The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 48
REVIEW.
THe Author in his Anſwer to this Argument, doth not deny any of theſe two particulars in the matter of fact, the truth whereof was acknowledged as neceſſary by the Writer for laying weight on the Argument, to wit, that the Proteſtation was judged and condemned, and the five Member, appointed to be cited before the approving of the Commiſſion-Book; and that the Members of the Commiſſion had vote in theſe things; But yeelding both, he doth juſtifie what was done as juſt and orderly; For my pa…t, I wonder of the Commiſſions modeſty, and of the Aſſemblies wiſdome in it, that needleſly would put themſelves upon theſe rocks, which have ſo uncomely a fronticepiece, that I doubt exceedingly if either the Author, or any man elſe when they have exerciſed their ingines to the utmoſt, ſhall ever be able to vindicate it from the appearance of evill, to ſay no more. But let us hear his anſwer to the particulars inſtanced by the Writer. It is true (ſaith he) that theſe five Members were appointed to be cited, before the approbation of the proceedings of the Commiſſion, but not in relation to cenſure abſolutely and peremptorily; but to anſwer for their deed of proteſting, and in caſe they ſhould not juſtifie it, or paſſe from it, to be cenſured. To which I return firſt; 1. To paſs by the debates that were previous to the citation concerning ſummar Excommunication, wherein (I believe) the Commiſsioners ſa…e as Judges as well as others. The citation was in relation to cenſure abſolutely, as appeared not only from the tenor of the ſummonds, which hath no ſuch caveats and proviſoes in it, as the Author ſpeaks of, but alſo from this, that the Proteſtation was judged and condemned to be a crime before iſſuing of the ſummonds; and therefore the Author hath through inadvertence or willingly miſtaken, when he inſinuates, that there was place left for defending or juſtifying of their deed when they ſhould compear. It were a ſtrange method of proceeding, if the Commiſsion ſhould firſt condemn their deed, before hearing of what they had to ſay for juſtifying of it, and afterwards cite them in order to cenſure, yet with this proviſo, that they would hear them to juſtifie their deed; and it is little to purpoſe that they might paſſe from it, their paſsing from it did not ex…em them from cenſure, unleſs it had been ex gratia, and by the mercy of their Judge; But upon ſuppoſall that the ſummonds had not been peremptory for cenſure, what is that to the purpoſe to refute what is alleadged by the Writer, that the Commiſſioners were not Judges of the Proteſters, before the approving of their proceedings. Is it not ejuſdem citare & ſententiam ferre? And did not their voice in the citation of the perſons of whatſoever nature it was irrefragably ſay, that they might warrantably be Judges of their cenſure. It ſeems the Author ſaw ſomwhat of this, & therfore afterwards he anſwers, that the Commiſsioners might have given vote with others, who of the Proteſters ſhould be cited, and judged them alſo; and that before the approbation of their own proceedings, and yet ſo as it could follow in no wayes, That they had ſitten as Judges in the ſame thing wherein they were under tryall, i. e. their own proceedings; for why (ſaith he) they might have voted with others, (and they did no other manner of way vote in the matter of theſe perſons citation) but that they ſhould be cited to anſwer and be tryed upon the grounds of the Proteſtation, and found them not relevant, and thereupon ſentenced them for proteſting and declining the Generall Aſſembly upon ſuch grounds, and yet the Aſſembly might have found upon tryall, the proceedings of the Commiſſion afterward wrong and cenſurable, without any contradiction: for why, if we will believe the Author, there is not one ground of the Proteſtation, but it might have been found not relevant for proteſting againſt the Aſſembly, before the tryall of the Commiſſions proceedings, and yet nothing been thereby imported, more for approbation then for condemnation of the proceedings of the Commiſſion. To theſe things I have anſwered before; but becauſe the Author is pleaſed to repeat them, I ſhall firſt offer an argument for proving that the Cōmiſsioners by judging of the Proteſtation, were Judges of their own proceedings, and then another Argument for proving that the condemning of their Proteſtation could not wel ſtand with the condemning of their proceedings. The Firſt Argument is, who ſo judges upon the irrelevancy of the Exceptions grounded upon their own proceedings; Judges of their own proceedings: But the Commiſſioners in judging of the Proteſtation, did judge of the irrelevancy of Exceptions grounded upon their own proceedings, Ergo. in judging of the Proteſtation they judged of their own proceedings. The Second Propoſition, I hope, will not be denied, becauſe the Proteſtation could not be judged irrelevant but by judging of the Exceptions propounded againſt the Commiſſioners irrelevant, as the Author himſelf did formerly acknowledge; and that theſe Exceptions were grounded upon theſe proceedings is manifeſt: the exception of prelimiting of the Aſſembly being