The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 24
REVIEW.
I Deſire that in making of this compariſon, it may be taken notice of, that the Commiſsion in the year 1651. had long before the ſending of that Letter and Act now upon debate ſent to Presbyteries, not only Publick Warnings, wherein the oppoſits of Publick Reſolutions are characterized as Malignants, and holden forth upon the matter, as the betrayers of the Cauſe and Countrey, and animating the Civil Magiſtrate to uſe Civill Cenſures againſt them (as ſhall be afterwards proved from the Papers themſelves) but alſo a Letter and Act requiring them to cenſure ſuch, the tenour hereof followeth: Reverend and Welbeloved Brethren, finding that notwithſtanding of our faithfull Warnings and great pains taken to ſatisfie all men to concur in their places for furthering of the Leavies, for defence of Religion, King and Kingdome, and all other our deareſt Intereſts, many are ſo far from concurring, that they do very vehemently go about to obſtruct the Work, by writing, preaching and perſwading to the contrary: We do therefore require you, that you carefully enquire in your Presbyteries, what Miniſters do preach, or otherwiſe perſwade, contrary to our preſent publick and publiſhed Reſolutions; and that you proceed to cenſure ſuch as are in your own number; and if any Miniſter that travels among you, tranſgreſſe in that kind, let him not be permitted to preach in your bonnds; Sic ſubſcribitur Pearth, March 20. 1651. It is not then to much purpoſe to tell us, that the Act and Letter of the Commiſsion doth not require the Presbyteries to cenſure any at all for oppoſing of Publick Reſolutions, ſeeing they had expreſſely done it long before that time in another Letter and Act ſent for that purpoſe; and the ſecond thing wherein he compares them, will alſo be found no wayes conſiderable, if we ſhall remember that theſe Warnings of which we ſpok, hath no diſtinction of ſuch as profeſſe themſelves unſatisfied with Publick Reſolutions, and ſuch as do oppoſe them, but takes in both the one and the other; yea, and theſe who are ſilent too, and applys the Acts of former Generall Aſſemblies againſt them, as is evident from the Warning iſſued from Pearth, March 20, 1651. I wiſh the Author had told us how he differences ſuch as profeſſe themſelves unſatisfied, and ſuch as oppoſe. Can a man profeſſe himſelf unſatisfied, and even after conference profeſſe himſelf ſo, and yet be ſilent, and ſay nothing to the contrary? I believe he means not oppoſition by force; but a Miniſters declaring his judgment, and bearing teſtimony againſt the courſe in his ſtation and calling, and how a man ſhould profeſſe himſelf unſatiſfied, and not to do this, I cannot tell, unleſſe he ſhould become neutrall and indifferent in the matter of his duty. He aſſerts ſundry to have been depoſed in the 48. namely, for ſpeaking ſome few words againſt the Commiſſions Declaration againſt the Engagement, but doth not let his Reader know who theſe were, and by whom and when they were depoſed; I do not remember of any (neither yet do others who were much imployed about theſe matters) that were depoſed by the Commiſſion for ſpeaking againſt their Declaration againſt the Engagement before the Aſſembly 1648. and if he mean it after the Aſſembly, it is not to the purpoſe. Which things make it appear, that the Author hath not found the Commiſſion 48 ſo rigide and ſevere, that he hath any cauſe to preferre the Commiſsion of the 51 unto them for moderation and ſparingneſſe, though there were no difference upon the matter, and in regard of the perſons with whom they had to do.
VINDICATION.
