The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 23
REVIEW.
IN anſwer to what is here ſaid by the Author, I acknowledge that the elections of Commiſſioners in Presbyteries ought not to be ſuch as is bounded with no limitations, and that if any Commiſſion of a Generall Aſſembly, or any other Church Judicatory, according to their intereſt, perceiving Miniſters throughout the Church teach…ng contrary, or practiſing to the prejudice of the Truth ſhould write to Presbyteries deſi…ing not to chooſe any ſuch Commiſsioners to a Generall Aſſembly, this were no undue pre-limitation or prejudging their liberty in election; I believe that none of the Proteſters will differ from the Author in this: That Presbyteries ought not to chooſe any to be Commiſſioners that teaches doctrine contrary to the word of God, and Conſtitutions of the Kirk agreeable thereto, and if the Commiſſion in their Letter and Act had terminated themſelves within theſe bounds, no Proteſter would have controverted with them about it, and I think neither will he controvert with them in this, that if a Commiſsion, or any other Kirk Judicatory teach doctrine contrary to the word of God, and to the conſtitution of the Church agreeable thereunto, and write to Presbyteries to chooſe none to be Commiſſioners to the General Aſſembly who doth oppoſe ſuch doctrine, that this is a pre-limiting and prejudging of Presbyteries in the liberty of their elections, according to theſe condeſcentions. The Commiſſion in the 51. having ſent to Presbyteries a Letter and Act before their elections relating thereto; It ſeems unavoidably to follow, that ſome limitation and direction there was in that Letter and Act concerning the elections: But all the queſtion is, whether it was a limitation warrantable or unwarrantable: Now if ſo, why hath the Author ſo cautiouſly, and ſo much wraſtled to deny that that letter and Act had any influence upon the elections in Presbyteries; if it was nothing but a neceſſary & lawful warning, putting them in mind of, and ſtirring them up to a duty whereto they were bound, though no ſuch direction had been ſent unto them, then there was no cauſe to be affraid of the looſing of any ground by acknowledging of its influence, the Authors long wrangling about that, doth either ſeem to ſay that he is ſuſpicious of the limitation contained therein, as not being warrantable, or elſe that he hath too great goodwil to diſpute, ſeing this would have been a ſhort and ſatisfying anſwer. The Commiſſion in their Letter and Act did put no bonds on Presbyteries in the election of Commiſsioners, but ſuch as are well warranted by the word of God, and Acts and Conſtitutions of this Church, and therefore as the one did nothing but their duty in holding forth the ſame, ſo the other did nothing but their duty in accepting thereof, and giving obedience thereto. His long and operous diſputation gives his readers occaſion to think, that he is jealous of ſo open and plain a defence: His next and great refuge is, that the Commiſsion did nothing therein but what other Commiſsions and meetings had done before them in the ſame matter, in relation to the election of Commiſſioners, which I do confidently deny, for the inſtances which he names in the years 1638. 39. 40. and 41. Becauſe he doth but name them without condeſcending upon any particular, which it is like he would have done, if he had found them much to his purpoſe; I paſſe them with theſe conſiderations, that what was done in 38. was no authoritative direction, but a friendly information and advice, and that not in a Church adhering to Reformation, but in a Church that had made defection therefrom, and what was done 39. 40. and 41. was agreeable to the Word of God, and conſtitutions of the Church: But what was done in the 51. was an authoritative direction in a Church now reformed from corruptions, and was contrary to the word of God, and conſtitutions of this Church. As to the inſtance of the Commiſsion 1648. which he makes his great refuge, and the things which he ſaith thereof: Firſt, I do not know who are the chief Proteſters, they are all joyned as yoak-fellows in one and the ſame duty, and I think he doth as little know who had a chief hand in that of the 48. but I believe, all of the Proteſters do own it, and maintain both the lawfulneſſe of that deed, and the freedome and lawfulneſſe of the Conſtitution of that Aſſembly, and yet do no ways thereby hold themſelves bound to maintain the deed of the Commiſsion 1651. or the freedom and lawfulneſſe of the Aſſembly of that year, becauſe of the great differences betwixt theſe two deeds, which doth ſtill yet ſtand unreconciled, notwithſtanding all the pains the Author hath taken to make them ſpeak the ſame thing. As to pre-limitation, I ſhall not wrangle with him about the difference of a Reference and a Citation, whether it be conſiderable or not; onelyonly this, the Reference in the 48. was not a Reference of particular concernment, (of which ſort only the Aſſembly 1643. Seſſ. 2. Aug. 3. ſpeaks, making it equivalent to a Citation if the perſon be preſent) or in order to a ſentence upon the perſons, and therefore requires no Citation in caſe of their abſence, but of generall concernment, that the Aſſembly might after hearing ſuch of themſelves as did appear before them, adviſe what courſe to