Spottiswoode Society > History of the affairs of the Church and State of Scotland from the beginning of the reformation to the year 1568 > Volume 1

xl BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE
to his declaration of the 7th of April, a letter from Bishop
Dunbar to him dated 28th of April, and a letter from Bishop
Alexander to him dated 14th May. Bishop Smith's conduct
elicited a strong declaration dated July 12, 1744, which was
signed by Bishop Keith as Primus and the other Bishops ;
and his unwarrantable interference in the internal affairs of
the Church in Scotland induced Bishop Alexander and eleven
Presbyters to issue a severe document condemning all his
proceedings, dated at Alloa on the 22d of October. The
Presbyters of Edinburgh sent a " Third Address to the
Bishops of Scotland" on the 22d of December. On the 17th
of August the Kev. James Mackenzie, who, as " Preses " of
the Presbyters, had transmitted to Bishop Keith ten queries
on the relative connection of Bishops and Pi'esbyters, very
impolitely thus expressed himself: — " I take the freedom to
send you the enclosed queries, and I hope you will not treat
them as you did my letter about the exemption Canon, by
smuggling anonymous remarks among your particular ad-
mirers, without addressing for me a copy of them, but that you
will vouchsafe to send me a direct, proper, and subscribed an-
swer ." The reply which Bishop Keith returned to Mr Mac-
kenzie's queries and his angry epistle is not preserved, but
the " Third Address" of the Presbyters of Edinburgh to the
Bishops elicited a long letter from him to them on the 25th
of January 1745. Some of them replied on the 7th of Feb-
ruary in a document of considerable length, which throws
very little light on the dispute, being chiefly an elaborate
defence of Bishop Smith from the charge of " usurpation
and encroachment" in the affairs of the Church. It is ad-
dressed to Bishop Keith, and is entitled " Eeasons for not
subscribing the condemnation of Bishop Smith of England,
in answer to a paper of said Bishop Keith urging that sub-
scription." In this letter they acknowledge the one by the
Bishops dated the 25th, which, they allege, was not, and
could not be, communicated to them till the 28th.
As it respects Bishop Keith's conduct in this dispute, and
his collisions with the Presbyters of Edinburgh, the follow-
ing statement is probably an explanation : — " It is a trite