The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 22
REVIEW.
THe Author for taking off of this prejudice, and reaſon which ſtood in the way of the Aſſembly at Glaſgow 38. who prove the unlawfulneſſe of theſe pretended Aſſemblies by the want of freedome in the matter of election of Commiſſioners ſaith, that their matter was not meerly alleadged, but clearly evidenced that the Commiſsioners ſent to theſe Meetings were not indeed elected by Presbyteries, but nominate by the Kings Letters, if he mean that they were not freely elected by Presbyteries proceeding meerly ex proprio motu; It is true becauſe the King and the Biſhops Letters had influence upon them to pre-limite their elections, but if he mean that they were not all elected by Presbyteries, nor had any Commiſsion from them, but came meerly upon the Kings Letters, it is not true; becauſe albeit the reaſon againſt the pretended Aſſembly at Lithgow 1606. ſeems to favour this, yet that againſt the pretended Aſſembly at Glaſgow 1610. intimateteth that they were choſen and had Commiſsions, becauſe it ſaith Firſt, that the elections were not free; an election then there was, but not a free election; if there had been no election, the Aſſembly 38. would, no queſtion, have ſo expreſſed it, as importing a reaſon of nullity more clear and ſtrong. Next, that the Biſhop of St. Andrews required them to ſend ſuch Commiſsioners as the King had nominate, aſſuring them that no other would be accepted; If the Presbyteries did ſend them as their Commiſſioners, then ſome ſort of election there behoved to be, as indeed there was, both to that Aſſembly at Lithgow 1606. and that of Glaſgow 1610. For clearing of which, it would be remembred, that there is an election materiall, when perſons are inſtructed and authorized by us as our Commiſsioners, though we have not nominate and formally choſen them for that effect, and an election formal, when we do formally nominate and chooſe, an election materiall there was at Lithgow, becauſe thoſe who were nominate by the Kings Letter, were inſtructed and authorized by the Presbyteries as their Commiſſioners; and therefore in the 4. reaſon for nullifying of that Aſſembly, there is mention of the power which theſe Miniſters had, and of the limitation thereof by their Presbyteries; but there was no formal nomination of theſe men by the Presbyteries, therefore it is ſaid in the 2. reaſon, that they were not at all elected by their Presbyteries: but at Glaſgow 1610. there was both a materiall and formall election, though not free but pre-limited, becauſe the King and the Biſhops had deſigned the perſons whom they would have them to ſend; and let it be conſidered, whether upon the matter there be not the like and as realll a pre-limitation, by the Act and Letter of the Commiſsion: In the year 1606. and 1610. the King and the Biſhops nominate who ſhall come and deſign, whom the Presbytery ſhall ſend, without leaving them to chooſe ſuch of their number as they thought fit, and in the year 1651. the Commiſsion deſignes who of their number they ſhall not ſend, to wit, none that were oppoſite to the Publick Reſolutions (for this much their Act wherein they require them to be cited to the Aſſembly doth import, as afterwards ſhall be cleared) not leaving Presbyteries to their own freedome, chooſe ſuch of their number as they thought fit, and is not the one of there a pre-limitation, and hinders a free choice as wel as the other? Doth not he pre-limite who ſaith that you ſhall not chooſe ſuch men of your number, as well as he who ſaith you ſhall chooſe ſuch men of your number; in the mean while it is to be obſerved, that the Aſſembly 38. hath no ſuch diſtinction as that of active and paſsive ſolicitations, but infers the laſt Preſumption juris & de jure from and upon the firſt, and not without good reaſon, becauſe none doubt of the influence of commands of Superiors, when the deſire is granted, and the direction