely as follows. A member of the fynod, in an appendix to the fecond edition of their act concerning doctrine [xvii. 157.], has afferted, "That all the members of the vifible church do immediately undergo a difpenfation of God's preceptive will, requiring their compliance with the method of falvation through Jefus Chrift; as God's covenant of promife is exhibited for being taken hold of, in the obedience of faith." The author fuppofed that every body would have taken this affertion as fignifying, that not any new law, but the old law, particularly in the first commandment, is made fubfervient to the gofpel; fo that it lays every gofpel-hearer under an immediate obligation to renounce all pretenfions to any fort of meriting or juftifying righteoufin part, nefs before God, in whole or by their own obedience of any law, old or new; betaking themselves wholly and immediately, by faith, to the righteoufnefs of Jefus Chrift, for juftification, and all other benefits of redemption through his blood. But Mr Mair having altered the author's language in the above affertion, by putting the word approbation in place of compliance, he then imagines it big with the Neonomian fcheme, and confequently with Arminian, yea Socinian errors: and though the fynod have not taken any notice of that affertion in a way of approbation; yet becaufe they have not animadverted upon it, in a way of condemnation, Mr Mair reckons them answerable for it, according to his own alteration and interpretation of the words. Such is the genuine foundation of the aforementioned charge against the fynod, and your readers may judge of the fu perftructure as they please. I am,&o. Hh The The letters wrote by the prefbytery of Edinburgh to the prefbyteries of Haddington, Dalkeith, Air, Earlfton, Chirnfide, and Dunse [47. 158 ], were addreffed to the several moderators, and of the following tenor. Rev. SIR, WE need not inform your Rev. prefbytery of the opinion which the Chriftian church has always entertained of ftage plays and players, nor of the fatal influence thefe entertainments commonly have upon the far greater part of mankind, particularly the younger fort. Of this the prefbytery of Edinburgh were fo fenfible, that, in the year 1727, they appointed Meff. Hamilton, Smith, Craig, &c. to draw up an admonition and exhortation, warning and obtefting thofe under their charge not to countenance the playhouse then erected in this place; which admonition was unanimoufly approved of, and read from the feveral pulpits within our bounds. The unhappy effects of the playhouse were more and more fenfibly felt by all ranks; fervants, apprentices, and ftu. dents, were feduced. In the year 1737, the legislature did, in their great wifdom, prohibit, by an exprefs law, the acting of plays for hire or reward within this city and fuburbs, and other places, as the law more fully bears. The players being fo audacious as to continue to act in defiance of the law, the mafters and profeffors of the univer, fity here petitioned the parliament to take some effectual method for enforcing the fame and the prefbytery did, at their own charge, profecute the players before the court of feffion. In this procefs they prevailed, and obtained a decreet againft eight players, finding each of them liable in the penalty of 50l. Sterling Warrants, pursuant to the above decreet, for apprehending them, being iffued, they difperfed. But others came in their place: and fince that time they have attempted to elude the law by a vain and unworthy evafion. As fuch thin pretexts could not make the fmalleft variation in the nature of the thing, the minifters in our bounds have continued to do every thing in their power and their sphere to put a stop to entertainments fo hurtful and illegal. But we are forry to inform your Rev. prefbytery, that when the state of the nation, and the diftreffed circumftances of the poor, make fuch diverfions, in themselves pernicious, ftill more criminal; our endeavours for fuppreffing them have been much interrupted, and in fome measure defeated, by of your mem. bers, minifter at who, we are credibly informed, present in the playhouse at the head of the Canongate, within the bounds of our prefbytery, while a tragedy called Douglas was acted. As this conduct is extremely offenfive, we are perfuaded your Rev. prefbytery will take this matter into their confideration, and follow out fuch measures as to them fhall feem meet for discountenancing