The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 17
REVIEW.
SEing he is pleaſed to paſſe the firſt Propoſition of the Argument, as it lyeth in the ſecond Paper. I ſhall alſo paſſe it, conceiving that he takes it for a truth, as indeed it is. To the Aſſumption he ſayeth many things, which I ſhall take in order as they lye. Let it be yeelded to him, that for verification of the alleadgeance contained therein, that theſe two things which he mentions are to be made out, viz. that the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion did exclude and diſcharge many Miniſters to be choſen, and that the Presbyteries did admit of that prelimitation, or were paſsively prelimited by that Letter and Act, yet with theſe animadverſions upon that which he ſpeaks in the explication of his paſsive prelimitation: Firſt, that he confines his paſsive prelimitation within too narrow a bounds, and he will not have it extended to the Presbyteries, unleſſe they did meerly follow the Election of the Commiſsion in that matter that is as I take his meaning, go quite contrary to their own inclination and judgment, ſo as they were but meer patients in that buſineſs, (upon which accompt a wrangler might haply deny that there is any prelimitation at all of Elections: for if men be ſuffered to make any election, or ſo patients in it, that if they had been left to themſelves, they would have taken another courſe: But what if they had ſome inclinations that way, yet were not herein fully determined, but were hovering and ſuſpending the ultimate determination of their judgment, untill they ſhould hear the matter debated in their Presbyteries, or adviſe and confer with others of their Brethren abroad, and then the Letter and Act of the Commiſſion comes unto them, and by the authority hereof, determines that judgment, and ſhuts out all that thereafter could be ſaid by any to the contrary. Was there not a paſſive prelimitation here, though ſuch perſons did not meerly follow the direction of the Commiſſion, but alſo in ſome part their own inclination, which I think indeed was the caſe of many of the Presbyteries. Next, when he ſayeth, that if the Presbyteries who are the onelyonly Electors uſed their own freedome, their Election is free and valide. If he meaned as to any prelimitation from without, it is true; but if he meaned ſimply, and in all caſes wherein they uſe their own freedome, I deny that the Election is alwayes free and val…de: If the Presbyteries had freely and by mutuall agreement amongſt themſelves, or two or three Presbyteries▪ or one Presbytery for the plurality of it, have agreed to exclude all theſe from voycing in the Elections, or from being elected, who were for, or thoſe who were againſt the Publick Reſolutions, would theſe Elections have been free and valid? May not Presbyteries themſelves unwarrantably …n… rench upon the freedome of their own Election is, as well as it may be done by others from without. Th…rdly, I deſire that to be taken notice of, which he ſayeth, for illuſtrating the bu…ineſſe, that ſolicitation active of Judges and Members of a…y Judicatory, proves not a Judicatory corrupt, unleſſe it can …e evidenced that they have accepted and yeelded to the ſolicitation. Well then, if their acceptance and y…elding can be evidenced, it proves them corrupt by the Authors own grant. Whether the Paper proves either of theſe as it under-takes, we ſhall ſee anon. For verifying the laſt of theſe, the Paper ſayeth, That it is proven by the Presbyteries proceeding, according to the Act and Letters of the Commiſsion ſent to them, about the time of chooſing the Commiſsioners, appointing that ſuch, &c. Over this probation, the Author makes a great deal of buſineſſe upon the Writer. To all which, I ſay, that he was not ſo ſimple as to entertain himſelf with ſuch thoughts and purpoſes as the Author ſpeake of; he did wel enough know that what he ſaid in this matter, would come under the conſideration of decerning, and both impartial and partia… judgments, and did expect contradiction either from the Author, or ſome other of his mind, and therefore theſe things need not; but it is no probation but petitio principii, ſaith he, a naked affirming of the ſame which was alleadged before, under favour it is not ſo; It is not the ſame thing to ſay that Presbyteries at the order and appointment of Judicatories paſſed by, &c. and to ſay that Presbyteries proceeded according the Letter and Act of the Commiſſion; the ſecond ſpecifies what Supream Judicatory it was, not the abſolutly or firſtly Supream in this Church; to wit, the Aſſembly but the Supream, by delegation in things committed to them; to wit, the Commiſsion, and it ſpeaks alſo what order and appointment it was, condeſcending upon it in particular, that it was a Letter and Act for this purpoſe, ſo that the laſt brings clearer light and evidence in both theſe particulars then the firſt, and therefore it is not petitio principii, or a naked affirming of the ſame thing, though it be not ſo full a proof of the whole matter, which the writer thought not ſo needfull all at once, becauſe he was to ſpeake of it afterwards in anſwer to the objections which were brought in of purpoſe, that the whole buſines might be cleared and confirmed; but let all be never ſo true which …s ſaid afterwards for pro…f of the aſſumption, the Author wi… have nothing to be ſaid or given to the Reader here but words. If it be true which is ſaid afterwards (as I hope it ſhal after tryall be found) it is no great matter though he be ſuffered to enjoy his opinion in this.
VINDICATION.
I Affirm and make good that Presbyteries were not poſitively pre-limited, but did chooſe freely: 1. A great part of the Presbyteries, I may ſay without overreaching, four parts for five at that time had no oppoſite to the Publick Reſolutions amongſt them, and ſo were not capable by pre-limitation to exclude whom they had not. 2. Of theſe Presbyteries who had any oppoſite to the Reſolutions, the far moſt part did chooſe ſuch, and no other for the Commiſſioners, ſome chooſed ſuch, and otherwiſe minded indifferently (as will appear by the Rolls of the Aſsembly, and the conſideration of the mindes of Presbyteries at that time, and theſe very few who did paſs them by, in their Election, we readily avow, they did it meerly of their own accord, following the freedom of their own minde, without all pre-limitation by any from without, the contrary is not proven, and we can inſtruct the affirmitive of ſome who did paſs by ſuch ere that Act or Letter came to them, or were made known to them.