The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 25
REVIEW.
THat no more was done in the Commiſsion of the 48, then writing of that Letter which gave the Presbyteries an accompt of their proceedings &c. is not aſſerted by the Writer; yea, he tells plainly enough, that more was done; for the thing which he ſaith, is, that no more was then done, h. e. when that motion was made, and within two or three lines he ſubjoyns, that that Letter which is mentioned in the objection, was not writen by the Commiſsion, until moſt part, if not all the elections in Presbyteries were paſt, and therefore the Author does wrong when he leaves out the circumſtance of time, which the writer put in, and expounds him ſo to his reader, as if he had ſaid that there was no more done at any time, neither then nor thereafter; but he cannot underſtand what all that is ſaid of this is, to that which was alledged that the late Commiſſion had done nothing, but that which the Commiſsion in the 48. had done before them. It is to that which was alledged, becauſe it contributes for clearing of the Commiſsion of the 48. as to the matter of pre-limitation, becauſe they did reject all motions tending that way. It is true that the Act and Letter of the 51. did not expreſly, and in the words bear that none who did oppoſe the Publick Reſolutions ſhould be choſen Commiſſioners; but it did by good and clear conſequence import no leſſe, and what ever the Author be pleaſed to ſay of the recommendation that was ſent to Presbyteries in the 48. that it doth contain as much and more then the Letter and Act of the 1651. yet hath he not proven it. The Author tels us, that he will not ſay who made the motion in the Commiſſion in the 48. for writing to Presbyteries to chooſe none but ſuch as were againſt the engagement; And withall, what if he ſhal ſay that the like motion was made in the Commiſsion 51. and oppoſed and refuſed; I believe as he will not ſay ſo, ſo he cannot ſay who made the motion, and the men whom haply by ſuch hints he would render ſuſpected, were not the makers, but the oppoſers of it. If the like motion was made and oppoſed in the Commiſsion 51. why did he not ſpeak it out? but conceiving theſe things to little purpoſe, he falls upon proving by the writers own grounds, that the Commiſsion 48. did upon the matter that that did, as really pre-limitate Presbyteries, that they ſhould chooſe none, but ſuch as did oppoſe the engagement, as if they had writen as much to them in formall expreſs termes. His proof of this point as he layes it down, may be thus drawen in form: Whoſoever requires Presbyteries either to refer to the Generall Aſſembly, or to cenſure preſently theſe who are otherwiſe diſpoſed, they do by the writers grounds pre-limitate the Presbyteries in their elections: But the Commiſsion of the Generall Aſſembly 1648. did ſo, ergo, &c. The firſt Propoſition he makes out thus: Such as were under a clear cenſure could not be choſen Commiſsioners, and the writer himſelf ſaith in anſwer to the third Objection, 2. branch, that it cannot be denyed that a citation in matter of ſcandall, in doctrine or manners will or ought to exclude a man from being a Commiſſioner. I ſhall not in anſwer to this yeeld unto him all that he alledgeth, though it all might be yeelded without any prejudice to the Cauſe; becauſe on ſuppoſall that there had been a limitation in that which was done by the Commiſsion in the 48. it being a limitation agreeable to the Word of God, and conſtitutions of this Church, it was due and warrantable, which the other in the 51. was not; but leaving this to fall in its own place. I return anſwer firſt to the firſt Propoſition, by diſtinguiſhing of the times when ſuch a thing is done, whoſoever before or in the time of elections requires this thing, it is true of them that they do pre-limite elections; but who ſo requires not this til the elections be firſt made; it is not true of theſe, and this was the caſe in the year 48. the elections being paſt in moſt places before it was done, and might be juſtly preſumed to have been paſt in all, as ſhall afterwards be more fully cleared; but it was not ſo in the 51. what was then done, being previous to the elections. Next, I give clear anſwer by denying the minor, becauſe the Commiſſion did not require ſuch a thing, the moſt that they did was to recommend it, which is far from requiring, and therefore by the writers grounds the Author hath proven nothing at all. To the ſecond conſideration, that the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion 48. was not writen untill moſt part, or all elections in Presbyteries was paſt, he makes anſwer that ſo were many of the elections of Presbyteries before the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion 51. came unto them: But that is not true, if we take the Authors own ground, to wit, that few Presbyteries, except it be ſuch as are fartheſt diſtant chooſeth their Commiſsioners 20. or 25. dayes before the Aſſembly, and allowing 8. dayes for diſpatch to Presbyteries, and take withall the date of the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion 1651. which is the 28. day of May, and compare it with the day of the down ſitting of the Aſſembly, which was the 16. day of July, the untruth of this will appear, becauſe between the date of the Act, and the diet of the Aſſembly are 48. dayes, of which deducing 8. for the diſpatch, there do remain 40. dayes till the Aſſembly, which do far exceed the time ſpoken of by the Author, for the other part of it, that moſt part of the elections 48. were paſt before the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion came unto them; I do appeal to the Presbytery Books. There is little or no weight in the preſumptions that the Author gives to the contrary. 