fuch unwarrantable conduct, for vindicating the credit and promoting the usefulness of the holy miniftry, and fupporting the interefts of religion.This, in name, prefence, and by appointment of the prefbytery of Edinburgh, is fignified to you, by, Rev. Sir, Edinburgh, Dec. 29. Your moft bumble and moft obedient fervant, JOHN WARDEN Modr p. t. 1756. JA. CRAIG Pby-Clk. Dunfe, addreffed to the moderator of And the answer by the prefbytery of that of Edinburgh, was as follows. Rev. SIR, Ours of the 29th of December last was this day laid before our prefbytery. It was read with the regard and confidered with the attention that is due to a letter from the prefbytery of Edin burgh. We now return you an answer, with that freedom which we think ourfelves intitled to ufe; and we doubt not you will confider it with that candour which is fuitable to your known characters. We need not inform perfons fo deeply fkilled in the conftitution of our church as the members of your Rev. prefbytery are, that the jurifdiction of prefbyteries independent on each other, is a funda mental mental principle of our ecclefiaftical conftitution; and that they are accountable only to fynods and affemblies, their le gal fuperiors. Prefbyteries know beft the characters of their own members, the ftate of religion, and the temper of the people with in their bounds. They can beft judge, whether, in any particular inftance, the cenfures of the church might not, inftead of extinguishing a scandal, contribute to increase it. We know not any reafon why the prefbytery of Dunfe fhould be deprived of this inherent privilege; and cannot but look upon your letter as an unconftitutional attempt of one prefbytery to anticipate the judgment, and regulate the conduct of another. After this remark on the general ftrain of your epistle, we cannot but obferve, that the directions you are pleased to give us, feem repugnant to the rules and canons of this church. It is, enacted in the Form of Process, chap. 1. §4. That "nothing ought to be admitted by any church-judicature as the ground of a procefs for cenfure, but what hath been declared cenfurable by the word of God, or some act or univerfal custom of this national church agreeable thereto." We expected, that, in compliance with this known ftatute, you would have mentioned fome paffages of fcripture, or fome acts of the general affembly, to which the conduct of our brethren was repugnant. But with respect to thefe you have thought proper to be entirely filent. However, to make up the want of fuch authority, you give us a detail of certain acts and proceedings of your Rev. prefbytery in the year 1727. Whatever regard may be due to thefe, we are perfuaded you do not apprehend they should be confidered as standards of this church. Nor can we believe you will think a minifter of the prefbytery of Dunse should be accounted criminal, becaufe he did not pay fuitable regard to the acts of your Rev. prefbytery. Such propofitions feem to be affumed in your letter; how fubverfive they are of the privileges of other prefbyteries, we need not fay. The incroachments on our jurisdiction we could eafily pass over; but we cannot overlook the manner in which your Rev. prefbytery have treated our brethren. Our bleffed Lord commands us, Matth. xviii. 15. &c. Moreover, if thy brother shall trefpafs against thee, go, and tell him his fault between thee and him alone, &c. Suitable to this divine and charitable precept is the ftatute in our Form of Process, chap. 7. § 4. “All Chriftians ought to be fo prudent and wary in accufing minifters of any cenfurable fault, as that they ought neither to pu blifh nor fpread the fame, nor accufe the minifter before the prefbytery, without first acquainting the minifter himself if they can have accefs thereto, and then, if need be, fome of the most prudent of the minifters and elders of that prefbytery, and their advice got in the affair." This method of conduct is Chriftian, is prudent. The precepts of our Lord, the ftatutes of our church, injoin us to follow this plan, in our endeavours of reclaiming a Chriftian brother who hath gone aftray. Did your Rev. prefbytery obferve thefe important rules? We are fure they did not; otherwife fuch an unwarrantable eagerness of accusing our brethren had not been discovered. Nor can we reconcile this your extraordinary zeal, with your indulgence to feveral church-officers within the bounds of your own prefbytery, whofe