grounded upon thair Letter and Act ſent to Presbytries which was a part of their proceedings; and the Exception of their being ſcandalous being grounded upon the publick Reſolutions which was another part of their proceedings. The firſt Propoſition ſeems to be cleer from the intimat connexion, that is, betwixt the one and the other of which the Author himſelf gave a hint before: But I prove it thus, Who ſo judgeth of the irrelevancy of Exceptions grounded on their own proceedings muſt find theſe exceptions irrelevant, either becauſe they have no weight in law as not being contrary but conſonant to the law, or not as yet being determined by the law, or elſe becauſe they are not true, or the truth of them, not being yet made to appear, but they cannot judge of any of theſe without judging of their own proceedings, Ergo, &c. The buſineſſe ſhall be cleer by applying it to the things in hand: There is one exception proponed in the Aſſembly againſt the Commiſſioners, That they are ſcandalous, becauſe of carrying on a courſe of Defection in publick Reſolutions: This exception is by the Commiſsioners themſelvs together with the reſt of the Aſſembly judged irrelevant; now I deſire to know upon what ground, either becauſe to carry on ſuch a courſe in the publick Reſolutions is no relevant ground to make men ſcandalous; and if ſo, either becauſe theſe proceedings are not contrary to the Law, or elſe becauſe they are not yet determined in law, or if they judge it irrelevant in reference to the Fact, it muſt be either becauſe they judge the Fact falſe, or elſe becauſe they judge it not yet proven; ſo that take it what way we will, it ſtill follows that they paſſed judgement upon theſe proceedings after that judgment, theſe proceedings are not contrary to the Law: or thus, theſe proceedings are not yet determined by the Law: or thus, theſe proceedings are falſe in fact: or thus, theſe proceedings are not yet proven to be true in fact, and therefore the Exception founded upon them is not relevant to look upon the Commiſsioners as under a ſcandal, ſo alſo in application to that exception proponed againſt them becauſe of the prelimiting of the Aſſembly by their Letter and Act; That exception is judged irrelevant by themſelves and others, either becauſe there was no ſuch Letter and Act to be found among their proceedings: or becauſe ſuch a Letter and Act did include no prelimitation but ſuch as agrees to law: or elſe becauſe it is not yet determined as to the point of law, or not proven as to the matter of fact: and ſo take it what way we will, it ſtill includes a judgment upon the proceedings, for which they are under tryal. The Argument which I offer for proving of the other Point, is this, Who ſo once judges the Commiſſioners proceedings to be conſonant unto, or not to be condemned by the Law according to which they ought to be tryed and judged, cannot afterwards condemn the ſame proceedings, or find them wrong: But who ſo judges theſe Exceptions proponed againſt their proceedings to be irrelevant, judges theſe proceedings to be conſonant unto, or not to be condemned by the law according to which they ought to be judged. Ergo, &c. The Firſt Propoſition ſeems clear and undeniable: The Second is proven, becauſe Exceptions that are proponed upon matters of fact that are true & manifeſt as to the exiſtence of them, cannot be found irrelevant but upon one of theſe two grounds; either becauſe theſe Facts are conſonant to the law, or not condemned by the law, and what is once found by the Judge to be conſonant to the law, or not condemned by the law, cannot be afterwards (unleſs we would make him judge contrary judgment) found to be wrong, becauſe what is wrong is contrary to the law. The application of the Argument may help the Reader to the clear underſtanding of it, when the Commiſſioners with other Members of the Aſſembly, by Condemning the Proteſtation, Judges and Condemns the Exceptions contained therein as irrelevant, they muſt upon ſuppoſal of the truth of the Facts which are manifeſt and acknowledged, find theſe Exceptions irrelevant, either becauſe, theſe Facts upon which they are founded, are conſonant to the law by which they are to be judged; to wit The Word of God, and Acts of the General Aſſembly. or becauſe they are not condemned therby: If they judge them conſonant to the law, they cānot afterwards find them wrong by that law, becauſe they have already by the ſame law found them right; If not condemned, neither can they find them wrong, becauſe that were to find them condemned by the law, by which they have already found them not condemned. If it be ſaid, which for any thing my weakneſs reaches, is the only thing that can with any colour be ſaid. That they might find theſe Facts as to the relevancy or irrelevancy of them not condemned, nor determined by any Act of any General Aſſembly, and ſo no grounds of relevant Exception, when they were offered unto the Aſſembly, and yet might afterwards find them condemned by the Word of God, and ſo find them wrong. I return, 1. That by this Anſwer it is granted, That theſe could never be found wrong by any Act of the Aſſembly, which then was in being. 