AN ACCOUNT OF THE PURGING and PLANTING OF THE CONGREGATION OF DALKEITH.  
CONTAINING, 

I. The Copy of a late Paper, Entitled, Information for Mr. Alexander Heriot, etc.  
II. A short Relation of the Presbytery of Dalkeith, their Procedure in reference to the Sentencing of Mr. Heriot, and their Planting of the Congregation of Dalkeith.  
III. An Answer to that Paper, called, Information for Mr. Alexander Heriot (designed) Minister at Dalkeith,    
Published for Information and Satisfaction of these who are willing and Desirous to know the Truth of the foresaid Affair, which has been very grossly Misrepresented by some; and particularly for the Information of the Members of the next General Assembly.  
Edinburgh, Printed by George Mosman, and are to 〈◊〉 Sold at his Shop in the Parliament-Close, 1691   

PREFACE:  
IN order to the more easy clearing and understanding of this Affair concerning the Congregation of Dalkeith, it will not be amiss in the first place to give the Reader the true Copy of that false Invective, called, Information for Mr. Alexander Heriot (designed after Deposition) Minister at Dalkeith: Which also may contribute something for stopping of Mr. Heriot's Mouth, and preventing his frequent and causeless Clamours and Complaints, that his Defences are not heard, nor answered. This also is done, partly for the more full Information of all Readers, and especially of the Members of the next General Assembly, who may find in Mr. Heriot's own Paper (although it had no Answer annexed) such a Testimonial and Character of the Man himself, as may be sufficient to direct them unto a righteous Sentence in his Affair, and partly also to show the fullness and pertinency of the following Account and Answer.   

INFORMATION FOR Mr. Alexander Heriot Minister are Dalkeith. In Relation to the Lybe against him, before the presbytery at Dalkeith, and the Sentences thereon. And Petitions to the Lords of Their Majesty's Privy Council. The Appeal given in by the said Mr. Alexander Heriot to the Synod of Midlothian. containing a short Information of the Progress of that Process, to that time, is as follows.  
MOderator, Being conscious of my Innocence, and finding myself Wronged, and Injured, I here Appeal from this Synod, to the first General Assembly, when it shall meet; And in the mean time to Their Majesty's Protection, for Justice and Relief; and since the Law allows the Liedges a competent time to give in the Reasons of their Appeals; I here Protest within Twenty four hours, to give in the Reasons of this my Appeal to your Clerk; And withal, I protest that this be Recorded by him. And upon all I take Instruments.  

The Reasons of Appeal of Mr. Alexander Heriot Minister as Dalkeith, from the Synod of Midlothian, to the next Lawful General Assembly, And to Their Majesty's Protection for Justice, and Relief in the mean time.  
THere being a Lybel given in to the Presbytery of Dalkeith against the said Mr. Alexander Heriot, and the Lybel bearing it to be given in, in the Name of the Parochiners, the said Mr. Alexander Heriot and Parochiners compeared, and craved that the Ingivers of the Lybel might be condescended upon, and that they might own and subscribe it; And that in regard that the said Heretors and Parochiners did not only Viva Voce. but by a Write under their Hands Disclaim and Disowne it, except Alexander Calderwood, and a few others, ex faece populi. And albeit no Lybel ought to be admitted without a Pursuer; yet the Presbytery refused to condescend upon the Ingivers of the Lybel, or to ordain them to own and subscribe it. Like as, none had the confidence to own it, except the said Alexander Calderwood, who sat among them as one of the Ruling Elders, and who is notourly known to be the said Mr. Alexander Heriot's declared Enemy (althô without cause) and who invented and reported most false Calumnies against him, of which when he was challenged, his answer was, That whether they were true or false, he had thereupon taken two hundred of the Parochiners from his Communion; And a Declinator being given in against him as Informer and Promoter of the Lybel, which not only consisted in the knowledge of the Presbytery (who had no other Information but his) but which was like ways offered to be proven be his Oath; yet notwithstanding thereof, against all Law, Reason, and good Order, the Presbytery would not remove him, but allowed him to sit as one of Mr. Heriot's Judges, and appointed him one of the Examinators of the Witnesses. And he forgetting that station, informed and tampered with some of them, and threatened others, as to what they should depone: And the Witnesses being overawed and interrupted in their Examinations, and not allowed to declare the hail Truth in complext matters of Fact, whereby the Depositions may be lame and weak, and carry a quite contrary meaning of the Truth, of what the Witnesses offered to depone; And some of the Witnesses having desired that they might see and read their own Depositions before they subscribed them, the same was absolutely refused, with this Expostulation, What? do you distrust us? and do you question our Clerk's honesty? And thus they caused these Witnesses subscribe what was written, so that there may be left out the material parts of their Depositions, which cleared their Minister. And not only are there several Articles of the Lybel, which are not upon these Heads, to which the Trial of the Regular Clergy is restricted be Act of Parliament, and which are in themselves alterius fori, but likeways there was an additional Lybel raised against the said Mr. Alexander, and without any Citation given to him thereupon, or Copy, Sight or Notice given to him thereof, Witnesses are examined, than all which there can be nothing in judicial Procedures more Partial, Pernicious, and Unjust. And Mr. Alexander Heriot having appealed from the Presbytery to the General Assembly; the Presbytery notwithstanding thereof proceeded, and found the Lybel Relevant and Proven; and therefore, and in regard of Mr. Heriot's Contumacy (as they termed his Appeal to the General Assembly, which sat in October last) they Suspended him from the Ministry, and referred him for farther Censure to the General Assembly. But the General Assembly having found no Contumacy in the Appeal, they referred him to the Synod. And now the said Mr. Alexander does again Appeal from the Synod, and from any Sentence they shall give in this Matter, to the next lawful General Assembly, and in the mean time, to Their Majesty's Protection for Justice and Relief. For their Grounds and Reasons.  
Primo, There being a Petition given in by the Heretors and Parochiners of Dalkeith to the Synod, attesting, the said Mr. Alexander his Faithfulness in the Ministry, and his Innocency as to the things libeled against him; and craving, that according to the Act of Parliament, the Depositions of the Witnesses might be made patent, that they might be the better Redargued; yet the Synod suffered not the said Petition to be read.  
Secundo, The said Mr. Alexander having represented to the Synod the foresaid Procedure of the Presbytery against him, and having craved that the Depositions of the Witnesses, might be read before him, and that he might have a Copy of the Additional Lybel, which he had never seen; and that conform to the Act of Parliament, the Depositions of the Witnesses might be made patent to him, to the end that he might have a Copy thereof, to the effect he might the better clear himself, from any thing that may seem to be deponed against him; yet notwithstanding thereof, (and contrare to Law) the same was also refused by the Synod, and undoubtedly for this Reason, That the Probation was weak, and might not abide the Light nor Trial, for Veritas non quaerit Angulos.  
Tertio, The said Mr. Alexander having represented to the Synod, That he was informed that one of the Articles deponed against him, was, That he should have danced about a Bonfire the 14 of October 1688. And that the same was the only Article proven against him, which he instantly redargued, for the said 14 day of October 1688▪ fell upon a Sunday, and that the Witnesses and hail Inhabitants of Dalkeith cannot but declare, that there was never Bonfires at Dalkeith upon a Sunday, so that they deponed falsely. And the Dancing about a Bonfire being so public an Act, that not only the Witnesses that have deponed it, but likeways many others would have seen it, and all the Inhabitants of Dalkeith would have heard of it, if it had been true: Yet notwithstanding thereof, all the Neighbours to that Bonfire, and hail Inhabitants of Dalkeith will declare and depone, that they neither saw nor heard of their Minister dancing at that, or any other Bonfire; yet notwithstanding of that clear Conviction, and redarguing of that Article, the Synod had no regard thereto, affirming that there was no help for it now, it being so deponed; which is no other thing, than as if they had said, that they were not concerned though it were false, for it was so deponed; and which is so consequential to a clear and positive Redarguing, and Improbation of the Article, and Probation thereof, that the prejudice and design of the Synod to proceed against the said Mr. Alexander upon whatever was alleged, althô without probation, or upon a Redargued Probation, is evidently manifest.  
Quarto, The said Mr. Alexander represented to the Synod, that he bade formerly Appealled from the Presbytry, and that it was but too evident from what is above narrated, that they were his Party. And which was farther demonstrate from this. That, the said Presbytery and Alexander Calderwood, did in face of the Synod not only interrupt the said Mr. Alexander when he was speaking; but likeways debated and reasoned against him as Parties, so that it could not but be expected, but that they would do more when he was removed out of the Synod, and therefore the said Mr. Alexander declined the Presbytery and Alexander Calderwood as his Judges, and craved that they might not sit to judge him; yet notwithstanding thereof, against all Law and Justice, they were not removed.  
Quinto, Several Members of the Synod interrupted the said Mr. Alexander, while he was Vindicating himself, in the face of the Synod, and craving a sight of the Additional Lybel, and Deposition of the Witnesses; And cried out, That the same should not be granted to him, as if every one of them had had a Decisive Voice, and which is without Example in any Judicatory, for any of the Judges to interrupt the Defenders speaking, and to cry out their Opinion, or rather Sentence, before the Defender be removed; And which openly discovers their Prejudice, Design and Resolution of proceeding against the said Mr. Alexander, altho' without just cause.  
Sexto. The Prejudice and Design of the Synods proceeding against the said Mr. Alexander, on the said lame, weak, and null probation, is evident, in so far as several Members of their Number did speak and deal with him to dimitt, or that otherways they would depose him. And there is no thing more certain, than that they would never have Dealt with him to dimitt, if the Probation against him had been good; Their malice to the Regular Clergy being such, as that they would rather Depose them for Immoralities, and Errors in Doctrine to Publish them, than to suffer them to dimit, and get off without stain, when they are guilty of the same. But Mr. Alexander being Conscious of his own Innocency refused to Demit, but rather to suffer their Extremity, from which he hoped GOD in his good time would Vindicate him. And therefore it being evident from the Grounds foresaid, that the Synod has behaved themselves most partially, and against all Law and Form: The said Mr. Alexander does therefore Protest against the Synods further Proceeding in the said Matter, and appeals from them, and from any sentence they shall give therein, to the next General Assembly, And to their MAJESTY'S Protection, for Justice, and Relief in the mean time; And Protests, That the said Lybels, and Witnesses Depositions taken thereupon, may be preserved, and not put out of the way, That so the same (and not Copies thereof) may be produced to the next General Assembly; Or to any their Majesties shall be pleased, out of their Royal Authority, to appoint to consider the same: And that as the said Mr. Alexander will publish and disperse his Appeal, and his Answers to the first Lybel; Which he only did see for his own Vindication from any sentence that shall follow thereupon; So he expects, and earnestly Desires, that the said Synod may Print both the Lybels against him, and Depositions taken thereupon, for vindication of their Justice, (if they can conceive they have done right) But which Mr. Alexander hopes will rather vindicate his Innocency. And further, Mr. Alexander Craves, and Protests, That this his Appeal may be insert in the Books of the Synod.  
Notwithstanding of the Appeals foresaid, the Synod proceeded, and Deposed the said Mr. Alexander from his Ministry, And thereupon the Eldership of the Parish was invaded, and some few, (severals of them scarce worth to be noticed as Residenters, have usurped the power of electing Elders, and have elected many more than the number formerly used, purposely as they think, to make the greater Figure; although but of the most inconsiderable of the Paroch; And of Design to Call, Impose, and Obtrude a Minister upon the Rest against their will, contrary to the Laws of Charity, Practices of Christian Churches, and profession of Presbyterians; Notwithstanding that the said Mr. Alexander Heriot his Appeal does preserve his Right, and keeps all in statu quo, the time of the Appeal, while it be discussed.  
Whereupon, not only the said Mr. Alexander Heriot, but likewise the Heritors and Parishioners of Dalkeith, have given in a Petition to the Lords of their Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, That they may be pleased to discharge the Calling of a Minister while the Appeal be discussed; And that in the mean time, he may be restored to the Exercile of his Ministry. And that the presbytery of Dalkeith, And others havers of the Lybels given in against him, and Depositions of the Witnesses may make the same patent to him, as Law appoints; That he may know what is libeled, or may seem to be proven, to the effect he may the better clear himself of the samen, which is nothing but false lies and calumnies: And whereof several of the Presbyterian Ministers, who have seen the Lybels and Depositions, Affirm, that there is nothing proven. But the dancing about the Bonfire, which is not only clearly redargued to be false as said is, there being no Bonfires either on the foresaid day, nor for several months either before or after; But likewise if the persons who have deponed it were known, and re-examined, it will be found, they have deponed falsely; And that they have been dealt with so to Depone; And that this Falsehood may not be discovered, not only are the Depositions kept up, contrary to express Law and Act of Parliament; But likewise, no notice can be gotten who were the persons who have deponed it, that they may be insisted against.  
Whereas it is pretended, That the Lords of their Majesty's Privy Council, are not Judges competent to the sentences of Ecclesiastic Courts, and that as they cannot put in Ministers in Churches, so they cannot meddle with sentences of Depositions. It is answered, 1 more. That be the 1: Act 8 Parl: Ja: 6: It is Statute and Ordained, That his Majesty, and Council shall be Judges competent, To all persons Spiritual and Temporal, in all matters. And to pretend, that the Council is not Judge competent to sentences of Ecclesiastic Courts, is no other than to affirm, That these Courts have an Arbitrary power, and may do wrong at their pleasure without Remeed or control. For it is evident, That Mr. Heriot is most unjustly pursued and Deposed. And it is also evident, that if it be not Redressed be the Council, he will never be Restored be those Ministers, who have dealt so unjustly with him.  
And whereas, it is alleged, That as the Council cannot put in Ministers, so they cannot meddle with sentences of Deposition. It is answered, That the Council has not the power of Admission and Ordination of Ministers. But if a Minister having a lawful Call, the Presbytery should refuse to Admit and Ordain him, albeit they have nothing to object against him, upon Application to the Council or Session, Letters will be direct to Charge the Presbytery, to Admit and Ordain him, but multo magis in this case, where a Minister is Deposed from his Ministry, as likewise from his Benefice, (which is his Livelihood and Maintenance) And yet most unjustly, and without Ground or Reason; The Council is most proper Judge, for Restoring him against the foresaid Oppression, Injury and Unjust Sentence.  
