The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 16
REVIEW.
WHat needs all this waſt of words, concerning the gathering and muſtering of forces, and the imploying of many heads, and the pen that gave the forme, and ſome thing of School, and ſomething of Law, and Regiſters, which the former behoved to have from theſe Q…aerees? The truth is, that if it were a purpoſe to tell it, there were very few heads imployed in that buſineſſe; haply as few as about the Vindication, and there was little gathering of forces for it, the difficulty of correſpondence and ſhortneſſe of time wherein it was penned admitting of very little communication of thoughts; and the Author is miſtaken when he ſpeaks of two Quaeres, one of School, another of Regiſters and of Law, out of which the former behoved to have his materials, and haply alſo concerning the pen that gave it the frame, as ſome others have been before him; but what though all theſe things were true which he alleadgeth: Is it any fault in weak Souldiers to call in their fellows to their help, and to ſtrengthen one another in maintaining of their ground againſt many and ſtrong Adverſaries; or doth he hunt after commendation and applauſe, by ſetting forth the preparations, and multitude and ſtrength of his oppoſites, whom yet he by himſelf alone ſuppoſeth to have defeat. It was free for the Author in anſwering the reaſons contained in the Proteſtation, and the other Paper relating to it, to chooſe ſuch a method as ſeemed beſt to him, though it would have ſeemed to be more eaſie for his readers, if he had followed foot for foot what is contained in theſe Papers; I do more wonder that he hath left many things of importance unanſwered, not ſo much as once touching them. But let us come to the anſwers which he gives, which I ſhall take as they ly in the Vindication, upon ſuppoſal that the Letter and act ſent by the Commiſsion to Presbyteries, did contain an under-prelimitation; the firſt ground as it lyeth in the Proteſtation, hath force to prove the illegality, or nudity in the Aſſembly, notwithſtanding of any thing the Author ſaith to the contrary. Firſt, he ſeems to lay this ground, that nothing can be of force to prove the illegality, or nullity of the Aſſembly, but that which can be imputed to the Aſſembly it ſelf; but I fear that this ground which is here hinted at by him, and much made uſe of by ſome others in this particular, ſhall fail all who lean thereupon: I ſuppoſe that by a Letter and Act of the Commiſſion, and a deed of the Presbyteries done thereupon, elections had been ſo pre-limited, that al… Ruling Elders had been excluded, and Miniſters onelyonly choſen, or the one half of the Miniſters excluded, without a juſt cauſe from having voice in the elections, or from being choſen Commiſsioners; would not theſe pre-limitations have force to prove a nul Aſſembly, the ſame being proponed and rejected as not relevant exceptions, when the Commiſsioners did meet to conſtitute themſelves into an Aſſembly; it ſeems by the Authors ground they could not, becauſe they are but alledgeances not yet proven, and they have not determined therein, no approven thereof, becauſe it is not in their power to cognoſce upon exceptions againſt the Commiſsion, without change of the order of Proceedings to the Aſſ. which had been conſtantly uſed in all time by gone; there may be many things done in Commiſsions & Presbyteries in prelimiting and perverting the elections, that cannot be imputed; yea, which the Aſſembly may condemn, that may make an illegall and null Aſſembly; and therefore upon ſuppoſall that the Letter and Act ſent to Presbyteries did contain an under-pre-limitation, it might have force at the time of the Proteſtation to prove a null Aſſembly, though it could not be imputed to the Aſſembly it ſelf: But how doth he prove that it could not be imputed to the Aſſembly? firſt, it was (ſaith he) to the knowledge of the Aſſembly, but an alledgeance not proven; it ſeems the Author doth not queſtion the relevancie of it in Jure, if the truth of the fact had been proven, but it being relevant in Jure (as upon his ſuppoſall it needs muſt) and offered to be proven in facto; yea, the matter of fact, as to the preſumption of it, being manifeſt to the conſciences of many of the Aſſembly, ought they not before conſtituting themſelvs in an Aſſembly, either to have tryed and diſcuſſed the ſame, or elſe to have laid aſide the perſons againſt whom it was propounded, from ſitting as Members in the Aſſembly, untill it might have been gotten tryed and diſcuſſed; but they did neither of theſe, and was not this to be imputed to the Aſſembly? Next, he ſayeth, that the Aſſembly had not yet determined in, nor approven the deed of the Commiſſion, nor the deed of Preſbyteries done thereupon in Elections, at the giving in of the Proteſtation: B…t in this he is much miſtaken, becauſe the Aſſembly by admitting the Commiſſioners from Presbyteries ſo elected, did as