2. That the Commiſſioners and the Aſſembly when they judged of them in order to the relevancy of the Exception founded upon them, did not only neglect to give a judgement on them according to the juſt and infalible rule, by which they are bound in the firſt place, and by their oath, to ſquare all their proceedings, to wit, the Word of God; but alſo gave a judgment of them contrary to the Word of God, to wit. That they were not relevant grounds of Exceptions, which is a judgment contrary to the Word, becauſe the things being in themſelves wrong by the Word, cannot but be relevant grounds of Exception. If it be ſaid, That all that they judged was that it was not yet manifeſt by the Word that they were relevant grounds of Exception; That ſtill i… but a poor ſhift to defend an ill Cauſe, becauſe this follows, That they did condemn them, before they knew whither the Word of God did condemn them, or approve them: and this is indeed to my underſtanding the up-ſhot of the buſineſs, That it muſt either be yeelded that the condemning of theſe Exceptions, was the approving of theſe proceedings, or elſe that men in condemning of them, went on blindly, not knowing whether they did therin judge according to the Word of God, or againſt it; Becauſe what I have already ſaid, doth cleer and take in what is material and of conſequence to this buſineſſe: Therefore I ſhall be the ſho…ter upon his Anſwers to the other two Particulars mentioned by the Writer: He doth not deny, but the Proteſtatian was judged before the approbation of the Commiſſioners proceedings: and ſurely if ſo, this was no handſome work, not only becauſe the Commiſsioners ſate as Judges to condemn the Exceptions propounded againſt themſelves: but alſo becauſe a part of the Proteſtation was that the Commiſſioners proceedings ſhould not be approven as involving a conjunction with the malignant party &c. And it is ſomwhat ſtrang that they ſhould condemn a Proteſtation againſt the approving of theſe Reſolutions before they find theſe Reſolutions approvable: & that the men who were under tryal in order to theſe Reſolutions, ſhould ſit as Judges, in condemning a Proteſtation againſt the approving of them. The Author thinks, that the Argument will be found by any indifferent judicious men in the World, to bear little weight, and to be a meer Paralogiſm in the whole probation of the aſſumption; to win, That the Commiſſioners did ſit as Judges in the very thing for which they were under tryal: I hope before this time judicious men may ſee ſomething in it that will bear weight, and that there is no Paralogiſm in the probation of the aſſumption. The firſt part of his Anſwer to the Firſt Particular, …s à poſſe ad eſſe, that the Aſſembly might have done ſo, therefore they did ſo; that the Aſſembly might have judged the Proteſtation before the approbation of the Commiſſion: and yet in judging of it, not judged the matter whereof the Commiſſioners were yet under tryal: yea, verily they might (ſaith he) for why they might as to that part of it which is alleadged in this Argument, viz. That the Commiſſioners proceedings ſhould not be ratified, have judged that they ſhould go on to try them, and if they did find them right and agreeable to the Word of God and Conſtitutions in this Kirk, in that caſe to ratify them; whether they might have done this is not now the Debate: It ſeems by what is ſaid, That they could not have done it, but he dare take it on him, That if they did judge the Proteſtation, before the approbation of the Commiſſion, they did no other thing in relation to that particular: Now ſaith he, that they ſhould go on in the tryal of the Commiſſions to approve them if it ſhould be found as ſaid is, and to judge in the thing wherin the Commiſſion was under tryal, &c. are not the ſame, but very different things, as any man that hath half an eye may ſee and d…ſcern. This ſeems to ſuppoſe that when the Aſſembly did firſt condemn the Proteſtation, they did not condemn it all, but only a part of it, to wit, That part that was againſt the lawfulneſs and freedom of the Aſſembly, leaving a reſerve for the other part, againſt the ratifying of the Commiſſions proceedings, until theſe proceedings ſhould be tryed: but I cannot take this for granted, until he verify it by the Act it ſelf, which doth condem the Proteſtation, whereof I doubt exceedingly if it do contain any ſuch limitation; if it had, it is like that he would have told us directly of it, but upon ſuppoſal that it did, yet that doth not take off the difficulty, nor Anſwer the Argument, becauſe as we have already ſhewen, the Cōmiſſioners, by judging the relevancy of the exception proponed againſt themſelves (which they judged of, when they condemned the firſt part of the Proteſtation, againſt the lawfulnes & freedom of the Aſſemb.) they judged their own proceedings, wherof no ſuch inſtance can be given either in the 48. or any other lawful free Aſſem. of this Kirk, As to that of the 48. we have often ſhewed that in al that buſines he goes upon miſtakes, to wit, That the Parliament did except againſt ſuch Members of the Aſſembly as were Members of the Comiſſion. As to his judgment of the Writers reaſoning, it is ſuch as doth make it appear, that he had