And for a further evidence of this unjust Sentence, it is Humbly desired, that the Lords of Their Majesty's Privy Council will be pleased to take notice, That in the first Lybel there are many Articles which are not Relevant; And it is said, that there is none of them proven, but the Dancing about the Bonfire: And yet the Presbytery by their Sentence, found the Lybel Relevant and Proven, which must be understood as to the hail Articles of the Lybel complexlie, than which there is nothing more false as will appear by the Lybels and Depositions, if they were produced. And yet thereupon Mr Heriot is first suspended be the Presbytery, and referred be them to the General Assembly for further Censure, as if great Immorralities in Life, and Errors in Doctrine, had been proven against him. And the Synod (to which the Assembly remitted him) following the steps of the Presbytery, deposed him. Now when Presbytery and Synod, have acted thus contrary to express Law, and have done open and manifest Unjustice; (and whereof all that heard of it are convinced and sensible) And having stated themselves Parties against him, there can be no Remedy expected from the said Unjustice, Injury, and Oppression, unless the Lords of Their Majesty's Privy Council interpose their Authority.  
If it be alleged, That be the late Act of Parliament, The Act of Supremacy in Church matters is Rescinded; It is Answered, That the Act of Parliament 1669 is Rescinded, which extended the Supremacy, to the Ordering and Disposal of the External Government and Policy of the Church, and to the Enacting of Constitutions, Acts, and Orders in the Church. But the foresaid Act of K: Ja: 6 his 8 Parliament, is not Rescinded, which is only as to the Judging of Ecclesiastic Persons in matters complained upon, And which power is inherent to the Crown, otherways there should be Regnum in Regno; And Church Judicatories should have Arbitrary power, without Redress or Control, as said is.  
In Regard whereof, The Lords of Their MAJESTY'S Privy Council are Judge Competent, to this Injury, unjustice and Oppression; And the Desire of the Petitions ought to be Granted.    

A short Relation of the Presbytery of Dalkeith their procedure in Reference to the Sentencing of Mr. Alexander Heriot and their planting of the Congregation of Dalkeith.  
IT is not to be doubted, but that a late Pamphlet called An Information for Mr. Alexander Heriot (Designed) Minister at Dalkeith, hath spread through a great part of this Kingdom; and it may perhaps be thought strange, that none of the Members either of the Presbytery of Dalkeith, or Synod of Louthian and Tweddale, have appeared to vindicate the Innocency of these Judicatories, and to wipe off the soul Aspersions cast upon them by that defamatory Paper. But the truth is, an Answer to that Paper was prepared about four Months ago, and the Reason why the publication thereof was at that time delayed, was because it was judged convenient to know the mind of the Synod (whose integrity was also questioned and reproached by the Informer) before any Answer to that Paper should be emitted. But the Synod sitting in May last, and judging the Calumnies of that Paper obvious enough, declined to trouble themselves with any review thereof as a thing not worthy of their time: But some of the Synod put it in the hands of a Person, whose acquaintance with the process of Mr. Heriot qualified him to descry the Informers lies thereanent. And again, this Person being diverted with a throng of business, till the Plantation of the Kirk of Dalkeith was near an Issue, it was thought expedient still to forebear the Answer of that Paper, till the Answerer might be able to give a joint view of the process of Mr. Heriot, and of the method taken for the settlement of the Paroch of Dalkeith with a qualifyed Minister: Which being now brought to an happy Period, it seems high time, after so long forbearance, to undeceive all that are willing to know the truth; and to give in the first place a compendious, but distinct account of the Process, and then refel the Informers misrepresentation of the same, only let this be premitted, that the reason why the names of the Witnesses are not expressed, the Reader will find in the Answer to the Information.  
To begin with the Process then, the Reader may remember that the Act of Parliament Restoring Presbyterial Government Authorized the General Meeting of Ministers and Elders to Purge the Church of Ministers that were Insufficient, or Scandalous, etc. Either by themselves or such as they should appoint. Whereupon the General Meeting enjoined Synods and Presbyteries to receive Lybels' against any Incumbent within their respective Bounds, and to call for Assistants from Neighbouring Presbyteries or Synods to concur with them in judging the same: In compliance wherewith, when the Presbytery of Dalkeith received any Information against any of the late Conformists within their Bounds, they did not proceed without the assistance of some from the Presbyteries of Edinburgh and Haddingtoun; and particularly when the Process of Mr. Heriot was led before them, which proceeded thus.  
Upon the 7 th' of August 1690. An Information or Lybel was given to the Presbytery against Mr. Alexander Heriot than Incumbent at Dalkeith, which being judged Relevant, Citation was appointed to be given him to compear against that day eight days; at which day Mr. Alexander Heriot did personally compear, heard his Lybel read, received a double thereof, and was granted a competent time to answer it, viz. till the 28 th' day of the said month of August, unto which day he was summoned apud Acta to compear again and give in his answers. But on that day, the Visitation (consisting of the Presbytery of Dalkeith, and assistance from the Presbyteries of Haddingtoun and Edinburgh) being constitute, and Mr. Heriot Legally called, he did not personally compear; but for him appeared one Mr. James Hamiltoun alleging a Commission from Mr. Alexander Heriot to compear in his name, and desiring to know who were his Accusers, that they might subscribe his Lybel. The Copy of Mr. Hamiltouns Commission or procuratory follows, which the Reader is desired to consider, because that Mr. Heriot in his Information, and in his Appeal from the Synod, calls it an Appeal from the Presbytery, and improves it under this Character.   

The Copy of Mr, Heriots Factory and Declinatour.  
I Mr, Alexander Heriot Minister at Dalkeith, do by their presents nominate and constitute Mr, James Hamiltoun Writer at Edinburgh to be Procurator for me to the effect underwritten, giving and committing to him full power in my name to compear before the Ministers of this Meeting within the Presbytery of Dalkeith, to whom there is a Lybel given in against me, and to crave that the Accusers may be condescended upon and subscribe the Lybel; in regard the Heretors and Parishioners (in whose name it is pretended to be given in) disowns the same, and to protest that before the same be subscribed, it ought not to be respected: and in regard I conceive that these Ministers are not the Presbytery of Dalkeith, and that by the Act of Parliament they have no judicative Power while it be given them by the General Assembly which is to be in October next, therefore to protest and declare that any compearance made herein shall not import an acknowledgement of their pretended Judicatory and Jurisdiction, which I hereby disown and disclaim, but that the said compearance was and is to know the Lybel and Lybellers that I may vindicate myself from the false Calumnies and Accusations therein contained: And upon the hail premises take Instruments in the Hands of an Notar. In witness whereof their presents are subscribed with my own Hand, the twenty eight of August 1690 Years. Heriot  
The Presbytery and assistance having considered this Paper, wherein Mr. Heriot does decline the Presbytery in most contemptible Expressions, thought it not proper to Debate with Mr. James Hamiltoun in Causa, nor yet to admit of any Procuratory, nor of Accusers, or any under that Character to subscribe the Information or Lybel; and also considering that Mr. Heriot did not compear personally as he was obliged, thought fit forthwith to proceed to the leading of Witnesses: for, though the Declinator yielded sufficient ground of Censure, yet to prevent all Clamours, it was thought expedient to try the truth of the Lybel.  
The Officer, having been appointed to cite Witnesses, gave in his Executions, which being read, the Witnesses were called, and all who compeared, after invocating the Name of God, were Sworn and purged of malice and partial Counsel; and being severally examined, the Presbytery and their assistants collated their Depositions, and applying them to the several Articles of the Lybel, they found several Articles duly proven, as follows.  
1. Extravagant Lightness in Dancing about a Bonfire publicly on the street with Pipe and Drum and Drinking an Health upon his Knees.  
For instructing this Article three witnesses, being examined, in their Depositions they concur, That they saw Mr. Alexander Heriot dance about a Bonfire in the public Streets of Dalkeith with Pipe and Drum and drink an Health upon his Knees. What is alleged by the informer against this Article and to invalidate the testimonies of the Witnesses is afterwards considered and answered.  
2. Ordinary and usual profaning of the Lords Table by admitting of Scandalous persons and such as were notourly profane in their Lives: As habitual Drunkards, Swearers and the like, and several instances given hereof.  
To this Article deponed six Witnesses all concurring that Mr. Alexander Heriot admitted to the Lords Table Scandalous persons and two condescend upon the instance of John Dickson, and four, whereof two, are Elders pitched upon Andrew Nivil besides other Scandalous persons named.  
This Article alone, being thus fully proven makes Mr. Heriot deserve the Sentence of Deposition especially because there is an Act of the General Assembly Anno. 1598. Ratified by the Assem. Anno 1638. for deposing such prophaners of the Lords Table.  
3. His debauching the consciences of his Parishioners by pressing and threatening them upon highest pains to take many Oaths contrary to their Light.  
Touching this Article: two Witnesses agreed that upon the Sabbath immediately preceding the day that the Oath of Abjuration was tendered, Mr. Alexander Heriot did threaten all with pain of death that should refuse it. Four concurred in this, that Mr. Heriot pressed his Parishioners to swear several Oaths, whereof one was Sinful and Illegal as the Oath that they should not lift Arms against the King nor any Commissionate by Him, upon any pretext whatsomever. Others were captious, as who and how many had been lodged by them since November preceding, and the like. Others deponed that he threatened them with imprisonment in case they refused to Swear.  
4. His Scandalous and Impudent Railing from the Pulpit upon particular persons of Highest note, as the late Duke of Monmouth, the late East of Argyle, and the Earl of Melvill his Majesty's High Commissioner and Others.  
Seven or Eight Witnesses agree in this, that from the Pulpit in the year Eighty three Mr. Alexander Heriot Railed against Monmouth, Argyle, and Melvil, calling one of them a Bloody Absalon, another Hereditary Traitor, another Rebel and Disturbers of our Israel and other stuff to this purpose.  
5. His rejoicing and showing evidences of cheerfulness at the News of the Defeat of the King's Army at Gillicrankie.  
Three Witnesses being examined concurred in this that Mr. Alexander Heriot, at the News of the Defeat of the King's Forces at Gillicrankie▪ showed signal evidences of his Joy and Satisfaction, and caused give the Reporter thereof a Drink. And shall he that is Glad at Calamities pass unpunished.  
6. That in his seeming Observance of the late public Thanksgiving for the Preservation of their Majesty's Persons and Government, the Defeat of the Irish Army, and discovery of the late Plot he, made no mention of any of them, either in Praying or Preaching, whereby there was plain dissembling with God and Man.  
Three Witnesses having deponed concur in this, that on the late public Thanksgiving, enjoined by Authority Mr. Alexander Heriot did neither by any preliminary Discourse, nor in Sermon or Prayer, make any mention of the Defeat of the Irish Army, the preservation of their Majesty's Persons and Government nor of the discovery of the late Bloody Plot.  
7. His perscuting of Sober People in his paroch for their Presbyterian Principles Four Witnesses agree in this, that by Mr. Aelxander Heriots Instigation and influence upon the Magistrates, some were Fyned and forced to fly the place for Baptising their Children with Presbyterian Ministers.  
8. Negligence of Discipline in the case of gross Scandals. And particularly in the case of Thomas Finlaw and Janet Somervell who lived together as married Persons: Notwithstanding it was notourly known that the said Janets first Husband was alive.  
Three Witnesses concur that William Gardiner, William Sadler, and John Dicksone were guilty of Fornication and yet had from Mr. Alexander Heriot the benefit of a sealing Ordinance without satisfaction previously required. And as to the particular instance above mentioned, four or five Witnesses deponed, that they saw Janet Somervels first Husband after she was Married to Thomas Finlaw. It was also deponed, not only that this was notourly known, but also came to Mr. Heriots' Ears, and one, at least, of his Elders deponed that he knew no diligence done for censuring either of them. The same was declared by the parties themselves.  
There were other two Articles proven in the process which being of lesser weight, for Brevity's sake shall be omitted.  
When the Presbytery and assistants had seriously, and a long time deliberated upon this whole process, that they might not proceed rashly in a matter of moment they delayed to pass any Sentence till another day.  
Upon the twelfth day of September. The Presbytery and assistants did again revise, cognosce and judge upon the whole process, and first they judged Mr. Alexander Heriot upon the account of his declinator and rest of his conduct to be contumacious; and then having deliberately advised the articles of the Lybel with the depositions adduced to instruct the same, they concluded him to be censurable, and therefore did Suspend him from all Ministerial function, and referred him for further Censure to the next enshewing General Assembly, or next Synod of Louthian and Tweddal, if either of these should judge him farther Censurable. And so tender were they of Mr. Alexander Heriot, that notwithstanding of his declinator, yet before sentence passed they called him, and also sent to his House, to hear if he had aught to allege why sentence should not be pronounced: But he did not Compear. And therefore after Sentence an Extract thereof was presently sent to him. And upon the whole I dare appeal to any Person whom prejudice hath not Blinded, whither or not the Presbytery of Dalkeith and Assistants joined with them, have not proceeded upon a relevant Lybel and plenary Probation: And also with that Candour, Singleness, and deliberation, as becomes in a Case of such Weight.  
But to proceed, Mr. Alexander Heriot, being cited, after six free Days to compeare before the General Assembly, and accordingly upon the 3 d, of November, 1690. He compeared and declared he passed from his Declinature and submitted his Case entirely to the General Assembly: Who thereupon did refer the same to the cognition and decision of the Synod of Lothian, and Tweddale, as their Act Dated the said third of Nov●mber bears. Upon _____ the day of December, immediately following Mr. Alexander Heriot being called, compeared before the Synod, and not only before Sentence past, but even before the process was considered, made an appeal from the Synod to the next General Assembly. But notwithstanding thereof, according to the trust committed unto them by the Assembly, the Synod considered and revised the whole process, and pronounced Sentence of Deposition against Mr. Alexander Heriot, and appointed one of the Members of the Presbytery of Dalketth, to intimate the said Sentence the next Lord's day, and to declare the Church of Dalkeith Vacant.  