really approve theſe limited Elections, and ſo the deed of the Commiſsion and Presbyteries done thereupon, as ever any preceeding Aſſem. uſed to approve the moſt free Elections; to wit, onelyonly by admitting the Commiſſioners; yea, the Aſſemb. rejecting of the exceptions, and allowing the Commiſſioners againſt whom it was propounded, to ſit notwithſtanding the propounding thereof, was a real approving of the Commiſſion, and of what the Presbyteries did thereupon, as we ſhal afterwards Godwilling clearly ſhew. Thirdly, he ſayeth, that the Aſſembly had not yet conſidered the proceedings of the Commiſsion, neither was it in their power to cognoſce upon exceptions againſt the Commiſsion, without change of the order of proceedings, which had been uſed conſtantly in all time by-gone, This is a pretty fancie to defend an ill cauſe: the Church of Scotland have found it neceſſary in the intervall betwixt Generall Aſſemblies, to have her Commiſſion, whoſe truſt ſhould be to preſerve the Liberties of the Church and to take care of ſome things of more General concernment committed unto them, and that in all theſe things they ſhould keep themſelves within the bounds of their Commiſsion, and proceeding according to the ſtanding Acts of former Generall Aſſemblies, and that in the next enſuing Aſſembly they ſhall give an accompt of their proceedings during the whole time of their Commiſsion in the beginning of the Aſſembly, before any other Cauſe or matter be handled, and their proceedings to be allowed or diſ-allowed, as the Aſſembly ſhall think expedient. Now, ſaith the Author, this matter of pre-limitation being an exception againſt the Commiſsion, could not be taken in conſideration, without the change of this order. I ſhall not ſay, that it might have been done without any ſhadow of change of order; But I deſire to be conſidered, that it never was the intention, nor did it ever come into the mind of any free lawfull Generall Aſſembly of the Church of Scotland, to give power to their Commiſsioners to give Lawes concerning the conſtitutng of an Aſſembly; theſe are clearly ſet down in the Policy and Acts of the Church, according to which, the Commiſsion ought to walk in all things committed to their truſt, not medling with any thing not committed unto them, much leſs medling with it in a way contrary to that Policy & theſe Acts: and therefore did they appoint the proceedings of theſe Commiſsioners to be tryed, and allowed or diſ-allowed in the next Aſſembly, before the doing of any thing elſe. Now a Commiſsion contrary to their truſt, doth meddle with the Conſtitution of an Aſſembly, and by their Letter and Act, and the deed of Presbyteries thereupon, the elections are prelimited (as the Author is content to ſuppoſe) and when the Aſſembly meets, and this is proponed as an exception to be taken in conſideration againſt ſuch Members of the Aſſ: as was Members of that Commiſsion; he tels us, it cannot be conſidered without change of order, being an exception againſt the Commiſsioners proceedings. What a ſad caſe the Church is brought to by this means, that …s, to ſuffer the conſtitution of her Aſſemblies to be corrupted by her own Commiſsion, and that without remedy; or why it muſt, as to the Conſtitution of the Aſſemb. be taken in conſideration before the admitting of theſe Commiſsioners to fit as Members, or elſe not at all, becauſe if if the Commiſsioners be once received, the Members admitted, and the Aſſemb: conſtituted hoc ipſo, that theſe things are done, that prelimitation is approven; or why the Aſſem: hath already conſtituted & found themſelvs a lawful Aſſem. with theſe Commiſsioners incluſive, notwithſtanding of that exception. That the matter may be yet further cleared, it would be conſidered, that againſt the conſtitution of Judicatories in their Members, there may be exceptions of ſeverall ſorts, ſome that are more perſonall or particular, relating to one or two, or ſome few upon perſonall ſcandals and miſcarriages; Some more common and univerſall, that concerns all or many; a Judicatory may proceed to conſtitute it ſelf, and act as a Judicatory before diſcuſſing …xceptions of the firſt ſort; having laid aſide the Members againſt whom theſe exceptions are propounded, till conveniently they may be gotten tryed and diſcuſſed, becauſe there is no exception but againſt a few, and upon particular and perſonall ſ…andals; the far greater part being Members uncontrolable and rightly qualified, but they cannot proceed to conſtitute themſelves and act as a Judicatory before diſcuſsing of exceptions of the ſecond ſort, unleſſe we would ſuppoſe, that after conſtituting themſelves into a Judicatory, or finding themſelvs to be a Judicatory, they might again find themſelvs to be no Judicatory. Exceptions of a more common and univerſal influence againſt cauſa cauſae, of the Conſtitution of an Aſſembly, to wit, againſt Elections, which is the ground of the Commiſsions; as the Commiſsions