is followed by the inferior, eſpecially when the effect is contrary to the former cuſtome and practiſe when they were free: Becauſe the Author hath endeavoured to darken as much as he can the pre-limiting of the elections in Presbyteries, by the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion, by his diſtinction of active and paſſive pre-limitation, therefore upon ſuppoſall that the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion, did contain a pre-limitation of the elections, which ſhall be afterwards cleared; I reaſon thus: For proving that Presbyteries were paſſively pre-limited in their elections by that Letter and Act; who ſo in their elections accepts of, and yeelds obedience unto a Letter and Act containing a pre-limitation of their elections; are paſſively pre-limited in their elections: But the Presbyteries did accept of, and yeeld obedience to ſuch a Letter and Act, ergo, &c. The firſt Propoſition is a clear truth, and agreeable to the Authors own words when he is explaining paſſive pre-limitation, active ſolicitation of Judges and members of a Judicatory ſaith he, proves not a Judicatory corrupt, unleſſe it can be evidenced, that they have accepted and yeelded unto the ſolicitation. The ſecond Propoſition to wit, That the Presbyteries did accept of, and yeeld obedience unto that Letter and Act, becauſe it was not onelyonly received and read in the moſt part of Presbyteries before their elections, without any teſtimony given againſt it, but alſo appointed to be put upon record in their books in teſtimony of their approving thereof, and as the ground and order of their proceedings in the things contained therein, and obedience was given thereto in moſt places, by forbearing to chooſe any ſuch as appears by the Rolls of the Commiſſioners, in ſame places ranverſing former elections, and appointing new ones to be made up on that ground, as appears in the elections of the Presbytery of Dunkell; in ſome places oppoſing the chooſing of ſuch as were oppoſite to the Publick Reſolutions, and diſſenting from, and Proteſting againſt their being choſen, as in the Elections of Glaſgow, in ſuch places intimating to ſuch as were chooſing in their abſence, that they might not admit them unleſſe they did declare themſelves ſatisfied with the Publick Reſolutions, as in the presbytery of Mearnes: for verifying of which, I deſire it to be taken notice of, that that Preſbytery having choſen the Lord Arburthnet to be Ruling Elder to the Generall Aſſembly, they did afterwards writ unto him a Letter, and ſent by ſome of their own number, in which Letter are contained theſe words: We have ſent two of our number who will take your Lordſhips Declaration when you accept and give your oath to diſcharge your truſt faithfully, whether your Lordſhip is ſatisfied with the Publick Reſolutions; but if you have any heſitation and ſcrouple therein (as we hope you have not) we muſt make choice of another, and in ſome places refuſing upon that accompt to ſubſcribe and approve the Commiſsion of theſe who were ſent from Burghes, as in the Presbytery of Kirkaldie, who after the reading the ſaid Act and Letter of the Commiſsion, did refuſe to ſubſcribe the Commiſsion given by the Burgh of Bruntiland to Magnus Aitoun. becauſe he compeared not with the Commiſsion himſelf to declare his minde anent the Publick Reſolutions. Theſe may be inſtances enough to prove their obedience; If it were needfull to take up time in ſo clear a buſineſſe, we could bring ſundry moe which we now delay, becauſe they may be ſubjoyned to the end of this Paper; but to ſay no more of this purpoſe, the Synods and Presbyteries citing of ſuch to the Generall Aſſembly as did oppoſe the Publick Reſolutions by the order of the Letter and Act (which order for citation did by neceſſary conſequence incapacitate them to be Commiſsioners) is an undenyable teſtimony that they accepted of, and yeelded obedience thereunto.
VINDICATION.