After this the Presbytery of Dalkeith finding the Church of Dalkeith Vacant; in order to the legal settlement thereof, proceeded to the Election of a Session after this manner. They appointed one of their own number to Preach there upon a Lord's day, and after the Sermon publicly to desire the Heritors and heads of Families to meet upon a convenient day (which was also specially condescended upon) to make a list of Persons fit to be Elders and Deacons in that Paroch. Which list being brought to the Presbytery and the Persons Nominate being tried, an edict for them was publicly served in the Church of Dalkeith, and being returned to the Presbytery, no objection was alleged against any Person named in the list, only a Protestation was made in behalf of Mr, Alexander Heriot, against the Election of any Eldership there, upon pretence of his standing Relation to that Congregation. But the ground of that Protestation being null, the Presbytery did forthwith appoint one of their number upon a Lord's day following, to preach in the Church of Dalkeith, and with the usual Solemnities to ordain the Persons named in the List, to be Elders and Deacons there: Which was accordingly done upon the Eight of February, of this present year of God, 1691.  
This (it seems) did alarm Mr, Alexander Heriot: For shortly after some Person (I shall not say, ex foece Populi: But who seems to be neither Divine nor Lawyer) hath had the imprudence, or rather the impudence, to cause Print Reasons of Mr. Heriots appeal from the Synod and some Notes in Relation to the Presbyteries procedure against him, whereby his case is most grossly misrepresented: Yet thereupon does he Petition their Majesty's privy Council, as the Judges competent, to repone him to the exercise of his Ministry and to interpose their Authority in discharging to call any Minister to the Church of Dalkeith. But the Right Honourable the Lords of their Majesty's Privy Council, knowing their duty better than Mr. Heriot, or his Advocates can inform them. And considering the extent of the power belonging to the civil Magistrate in such cases, did by their Act dated the 17. day of March, 1691, (contrary to Mr, Heriots' expectation) only recommend to the Presbytery of Dalkeith, Synod of Lothian and next General Assembly respective, before whom the process and Sentence of deposition was led and pronounced against the said Mr. Heriot, to revise and reconsider the same, and to do all Justice thereupon to him according to Law. And to have due regard, how, and in what manner the Church of Dalkeith, should be legally provided of a Minister.  
Now Mr. Heriot, having miss the mark he aimed at by this arrow dipped in Poison, and resolving to trample upon all Government Civil and Ecclesiastic, not only continues to dwell still in the manss whereto now he hath no real right, but in the height of contempt, hath therein erected a meetinghouse, where he exercises all parts of the Ministerial function, to the great disturbance, not only of the Town of Dalkeith, but also of the whole Country round about.  
Conform unto the Interloquitor of the Privy Council, and in compliance therewith, the Synod of Lothian and Tweddale, in the beginning of May, did again diligently peruse the whole process of Mr. Alexander Heriot, reconsidered the Probation. And having revised the same publicly, found no ground to make any alteration in the former Sentence, but did by an unanimous Vote, adhere to and ratify the same; and appointed a Minister of their number to intimate their adherence to, and ratification of it, in the Pulpit of Dalkeith. And appointed the Presbytery of Dalkeith, to have special regard to the Paroch of Dalkeith, and to plant the same with their first Conveniency.  
Upon the eight of June a Gentleman presented to the Presbytery a Letter from my Lord Raith. dated at Mommeal 30. May 1691. And directed to the Moderator of the Presbytery, to be communicated to the Presbytery, and parochin of Dalkeith, bearing that the Duchess of Buccleuch (since the Church of Dalkeith is Vacant) recommends Mr. William Mein to be Minister of Dalkeith, and gives her Grace's consent to him to be admitted there. Herewith joined an Elder of Dalkeith, showing that the Session there inclined to choose Mr. William Mein for their Minister; whereupon the Presbytery appointed one of their number to go to Dalkeith, and after due intimation given to the Heretours and Elders to meet upon a convenient day, to meet with them and according to order to preside in the Election, and Call, of a Minister. At the next Diet of the Presbytery, the Brother reported that according to appointment he had seen the plurality of the Heretours and all the Elders of the Parish of Dalkeith subscribe a Call to Mr William Mien. And withal that some of the Heretores and others came in, and Subscribed a Paper which they said was a Call to Mr. James Lundie Minister at North-Leith to be their Minister, in the mean time protesting that it was without prejudice to Mr. Alexander Heriot his Right, which protestation made him conclude that they were not in earnest, and therefore to take no notice of what they did. After this report appeared two of the Ruling Elders of the Parish of Dalkeith, with a full Commission presenting a Call to Mr. William Mein subscribed, attested, and duly endorsed upon the back, and supplicating the Presbytery to prosecute the said Call with all expedition. Appeared also two Gentlemen or three, from the Parish of Dalkeith with some Papers, alleging they had a Call to Mr. Lundie. But being demanded if they had any Commission, plainly answered they had none, Wherefore the Presbytery finding that they pretended to represent a Community, and yet had no Commission to negotiate in their name, thought it not fit to enter upon the cause with them. And therefore finding no competition in this pretended Call, judged themselves obliged to prosecute the Call given to Mr. William Mein. And to that effect appointed two or three of their number, with some of the Session of Dalkeith to go, and in their name, and in name of the said Session, to tender the Call to the said Mr. William Mein, and one of them to Preach and serve Mr. Meins' edict at the Kirk of Dalkeith next Sabbath, being the 21. of June. When the execution of the Edict was returned. There appeared two or three Persons and gave in objections against Mr. Mein his being Minister of Dalkeith: appeared also one Mungo Strachan, and in Mr. Heriots name protested against both the Calls given to Mr. Mein, and Mr. Lundie; when the Presbytery had duly considered the objections they answered them as follows.   

OBJECTIONS, by the Heretors and Elders of Dalkeith, against the Call given to Mr. William Mein, to be Minister at Dalkeith, and protestation, and appeal thereupon.  
FIrst the said Call is null, because it is given by some Persons as Elders, and Deacons, who are neither Elders nor Deacons, for the Kirk-Session was not dissolved by the pretended Deposition of Mr. Alexander Heriot the Minister. But the said Session stands and continues while a Minister be settled in the Kirk, and until the Minister and Session choice a new one; and as there was no settled Minister at this pretended Election, so there was none of the Session thereat, but two Persons, and the rest of the Electors were for the most part of the meanest of the People.  
2. Although the Session had been Lawfully Elected and constitute as it is not, yet the Call, is null: in so for as it is given by Deacons, for by the Act of Parliament the Righe and privilege of calling of Ministers is given to Heretors and Elders, and not to Deacons.  
3. No respect can be had to the said Call, in so far as it proceeds from many Persons, who are neither Heretors nor Elders. For 1st. Although the Act of Parliament require the approbation of the Parochiners to the Call given by the Heretors and Elders, yet it does not give to the Parishiners a Right and Privilege of Calling. But in case of the Parishiners their not approbation of the Call given by the Heretors and Elders, In that case the Heretors and Elders, are to call another Preson, so that this Call: In so fare as it is given by Parochiners it is not to be respected, 2dly, The said Call and Approbation thereof is null, in so far at it is given by Tutors and Curators of Minors, at least by Curators without the Minors, whom they could only Authorise therein, or by Persons as Tutors and Curators, who have not accepted these Offices upon them, or by Servants, or hy Women, because that by the Act of Parliament, as none of those Persons has the Right and Privilege to call a Minister; So it requires not their Approbation to the said Call.  
4, And as the forsaid Call given to Mr. Mein. is a Null Call for the reasons forsaids, so likewise it cannot be admitted in competition with the Call given to Mr. James Lundie Minister at North-Leith for the Reasons following.  
1, Because the call given to Mr. Lundie is by the far greatest and best part of the Heretors and Elders, and which is likewise approven by the far greatest and best part of the rest of the Householders, to which likewise the approbation of the far greatest number of the Servants and Women in the Paroch can be had, if it were necessary whereas the call given to Mr. Mien is by very few of the Heretors and Elders and few of those of any consideration, and by the other persons foresaids why are likewise in a mean condition, and has not the right and privilege to Call. 2. Mr, Lundie, was formerly Minister at Dalkeith, a Person above all exception, and eminent in Learning, Ability in Preaching, Piety, Charity and in diligence in all the parts of the Ministerial Function, and of singular and exemplar Life and Conversation, whom the Heretor, Elders, and Parishioners of Dalkeith know, and by whom they have been greatly edified, whereas Mr. Mein. Is not known to them, and is of meaner Gifts and Abilities and who was rejected and refused by other obscure Parishes, And by whom they cannot be edified, so that be ought not to be imposed and intruded upon them, which will Infalliblly prove as incomfortable to him, as troublesome to them.  
And therefore the Heretors and Elders, who has called, Mr. Lundie protests as formerly against the foresaid unlawful Call, given to the said Mr. William Mein, and against the Presbyteries proceedings upon the said Call and appeals as formerly from the Presbytery to the next Synod and to their Majesties, and Lords of their Majesty's Privy Council for justice and relief therein in the mean time.  
To the first it was Answered that the Presbytery is satisfied as to the Legality of the Election of the Eldership, and that they own no Eldership there, but that which was erected by them. And that because the Act of Parliament restoring Presbytery, did put the Government in their hands, and such as should be raceived by them, and that there is no need of of a settled Minister in order to the Election of an Eldership.  
To the second it was answered that the subscriptions of Deacons is only cumulative, and ex abundantia, they subscribing only as Consenters, Albeit the calling of a Minister be lodged in the Heretors and Elders, yet no Law inhibits other parishioners to testify their approbation of the thing by their manual subscriptions to the Call.  
To the 3, which hath two Branches, it was answered and 1st To the first Branch as was above answered to the 2 d Objection Moreover it were no sollecism tho' all the heads of Families within the Parish had subscribed. 2. To the other Branch, it were tedious and would prove unnecesary to canvas every individual subscription, but the Presbytery has done nothing in this case, but what the Law allows and is commonly practised.  
To the 4 th' wherein a competition is alleged to be between the Call given to Mr. William Mein and another given to Mr. James Lundie, it's answered there is no such competition, there being no Legal Call at all to Mr. Lundie, as appears from what is above mentioned. And it may be thought Strange why Gentlemen who (its hoped) do value both their own, and Mr. Lundie's credit do borrow his name to a mock Call, and urge it in a matter so serious and weighty: For whatever Strangers not knowing the case may be made to believe: Yet the Presbytery of Dalkeith know That the very Gentlemen that presented this alleged Call, did before them judicially confess that there only design was but to prevent the jus Devolutionis. But to come to the Reasons alleging Mr. Lundie's Call to be preferable to the other. 1. To the first it's answered, that all the Elders subscribe Mr. Meins Call, and none Mr. Lundie's, and that the Presbytery understands Mr. Meins Call to be subscribed by the most considerable part of the Heretours, especially the Duchess of Buccleuch, who is the chief Heretour, having given consent to it by her Grace's Honourable Commissioners. To the 2 d. It's answered 1. That whatever relation Mr. Lundie might have had to the Parish of Dalkeith formerly, yet he hath none at present. 2. That tho' the Presbytery thinks it not fit to compare Mr. Meins, and Mr. Lundie's Gifts or other endowments together, nor yet to flater the one and derogat from the other: Yet they are satisfied with the Ministerial qualifications of Mr. William Mein, as also with his practice, Conversation, and fitness for the Parish of Dalkeith. And the Presbytery makes no question, but through the Blessing of God upon his Labours he may prove an useful Instrument in that Corner of our Lord's Vinyeard. 3. It's a most calumnious untruth that ever Mr. William Mein was refused or rejected by any Parish, whether famous or obscure. Whoso are acquaint with him know that he is of another Spirit than to thrust Himself upon a People that are not sueing for Him. Neither is the Presbytery resolved to intrude him upon the Parish of Dalkeith, but fairly to settle him there, upon a Legal Call from the plurality of the Heretours and all the Elders. And as no faithful Minister of Christ can warrantably expect immunity from troubles, So its hoped God shall support Mr. Mein under what he may meet with.  
The Presbytery having considered the Objections and found them by the Answers given to be non relevant and laying no weight on them, nor upon the protestation founded thereon, did without farther Demur judicially tender the Call to Mr. William Mein, and upon his modest Submission, appointed the day whereon he might be addmitted. And accordingly upon the Seventh of July 1691. After a Sermon Preached with Reference to the occasion, Mr. William Mein was admitted Minister of the Gospel at Dalkeith, in the Kirk of Dalkeith, The Presbytery having given him the Right hand of Fellowship, and the Heretours and Elders having received him as their Minister.  
It's true the two Persons above mentioned, and Mungo Strachan appeared upon this occasion also, and renewed their respective protestations, but the Presbytery having answered them formerly, proceeded now notwithstanding thereof.   

An Answer to Mr. Heriots Information.  
NOw for Answer to the Paper called Information for Mr. Alexander Heriot, wherein his Case and Cause is grossly misrepresented, we say, with the wise man, He that is first in his own Cause seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him, and then there is a further discovery of Truth and Equity: and therefore although it would be both needless and nauseous to give a particular and distinct Answer to every thing in that Printed Information, yet for satisfaction of some that may be ignorant, or misinformed, and so puzzled with many positive Assertions of great untruths, lies and calumnies therein contained, it is thought fit at present to remark these few things following in order, according to the Method of the foresaid Information.  
1. He calls the Synod of the three Louthians and Tweddale the Synod of Mid-Louthian only: Whereby in the very entry and Tittle of his Paper, he betrays no small ignorance of the constitution and extent of the Judicatory from which he did appeal. It would seem that he is not well acquaint even with Names and Things, that he might easily have known long ago, and are of his concernment, to know. But this is a mistake of so small consequence, that it would not have been worth the while to take any notice thereof, were it not for the presage of it. Coespitare in limine mali ominis est.  