are of the conſtitution of the Aſſembly, ought to be conſidered before conſtitution be declared; for unfree Elections make null Commiſsions, and all, or a great many null Commiſsions, make a null Aſſembly. From theſe things, I truſt it is manifeſt, that the exceptions againſt the freedome of Election, becauſe of the Act and Letters of the Commiſsion, and the deed of the Presbyteries following thereupon, ought to have been taken in conſideration before the Meeting did conſtitute themſelves in an Aſſembly, and that the Commiſsioners whom that exception did concern, ought not to have been admitted to ſit as Members, before the trying and diſcuſsing thereof: as to that of the change of the order of proceeding, which had been uſed conſtantly, upon which the Author ſeems to lay ſo much weight, beſides what is anſwered already, I ſay, there needed no change in that Order, in diſcuſsing of any thing that was intruſted to the Commiſsion; for this was not within the compaſſ… of their power and truſt, but diametrally oppoſite to the ſame; and therefore the Commiſsion having ſo far exceeded their bounds, as to meddle with Conſtitutions of the Aſſembly, by prelimiting of the Elections; this did unavoidably neceſsitate the cognition and conſideration of that part of th… Commiſsions proceeding, ſo far as it did relate to the Conſtitution of the Aſſembly, though not formally, as it did concern their carriage. I know not to what purpoſe the Author alleadges, that that order was on a debate w…th the Parliament it ſelf in the year 1648. eſtabliſhed by a former Act, as the Proteſters themſelves well underſtood; would he by this inſinuate, that there was a debate betwixt the Parliament and the Aſſembly, concerning the Commiſsions pre-limiting of Elections, and that the Parl. deſired this to be conſidered of before the Aſſemblies conſtituting themſelves into a Judicatory, and that the Aſſembly did refuſe it, and afterwards eſtabliſhed the Act which he ſpeaks of? O… that the Parliament did deſire the Commiſsioners of the former Aſſembly ſhould be removed from ſitting as Members in the Aſſembly 1648. untill the Exceptions propounded againſt them, by them ſhould be taken in conſideration and diſcuſſed? If he mean any of theſe, he is much miſtaken, becauſe there was no ſuch debate betwixt the Parliament and the Aſſembly, nor betwixt the Aſſembly and any perſons whatſoever in the year 1648. as we ſhall afterwards convincingly clear: And he is no leſſe miſtaken when he ſayeth, that it was acknowledged by the Proteſters, and that upon this they offered to the Aſsembly at St. Andrews, before the chooſing of a Moderator, a Paper preſſing the changing and reforming the order of proceeding in the Generall Aſſembly, which before had always been in uſe. The Proteſters might haply acknowledge an Act of the Aſſembly concerning the trying, and allowing and diſ-allowing the proceedings of the Commiſsion before the handling of any other Cauſe or matter. If there was any queſtion about that Act, it could not but be readily acknowledged by the Proteſters, having been ſo lately revived in the Aſſem. 1648. but that there was any ſuch acknowledgment as the Author inſinuates, is alleadged without all ground; as alſo that which he ſayeth of their offering a Paper for changing of their former order; They did never offer any ſuch Paper, nor did they ever pen or draw up any ſuch Paper; and the Author doth wrong them not a little, and himſelf more, when he doth affirm it: They did indeed offer a Paper to the Aſſembly, before the chooſing of the Moderator, but there was not one title therein concerning the changeing and Reforming of the order of proceeding formerly uſed by the Aſſembly; but upon knowledge and conſcience of the main weight that lay againſt that Meeting, why they could not be a lawfull, free Generall Aſſembly; the Proteſters did offer a Paper unto them for chooſing of the Moderator, containing a humble deſire, and ſome reaſons to perſwade them to adjourn their Meeting, and to forbear to conſtitute themſelves in an Aſſembly; the Paper is yet extant under the hands of all the Proteſters, and may be ſeen by any who pleaſe. If the Meeting at that time had been pleaſed to read and hearken to the deſire of that Paper, many things that have followed ſince, might have been prevented; but many, whether from a fear of miſsing a ratification of the Publick Reſolutions, or upon any other ground, themſelves beſt know, did ſhew themſelvs ſo zealous againſt the very offer of it, that the Meeting would not ſo much as read or hear it; and therefore whilſt the Author thought to have reached a great blow to the Proteſters, in faſtening upon them the preſsing of the changing & reforming the order which themſelves not long ago (as he alleadges) had been the main maintainers and procurers of, to get it eſtabliſhed before, when it made for them, he hath quite miſſed them, and wounded himſelf by alleadging things that are not true.