countenance will have more influence in fupporting these amufements, than the prefence of our two brethren, fo little known in town. Is there not a partiality visible in behalf of fome of your own brethren, who, whilft they appeared as reprefentatives of this church, did, as we have heard, give countenance to entertainments of the fame kind? From whofe conduct it was natural to conclude, that being witness to the reprefentation of a tragedy which the public voice affirms to have no immoral tendency, would not be confidered as criminal by your Rev. prefbytery. For we cannot allow ourfelves to think, that a thing really criminal in itfelf, and morally evil, in Scotland, is innocent or indifferent on the other fide the Tweed. But 1 prefented, April 19. one by the towncouncil of Muffelburgh, and the other by about 120 heads of famines, in favour of Mr Carlyle, declaring their fatisfaction with his conduct as their minifter. Mr Car But to conclude: You fay, zeal for vindicating the credit and promoting the ufefulness of the holy ministry, and fup. porting the interefts of religion, are the motives of your prefent conduct. And in charity we are bound to believe they are. You call us to co-operate with you At this meeting, April 19. in carrying on thefe ends. We gladly lyle renewed his request, that the libel hearken to the call; and fhall not fail fhould be dropt, for the reasons formerto lend our affiftance in every inftance ly mentioned [160]. But in this he that is under the conduct of wisdom and was again over ruled, and the prefbydifcretion. You must however excufe tery refolved to go upon the relevancy. us, when we fay, that your intermed- Mr Carlyle protefted, appealed to the dling in the manner you have done with fynod, and left the court. Four minithe conduct of our brethren, who have fters, viz. Meff. Turnbull of Borthhitherto been eminently ufeful in our wick, Simfon of Fala, Mackie of Cabounds, hath a natural tendency, and rington, and Murray of Heriot, diffentwill undoubtedly, unlefs guarded against ed from the refolution to go upon the by the utmost prudence and caution on relevancy, and left the court likewife. our part, greatly mar and obftruct thofe The prefbytery found the feveral articles valuable ends you feem to have in view. of the libel feparatim relevant to infer This in name and by authority of the cenfure; and found all the articles proprefbytery of Dunfe, is fignified to ved by Mr Carlyle's confeffion, exceptyou by, ing the oaths and mock prayers charged Rev. and dear Br. to be contained in the tragedy, and Mr Your aff. br. and humble ferv. Carlyle's having taken poffeffion of a Dunfe, March 22. JAMES LAURIE Mod. box in a diforderly way [159]. These 1757. ALEX. HUME P. Clk. particulars they remitted to proof; and Since our last we have received the they named a committee of their numfollowing accounts of the proceedings ber, and gave them a commiffion to take of prefbyteries. [160.] the proof at Edinburgh on the 28th of April, and to report it on the 3d of May; and ordered Mr Carlyle to be cited to attend the examination. The witneffes refiding within the prefbytery of Edinburgh were cited by an order from that prefbytery. Mr John Dalrymple Advocate, as counfel for Mr Carlyle, appeared before the committee, and protefted against their examining the witneffes, contending that a presbytery had no power to grant a commiffion to one or more of their own number to examine witneffes without their own bounds. Mr Carlyle appeared likewise, and protefted for liberty to cite witneffes, in exculpation or alleviation of his alledged. disorderly behaviour in the playhouse, and to examine them before examining the witneffes in fupport of that article. The committee judging it not competent for them to confider those protests, referred them to the prefbytery, and examined the witneffes in fupport of the li Meff. Home of Polwarth and Dyfart of Eccles expreffed their forrow for having given offence, were rebuked by the prefbytery of Dunfe, and the affair was difmiffed. [158.] On the 5th of April, the elders who had disclaimed the petition in favour of Mr Carlyle, and had given in a counter petition [159] to the prefbytery of Dalkeith, were defired to give their reasons for their non-concurrence with the petition; but they did not give them. One of these elders, however, on the 19th, gave in a reprefentation, in name of himself and of his four brethren, containing the