2. In his Information itself then, one of the first things remarkable is the account he gives of the Presbytery of Dalkeith's procedure against him: wherein among other things he saith that the Presbytery of Dalkeith refused to conscend upon an Accuser or Pursuer, or to allow any under that Character to subscribe the Lybel given against him. To which it is Answered. 1. That he Called for no Accusers when he compeared personally before the Presbytery. 2. How consonant soever such methods of producing Accusers, may be to processes before Civil Courts (where also in several cases it is not required) yet the said Presbytery did, and still do judge that the formal appearing of Accusers as such in ordinary cases of Scandal, to be some way unbeseeming Church-Judicatories, who are called out of zoea to the Glory of Christ, to inquire into the Scandals that fall out, within the bounds of their inspection, even although their should be no Complainer, as is manifest, Rev. 2. Whereas admitting of Accusers commonly tends not to edification (the only end of Church Censures, 2 Cor. 13.10,) But to the begetting and cherishing bitigious debates, rancour and malice: As hath been too manifest in some late cases. 3. The Presbytery of Dalkeith have for their Vindication herein, both the ancient and usual practice of the Judicatories of this Church, and the sentiments of our worthy Predecessors: Witness Ames de conseten. Lib. 5 Cap. 54. Queen 4. And Mr. Durham in his Treatise Of Scandal, part, 2. Chap. 10. Yet 4. notwithstanding of what was said, there were two or three persons ready to have subscribed his Lybel, and to have appeared as his Accusers, if need had been: But Mr. Heriot pretended this by his withdrawing, and obstinate declining of the Presbytery, and refusing to appear before them: So that they could not produce his Accusers before him, when he would not himself compear before them, so that his clamour about this, is groundless and unjust.  
3. He saith that the Heretours and Parishioners of Dalkeith, did by a write under their hands disclaim and disown the Lybel, except Alexander Calderwood, and a few others ex faece populi. Ans. 1. It is a notorious falsehood. For Mr. Heriots' party gave no such writing under their hands to the Presbytery. 2 Though it were true, yet it makes nothing for his Vindication, nor against the truth of the Lybel given in against him, which he knows may be true, and well proven by plenty of Witnesses; although as many thousands as single Persons had disowned it. Yet for further clearing of this particular, let it be considered, 1. That Mr. Mark Lermont with a confused Rabble following him appeared, and by word of mouth disowned the Lybel: Which showed little either prudence or Piety, whither the said Lybel were true or false: For (besides that they knew not how it would be proven) if it were true, than their disowning it, kithed little respect to their own spiritual thriving: But if false, than they ought rather to have furnished Mr. Heriot with means to disprove it. Yet to do them Justice, they appeared not with Mr. Heriot, but a fortnight after, they rushed in before the Presbytery when Mr. James Hamiltoun presented Mr. Heriots' Declinature, And as they disowned the Lybel, so they disowned the Declinature. 2. I know no Heretors that appeared to disown that Lybel except Mr. Mark Lermont be counted one before his Father's Death. 3. The Parishioners who compeared were but a small part of the Parish, and these also dissaffected to the Government Civil and Ecclesiastic; and some of them Drunk, Tumultuous and Outrageous: So that Mr. Heriot has more cause to be ashamed, then to boast of their appearance and Testimony for him; for commonly persons of that sort give their Testimony to such as themselves. 4. Their disowning the Lybel before it was put to probation and trial, could not signify more, than either that they had no hand in giving it in, which may be true enough; or that they were not willing that Mr. Heriot should be called in question for any misdemeanours whatsoever, and how far this may conduce for Mr Heriots' Vindication, who can tell? 5. He alleges that only Alexander Calderwood and a few others owned it, and afterwards that Alexander Calderwood was the only Informer, thereby excluding these others seemingly: Which as it is both false and not coherent in its self; so if it were true, it would make nothing for him: For if an Information or Lybel against a man be found relevant and true, the paucity of these that own it, ought not to hinder the guilty and Scandalous sinner from meeting with deserved Censure. He alleges that the Presbytery had no other Informer against him, but only Alexander Calderwood. But though this had been true (as it is not) yet had the Presbytery been obliged to receive a complaint from him alone, and to put the same to Trial: For if no complaint against a Minister could be admitted, except the plurality of his Parish did prosecute the same, the Church would quickly be pestered with unfaithful Teachers; because the Gospel affords much Ground to believe, that the wicked and unsound Professors will in number always exceed the truly Godly: So that if a corrupt Pastor should get the corrupt part of his Parish (which will easily be found the greatest) to befriend him, than there would be no access to censure him: And how absurd, and of what bad consequence this would be, is obvious to any judicious Christian to consider· Besides, it may here be remembered that Mr. Heriot is of another Judgement than the Apostle Paul about this Question; for the Apostle 1. Tim. 5 19 Requires but two or three Witnesses in order to the receiving an accusation against an Elder: But Mr. Heriot requires the plurality of the Parish in order to it; and quarrels with the Presbytery of Dalkeith for receiving an Accusation against him from a few, as he alleges. 6. Whereas he would make the World believe that the Heretors and Parishioners are very unanimously for him; let it be considered, that the Chief Heretor is not concerned, and that the Chief of the Heretors he boasts of, has but a smally early rend in the Parish, besides his dwelling house; and the rest of his Heretours are yet more inconsiderable that way. 7. He saith, that these others who appeared against him, were ex foece populi: Why? Because perhaps they are generally of the poorer sort: Which though it were true, is no better help to his Cause, than to bewray in him a profane Spirit, of the same stamp with these who counted the Apostles of Christ (because poor unlearned Men) to be the Filth of the World, and the offscouring of all things 1. Cor 4.13. And it seems he has not well read, nor understood, jam. 2, 4.5. Besides it is well known, that not a few of these he speaks so contemptibly and basely of, yet for their temporal interest may vie with Mr. Heriots Heretors: and for their sense of Religion, Fear of God, and morality of Life, are very far above his flos populi; So that if it were known to the World, who they are whom Mr Heriot calls the dregs and off-scouring of the People, and who they are whom he reckons the choice of the People, it would be evident what complexion of Spirit he is of: And is it not a great pity and loss to the Church, that such a Minister as counts and calls the serious Praying Folks in his Parish, the dregs of his People, should yet be suspended by a Presbytery, and deposed by a Synod? Hinc ille Lachrymae. Finally, if Mr. Heriots memory had not been wilfully bad, he might easily have remembered that these of whom he here speaks so slightingly for their external meanness, did yet in his own time and under his view, for the space of three years maintain a Minister and a Precenter, by their own voluntary Liberality: And therefore they cannot be such a contemptible company, as Mr. Heriot represents them to be.  
4. He saith that when Alexander Calderwood was charged with inventing and reporting most false calumnies against him, he replied, Be they true or false, I have taken two hundred Persons from his Communion. To this imputation Alexander Calderwood Answers, that it is most calumnious, and that Mr. Heriot can never prove it. Nor do I see how the foisting in of this Story among his weak defences, serves for any other purpose, than to tell the World that Mr. Heriot is a man that loves to tell an ill Tale (true or false) of any that bear the name of Presbyterian, even though it be nothing to his present purpose.  
5. Another thing affirmed by Mr. Heriot is that he did except against Alexander Calderwood as a party, and yet he was permitted to sit in the quality of an Elder, as one of his Judges in the Presbytery; Ans. This is like the rest of his Calumnies: For, 1. Neither did Mr. Heriot at his own personal compearance, nor afterward in his Declinature, make any exception against Alexander Calderwood: Though indeed Mr. Hamiltoun afterwards did require the Presbytery to remove Alexander Calderwood. 2. It is not true that the Presbytery did allow him either to debate or vote in Mr. Heriots' Case; though they sustained him indeed as a Ruling Elder to judge in other cases: And they yet know no Reason why he ought to have been removed; and so hindered from giving his advice and assistance in other cases and causes: Had the Presbytery no other cause in hand but Mr. Heriots? And must Mr. Calderwoods' Legal showing his dissatisfaction with Mr. Heriots Scandalous carriage, render him uncapable of sitting in the Presbytery. 3. When Mr. Hamiltoun, Mr. Heriots Procurator desired that Alexander Calderwood should be removed, it was refused by the Presbytery, not because he was sustained Judge in this case, but because (as the Presbytery then expressly told Mr. Hamiltoun) that seeing Mr. Heriot had declined them, they could not debate with him in Causa.  
6. Another falsehood in Mr. Heriots narrative, is, that Alexander Calderwood informed, tampered with, and threatened some of the Witnesses▪ Ans It is sure that before the Presbytery there appeared not the least shadow of any such thing. And it may be remarked here, that though before the Synod, Mr. Heriot said that Alexander Calderwood suborned the Witnesses; yet now in his Printed Paper, he altars and mitigates his Style (having some wit in his anger) and forbears the word suborning, lest he should be made to answer for it before a Criminal Judge: Therefore he now speaks more softly, though still falsely.  
7. The great Accuser of the Brethren himself could invent nothing more maliciously false than what he alleges against the Presbytery in their Examination of the Witnesses: For greater Candour could scarce have been than what was used therein. None of the Witnesses were refused or hindered to see or read their Depositions: Yea, none were suffered to subscribe their Depositions, till they heard them distinctly Read, and were asked again calmly, if they had freedom to subscribe the same: None were interrupted, but when through simplicity or worse, they spoke besides the purpose: And it was necessary to put them to Categorick Answers to the Interogatories proposed, and not to suffer them to speak nonsense or impertinencies: and its impossible that any Court can either maintain their Authority, or expede their business, if all who come before them be permitted to utter what ever they list. There was not the least appearance of over-awing any, except by the Oath of God, which they were under; which was especially inculcated when they refused to depone and Answer, as some did: And one of the Witnesses did, according to the Discretion he had, desire eight days time to advise, whether he should subscribe what he had Deponed upon his Oath, or not. So that Mr. Heriots account of the Examination of the Witnesses is wholly false, and maliciously injurious.  
8. Mr. Heriot says that there are several Articles of the Lybel, which are not upon these heads to which the Trial of the Regular Clergy (as he Irregularly and Popishly Styles his Prelatic Brethren) is restricted by Act of Parliament, and which are in themselves alterius fori. Ans. This also is false: For whoso shall read Mr. Heriots' Lybel, shall not find one Article in it, that is not easily reducible, either to Scandal or negligence, and therefore to the heads whereupon the trial of the late Conformists is (according to the Act of Parliament) to proceed: And though some of these things libelled may be found in some respects to be alterius fori, yet it doth not therefore follow that Ecclesiastical Courts may not meddle with these things at all. I confess, his disaffectedness to their Majesty's Government, deserves a chastisement from Civil Courts; yet in as much as it vented itself even in the exercise of his Ministerial function, it was the more Scandalous, and the ground of a Church-censure: And it is well known that one and the same miscarriage may be judged both by Civil and Ecclesiastic Courts, and yet both of them keep within their own proper and distinct sphere: but Mr. Heriot will not know the distinction of these Courts, but fain would confound and embroil all; as appears both by his insolent practice, and by the close of his Information, as we may afterwards see.  
9 He complains of an additional Lybel, and that he got no citation to Answer to it, nor Copy of it, and exclaims wickedly against the Presbytery for this and their procedure thereupon, and in the bitterness of his Spirit dictates to the World his Censure of it in these Words, than all which (saith he) there can be nothing in Judicial procedures, more partial; pernicious and unjust. Ans Herein he shows more ignorance and malice than either wit or honesty: And if he would be sober and calmly compose himself to hear truth and reason, I would tell him that he was still under citation to the Presbytery, till he declined them: and after that, to what purpose should he have been cited to appear before them whose Authority he had simply declined. Besides he may know (if he please) that there was no Addition made to the Lybel after that Diet of the Presbytery unto which he was cited apud Acta by the Moderator in face of the Presbytery: And if he had appeared at that Diet to which he was cited, he had got the Copy of that Additional Lybel (as well as he got of the former) and time also to prepare and give in his Answers to it: So that he has no reason to complain of the want of a Copy of any Addition that then was made: for he would no more bear from, nor meddle with the Presbytery, but declined them before they did any thing in his affair that he could or did complain of; as appears by the Declinature itself.  
10. He saith with an admirable either ignorance or impudence, that he appealed from the Presbytery to the General Assembly. Doubtless the man's own Conscience cannot but tell him, that there was not the least hint of any such thing. There was indeed a pretended Factory to one Mr. James Hamiltoun presented to the Presbytery (a true Copy whereof is herewith Printed supra in the Narrative) which bears a Declinature of the Presbyteries Jurisdiction, but not the least show of an Appeal: So that both malice and weakness appear in his thus making lies his refuge. In this his Declinature he would not so much as call them the Presbytery, but in contempt the Ministers met at Dalkeith, and disclaimed their Authority as incompetent Judges of him (forsooth) yea expressly denies them to be the Presbytery of Dalkeith: And thus he did stubbornly and proudly trample upon both the constitution and Government of this Church, and also the Civil Authority of King and Parliament establishing it: And for this his Contumacy, the Presbytery might well have forthwith deposed him, and that by Law, and according to their duty; but to evite the show or appearance and Clamours of Rigidity, they proceeded to the process. It may also here be observed that in this his declinature, he declines the Ministers he should have added, and Elders, if his memory had been good) as no Presbytery, and that because they could have no Power to Act as a Presbytery till they received it from the General Assembly: Which is such a piece of Nonsense as needs no confutation: For who knows not that Presbyteries are established by the Law, and General Assemblies made up of Delegates from them? Besides that by this sort of rare reasoning, Mr Heriot betrays both Ignorance and infidelity in the Protestant Doctrine about the Jus Divinum of Church Government, and the intrinsic power of Ministers and Elders; as the judicious Reader will easily perceive at the first hearing of his Argument. And after all this and much more of arrogant, stubborn, and obstinate carriage towards the Presbytery, was it any wonder that the Presbytery declared him contumacious? had they not great and Just cause so to do? Could they do less? Nay let the most bigot Prelatists, upon a supposition of the Presbyteries Authority, but consider Mr. Alexander Heriots conduct towards them, and if he be a Person of any Ingenuity and Candour we might refer this unto his Determination, whether or not the Presbytery had reason to declare the said Mr. Alexander contumacious? Was he not evidently, and eminently such? And doth he not still continue and show himself more and more such, even to the Superlative degree? Has he not Treated the Synod as Insolently in his Language as the Presbytery, as appears from his printed Information? doth he not appear to be a scornful and Stout hearted Person, that is far from righteousness? Doth he not utter vain knowledge, and fill his Belly with the East Wind?  