VINDICATION.
BƲt come we to the Argument as it lieth in its full form and ſtrength in the later Paper. Paſſing the firſt Propoſition thereof, let us come to the tryall of the ſecond, or the Aſſumption. That the election of Commiſſioners to the Aſſembly was prejudged and prelimited in the due freedom thereof: That this alleadgeance might be verified, it was neceſſary to have made clearly out; Firſt, That the Commiſſioners Act and Letter exclude and diſcharge many Miniſters to be choſen. Secondly, That the Presbytery in the Election, were poſsibly prelimited by the Letter of the Commiſsion, i. e. admitted the prelimitation of the Commiſſioners, and did not uſe their own freedom in electing, but meerly followed the direction of the Commiſſion; let the Commiſſion be never ſo guilty, and their brethren never ſo unduely prelimited, yet if the Presbyteries who are the only Electors uſed their own freedom, their election is free and valid, and nothing can be forced againſt the Aſſembly as unfree and unlegall in the conſtitution of it, becauſe of any ſuch Act or Letter of the Commiſsions, as ſolicitation active of Judges and Members of any Judicatory, proves not a Judicatory corrupt, unleſſe it can be evidenced, that they have excepted and yeelded unto the ſolicitation. Now, doth this Paper prove either of theſe as it undertakes, and would bear the Reader in hand, when it ſayeth, The ſecond Propoſition is proven, &c. good and ingenuous Reader; conſider if it do ſo. And firſt for the latter of theſe particulars what ſayeth it? The ſecond is proven by the Presbyteries proceeding according to the Letter and Act of the Commiſſion ſent unto them about the time of chooſing the Commiſsioners appointing that ſuch, &c. Anſwer. Did the Writer of this Paper at the emitting of it, think, that it ſhould ever come under the conſideration of decerning and impartiall judgements, that would try ere they truſt; or rather hath he purpoſed that it ſhould come to none b…t ſuch as were pre engaged, or pre-inclined to take any thing off his hand for good coyn, proof good enough? For here as to that part of the Aſſumption on the which we are for the preſent, there is nothing but a naked petitio Principii, a naked affirming of the ſame which was alleadged before in the firſt …etting down of the Aſſumption; for what is it elſe that is ſaid, Presbyteries proceeding according to the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion about the time &c. but the ſame that was alleadged there, that Presbyteries at the order and appointment of a Supream Judicatory paſſed by. &c. and therefore whatever the writer ſay afterward in the pretended proof of that Aſſumption, concerning things included in the Commiſsions Act and Letter, to ſhew that they intended prelimitation of the election of Commiſsioners, let all be never ſo true. It is but words he gives his Reader in the cloſe of that Section, ſaying theſe things do clearly prove that there was ſuch a prelimitation of Election as is formerly ſpoken of; For, let theſe things be never ſo clear ſpoken of the Commiſsions Act and Letter, yet for ought that he ſaid as yet, it is not clear, that Presbyteries proceeded according to theſe, or were poſitively prelimited by them, that they did not uſe their own liberty in election, and ſo the ſecond Propoſition is not yet proved.