reafons of their non-concurrence. Mr Carlyle objected, That it was now too late to affign those reasons, because they had not done it on the 5th, when defired. The reprefentation was lodged with the clerk, and the confideration of it delayed to the 3d of May. On the other hand, two petitions were bel. bel. Mr Carlyle attended the exami- Edinburgh, that Mr Home might have nation. an opportunity of attending them if he pleased.. The prefbytery met accordingly, and Mr Home was prefent, but no minute was taken of what paffed that Mr Home had never been regularly before them, and was not prefent when the reference to the fynod was made. P. S. On the 3d of May the committee laid the proof before the prefbytery. It was depofed, that a player, in the character of the fhepherd, fwore, By The fynod of Lothian and Tweedbim that died on the accurfed tree; that dale met at Edinburgh on the roth, and another, in that of Glenalvon, faid, rofe on the 13th.- -Mr Home's affair No prieft no priest ! I'll risk eternal fire! came before them on the 12th. They and that a third, in that of Lady Bar- remitted it back to the prefbytery of Hadnard, or Lady Randolph, kneeled dington, in regard that prefbytery had not down, and put up fome prayers. It. fo much as commenced the procefs, and was alfo depofed, that Mr Carlyle had turned or pushed one or more gentlemen out of a box, but not till after they had refused to go out at his defire. Mr Carlyle objected, that this proof ought not to be regarded, for that the committee ought not to have examined the witneffes after the above-mentioned protests were taken; and craved leave to give in a lift of witneffes to prove fome alleviating circumftances in relation to his turning the gentlemen out of the box. The prefbytery were of opinion, that Mr Carlyle's offence deferved a higher cenfure than a rebuke, and that a cenfure inflicted by the highest authority would have greatest weight, and be followed with the most falutary effects: they therefore referred the confideration of the protests, the objection, and the whole affair, to the fynod; declaring it to be their opinion, that the cenfure ought to be inflicted, not by any inferior court, but by the affembly; and they appointed their moderator, in cafe the fynod fhould finish the process themfelves, to appeal to the affembly. When the prefbytery of Haddington met on the firft Tuesday of May [158.], they received a letter from Mr Home of Athelftonford, begging a further indulgence, and promifing to attend, if they would appoint a prefbytery to meet in a week after. The prefbytery referred the whole matter to the fynod, to meet at Edinburgh on the 10th, and appointed a meeting of prefbytery the fame day at The name Lady Barnard, was changed to Lady Randolph, when the play was acted at London. Alterations were made after the first reprefentation at Edinburgh, fo that the expreflions depofed to, are not in the printed play. VOL. XIX. Mr Carlyle's affair was gone upon on the 11th. He appeared, and had for counfel Mr John Dalrymple. Papers were produced, and read, and parties were heard at great length. The court fat from ten before till four after noon, and then adjourned. At fix in the evening they met again. A question was moved, Whether to take up the affair on Mr Carlyle's appeals, or on the prefbytery's reference? After fome reasoning it was agreed to begin with the appeals. A long debate enfued; after which the following overture, or fentence, was propofed, viz. "The fynod finds, That the grounds of proceeding in this affair in the way of a libel, are not fufficiently clear and uncontrovertible; and that it had been better, and more expedient for the prefbytery, to have endeavoured to bring the fame to an iffue, either in the way of privy cenfure, or of brotherly conference, with proper admonition following thereon. And further the fynod does, by this fentence, declare their high displeasure with Mr Carlyle, for the step he has ta ken in going to the theatre; and ftrictly injoin him to abftain therefrom in time coming.' On this a vote was put, Approve of the overture; or, Remit this affair to the prefbytery of Dalkeith, to take proof of the alleviating circumftances condefcended on by Mr Carlyle, in cafe he infifts upon it, and to give judg ment in this affair before the meeting of the assembly as they fhall fee caufe? It carried Approve by a narrow majority. A diffent was entered by Meff. George I i Lindsay, |