11. But this vain man proceeds to lie also upon the late General Assembly, and boldly saith, that they found no contumacy in his Appeal. But for Answ. 1. Doth he not know that there was no such thing as an Appeal of his from the Presbytery to the General Assembly, and that his appearing before the Assembly was upon the Summons raised at the Instance of the Presbytery of Dalkeith, to which Assembly they had referred him? Hath he forgot that he appeared not there to prosecute any appeal (which never was) but to answer the Summons? 2. If there had been any such thing as an appeal of his from the Presbytery to the General Assembly, yet it would have been Illegal and Unformal, and also unjust and unreasonable, because of these Rules of the Cannon Laws. 1. Appellaridebet ab Inferiore Judi●● gradatim (non per Saltum) ad Superiorem. 2. Prohibetur Appellatio. 1. A regularis Disciplinae correctione. 2. A gravamine futuro. 3. He speaks as if the Assembly had cognosced upon the Cause: whereas it is well known that the Assembly did not at all enter upon the Cause, but leaving it intacta & integra, referred it to the Synod of Louthian and Tweddale, giving them full power to determine therein as they should find meet. 4. Is it not pleasant here to remember that Mr. Heriot when before the General Assembly called his Paper (which he sent in to the Presbytery) his Declinature, and passed from it; yet now in this Information be again and again calls it an Appeal, and owns and pleads it as such, in his plea against the Presbytery and Synods? How shall we understand these contradictions? Must he, to save others the labour of it, give himself the lie? It would seem that Mr. Heriot has had some more ingenuity before the General Assembly, than he has elsewhere and at other times, for that Paper was indeed only a Declinature, and he then gave it its true name: neither could he have passed from an Appeal (if any such thing had been,) for his so doing would have imported his approbation of the Presbyteries procedure in his affair, and even his passing from his Declinature imported little less. However he should have remembered the known Proverb, that a Liar has need of a good Memory.  
12. He injuriously and falsely alleges that the Presbytery founded his contumacy upon his Appeal from them: For it's referred to his own Conscience, 1. If ever he appeared before the said Presbytery but once? 2. If he offered directly or indirectly to make any Appeal from the Presbytery at his then compearance? 3. If he did not in his Declinature afterwards retract his first and only compearance, expressly denying that it imported any acknowledgement of, or submission unto the Presbyteries Authority and Jurisdiction? 4. If any commissionated by him appeared before them (while his Process was in Dependence) except once the forementioned Mr. James Hamiltoun. 5. If the said Mr. Hamiltoun did in his name make any Appeal▪  
But to undeceive the World, be it known that Mr. Heriots being declared Contumacious, was founded, 1. Upon his declining of the Presbytery and Jurisdiction thereof, plainly affirming them not to be the Presbytery of Dalkeith, 2. Upon his obstinate refusing to compear before the Presbytery of Dalkeith and their Assistants from the adjacent Presbyteries, Authorized by the General Meeting of the Ministers and Elders of this Church, conform to the Act of Parliament, to try Incumbents: For though he appeared once, yet did he pass from the same in his above mentioned Declinature. In both which there was manifest contempt not only of the Ecclesiastic Government, but also of the Civil, Establishing the Ecclesiastic; and consequently a valide ground whereupon to declare him Contumacious. It is true, Mr. Heriot did (with more cunning subtlety then conscientious ingenuity) before the General Assembly pass from his foresaid Declinature, (and consequently from his pretended and falsely alleged Appeal to the Assembly: for he had done nothing else that he could call his Appeal: and even this his slight sort of seeming repentance contributs more than he is aware of, to justify the Presbyteries having formerly declared him contumanious: For upon the matter, he hereby, before the General Assembly declared himself to have been contumacious, and recanted it: though now again he denies his contumacy, and so recants his recantation, and Reputes of his Repentance; and that even while he is going on in a greater contumacy against the Synod.  
13. But let us behold yet more of the impudence of this man: he knows and in part acknowledges that the General Assembly referred his Case and Cause untouched unto the Synod of Louthian and Tweddale; whereby the said Synod had the Assemblies full Power, quoad hunc effectum committed unto them, to cognosce upon and determine in his Cause: yet with abundance of confidence, and contrary to all reason and order of Judicatories, this man appeals back again from the laid Synod unto the next Lawful General Assembly: and this also he does, before he did or could understand what would be the Synods Judgement of his Process, even as he served the Presbytery with his Declinature: the man is so very quick and foresighty by the help of a guilty Conscience. Perhaps he thinks that his qualifying the next Assembly with the word (Lawful) gives him a reserve not to discuss his Appeal before an Assembly constituted according to the present Establishment, but framed after his own corrupted judgement▪ however, I shall not easily be persuaded that the man who so irregularly and irrationally counter Acts and Rebels against the renewed Sentences of the Inferior Judicatories, has any purpose to appear and plead such a desperate Cause before the Supreme Judicatory of this Church: yet I deny not, but Mr. Heriot is a very bold man, and may venture upon great and hard matters, of this kind. I must here also crave leave to tell him, that by this his Appealing from the Synod, he has transgressed against several Texts, of his and his brethren's dearly beloved Canon Law. ex. gr. 1. Se Delegans carius Causae Jurisdictionem subdelegato mandato mandaverit, in hoc. Casu, 'em ipse nihil Jurisdictionis sibi referuârit, non ad cum; sed eius Superiorem facienda provocatio. 2. Apellare non potest, qui condemnatus est ob contumaciam veram and others of the same kind may be added.  
14 Now let us consider the Reasons he gives of this his Irregular Appeal from the Synod. The first is that the Petition of the Heretors and People of Dalkeith (attesting his faithfulness in the Ministry and his innocency as to the things libeled against him, and craving that the depositions of the Witnesses might be made patent) was not suffered to be read in the Synod. Ans. The Synod were Authorized by the General Assembly only to review the Process led against Mr. Heriot before the Presbytery of Dalkeith; and not to enter upon any new Process, or upon Petitions extrinsic to that process: Wherefore also when some of the Parishioners of Dalkeith offered a new Additional Lybel against Mr. Heriot, the Synod refused to take notice of it; so that the Synod gave equal measure both to his party and to his opposites. 2. It was utterly impertinent for Mr. Heriots party, instead of a Petition, to offer to the Synod an attestation of his Innocency; and the Synod acted rationally in slighting such insignificant Testimonials; for there is no guilty person sifted before any judge, who could not procure a company of his own stamp to attest his honesty, and petition for him, if that could avail to hinder the Judges cognoscing upon the Cause, and passing Sentence upon clear evidence: neither would Mr. Heriot (I suppose) have used this unwarry and supitious way of vindicating himself, if he had remembered the old Scots Proverb about such Cases 3. Something of an Answer to this his first Reason may easily be gathered from what is formerly said about some men's verbal Testimony for Mr. Heriot and disowning of his Lybel before the Presbytery. Supra. §. Of this Answer to the Information. 4. If this Petition he lays so much weight upon, were worth the enquiring after, I suppose sufficient evidences would be found of its being first drawn up betwixt Mr. Heriot and his Associates, and then subscriptions gathered through the Town of Dalkeith, and even from some persons very young. 5. The Subscribers of the pretended Petition could attest nothing but according to their own knowledge or Judgement (which in some of them at least was not very considerable) and if others of the Parrishiners were conscious of Mr. Heriots' unfaithfulness, it were hard for the former to attest the Negative. All which make it evident that his first Reason of Appeal from the Synod hath no weight, nor relevancy in it, but Savours of a bad Cause.  
15. His 2 d Reason of Appeal is because when he craved a Copy of the Additional Lybel, and that the Depositions of the Witnesses might be read before him and made patent to him, yet this was refused by the Synod: and hereupon he huffs and exclaimes, and tells us by guess that this was contrary to Law, and undoubtedly (saith this Dictator) for this Reason, because the probation was weak, and might not abide the light nor Trial; for Veritas non querit angulos. Ans. 1. This is an untruth, for the Synod told him that when they entered upon the Cause, he would be allowed to hear the whole Process and Depositions of the Witnesses, if he would stay: yet he would not stay, but withdrew immediately after he heard his Lybel read. And it is a hard thing for the Synod to read Depositions before any man who withdraws designedly (as it seems Mr. Heriot did) that he may have a lie to spread. For that the Depositions of the Witnesses were read in open Synod, a multitude of Witnesses can testify: if he declined to hear them, who can help that? But from some men we may expect any thing except Candour. 2. As for his want of a Copy of the Additional Lybel, he has himself only to blame, who by his declining of the Presbytery prevented that: for the Presbytery would not have refused him that, nor any other thing reasonable, if he had pleaded in Causâ before them: but his deserting the Cause by his Declinature laid no obligation upon the Presbytery to desert and decline themselves, and court him after his having renounced them: upon which considerations the Synod could lay no weight upon his complaint of want of a sight or Copy of the Addition to his Lybel. 3. As for the Act of Parliament for making depositions of Witnesses patent, which he citys both in this and in the former Reason of his Appeal, it is answered, 1. That this Act pertains only to Civil Courts. 2. Whatever that Act of Parliament calls for, it must be understood to be called for, when the Process is first led, and not at any time (even after Sentence is passed) that the accused shall please: otherwise there would be a door opened to protract the sitting of Judicatories as long as any party accused shall think fit. Now it is notourly known to Mr. Heriot and his Friends, that his Process was not led before the Presbytery of Dalkeith by stealth, without his knowledge, or in a Corner, but in the Church of Dalkeith openly; and where Mr. Heriot had free access, yea and was summoned apud Acta to give in his Answers to his Lybel, to see the Witnesses, to object against them (if he had aught) and to hear their Depositions given; and when this benefit and advantage was obstinately refused, it is manifest that his design in desiring of the Synod to hear the Depositions of the Witnesses, and to have them made patent, was but to gain time, and to frustrate the Synods procedure, which uses not to sit at any time above one week: and this his design was also bewrayed by his wilful withdrawing from the Synod, after he was allowed to stay and hear the Depositions of the Witnesses read: so that it appears, he was not willing to hear them. Thus the Depositions having been made patent to him (if he had been willing to have heard them) both at the Presbytery of Dalkeith and Synod of Louthian and Tweddale; I suppose, the Act of Parliament he citys is abundantly satisfied, which doth require only the making, not the keeping of the Depositions of witnesses patent as long as every Tergiversator pleaseth. Besides, he may know that the Law requireth the Testimonies and Depositions of Witnesses to be sealed up, after Sentence is past. 4. As for his Latin which he adds in the close of this reason; as it is impertinently alleged, except he reckon both the Presbytery, and the full and open Synod to be but Corners, so he might have considered that although Veritas non quaeret angulos (and it hath not sought them in this Case in hand) yet oftentimes pelliture in angulos; and he may know and remember by whom it is, and hath been frequently so handled, and this case is also supposed Isay. 30.20.  
16. The third Reason of his Appeal from the Synod is that he was informed that the only Article proven against him, was his Dancing about a Bonfire, October. 14. 1688. Which he instantly redargued, as a thing that could not be true, because October. 14. 1688. Fell upon a Sunday, and all Dalkeith knows that they never had any Bonfires upon a Sunday: And yet the Synod had no regard to it, but proceeded to censure him: and here again he insults, rails, and censures both the Witnesses as deponing falsely, and the Synod as proceeding against him, out of prejudice and design, upon whatever was alleged, though without probation, or upon redargued probation: and with his wont confidence, adds that this is evidently manifest. But he must sober himself and take his Answer 1. Whatever come of this Article about his Dancing, yet there are Articles enough of his Lybel clearly proven, whereupon the Synod might and did proceed to censure him. 2. Even this Article itself was better proven, than he seems to be aware of: For 1, There was no mistake nor disagreeing of the Witnesses as to the thing, and matter of fact deponed against him, but only as to the circumstance of the time: which the Synod did duly consider and weigh: and Lawyers and Canonists do tell us, that this circumstance in is not so material, as that a small difference among Witnesses about it should invalidate their Testimony as to matters of Fact. And Mr. Heriot might have known that Conclusion of Law. In Scandalo nil refert de die, modo constet de crimine & Corpore delicti Therefore also as to the Circumstance of time (year or day) the Presbytery Judged is not so material, as to inquire Critically after it, and some of the Witnesses did not advert to it: But by the 14, of October, They meant the day of Rejoicing for K James' Birth, which was kept yearly during his Reign upon that day: So that Mr. Heriot has no reason to Triumph and insult over the witnesses, Presbytery and Synod (as he doth) because of a small and easy mistake of some of the witnesses in such a part of the Circumstance of time. 2. As to the matter of Fact, it was both clearly deponed by three witnesses, and many others know it, were they willing to tell the Truth: And it can yet be proven by other Witnesses, that upon one of their Bone Fire-Dayes, he did with Pipe and Drum Dance about a Bonfire, and Drink a Health upon his Knees. 3. Further to clear this matter, and to stop his mouth as to this, let him know that all the three Witnesses did, and still do agree even as to the time of this his Dancing, that it was on the first of these Solemnities that was kept for the Birth of the late K. James, after he became King (which we know was October, 14 1685) though this Designation of the year was not enquired, nor required of them, when they first deponed; yet they have since declared it before many Witnesses, and also given it under their hands, though some of them did not advert to the year when they were deponing. And this deed of Mr. Heriots is notour enough through the Town of Dalkeith.  
As to what he saith, that this Article of his Dancing about a Bonfire was, as he is informed, the only Article of his Lybel that was proven. Answ. 1. It seems his Informers have been Liars, like his own Printed Information: They speak, and he writes and Prints, Lies, and who can help it? Their Tongues and Pens are their own. Qui vult decipi, deciphers. But none of the Presbytery or Synod, not any that are acquainted with the Process and Depositions of the Witnesses, have said that this was the only Article of the Lybel proven against him. 2. The Synod by reviewing the process found that more Articles than that last mentioned were proven against him: and the preceding narrative of the process, and of the depositions of the Witnesses, makes it evident, that there were six or seven other material Articles proven against him.  