BƲt let us prove it further in the diſcovery of the nullity of the firſt reaſon, and for that purpoſe conſider the other particular thereof, which concerns the Commiſsions Act and Letter: As to the matter in Generall, the Proteſters themſelves nor any other judicious or ſound Chriſtian will ſay and think, that the election of Commiſsioners in Presbyteries ought to be of ſuch a lax liberty as is bounded with no limitations at all; this was the looſe way pleaded for by the Arminians at the Synod of Dort, and which would tend to the ſubverſion of true Religion; certain it is, that Presbyteries are ſo far limited in this that they muſt not chooſe any to be Commiſsioners to a General Aſſembly, that teaches Doctrine contrary to the word of God, and Conſtitution of the Kirk agreeable thereunto, and therefore if a Commiſsion of the Gen. Aſſembly, or any other Kirk Judicatory, according to their intereſt, perceiving Miniſters throughout the Kirk teaching contrary to the truth, or practiſing to the prejudice of the true Religion, ſhould writ to Presbyteries deſiring them not to chooſe any ſuch Commiſsioners to a Generall Aſſembly, this were no undue pre-limitation or prejudging their Liberty in election, but a neceſſary and lawfull warning puttting them in minde of, and ſtirring them to a duty whereunto they were bound, though no ſuch direction were ſent to them; This laid down in generall, as to that Act and Letter of the late Commiſsion ſent to Presbyteries, we ſay firſt, That the Commiſsion did nothing therein but that which other Kirk-Meetings and Commiſsions had done before them in the ſame matter, in relation to the election of Commiſsioners to the Generall Aſſembly, all which muſt fall unto the ground as null, unfree and unlall, if the late Generall Aſsembly be unfree and unlawfull in its conſtitutions; Ʋpon this accompt We muſt look back to the Generall Aſsembly at Glaſgow 38. it ſelf, what directions were ſent from the Tables then at Edinburgh in relation to electing Commiſsioners thereunto. Next, we muſt refer alſo to the Letters ſent to Presbyteries by the Kirk Commiſsion annis 1639. 40. 41. concerning Commiſsions to Brethren to theſe Generall Aſſemblies, all which are yet extant in Presbytery Books, but we ſhall content our ſelves to hold near hand; the late Commiſsion did nothing but what the Commiſſion did in the year 48. wherein the chief Proteſters had a chief hand, and yet maintain the lawfulneſſe of that deed, and the freedome and lawfulneſſe of the conſtitution of that Aſſembly that followed thereupon; To this the writer of the large Paper replyeth ſundry things in anſwer to Objection 1. But nothing to take away the force thereof: Firſt, he hints at two differences between the one and the other, as he would have the reader think he might make uſe of, but paſſeth by, as having to ſay beſide; To ſay nothing (ſaith he) of the difference of reference and citation, neither yet of the difference of a Letter and Act importing that there is a conſiderable difference between theſe things, and that the Commiſsion 48. appointed perſons diſsentient from them onelyonly to be referred, and did ſend a letter onelyonly; whereas, the Commiſsion 50. made an Act alſo, and appointed Perſons alſo to be cited to the Generall Aſsembly; to which we oppone firſt, the difference between a citation and a reference, when the reference of a perſon to be tryed and judged on a fault, and the perſon is preſent at the reference is juſt nothing, ſee Aſsembly 1643. Seſſion 2. Aug. 3. Overtures anent Bils, &c. And I deſire the Writer to ſay if it was not the purpoſe of the Commiſſion 48. when they did require Presbyteries to refer ſuch to the Gen. Aſsembly, that there ſhould be laid on them an obligation legal to compear perſonally before the Gen. Aſsembly for tryal and ſentence upon them, and what elſe is the end of a citation and ſummonds, nor yet is the more difference betwixt the Act of the Commiſſion and perſons to be referred or cited by Presbyteries, and a Letter requiring it to be done, for is there not an Act for ſuch a Letter, and the matter of it, and hath the Letter it ſelf the force of an Act; would not the refuſing of what is deſired be counted diſobedience to the Commiſſion? But it ſeemeth the Writers memory hath failed here; behold an Act in terminis, as it ſtands regiſtrate in the Commiſsion book the 5. of June 1648. The Commiſſion of the Generall Aſsembly recommends earneſtly to Presbyteries to take ſpeciall notice of every Brothers carriage in the Publict buſineſs that if any be found that do not declare themſelves aagainſt the preſent Malignant courſe, nor joyn with their Brethren in the Common Reſolutions thereof, they be referred to the next Generall Aſsembly, and if any of them have already declared for it, that they be preſently cenſured, fic ſub. Andrew Ker. This may make us doubt the more of alledgances of this kinde, afterwards in matters of fact, when we ſee not clear and circumſtantiat teſtimonies of Regiſters brought forth.