rather chuſe to allow to him the teſtimony of ſome ability, then not to faſten the imputation of a foul miſcarriage upon him; For he ſaith he cannot tell whether the VVriter hath reaſoned this looſly out of miſtake, or of purpoſe; he can hardly ſuppoſe the former, conſidering this Paper evidences that he is no Child: If the latter be true, he hath ſurely promiſed himſelf very undecerning Readers, and his carriage is the more foul. It ſeems the Authors judgement of the Writer towards the end of his Vindication differs a little from what it was of him not far from the begining of it, or elſe he ſpeaks of him ſo as may contribute moſt for making him contemptible. There he brings him in as one that in the pening of his Paper muſt have the help of others, for the School and for the Law of it, that he may be looked upon as a weak man, and here he ſtiles him as one that is no Child, that he may be looked upon as a Sophiſter: But I beleeve the Writer will rather chuſe rather to be accompted weak, then wicked; rather a Child, then a Deceiver; and he hath upon this accompt, and upon the accompt of his own inocency in this particular, warranted me to tell the Author, and all others who reads theſe Debates, That if in the proof of the minor of this Argument (that the Commiſſioners ſit as Judges in their own proceedings) he hath reaſoned looſly, he hath the teſtimony of his own conſcience bearing witneſs to his integrety, that he hath not done it of purpoſe, but out of miſtake; not wilfully, but in ſimplicity; and withal, that he is ſo far from being convinced of any miſtake in this, by any thing that is yet ſaid, that he is more and more cleared and confirmed that they did ſit as Judges in their own proceedings, for which they were under trial, notwithſtanding of any thing that is ſaid by the Author for clearing of them; but of this I leave the judgment to the Readers. As to the third particular, I acknowledge, that if the other two had been ſatisfyingly anſwered, the force of it would have fallen to the ground, it being indeed but an aggravation of the former; yet ſuch an aggravation as adds not a little weight to it; for all men know what influence the preparations and deliberations of Committees have upon the Judicatories, whoſe Committees they are. But theſe two particulars being eſtabliſhed, and it being true (as it is not denied by the Author himſelf) that the Committee wherein the Proteſtation, and that which concerned the citing of the Proteſters was handled, was for moſt part made up of theſe, who had been Members of the Commiſſion; no queſtion they had in all this buſineſs a great influence upon the determination of the Aſſembly, and did bring a prejudice to the judgment, relating to their own proceedings, yea did that, that did involve an approbation of their proceedings, at leaſt a judgment that they could not be condemned or found irrelevant; and therefore the Author dares to affirm too much, when he ſaith, That he dare affirm it that neither the Writer nor any that were in the Aſſembly ſhall inſtance, that the Commiſſioners did ſit and vote either in the Aſſembly, or in any Committee of the Aſſembly, or any Act of it importing either formally, or by way of conſequence, approbation or condemnation of their own proceedings; we having made the contrary to appear, what was the carriage of the Commiſſioners in theſe things that paſt in the Aſſembly towards the Proteſters, whether their voting and judging in that matter was to their prejudice or diſadvantage; if he mean in order to cenſure I do not know, as never having had the opportunity to be perfectly informed about it; I do indeed beleeve that ſome of the Commiſſioners were tender, as to the matter of cenſures, both in regard of the cenſure, and of the number of perſons who were to be picked out for cenſure; But to ſay nothing that all of them were not ſo, and for any thing I know none of them were free of laying the ground of their cenſure h. e. of condemning the Proteſtation, and declaring it to be cenſurable, it doth not contribute any thing, for anſwering of the thing that was objected, that is, that they were admitted to ſit as Judges of their own proceedings, for which they were under trial; and therfore notwithſtanding this, or any thing that is ſaid to the Argument, it ſtill hath weight againſt the Aſſembly, of which I am content that all impartial underſtanding Readers ſhould judge: I do in reference to this Argumenr, and the Argument of pre-limitation, and that of the rejecting of the Exceptions propounded againſt the Commiſſioners cloſe with the words of theſe Divines and Lawyers in their Greivances againſt the Councel of Trent, Quale vero hoc Concilium futurum ſit, aut quid tandem libero Concilio ſimile habiturum, in quo litigatorum altera pars, & quidem rea, cum conſortibus eodem judicio perſonam judicis quo que ſibi ſumit, & judicii adſeſſores ſub arbitratu deligit, judicium que pro ſua libidine conſtituit, quaerelam & accuſationem nullam audire vult; Imo accuſatores inaudita cauſa, & priuſquam judicii compareant, protinus damnet id (inquam) judicium quid judicij ſimile habiturum ſit facile cui vis ſine longiore commemoratione noſtra eſtimare poterit.