17. We come now to his fourth Reason of appealing from the Synod, which has three Branches. The first is that he had appealed from the Presbytery; and that they were his Party. Answ. 1. This is false, as has been plainly shown already: He never appealed from them. 2. If it had been true, what would it be to his purpose here, as a Reason of his Appeal from the Synod. I have appealed from the Presbytery: Ergo I must Appeal from the Synod too (and that before the Trial of the Process either in Presbytery or Synod it seems this is a good Argument in Mr. Heriots Logicks. 3 If their be any seeming strength in this reasoning of Mr. Heriots, I think it mostly is this, that the Presbytery is my declared party, and have Sentenced me, and they belong unto, and are a part of the Synod: therefore (saith Mr. Heriots arguing) I must Appeal from the Synod also. But if this Argument be good, it will oblige him to Appeal also from the General Assembly, because both the Presbytery and Synod do belong unto it, and help to make it up by their delegated Commissioners: and who can but see the absurdity of such reasonings?  
The 2 d Branch of his 4 th' Reason of his Appeal from the Synod, is, that the Presbytery of Dalkeith, and Alexander Calderwood interrupted him, and reasoned against him as Parties, in the face of the Synod, and that even in his presence, and before he was removed. Ans. He should have said, not the Presbytery but one or two of the Members of the Presbytery of Dalkeith, if he had been willing to speak truth: and then how little will this make against the Presbytery? And far less against the Synod; and least of all as a Reason of Appeal from the Synod. 2. Was it any wonder that some of the Members of that Presbytery spoke some thing then and there, while he was uttering such things as we have heard and answered supra. Should his lies make men hold their peace? and when he mocketh, shall no man make him ashamed? Ought he not rather to have thanked them for their Friendly freedom in letting him hear something of his own case that he was ignorant of, and was of his concernment to know, seeing they bade then the opportunity of his presence, which was a great delicate to them, though he their near neighbour. 3. If they be Parties as he calls them, why then should they not be heard in the Cause as well as he? And that whether he be present or not? Had they not Reason to vindicate themselves in his face from the invidious calumnies and manifest lies, which he charged them with. Is he such a pillar in the Church that no Member of a Judicatory may speak. in his presence, but all men must give ear, and wait and keep silence at his Counsel, and their tongue cleave to the roof of their mouth? I doubt whether the old Gentleman at Rome himself be so arrogant in such Cases? 4. particularly Alexander Calderwood (a Ruling Elder and a Member of the Presbytery and Synod) had Reason to say something for his own Vindicacation; because Mr Heriot▪ according to his wont modesty and veracity) branded him in the face of the Synod with suborning of Witnesses.  
The 3 d Branch of his 4 th' Reason of Appeal, is, that notwithstanding of all that he had said, yet the Presbytery of Dalkeith and Alexander Calderwood, were not removed, but got leave to sit still as his Judges, against all Law and Justice. Ans. 1. How did Mr. Heriot know this? By some good Informer, no doubt, whom he trusted so far as to Print the story for the Information of the ignorant World. But how could this (if true) be a Reason of his Appeal, which he gave in to the Synod before this alleged crime was committed; although the Copy of the Reasons of his Appeal was given in after the Trial and Sentence? By what Spirit could he know, when he Appealed, that the Synod would not remove the Presbytery of Dalkeith. Is he not a man of a deep reach and great foresight? 2. Briefly, this Reason of his Appeal declares Mr. Heriot to be a man of superabundant confidence, for he positively Asserts, and that in Print, several Weeks after that multitudes (and perhaps himself) knew it to be a Lie, that the Presbytery of Dalkeith were not removed, when the Synod proceeded to judge of his Case and process: For all the Synod, and a great many more, do know, that when Mr· Heriots process came to be judged and cognosced upon, not only all the Members of the Presbytery of Dalkeith were removed out of the Synod, but also the Ministers who had been delegated from other Presbyteries to assist that of Dalkeith, were removed: And this, not because they were suspected as partial and Parties against Mr. Heriot, but because their own deed came to be judged by the Synod. But how Mr. Heriot could be ignorant of so public and Notour a matter of Fact, wherein he was so much concerned, seems to have some Mystery in it, not worth the enquiring after. Sure I am, if his patience and humility had prevailed so far as to make him stay but a little while after he gave in his Appeal, he would have seen the Presbytery of Dalkeith removed as well as himself: But it seems, Mr. Heriot having in haste given in his Appeal, he gets quickly away that he may get leisure to seek, find, or make Reasons for what he had done: And in his search and Consultation about this matter, he found that the not removing of the Prebytery of Dalkeith, would be a pretty plausible Reason for his Appeal from the Synod: And therefore he would needs put it in (whether true or false,) among the rest of his Reasons: And it had been a pity we had wanted it.  
It may be he, or some of his Advocats will object, that though the Presbytery of Dalkeith were at last removed, yet they were not removed together with him, and as soon as he, but had leave to sit still after he was gone out, and to discourse in the Cause. But I Answer, 1. Notwithstanding of this Answer and Objection. yet the falsehood of Mr. Heriot's reason remains conspicuous, for he plainly saith, that the Presbytery of Dalkeith were not removed, but sat to judge him. 2. Mr, Heriot removed sooner than he needed or ought to have done; yea when he was desired to stay and hear the process and depositions of the Witnesses Read: And the Presbytery were not bound to follow him close at the Heels, except his steps had been better ordered, 3. There was no reason why the Presbytery of Dalkeith should be removed as soon as he. Why should they not be suffered to speak for their own Vindication, as well as he for his? Is their Reputation nothing worth in comparison of his? And why might not their Brethren detain them a little after Mr. Heriot had removed, to get some further Information from them about the matter of Fact; and it was but a very little time they stayed after his Removal. 4. Hath not every Judicatory power to examine and question the several parties contending before them, either together or apart as they see Cause? And is it not very needful and necessary often times, that the parties be questioned and heard apart? What need then of this vain Clamour about the Presbyteries staying a little behind Mr. Heriot in the Synod? If he must needs dictate Church-Policy, and Law, he has need first to learn them better himself. 5. Seing Mr. Heriot in his Paper talks so big about Law and Justice, and so often charges both Presbytery and Synod with partiality, walking contrary to Law and Reason, Unjustice, Oppression, and many other hard words, which he heaps up against them, upon very weak and false pretences; I would fain know of him, what kind and measure of Justice this is, that he metts out unto the Presbytery of Dalkeith? For in one and the same Reason of his Appeal, he storms and exclaims against them for presuming to speak in his presence, and debate in his Affair, while he was before the Synod, and calls it Interrupting him; and again in the same Reason, he Storms and Quarrels with the Synod, for letting them sit and speak, when he is removed: And if they may not speak for themselves, neither when he is present, nor when he is not present, then let him inform them by his next Information, when they shall speak: For till Mr. Heriot reconcile these contradictions. I cannot guests at the Season of their speaking, but can guests pretty well by the Language of this his fourth Reason, what Justice they might expect from him, if he were their Judge.  
18. His 5 th' Reason of Appeal is that several members of the Synod did interrupt him while he was Vindicating himself etc. And here again he makes a great noise and Clamour about this, as a thing without example in any Judicatory, and as an open discovering of their prejudice, design and resolution to proceed against him, although without just cause: And alleges that when he was craving a sight of the Additional Lybel, and Depositions of the Witnesses, some of them cried out, that the same should not be granted to him, as if every one of them had had a decisive Voice. Ans. 1. He talks here as if he were reproving a Company of Schoolboys, and like and Infallible Doctor, able to dictate to all the members of Church Judicatories how they should behave in Judgement. But withal he shows gross Ignorance of the Constitution of Church Judicatories; for really every member has a decisive voice protanto (when it comes to a Vote) and all have equal power both to consult and determine in the free Courts of Christ: And the Decision of matters is not referred to a Prelate or his deputy; which yet Mr. Heriot would like best; for he speaks of every members having a decisive voice, as a great absurdity: So that by this and other things he shows that he understands very little or nothing of Church-power. 2. As to the few words dropped in his presence by two of the Members of the Presbytery of Dalkeith, I have answered already. 3. If any other of the Synod presumed to speak a word while he was speaking, or that any of them cried, or yet spoke these words It should not be granted to him, I do not remember, but doubt it much; and I dare not now take it upon Mr. Heriots Printed word, after such proof of its fallibility, even in matters of Fact and Memory: And though the matter alleged be but small, yet I must have another Witness (which hitherto I have not found) before I believe it. 4. Giving, but not granting, that some one or other Member of the Synod contradicted him, or spoke something that was not smooth and soft enough for his tender Ears; then upon this supposition, I Answer. 1. As it is no great Crime, so I will not Justify it altogether: It may be passed as a piece of easily pardonable and tolerable precipitancy: And Mr. Hertot ought not to have exclaimed against it, at an intolerable rate, as if it were a thing without example in any Judicatory, and to make such a Sputter about it as he does. I can tell him where, and when, there were far worse examples in the most eminent of the Prelatic Judicatories, and far greater disorder and confusion amongst them, notwithstanding of all the power of the Prelate to keep them in order. 2. However it can be but a very weak Reason of Appealing from the Synod, because one or two of its Members spoke a word not to his mind, while he was there: must he therefore Appeal from the whole Synod, because one or two of them spoke something that did not please him? Is not this to be a delicate Man indeed? 3. If he had spoken and behaved as it became a Man in his Coat and Circumstances, it is like no Man would have so far transgressed the good order and form of Judicatories as to have given him any disturbance: but when a Man comes before such a Judicatory with a mouth full of Lies, and utters them with confidence, it's a hundred to one, but one or other of such a company of knowing Men, will in a plain and clear Case, drop a word before its full season. 4. If any contradicted him, the Reasons by them at that time given for their so doing, should have been set down by Mr. Heriot and answered, before he had made this a Reason of an Appeal from the whole Synod. 5. In short, this Reason amounts to this: That he Appealed from the Synod, because while he was before them he got not all the talk and discourse himself alone: and thus videas quantum valere potest.  
19 His 6 th' Reason of Appeal from the Synod, is because several Members of the Synod did speak and deal with him to dimitt, or that otherwise they would depose him: and hence he confidently, but rashly and causelessly concludes, that the Synod saw weakness in the grounds they had for deposing him: and here again pro more suo he exclaims and rails, Answer. 1. This, if true, yet is not at all a ground of Appeal from the Synod: for if any of its Members did without Commission from, or knowledge of, the Synod, give him such a friendly advice, why should he blame the Synod for it, and that so highly as to Appeal from them, as not fit nor worthy to judge of his affair? 2. We may here see what may be expected from such as Mr. Heriot, when men deal freely, friendly and ingenuously with them. If Mr. Heriot having made his application privately to some Members of the Synod, and solicited them for their advice; or, if some of them did of their own accord and out of a superfluous excess of compassion and charity towards him. offer such an advice; it is most base, uncharitable and unjust for him to construct the worst that malice can devise of their freedom with him: if he had judged candidly of their Counsel, he would have concluded that his Dimission was advised for his relief from the danger and probable hazard of a Sentence of Deposition: But ill Doers are commonly ill Deemers. 3. That these Members of the Synod said to Mr. Heriot that they would depose him, if he dimitted not, I utterly deny to be true: for this was more than they could then well know; whatever probable guess, fear or foresight of it, they might vent to Mr. Heriot in an officious friendly communing with him. 4. Whereas Mr. Heriot adds for confirmation of this his last Reason of Appeal, these confident and empty words and there is nothing more certain than that they would never have dealt with him to dimitt, if the probation against him had been good. I answer, that there is nothing more uncertain; and if I should say, there is nothing more false, I would have come nearer the truth, than he has in this point. 5. To prove what he had last said, he adds these charitable words. Their malice to the Regular Clergy being such as that they would rather depose them for Immoralities and Errors in Doctrine to publish them, than to suffer them to dimitt etc. But for answer. 1. It is a malicious Alledgance; and it will be time enough for me or any man else to believe it, when he proves it, which I know is impossible for him to do. 2. When or where were any of these Irregular Men whom he miscalls the Regular Clergy) hindered to dimitt? And who can hinder them to dimitt, if they please? 3. He hints here that when any of them are deposed for immoralities and Errors in Doctrine, It is done out of malice, and consequently not out of Zeal for the Glory of God, and conscience of that great duty of purging the Church of Christ from that great and Soul-destroying plague of a corrupt, Scandalous, Worldly, Carnal, Lifeless Ministry: but there is a day coming when Sinners must give an account of such hard Speeches.  
As for what he adds to the sixth Reason of his Appeal (viz. attesting his consciousness of his own Innocency, his hoping that God will vindicate him, his renewing his protestation against, and Appeal from the Synod. etc. These things might well have been spared, and need no other answer than what is suggested to every man's Conscience, from the General Rules of Christian Charity. Again in the close of that Section, he makes a clamour about the additional Lybel and Depositions of the Witnesses, and dictates several things to the Synod about the business, which he might have spared: the Synod know their duty, and need none of his advice, till he grow wiser: however he needs not fear that the Principal Copies of the Depositions of the Witnesses shall be put out of the way; they will (according to his desire) be preserved and not put out of the way, but produced at the next General Assembly, if need be.  
20. To return to his Information; he complains that notwithstanding of the foresaid Appeals (he should have said Appeal, for there is but one of them) the Synod proceeded and deposed him from his Ministry. Ans. 1. I suppose the man may know that an Appeal is not enough to sist and stop procedure to a Sentence: otherwise Judicatories would never be rid of them, and the most notoriously guilty would not spare to Appeal again and again, if they could thereby gain but a small delay of their Sentence. 2. He might also have known that he had no place to appeal from that Synod, who were in his cause clothed with the power of the General Assembly, and Acted as their Delegates, as was formerly said. 3. He is grossly mistaken in his saying, that his Appeal does preserve his right, and keep all in Statu quo, the time of the Appeal, while it be discussed. Indeed, if he had had place to Appeal, and his Appeal had proceeded upon plausible grounds, it would give him access to another hearing of his Cause before the Superior Judicatory to which he had Appealed; but it doth not in the mean time stop all further procedure of the Inferior Judicatory, nor keep all things in reference to him in statu quo prius, as he imagines: Especially when the case in question is sufficiently clear; for then the Inferior Judicatories proceed and Act as they will be answerable to the Superior: But when the Case is Dark, Dubious, and Difficult, it is the wisdom of the Inferior Judicatory to forbear further procedure after an Appeal. Yet if every Appeal were sufficient to sift the further procedure of inferior Judicatories, I am confident that the most Scandalous Person in all Scotland, who bears the name of a Minister would not be deposed except by a General Assembly.  
