1641, 4to, by Robert Young, his Majesty's printer for Scotland, (now I suppose at London,) with the printed copy, 1621, and find they agree perfectly, even in the very errata which are at the end of the edition, 1621, and not corrected in that of 1641. I wish you may mind to correct them in your edition.

I have likewise collated the 8vo edition of the Second Book of Discipline, printed by Mr Warner at Rotterdam, 1680, which you have. This was printed from an old manuscript copy inserted in the registers of the Presbytery of Haddington or Dalkeith, in the hands of Mr Robert Fleming, then at Rotterdam. You may collate it with the copy 1621, and you'll observe several differences. The most material I have noticed are page 8, line 2, a fine. Mutual consent as brethren; the quarto is, of brethren, page 33, line 18, civil jurisdiction, the quartos have it criminal. There are several other variations between the 8vo and the quartos; but they seem literal escapes.

In collating I likewise compared the printed copy in Calderwood's History, and find 8vo edition, Second Book of Discipline, page 9, line 5, of Discipline is not in Calderwood, though it's in both the quarto copies; and page 34, octavo edition, line 25 to 29, the whole paragraph, And again that no other, &c., is wanting in Calderwood, though the two quarto editions have it. This is all I have observed. I wish it be of use to you.

LETTER CCXXV.

OF HIS FATHER'S SUFFERINGS.

To Baillie of Jerviswood.

October 30, 1721.

SIR, I have the honour of yours of the 7th instant, for which please to accept of my hearty thanks. It is very evident, and I

have taken some notice of it in my preface to the first volume of the History of the Sufferings, that my giving accounts of the persecution from the Registers hath some disadvantages with it to those who suffered; but it seemed to me to be almost the only way left at this distance, and the most unexceptionable method to deal with people who deny there was any persecution save for treason and rebellion.

It will be a peculiar pleasure to me to see the defects and perhaps worse things in the records and printed trial of your worthy father rectified; and if any thing you think proper this way can be sent me before the second volume is printed off, which I reckon may be about Candlemas next, I shall most willingly insert it in the amendments and additions I design to add at the close of it. Having nothing in mine eye but truth, and a faithful transmitting of facts to posterity, as far as my informations go, it's a piece of justice I am bound to, upon better narratives to make corrections and additions, and of this I shall, I hope, not be ashamed.

I have left out the papers referred to in the appendix, as to your father, as you desire. Upon the receipt of yours, I looked over the copy of the letter I have, and could observe nothing in it, to my apprehension, that could have any ill consequences when published. It is written in a strain of solid serious piety; and though never designed to be made public, yet many things have been published with advantage, the authors of which never had this view. The meditations, in my poor opinion, likewise breathe forth much seriousness and solidity. But your inclinations and superior judgment make me come over my own opinion in this matter most cheerfully.

Forgive my presuming to give you this new trouble. If there be any thing in this country I can serve you in, lay your commands upon, Sir, your very much obliged and most affectionate servant,

R. W.

LETTER CCXXVI.

NATURAL PHENOMENA.

To Alexander Archer, at Hamilton.

DEAR SIR,-I thank you for your account of the remarkable phenomenon of the inverted rainbow at Laurencekirk. I am rusted in my philosophy; but, I think, I have read of rainbows being seen sometimes with the arch inverted. Whether it be explained by a double refraction, or how, I cannot say. I myself once saw distinctly four suns, the real sun, and three halos in a triangular situation or near it, and the true sun in the middle. The halos were very near equal to the true sun, and to one another in their apparent bigness, but whitish, and a little, paler in their colour. Whether it was in the spring 1707, or 1704 or 5, at Pollock, I do not mind, but it was about ten or eleven of the clock forenoon, after a frosty night, when the day was beginning to overcast, and, as we say in the country, when the frost was taking the lift. The real sun was very bright. You have never sent me the accounts you promised me of the remarkable expressions of worthy B. Muirhead at his death. I am, yours, &c.

Nov. 1, 1721.

LETTER CCXXVII.

DR CLERK'S INQUIRY.

To Mr Evans, Student at Glasgow.

SIR, I return your Dr J. Clerk's Inquiry into the Origin of Moral Evil. Upon glancing it over, I observe nothing but what is ordinarily in the Pelagian system, with some additions borrowed from the Socinians. Such a composure, I am sure, would have been very disagreeable to the worthy founder of those lectures, were he alive; and I am sorry the author of such a book, (which, in my opinion, overturns the whole of Christianity as such, makes the Scriptures a nose of wax, and is so far from removing the objections against religion, that upon his scheme they have a double sense,) I am sorry to see that he can publish himself his Majesty's chaplain in ordinary. I'll be fond to see you here; and am, yours, &c.

Nov. 2, 1721.

LETTER CCXXVIII.

ECHARD'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

To Sir James Stewart of Goodtrees.

DEAR SIR,-I designed to have waited on you at Edinburgh last week, when I had not the pleasure of seeing you at the Commission; but I was sooner called out of town than I expected, and so I presume to give you trouble of this by post.

When I have occasion to look into the English Historians upon the year 1687, I find them very bitter upon your father in the matter of his correspondence with Pensionary Fagel, and as far as I have learned from conversation and otherwise, very groundlessly. Their different opinions about the penal laws being taken off, I have nothing to do with, but misrepresentations as to facts ought to be set right.

I was fretted lately when I found the Archdeacon Echard, History of England, vol. iii. p. 849, after the abstract of the printed letters 'twixt the Pensionary and your father, adding, "What was still more surprising in this affair was, that Mr Stewart positively denied, in a printed letter, that ever he wrote to Mons. Fagel, although the latter convinced him to the contrary, and had his original letters by him. . . . And Mr Stewart came off by a

Jesuitical evasion." The just value I still shall retain for your excellent father's memory, and my apprehension it's a falsehood, made me resolve to speak to you about it, and having missed that opportunity, now to write to you.

If you judge it convenient that I take any notice of this in my second volume of our History, as I have fair enough opportunity, having noticed several other blunders in our Scots affairs, committed by Mr Echard and others, let me know, and I shall be under your direction in it, and communicate with you any thing to be insert.

I am this week to receive from Mr Dunlop the one side of that correspondence preserved in original letters by Mr Carstares, who was the canal; and Mr Robert Stewart informs me, you have the other side of it in the original letters. If you find it proper that I take any notice of this, which I entirely submit to you, you'll send me west what you have by you, either the originals, which I shall carefully return, or doubles, and any thing you know of that printed letter Echard talks of. If they be not too bulky, they may come off by post, or if left at my Lord Pollock's, they will come safe every week with the carrier. I give my humble duty to your Lady; and am, Dear Sir, yours, &c.

Nov. 14, 1721.