VINDICATION.
ANd now upon all that hath been ſaid, let every one judge in the fear and ſight of God, whether or no all the Reaſons contained in the Proteſtation it ſelf, or in the latter Papers, be relevant grounds to proteſt againſt, or nullifie the late Aſſembly as unfree and unlawful in the Conſtitution and manner of proceeding therin: or if in the Conſtitution or manner of procedor therin there was ſuch encroachments upon the liberty & freedom of Aſſemblies as which the Writer boldly affirms in anſwer to his firſt general Objection formed againſt himſelf, as deſtroyed almoſt all the Eſſentials of an Aſſemblies freedom in Election, Voting, &c. or ſuch incroachments as moved the Aſſembly 38. to judge null the pretended Aſſemblies condemned therein, or if the Arguments brought againſt the late Aſſembly be as ſtrong as any brought againſt theſe: both which the Writer affirms too boldly ibidem, but puts their trial over upon the Reader, wherein I think he did wiſely, for I Am perſwaded had he taken the pains to make a particular paralel faithfully comparing the one with the other, he ſhould evidently fail in the proof, and wrong his credit by ſo diſcovering the raſhneſs of his Aſſertion. As we have cleared the Reaſons brought againſt the Aſſembly, ſo we have been at a little pains, according to his deſire, to take a view of the Reaſons brought againſt theſe Aſſemblies, and ſhall alſo be at the pains to ſet down ſome of them here, that the Reader of the Vindication (who it may be hath not the Acts of that Aſſembly at hand) may conſider them; as 1. Lithgow 1606. but ſeven dayes; Aberdeen 1606. but 20. dayes before; Perth 1608. but 20 dayes before, contrary to clear & expreſs Law, and cauſing the abſence of many Commiſſioners. 2 Commiſſioners from Presbyteries not elected, but enjoyned to come by the Kings or Biſhops Letters, or both Lithgow 1606. firſt & ſecond; Glaſgow 1610. firſt Seſſion. 3. Many voters, as Judges having no Commiſſion from the Kirk, Lithgow 1608. only 22. men, Officers of State, Counſellers, Barrons and Biſhops: Glaſgow 1610. 30. Noblemen and Barrons, beſide the pretended Biſhops. Aberdeen 1616. 25. Noblemen & Gentlemen. Perth 1618. 19 Noblemen and Barrons: 11 Biſhops. 4 Many Supernumerary Commiſſioners for Presbytries, Burroughs in ſundries of them. 5 Threatning of Commiſſioners to vote as the King would, Glaſgow 1610. 3 Perth 1618. with the wrath of Authority, Impriſonment, Baniſhment, Deprivation of Miniſters, utter ſubverſion of the Eſtate; yea, that whether reaſoning or number of votes ſhould carry the matter. Bribing of Commiſſioners, Glaſgow 1610. 3, 5, 7. no election of a Moderator, but uſurpation of that place by the Biſhops, Aberdeen 1616. Reaſ. 1 Perth 1618. 2. 8. No Ruling Elders ſent from Presbyteries, Glaſgow 1610. Reaſon firſt, 9. Grounds of proceeding in voting not in the Word of God, Confeſſion of Faith, Acts of the Aſsemblies: but the Kings Commands Perth 1618. Reaſon 9. Now Reader compare theſe with what hath been ſaid in the Examination of them, and jugde thou impartially, if no ſtronger Arguments was brought for the nullity of theſe pretended Aſſemblies then this Writer hath brought againſt this.