NOw to the reſt inſiſted on; Firſt, ſaith the Paper in the year 48, when a little before the election of Commiſsioners to the Generall Aſſembly, it was moved by ſome of the Commiſsion, that ſomething might be written to Presbyteries, requiring them to chooſe none but ſuch as were againſt the Engagement; it was oppoſed and refuſed by the Commiſsion, as favouring a way of pre-limitation of the Aſſembly, and all that was there done was a Letter written to Presbyteries, giving them accompt of their proceedings, and exhorting them to their duty, to chooſe able and faithful men. Anſwer. That more was done in the preceding Generall Aſſembly, we have made it evident. But what is all this ſaid here to what was alleadged, that the late Commiſsion had done nothing but what the Commiſsion 48 had done before them? Did the Commiſsion 51write to Presbyteries, requiring them not to chooſe any againſt, or oppoſite to their reſolutions, to be Commiſsioners, not one word more or leſſe of this? Or did not the Commiſsions Act 48, bear and import as much as the Act and Letter of the Commiſsion 51, yea, as much and more both extenſive and intenſive, as was cleared in the preceeding. But you will ſay (as it is in the Paper) in the Commiſsion 48, about that time that a motion was made, that ſomething ſhould be written to require Presbyteries, not to chooſe any but ſuch, &c. and was oppoſed and refuſed, as favouring pre-limittation. Anſwer. I will not ſay who made the motion; but I ſay, this is to little purpoſe; for, what if I ſhall ſay the like motion was made in the Commiſsion 51, and oppoſed and refuſed too; But further I prove by the Writer of this Paper his grounds what the Commiſsion 48 did upon the matter; that which they did, was really to pre-limitat Presbyteries, that they ſhould chooſe none but ſuch, as if they had written as much to them in formal expreſſe terms; for their Commiſsion required Presbyteries either to refer (or upon the matter to cite) to Generall Aſſemblies, or to cenſure preſently theſe who were otherwiſe diſpoſed without leaving any of them; Firſt now ſuch as were under any cenſure clear, could not be choſen Commiſsioners, & the writer himſelf ſaith in anſwer to the 3 Objection, branch 2, That it cannot be denyed, that a citation in matter of ſcandal in doctrine or manners, will or ought to exclude a man from being a Commiſsioner. Therefore upon the matter that the Commiſsion did require, that Presbyteries ſhould chooſe none but ſuch as were againſt the Engagement, the Act and Letter of the Commiſsion 51, if it did import excluſion of any from being Commiſsioners, was not ſo wide by far; It required not all unſatisfied, but ſuch as continued to oppoſe to be cited; and there were many unſatisfied at that time, who made no oppoſition, and therefore might have been, for ought that can be any wayes drawen from the Act and Letter, choſen to be Commiſsioners, as ſundry were de facto. Second conſideration preſented in anſwer to the former alleadgeance, is, that that Letter of the Commiſsion 48, was not written by the Commiſsion, as we remember, until moſt part, if not all elections in Presbyteries were paſſed, as will be cleared in the date thereof. Anſ. So were many of the elections of Presbyteries paſt before the Letter of the late Commiſsion came to them; but that all, or moſt part of elections were paſt before that Letter was written 48 to Presbyteries, we cannot upon a naked aſsertion believe. The Writer would have done wel here to expreſse the date of the Letter; for I doubt not but he might have had it out of ſome near Presbyterie Book; I cannot give a double of it for the preſent, but I ſhal give an evident preſumption that it was otherwayes then it is ſaid here. Firſt, in ſome Preſbyteries, I will take upon me to prove, that ſome Presbytery, dayes, ere they began to think on the Election of Commiſsioners ſome of their Members were upon that Letter of ſilence in the Publick buſines, referred and cited to the Gen. Aſsembly. Next, look to the date of the Act of that Commiſsion formerly ſet down here, it is upon the 5. of June. Now, it is evident, that this Act hath been made in order to that Letter, if it ſelf was not alſo ſent with it, and the Aſsembly did ſit that year upon the 12. of July; ſo that betwixt the appointment of the Letter and the date of it could not be much after it, and the down-ſitting of the Aſsembly, there interveened full five weeks. Now, allowing eight dayes for the diſpatch thereof unto Presbyteries (to the moſt part to what Presbyteries it might ſooner come) it might have been at Presbyteries twenty or twenty five dayes before the Aſsembly. Now, it is well known, that few Presbyteries, except it be ſuch as are fartheſt diſtant, chooſes their Commiſſioners ſo long before the Aſsembly.