21. He complains that the Eldership of the Parish was invaded, and some few (severals of them scarce worth to be noticed as Residenters) have usurped the power of Elcting Elders, and have elected many more than the number formerly used, purposely as they think, to make the greater figure, although but of the most inconsiderable of the Paroch; and of design to call, impose and obtrude a Minister upon the rest against their will, contrary to the Laws of Charity, practices of Christian Churches, and profession of Presbyterians. Answer. 1 How like is this man to him of whom it is said, As for all his Enemies he puffeth at them? He still speaks contemptibly of his opposites, and of every thing that doth not please him. Projicit ampullas & sesquipedalta Verba: and seeing he doth not keep himself Intra moderamen inculpatae Tutelae, he must blame himself if his Antogonist answer him sometimes according to his Folly. Why should he here and elsewhere through his Paper, Rant and Exclaim against the Presbyterians, as if he were still dancing about the Bonfire: For tho' they have been long and often as the Deaf that heard not, and as the Dumb in whose mouth are no reproofs, yet he should not think that it will be always so with them, especially when such as he provoke them sore to retort the bitter verity upon their unwary Adversaries▪ 2 To come more close to the matter in hand, I say as to the alleged invasion of the Eldership, that where there is no possession there can be no invasion; and Mr. Heriot had no Eldership: For the Ruling Elder is a Church-Officer disowned in the Prelatic Government, which owns no other Officers than these, Patriarches, Primates, Metropolitans, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deans, Deans, prebend's, Rectors, Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Curates, Churchwardens, Sides-Men, Sextons, and the rest of the Apocryphal Tribe of Mr. Heriots Regular Clergy, which he again and again talks of in his Information: And I needed not to have omitted the Pope: for he belongs to the same Tribe; and divers of the Prelatic Protestants do own him as the first Bishop, that is to say, the Head of the Clan: And for my part I am content that all go together, as birds of the same Feather. 3 As to the alleged inconsiderableness of these Elders chosen by the more regular party in Dalkeith, they are nothing inferior to Mr. Heriots nominal Elders, in any thing that is good and considerable: And for their number, they exceed not what they were wont to be in times of Reformation. 4. As for their design to obtrude a Minister upon the Parish, contrary to the profession of Presbyterians. etc. Ans. 1· Is it not pleasant to see Mr. Heriot teaching Presbyterians their own Principles, and pleading for them? Who can but laugh at it, especially if they consider how ill he has learned either his own or theirs, as we have seen Supra? 2. The Prelatic principles and practices are in this thing too well know to be so soon forgotten: And Mr. Heriot seeming to plead for the power of Ruling Elders, and the liberty of the Parish in choosing and calling a Minister, shows him to be no true Prelatist, and consequently neither good Fish nor Flesh. It may be, he will say that this was but his Argumentum ad Hominem: But then let him take the Answer here given both ad hominem & ad rem; that his Argument is really ad neutrum. 3. It is also well known, that Presbyterians deny no member of the Congregation liberty to object against the Intrant, and if their objections bear weight, and be found just and relevant, they are regarded; if not, rejected: And if this course had been observed all alongst, it may be questioned whether Mr. Heriot would have got entrance there 4. It may very easily and rationally be supposed that the present Eldership of Dalkeith (with the advice and concurrence of the Presbytery when needed and desired) may have as good skill of choosing a fit Minister, as Mr, Heriot and his Party.  
22. Mr. Heriot (not being content with all the insolent Language and usage he has given to the Church Judicatories) goes yet farther, and ventures upon an untrodden Path that he may rid himself of all Church Judicatories; and by a Salius quite extra oleas betakes himself to the Lords of their Majesty's most Honourable privy Council, and supplicates them (upon the matter) utterly to overthrowthe Government of the Church (and the Laws establishing it) and to take upon them to judge and pass definitive Sentences in causes merely Ecclesiastic: For he and his Party have petitioned their Lordships to discharge the calling of a Minister, while the Appeal be discussed, and that in the mean time he may be restored to the exercise of his Ministry, etc. Answer. 1. By this trick of Mr. Heriot's (if it pass into an approven example and precedent) he has cut out abundance of new work for the Honourable Lords of Council, I may say, for all the days of the year, not excepting even these days which Mr. Heriot calls Sundays: But their Lordships are wise enough to foresee what a vast deal of their precious time it would require, to concert and adjust all these differences that arise through the Kingdom about the settling and unsettling of Ministers: I suppose, their Lordships would soon weary of it: and truly Mr. Heriot in his betaking himself unto their Lordships, seems not to have been sufficiently sensible of the greatness of their work otherwise: but it is like Mr. Heriot thinks himself and his concern so considerable, that it deserves time and place amongst the most weighty affairs of the Kingdom; and therefore he puts their Lordships in mind, that he is not only deposed from his Ministry, but likewise from his Benefice, which is his Livelihood and Maintenance: and herein tandem aliquando he speaks ingenuously, and brings forth the great Gravamen and quarrel, which has occasioned all the clamour and noise we have heard: Oh, it is the grand lose of his Benefice, Liuleyhood and Maintinence! Quis taliu fando, temperet a Lachrymis? But who lamented the case when several hundreds of a better character, were for smaller faults turned out of their Livelyhoods? Surely, none of his party. 3. This device of Mr. Heriots seems to aim at, and tend unto nothing less (in some men's apprehension at least) than the overthrow of the Civil Government itself: for (upon the matter) he supplicates the Council to invade the late Claim of Right, and bring back again that Supremacy, which the Convention of Estates claimed, to be abrogated, as one the grievances of the Nation. And in prosecution of this wicked design, he citys an antiquated and abrogated Act of Parliament (of which more anon) and suggests (falsely and ignorantly) that by the Churches enjoying her wont and just liberties and privileges, there would be Regnum in Regno, and a liberty for the Church to do wrong at her pleasure without control. But we may easily know whose heifer he plougheth with here; this is but a new towt in an old horn; our worthy Ancestors have solidly and learnedly answered and anticipated these suggestions: and because their Testimony and judgement may perhaps have but little weight with Mr. Heriot, I would mind him of the Judgement and practice of some of his more sound and honest Brethren and Fathers, viz. Those seven Prelates who were put in the Tower of London in the time of the late King James, for their Legal adherence unto, and asserting of the Church's power and privilege, and that in a strain far contrary to this of Mr. Heriots: and it were easy to adduce other instances of more learned and sound men of the prelatical way than Mr. Heriot, as to this head of Church-power: But I suppose it is needless: neither are the Honourable Lords of their Majesty's Council so easily imposed upon, as to be cheated by such a silly Cavil, as this which Mr. Heriot here suggests: for they know that Church-Officers do not deny, nor refuse, the Allegiance of Subjects, nor does their power reach men's persons further than what is necessary for suppressing of wickedness and Scandal (which Mr. Heriot and his Advocats seem to reckon a doing of wrong without control) nor does the Ecclesiastic power, claimed and exerced by Presbyterians, reach men's properties any way at all. 4, What if there be the hand of some Joab in this contrivance of disturbing the Honourable Privy Council with a business of this nature? What if some greater Head-piece than Mr. Heriot has hood-winked him, and put him upon this desperate Course, and that on purpose to do some greater mischief to Church and State, than to protect or relieve Mr. Heriot from a deserved Church-Censure? There that are wiser than I, may inquire into this, if they please. However, when persons manifestly disaffected to the Civil Government, come to plead for the enlarging and streaching of the limits thereof, some of these Honourable Governors will be in hazard of remembering the saying of the old Trojan Politician quicquid id est, timeo Danaos, & Dona ferentes.  
23. Amongst others of Mr. Heriots' falsehoods and calumnies, I suppose that is one he has in this paragraph I am now answering, viz. That severals of the Presbyterian Ministers who have seen the Lybels and Depositions, affirm that there is nothing proven but the Dancing about the Bonfire: for I am sure that no rational man, after he has read the Depositions, will say that there is nothing proven but his Dancing: so that these Persons be speaks of, must either not have seen the Depositions, or not have said and spoken so as he alleges: and I am sure that both Statesmen, Lawyers, and Ministers, after sight of the Process and Depositions, have said that the Presbytery might well have deposed him.  
24. Whereas Mr. Heriot does again and again make a horrible clamour about making the Depositions of the Witnesses patent and their persons known, that they may be insisted against. etc. Here he discovers plainly his malicious design in demanding so often the making patent to him the names and Depositions of the Witnesses, viz. Not that he may Answer and vindicate himself (though sometimes he pretends to this impossibility) but that they may be insisted against and that he may pursue them for telling the Truth: and that even after they have sworn it, according to the best of their knowledge, and conscience. And let all rational persons judge if there be any show of Candour or Honesty here, in his threatening to pursue the Witnesses merely for their declaring (and that upon Oath, when called to it) what they and others saw with their Eyes, and heard with their Ears: does not this sort of threatening course, warrant the Church Judicatories before whom the Process lies, to demand of Mr. Heriot and his party in Dalkeith, that they give sufficient security to the Magistrate, of their good and peaceable behaviour towards these Witnesses, before the whole Process can be Printed with safety to the Witnesses: especially considering what violence has been already executed upon, and is yet farther threatened against others, by divers of Mr. Heriot's party in Dalkeith. Here also the Reader may perceive a satsfying Reason, why in the preceding short Narrative of the Process, the names of the Witnesses are not expressed. However Mr. Heriot may remember (for he doth know it) that some of these Witnesses have avowed and asserted to his face, even that Article of his Dancing about the Bonfire, and other things too; and that even since he emitted his threatening and lying Information; and although there were unworthy and indirect means and menaces used by his party to daunt the Witnesses, and drive them from their Testimony. To all this may be added, that the Authentic Depositions of the Witnesses were by the Presbytery given in to the General Assembly to have been publicly seen and read there; as they were afterwards again and again before the Synod; which shows that the Presbytery were no ways Jealous of their validity and sufficiency, for probation.  
25 Toward the end of his Information, he supplicats the Lords of their Majesty's Privy Council, to take notice of this as a further evidence of the unjustice of the Sentence; that in the first Lybel there are many Articles, which are not Relevant, and yet the Presbytery by their Sentence found the Lybel relevant and proven, which must be understood (saith he) as to the hail Articles of the Lybel complexly, than which there is nothing more false (these last words are his, but the Reader may take them as the true Answer to what he has said and he aggravates this, as a very great miscarriage, and boldly alleges that both Presbytery and Synod have Acted contrary to express Law, and have done open, and manifest unjustice, whereof all that heard of it, are convinced and sensible. etc. Ans. 1. Bona Verba. These things need no confutation, they are so evidenty false, and ridiculous: What need was there for Mr. Heriot to proclaim himself in Print, to be a Child in Ecclesiastical affairs? How does he affront the Honourable Lords of Privy Council by proposing such Stuff unto them, as this and several other things in his Petitions? He quarrels and challenges the Presbytery for sustaining the Lybel as Relevant, because (as he saith) there are many Articles in it which are not Relevant: this is rare Reasoning indeed: Does he not know, that if there had been but one Article in the Lybel Relevant, and other twenty in it not of that weight; yet the Lybel is Relevant notwithstanding? For these other lesser Articles, do no hurt to the Relevancy of the main Article, and consequently of the Lybel: and has he forgotten the old Proverb, Et quae non prosunt singula, juncta juvant? But the Reader may judge of the Relevancy of the Lybel by the preceding Narrative. 2. As to what he adds that this Acting of the Presbytery and Synod against him, is such an open and manifest unjustice, as that all that heard of it are convinced and sensible of it. This is such a gross and manifest lie, that I doubt whether he can make a greater, except he have taught his Tongue an extraordinary skill in that Art. Is it not time to leave and let him alone, when his rage and impudence is arrived at such a height.  
26, Yet before I let him go, it will not be amiss now in the close of this Paper, after having got such a taste of his skill in Divinity and Church-Government, to consider his skill in Law and Acts of Parliament, and I trow this Informer will be found no happier in the Law-part of his Paper, than he was in the Ecclesiastic part thereof.  
1. He says, It is pretended that the Lords of Privy Council, are not Judges competent to the Sentence of Ecclesiastic Courts, and that as they cannot place, so they cannot displace or depose Ministers. But he Answers that by the first Act, 8. Parliament. Ja. the 6 It is statute that the King and Council shall be Judges competent to all persons spiritual and temporal in all matters: and he sayeth, that to affirm that the Council is not Judge competent to the Sentences of Ecclesiastic Courts, is to give these Courts an Arbitrary power to do wrong at pleasure, without remeed or control. Ans. To this it is replied, that in a matter that hath been so much debated, and is now so well understood it is strange that any man assuming to instruct others, should so much darken counsel without knowledge: For. 1. To make a Court sovereign, is not to make a Court Arbitrary: and yet this is the Informers only Argument why no Ecclesiastic Court can be Sovereign in the matter of Censures, Because than it would be Arbitrary. 2 The highest Asserters of the Supremacy before the Act of Parliament, 1669 (Which is now rescinded) did never affirm that the King or Council might by themselves reverse or redress Censures purely Ecclesiastic; but the outmost by them acclaimed was, and is, that, all remedy by Church Judicatures failing, the King or Council might with advice of the sanior pars put a stop to the procedure for some competent time, and recommend a review till better order might be reestablished. But 3 lie. The Informer might have found the Act of Parliament that he citys, thereafter plainly interpreted and restricted, viz. By the first Act of Parliament. 12. Ja. 6. Entitled, Ratification of the Liberty of the true Kirk, whereby it is expressly declared that the Act cited by the Informer shall no ways be prejudicial to, nor derogate any thing from the privilege, that God has given to the spititual Office-bearers in the Church, concerning the collation or deprivation of Ministers, etc. But this last Act the Informer did not, or would not think on: And certainly to understand the former Act so laxly as he doth, and to apply it to a case so plain and obvious as Mr. Heriot's Deposition, were no less than to overturn the Church, and introduce confusion,  
2. But in Answer to what is said, viz. That the Council cannot put in Ministers, and therefore cannot meddle with Sentences deposing them, the Informer tells us, that though the Council has not the power of Admission and Ordination, yet if a Presbyrery should refuse without cause to admit and ordain a Minister having a lawful Call, Letters may be direct to charge them to do it; multo magis in the case of Deposition is the Council the most proper Judge to restore, against the oppression of an unjust Sentence. Ans. But 1. The Informer forgets that the Council Power to charge, in the case he supposes, was allowed to fortify the presentation of the Patrons, when in use, and so to maintain that mixed Right, partly Civil and partly Ecclesiastical, which they pretended to: But now that presentations are abolished, and that the matter of Calling and of Entering Ministers is by the late Act of Parliament referred to the Determination of the Presbytery of the bounds, to be by them concluded; the remedy, in case of difference upon a Call, must no longer be by Letters of Horning, but by Appeals to the Synod, and from the Synod, to the Assembly, to be there ultimately determined. And 2 lie. There is, besides this mistake in the case supposed, a great disparity and inconsequence in the Argument thereon founded: For Esto that the Lords of Council may put the Presbyteries to do their duty, it doth not therefore follow that in case they refuse, the Council may do it for them; which yet must be the Informers inference, or otherwise he concludes nothing: But all the Magistrate doth in such a case, is to bring the matter before some Superior Ecclesiastic Court, that may supply the fault of the Inferior; which without the Magistrate's interposing, hath through Mr. Heriots' importunity, been done in this case, once and again, much more than was necessary.  
