insurrection of Bothwell Bridge, 'tho he came not that lenth,' 'It was
thought ther was blood eneuch shed on that quarrell already ... for they
are like Sampson, they kill and persuade mo at ther death than they did in
ther life.' He couples the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians together as
troublesome citizens. 'These foolish people that assume the name of
Presbyterians have unwarily drunk in these restles principles from the
Jesuites and seminary priests, who have had a hand in all our troubles and
blown the coall.' Apart, however, from the political attitude of the
Covenanters, whom he regarded as disaffected subjects, there is no evidence
that he concerned himself with the controversy as to the Episcopal or
Presbyterian form of Church government, or that he regretted the re-
establishment of Presbytery after the Revolution. He was not interested in
Church matters. In 1683 he writes, 'The Synod of Edinburgh' [which was then
Episcopalian] 'sat down, and not having much else to do, enacted 1'o that
ministers should not sit in the pulpit, but stand all the time they are in
it.'[22]

[22] A devotional diary, for 1700, apparently one of a series,
preserved in the Edinburgh University Library, No. 274, and an
undated letter in the Dick Lauder MSS. about the election of a
'godly, primitive, and evangelicall pastor,' lead me to think that
his views were Calvinistic, and not out of sympathy with the
Presbyterian Establishment of the Revolution.

In the present volume, p. 229, there is a striking example of his sympathy
with the royal prerogative. He says it was believed that the project of
Union was 'mainly set on foot by his Majestie and so much coveted after by
him that he may rid himselfe of the House of Commons, who have been very
heavy on his loines, and the loins of his predecessors.... I confesse the
king has reason to wrest this excessive power out of the Commons their