rthy
men, both while in Ireland, and after their return to Scotland. While he
was minister at Kirkcudbright, he discovered more than ordinary
diligence, not only in testifying against the corruptions of the time,
but also for his own singular walk and conversation, being one who was
set for the advancement of all the practical parts of religion, and that
as well in private duties as in public.----For instance, When Mr. Henry
Guthrie then minister at Stirling (but afterwards bishop of Dunkeld),
thought to have brought in a complaint to the general assembly 1639,
against private society meetings (which were then become numerous
through the land), yet some of the leading members, knowing that Mr.
Guthrie did it partly out of resentment against the laird of Leckie (who
was a great practiser and defender of these meetings), thought proper,
rather than it should come to the assembly, to yield that Mr. Guthrie
should preach up the duty of religious exercise in families, and that
Messrs. M'Clelland, Blair and Livingston should preach against
night-meetings (for they were so called then because mostly kept in the
night) and other abuses, but these brethren endeavoured by conference to
gain such as had offended by excess in this matter, but by no means
could be prevailed with to preach against them, which so offended Mr.
Guthrie, that he gave in a charge or complaint to the general assembly
1640, wherein he alledged these three ministers were the only
encouragers of these meetings, Mr. M'Clelland roundly took him up, and
craved that a committee might be appointed to try these disorders, and
to censure the offenders, whether those complained of or the
complainers, which so nettled Mr. Guthrie, the earl of Seaforth and
others of their fraternity, that nothing was heard in the assembly for
sometime for confusion and noise stirred up by them.

Mr. M'Clelland was also one who was endued with the Spirit of discerning
what should afterwards come to pass, as is evident from some of his
prophetical expressions, particularly that letter which he wrote to John
Lord of Kirkcudbright dated February 20th, 1649, a little before his
death, an abstract of which may not be improper, and is as follows,

"_My noble Lord_,

"I have received yours, and do acknowledge my obligation to your
lordship is redoubled. I long much to hear what decision followed on
that debate concerning patronages[72]. Upon the most exact trial they
will be found a great p