preſcribe to Presbyteries anent them; and if a Reference and a Citation (as he ſtates it) be alone, why did the Commiſsion of the 51 require them not only to be referred, but alſo to be cited. If he ſay, becauſe they might happen to be abſent from the Presbytery, then either the Commiſsion in the 48 and their Clerk, did not underſtand theſe Legalities, or elſe they meaned not to have them cited, in caſe of their abſence from the Presbytery. As to his deſire to the Writer, I have ſpoken with him concerning his knowledge of the purpoſe of the Commiſsion in the year 1648. when they did deſire Presbyteries to referre ſuch to the Generall Aſſembly, and he deſires me to return the Author this anſwer, That to the beſt of his knowledge, and ſo far as he doth remember, the Commiſsion had not that purpoſe, that there ſhould be laid on theſe who were referred, an obligation legall, to compeare perſonally before the Generall Aſſembly, for tryall and ſentence upon them; and he ſeems to me therein to ſpeak truth: Firſt, becauſe there is no mention in the Act of uſing any Citation to thoſe who ſhall be abſent from the Presbyteries, without which there could be in that caſe no obligation upon them to compear. Secondly, becauſe they lay no legall obligation upon the Presbyteries, either to cite or referre them, but recommends onelyonly to referre them; and I do not ſee how any Preſbyteries refuſing what was deſired, could have been ſentenced for diſobedience. I know that when any Judicatory writes a Letter, there is an Act for it, and for the matter of it; but the Author is a litle wide in his Criticks, when he ſayeth, That the Letter it ſelf hath the force of an Act. If he mean it of every Letter from a Judicatory, wherein any thing is recommended or deſired to be done, and of an Act laying on a legall obligation; but behold (ſayeth the Author) an Act in terminis, as it ſtands regiſtrate in the Commiſsion-Books 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 Publick buſineſſe, that if any be found that do not declare themſelves againſt 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, ſic ſubſcribitur Andrew Ker. For all the Authors exclamation, here is yet no Act, I mean nothing authoritative and importing a legall obligation, but a meer recommendation; whio ſo peruſes the Commiſsions Books, will find their Acts by which they mean to lay on legal obligations upon theſe whom they concern, caſten in another mould, they do ordain, appoint or require, as is evident from the Letters and Acts from the Commiſsion 51 relating to the oppoſits of the Publick Reſolutions. And albeit the Authors memory hath failed him in a word, in calling it a Letter, yet it hath failed him nothing upon the matter, ſeeing it is clear, that his meaning was, that it was nothing authoritative for laying on a legall obligation; but a Letter, or ſuch a thing as a Letter, that uſually doth onelyonly recommend or deſire, and therefore this ſo ſmall a miſtake, needs not make any to doubt the more of alleadgeances of this kind afterwards in matters of fact, though haply clear and circumſtantiall teſtimonies of Regiſters be not brought forth; and if the Author will be content to be weighed in his own ballance, there ſhall upon this ground be juſt occaſion to doubt of many things which he ſayeth, becauſe he doth oft-times in matters of fact, aſſert things that never had a being, let be to miſtake the name of a Paper, by calling it a Letter, when it is an Act. From what hath been ſaid, it appeares that there is a conſiderable difference betwixt what was done in the Commiſsion 48, and the Commiſsion 51. In the 48 there is no more but a meer recommendation to referre to the Aſſembly, which doth not lay any legall obligations upon the Presbyteries to do it; nor upon the perſons to compeare incaſe of their abſence from the Presbytery, and not being cited: But in the 51 there is a formal authoritative Act, requiring them to be referred and cited.
VINDICATION.
NOw to our preſent purpoſe; if ye will compare this Act of the Commiſsion 48, with the Act and Letter of the Commiſsion 51 not in queſtion. The Letter will be found much more moderate and ſparing; for firſt, the Act and Letter of the Commiſsion 51, doth not require the Presbyteries to cenſure any at all for oppoſing Publick Reſolutions, but onelyonly requires them to be referred and cited to the Generall Aſſembly, whereas the other 48 requires, that all who did declare in the leaſt againſt the Reſolutions, be cenſured preſently, ſundry being depoſed, namely for ſpeaking ſome few words againſt the Commiſsions Declarat. againſt the engagement. 2. the Act & Letter of the Commiſsion, requires not (as the other duty) any to be referred for meer ſilence, nor all that profeſſed themſelves unſatisfied with the Publick Reſolutions, though after conference they remained unſatisfied, but only ſuch as make oppoſition to the Publick Reſolutions. Yea, only ſuch as continued in their oppoſition obſtinate, all due means of ſatisfaction being offered and refuſed) to the hindering people from going forth to the preſent and neceſſary defence of the Land, and not drawing others from it, which at that time was a moſt evident expoſing of the Land without reſiſtance to the power of the Enemy. This much to the ſecond Difference hinted at, and profeſſed to be paſt by.