3. But why in the matter of an ordinary Sentence of Deposition, judged and rejudged by the judicatories of the Church, should the Informer bring things to these extremes as if we were in the case of some great and important matter, about which the Church itself was divided, and the Magistrate obliged to interpose, for preventing some ruining prejudice: Certainly, if such clamours be allowed on every occasion of this kind, the excellent Establishment, which we have lately by Law obtained, is of little or no use, and both King and People must be in perpetual disquiet. For can the Informer upon the smallest reflection think, that his clamour should preponderate with the Magistrate to the Sentence of the Presbytery, ratified over and again by the Synod and the Assembly, whom God and the Law have entrusted with the final Judgement of such matters: So that were the Sentence even doubtful (as it is not) yet it's very Authority should oblige to an acquiescence: How much more is the Informer to be blamed, who notwithstanding of Mr. Heriot's undeniable contumacy and several gross Immoralities proven against him, whereof almost any one is sufficient for Deposition, doth upon some ill applied notions of form and other bold falsehoods and calumnies in point of Fact, ofter to make such a stir and noise, which yet no wise man regards.  
Finally. To what is said, I add a few words more. 1. This Juridico-Theologaster might have remembered (if he had not forgotten his Logicks) that two Powers, as well as other things, may be so far distinct, as to be neither Co-ordinata, nor Subordinata, but Disparata: And I take it neither to be Heterodoxical, nor Paradoxical, to say so of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power; for it hath been asserted by no mean men; yea, sometimes before the Supreme Judicatory of this Kingdom, and that upon the highest peril. So that Mr. Heriot might very well have spared his idle and ignorant Story of a Regnum in Regno.  
2. Mr. Heriot by his heterogeneous Appeal has made way for farther extravagancy of this kind: For some of his sort I have s●umb●ed upon a rare kind of Appealing from the Presbytery to the Synod, Commission of the Church, General Assembly, Council of State, and the King, all at once, simul & semel: and thereby (if this sort of saltus come in fashion) do enervate, and render all Judicatories, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, in a great measure useless, and would bring all to the King's personal and immediate determination, when ever any party finds, or but fancies that he is wronged by any Judicatory: and what the consequences of this ridiculous sort of Appealing would be, some men will not have the fear, and cannot have the wit to foresee.  
3. As to the particular case in hand; What ever the Civil power or Supremacy may be, or is, according to Law, I thought it had been reserved for greater and better uses and ends, than the sheltering of a Scandalous Curate from the moderate, just, Legal and deserved Censure and Sentence of Judicatories acting according to the established Laws: and if either Civil or Ecclesiastical Judicatories, suffer themselves and their legally settled order to be disturbed, by such groundless, bold and false clamours and alledgeances as these of Mr. Heriot, they may be sure of disturbance enough for this and the following Generations: But they are wise enough to foresee and prevent this and other evils designed by the common Adversaries.   

POSTSCIRPT.  
SInce the preceding Answer to Mr. Heriots Information was drawn, I have had a sight of a second Edition of that Paper, which has these words in the close added to the former.  
And whereas, some persons have: strongly asserted to the Lords of their Majesty's Privy Council and others. 1. That Mr Heriot was never refused a sight of the Lybels and Depositions, but that they were given him. 2. That the Presbytery and Alexander Calderwood were removed out of the Synod upon Mr. Heriots Declinator against them. It is answered 1. That he did many times and with great earnestness crave a sight of the Lybels and Depositions, both in the Assembly and Synod; which was refused, as a hundred persons who heard him will witness, and none of the Clerks of the Assembly, Synod, or Presbytery (in whose hands and custody the Lybels and Depositions are) will dare to affirm that ever they were given to Mr. Heriot to see. 2. Mr. Heriot at his first appearance before the Synod, declined the Presbytery and Alexander Calderwood from being his Judges, they being his parties: and before Mr. Heriot gave in his Appeal, he was four times removed, while the Synod considered the defences he made for himself; and none of the Synod can affirm, that the Presbytery and Alexander Calderwood were removed with him; but at his return after the several Removals, he found them always present; and the said Alexander Calderwood, and several others of their number, did in face of the Synod debate against him, when he made his Legal defences: Which the Synod having unjustly repelled, he thereupon Appealed, and immediately came away: so that there is nothing more certain, than that the Presbytery and Alexander Calderwood sat as his Judges after Declinatour. And it was upon these two grounds among the rest, that Mr. Heriot Appealed from the Synod; Because they refused him a sight of the Lybel and Depositions, which Law allowed him; and that the Presbytery and Alexander Calderwood sat as his Judges, albeit they were his parties, which is certainly true. And albeit after the Appeal, and Mr. Heriot's going away, the Presbytery and Calderwood were removed, at the time of the Vote of Mr. Heriots' pre-determined Deposition, it doth not take away the truth of the Reason of the Appeal.  
And whereas beside the false Alledgeance of Dancing about a Bonfire, there is now other Articles suggested to be proven. Mr. Heriot makes no Answer thereto, because of the uncertainty thereof, hoping that the Lords of their Majesty's Privy Council, will in their Justice, and conform to Law, Ordain the Lybels and Depositions of the Witnesses to be seen, and then Mr. Heriot can openly clear himself, from whatever shall appear to be proven against him.  
But to this Crambe long and often raecocta, I reply, 1. In general to the whole of it. 1. This is but a very sorry Coronis, which here (after long study) he adds for confirmation or covering of his former lies, which he should rather have retracted, than thus have patched them so pitifully: But Raro vidi Cleticum poenitentem. 2. What discretion on deference Mr. Heriot has herein used towards the Lords of their Majesty's privy Council, in reprinting with new Additions, a Paper once presented to their Honourable Board, in an other form, and in tabling so many lies before their Lordships, belongs to another enquiry than this, and is alterius fori to determine. 3. As he has here said no new thing, so the Judicious Reader, will easily gather a sufficient and satisfying answer from what has been formerly said, partly in the Historical Narration of the matter of Fact, and partly in the preceding answer to his Information: to which therefore I refer the Reader.  
2. Yet lest Mr. Heriot complain that we do not consider his learned Defences; I shall (for his satisfaction) speak a little more particularly in Answer to this his second and Additional Information, which is a kind of Additional Lybel against the Synod and Presbytery.  
1. To his old and again new clamour about his being refused a sight of the Lybels and Depositions, I Answer, there is more falsehood than truth in this clamorous complaint of his: For 1. He got a Copy of his Lybel hard and fast in his own hand at his first and only compearance before the Presbytery of Dalkeith. 2. He never yet fought a fight of the small Addition that was made to his Lybel, nor of the Depositions of the Witnesses; this he never yet sought in time, place, or manner, convenient. 3. There is neither Law nor Reason (notwithstanding of all his Stentorian clamour about it) why he should be indulged a sight of the Depositions of the Witnesses 1. After he had declined the Presbytery as no Judicatory and having no power: for than what had they more ado with him? Was it not time for them to shake him off as he had shaken them off? 1. After Sentence is past, both in the Presbytery and Synod. 3. After he has (even in his Print) threatened the Witnesses, and some of his party have executed violence upon some of them. 4. After he was allowed, if he had pleased, to hear both the Lybels and Depositions of the Witnesses read before him, by the Synod: but he would not stay. 5. Before he give sufficient security for his own and his parties good and peaceable behaviour towards the Witnesses. 6. Before he quit and leave his old Huffing, Hectoring, Threatening, Lying and Railing Style and Humour, which would have spoiled a good cause, whatever it may do to his bad one.  
2. As to his renewed Clamour about the Presbyteries sitting still in the Synod. 1. He saith, that it is certainly true, and there is nothing more certain than that the Presbytery of Dalkeith and Alexander Calderwood sat in the Synod as his Judges after his Declinator given in against them. I Answer, that notwithstanding of his redoubled confident assertions of it as most certain, yet it is certainly false that they sat there and then, as his Judges: for they had no Vote there in his Case, and no judgement passed upon it while they were there: and they were in due time removed. 2. He objects, that they were his Parties, and were not so soon removed as he. I Answer, because they were his Parties, therefore they ought to have been heard as well as he, and so behoved to stay a little, after he was gone, especially seeing he took it not well that any of them offered to drop a word in his presence, and foolishly calls it an interrupting of him: he thinks that he alone should speak, and none of his opposites must Answer him, neither before his face nor behind his back; and that then he would win the Cause and carry all before him. etam! 3. Whereas he saith that though the Presbytery and A. Calderwood were removed at the time of the Vote, yet this takes not away the truth of the reason of the Appeal, that they sat as Judges before the Appeal. I Answer 1. They sat not as Judges in his affair then and there, and passed no Judgement nor decisive Vote therein, but were in all due time removed. And this takes away both the truth and the Relevancy of the Reason of the Appeal. 2. I suppose Mr. Heriot would have had better manners than to have spoken contemptibly of his Aged and (for aught I know) his best friend, if he had remembered, Isa. 9.15. Which text alone (not to mention many others) would have better informed him, who are and who are not to be respected, and also Who are the true and real Faces Populi. 4. That expression, the Vote of Mr. Heriots predetermined Deposition, is malicious and false, except perhaps he mean, that it was predetermined in Decreto Divino; in this sense it is true indeed, yet nothing to his purpose, and let him take what comfort he can from it, and make his best of it: But otherwise I would ask him when, where, how and by whom his deposition was predetermined? I know not how be can make sense of this loud Lie, except he say that the Voting Members of the Synod had before their Vote predetermined in their own minds to depose him; for there neither was, nor could be any other humane predetermination before the determining Vote: Now this predetermination was not and could not, be long before their Vote: because Mr. Heriot does here say that the Synod removed him four times while they were considering his Defences; from whence it follows, both that he was fully heard notwithstanding of all his clamours about alleged interruption, and also that the Members of the Synod considered his defences before they voted: So that the Synods Crime must be, that after hearing and considering his Defences four times, they did yet notwithstanding of all this, predetermine in their own minds his Deposition, before they voted it. But this rare Crime I may timeously enough Apologise for, after that Mr, Heriot by his next Information has informed me, how they could possibly Vote either his deposition, or any thing else, before they had determined it, every man in his own mind. Formerly we heard him storming and quarrelling again and again, because some of the Members of the Synod and Presytery presumed to speak in his presence: and here by this objected, new and unaccountabl predetermination, he quarrels the Synod for presuming to think before they spoke when they voted, Macte! Is not this a rare Reason of appeal? and if it hold, will it not be a sufficient ground of appeal from all Judicatories in Church or State, and from all Judges who come not in an exact Aequilibrium and as a Tabula rasa, without either light or affection for the one side more than the other, either to cognosce upon or vote in the cause of any Criminals, who come before t●em? I see Mr, Heriot grows more and more Sublime in his Defensive Notions: and its like that in his third Apologetic Information he may soar quite above all ordinar reach and capacity: and then he may deserve and get a Longum Valerius  
Other things in this Addition to his Information have been already anticipated, or answered; and there is no need of multiplying any more words about it.  
The candid and serious Reader is desired to excuse the seeming levity of some, and tartness of other Expressions in this Answer! For in dealing with such a Huffing and Absurd Antagonist, it is hard to forbear both Anger and Laughter: Yet I have chosen rather to Laugh than Rage and Storm as he doth, although I think he is such a Person as with whom if a man con●●nd, whether he Rage or Laugh, there is no rest: And therefore I have been the less curious as to the manner of handling him: seeing I have little hope that any sort of humane dealing with him shall be very successful. However let the impartial Reader now judge, whether Mr. Heriot had any just Cause or Occasion given him to exclaim so Wickedly and Horribly against the Presbytery of Dalkeith and Synod of Lothian and Tweddale, as he doth all alongst in his false and Virulent Information.  
Finally, this Examination of Mr. Heriots' Paper, is humbly submitted to the Censure of the Presbytery and Synod concerned, and more especially to the consideration of the Members of the next ensuing General Assembly: Many of whom may perhaps upon the bare Reading of such an Apologetic Information (though no Answer had been annexed to it) get such a Character of the man's Spirit and Temper, as will sufficiently clear and convince them, that he not only deserves all that he has met with, but something more.   
FINIS.  

ERRATA  
Page. 8. Lyn. 11. Read Seven. p. 9 l. 8. and p. 10. l· 14. r assistants. p. 11. l, 4. r. Nicol. p. 19 l. 25. r. condescend. p. 20. l. 8. r. prevented. p. 30. l. 28. Deal in. p. 40. l. 33. r. they.