1. He takes upon him to prove, that ſome Presbyteries did upon that Letter and Act refer and cite ſome of their members to the Generall Aſſembly, ſome Presbytery dayes before they began to think upon the election of Commiſſioners but he hath named none, and compriſes them under the word ſome, haply leſt it ſhould be known how few there were, probably but one, that is, St. Andrews, in the matter of one of their univerſity men, who was alſo a Miniſter. Next he makes a ſupputation but of 8. dayes for the diſpatch of the Letter to Presbyteries, and that to the moſt part of Presbyteries, it might have ſoon come, and but of 20. or 25. dayes interveening betwixt the diet of the Aſſembly and the elections in moſt parts of Presbyteries; If the cuſtome of diſpatch had been by paſts hired, and diſpatched to ſeverall parts immediatly, after the writing of the Letter, and making of the Act, it might have come to the moſt part of Presbyteries in 8. dayes, but ſo it was not, neither in the 48. nor 51. but by occaſionall bearers, and therefore would take more time, and I think it is ſaid gratis, that few Presbyteries do make their elections 20. or 25. dayes before the Aſſembly; but there is no ſure way of determining theſe differences about circumſtances of time, when neither the one nor the other Letter came to Presbyteries, but from the Presbytery books, and therefore to theſe I do appeal to ſtand or fal in this matter, at their ſentence, only remembering this, that it is clear that the date of the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion 48. is but five weeks before the Aſſembly, whereas the date of the other is 7. weeks before the Aſſembly.
VINDICATION.
THe third Conſideration preſented by the writer of this Paper, is, that before the writing of that Letter (by the Commiſsion 48.) the whole Kirk of Scotland almoſt in all the Presbyteries and Synods thereof had declared themſelvs in conſcience unſatisfied with the engagement, excepting a very few Miniſters ſcattered here and there in Presbyteries, which few were alſo known to be oppoſites to the work of God, or neutralls and indifferent therein from the beginning. Anſwer 1. If by the Kirk of Scotland be here underſtood, the collective Kirk, I cannot ſee how it is true that is ſaid here, that the whole Kirk of Scotland for the moſt part, except a few Miniſters had declared themſelves unſatisfied with the engagement; certain it is, and too certain, that very many in the Kirk of Scotland in this ſenſe of all ranks, in all quarters almoſt, were too evidently too active for it, as the cenſure civill and Eccleſiaſticall which thereupon followed do witneſſe; if the Miniſteriall Kirk be underſtood, it is true that the far greater part were diſ-ſatisfied, but yet they were not ſo few Miniſters that were of a contrary minde, they were too many, and in ſome places the greater part of whole Presbyteries. It may well be remembred what a ſumme they were like to have accompted to, at the time of the Generall Aſſembly, and it ſeems to me too much, that all of them were either oppoſers of the work (whether hereby be underſtood the outward work of Reformation, or the power of Religion) or neutrals, or indifferent from the beginning, the contrary is known of ſome of them; and I would not ſay ſo much of all them that were cenſured, though I acknowledge their cenſure was juſt. 2. A great part of the Kirk of Scotland, before the writing of the late Commiſsions Letter, had declared themſelves ſatiſfied with the Commiſsions Reſolutions, and diſſatisfied with the courſe of the oppoſers thereof; and count when the writer will, he ſhall find that the diſſenters from the Commiſsion 48. were not fewer; yea, not ſo few as the diſſenters from the Commiſsion 51. we know that the number of theſe amounted to at their greateſt Meeting, at … of late, and howſoever moe of theſe then of the firſt be godly men, and had been more faithfull in the Cauſe formerly; yet their preſent courſe at that time being not faithfulnes to the Cauſe, but prejudiciall to it, and the whole Kirk and Country both; they might juſtly have been referred and called before the Gen. Aſſembly, to give an accompt of their way as wel as the former were, though they be more tenderly dealt with, as to themſelves was evidently ſeen in the whole progreſs with them, and was alſo really apparent in the very Act and Letter of the Commiſsion.