The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 32
REVIEW.
ALbeit this be more then probable, as appears from the conſtant tenor of the proceedings of Aſſemblies in the matter of Commiſſioners, which was intimated by the Writer, yet I am content to take what the Author gives. He diſtinguiſhes betwixt a ſcandal, which as to the ground of it is controverſi juris, & a ſcandall which is determinati juris, and makes the ſcandall of oppoſing the Publick Reſolutions to have been only controverſi juris, as to any particular determination thereof by the publick judgment of the Kirk, and thence infers, that the oppoſers of Publick Reſolutions might have been choſen, this notwithſtanding, and admitted to ſit as Judges in the Aſſembly, though not in this particular; and I offer theſe particulars hereanent: Firſt, That by the Authors own grant, they are ſtill excluded from ſitting as Judges in that particular, and therefore as to a competent Judge in this particular, which was the main, if not the all of the Aſſembly, the Aſſembly was pre-limited. Secondly, That this was not a buſineſſe which was controverſi juris, but as clearly determinati juris as any thing could be; I mean, that the oppoſing of the Publick Reſolutions, was no fault, but a duty clearly determined by the Church of Scotland; I confeſſe, men may queſtion any thing, even the cleareſt truths, but there is no caſe oftener or more clearly determined by this Kirk, then that of the unwarrantableneſſe of joyning in Counſel or Arms with the Malignant Party, for the defence of the Cauſe and Kingdome, and of the obligation that lyeth upon Miniſters, eſpecially to bear teſtimony againſt the ſame; and therefore a notable injury was done, and a groſſe pre-limitation committed, by citing them upon that accompt. Thirdly, ſuppoſe it had not yet been determinati juris as to the publick judgment of the Church in an Aſſembly; yet as to the judgment of the Commiſsion and Presbyteries who did hear and obey them, it was determinati juris, and men were excluded from Elections, and cited to the Aſſembly there-upon, as upon a thing that was determinati juris: Therfore as there was thereby a pre-limitation in regard of theſe, who though they were choſen, yet could not ſit in that particular, becauſe of the Citation; ſo alſo in regard of others, who were therby excluded from being choſen. 4. If this ſcandal was not (Determinati Juris) by the Publick Judgment of the Church, the Author would let us know why the Commiſſion in their Warnings at Perth, March 20 by applying many former Acts and Remonſtrances of Gen. Aſſemblies againſt it, do define it to be ſo: And what Warrant the Commiſſion had by their truſt from the Gen. Aſſembly, not only to declare the oppoſers of their Reſolutions to be guilty of practices leading to encourage the hearts, and ſtrenthen the hands of Enemies, in proſecuting their wicked purpoſes to make faint the hearts, and feeble the hands of Gods People, and to ſeduce their minds with deviſive and ſeparating Counſels and Principles, and thereupon, not only to require Presbyteries to cenſure them, but alſo to ſtir up the Civil Magiſtrate againſt them. Surely, if the Commiſſion did all this without any Publick Judgment of the Kirk (that is of former General Aſſemblies defining theſe things to be ſcandal) they did as to theſe things act without a Commiſſion, and without Authority, and were beyond their bounds, and led with no ſpirit of tenderneſs. The Author did a little while agoe ſeem to ſay, That the Commiſſion had no power to cite or to cenſure the oppoſers of any Reſolutions made by themſelves; and yet here he tels, that theſe things, as to the Publick Judgement of the Kirk, were controverſi juris: And if ſo, they were as yet but Reſolutions of their own, and they had no power to cite or cenſure any, or to give Order to cite or cenſure any for oppoſing thereof. That the Publick Reſolutions were controverſi, and not determinati juris by the publick judgement of the Kirk: That the Commiſſion had no power for citing or cenſuring any Oppoſing Reſolutions made by themſelves; That they gave Order to Presbyteries to cenſure and cite the oppoſers of Publick Reſolutions, are things that I cannot reconcile. I wil not ſay but the Authors ingyne may find a ſhift, but if he extricate theſe things to the clear capacity of plain and ordinary underſtandings, is more then at preſent my weak eyes do ſee. As for that he tells us concerning the rejecting the motion of putting off of ſome from the Liſt to be Commiſſioners, who had been referred and cited to the Aſſembly in the year 1648. I can ſay little to it, as not knowing it nor the circumſtances therof. I beleeve it be an inſtance of a particular perſon in a Preſbytery giving his judgment anent the liſting of another, but when it is all granted it yeelds a great part of the cauſe, to wit, That theſe perſons could not ſit in the Aſſembly as Judges in that particular; And if I be not miſtaken in my conjecture about the perſons, I think I may ſay, if that judicious and pious man who rejected that motion had been in any fear that theſe perſons would be choſen, belike he would have holden his peace, and ſufferred the motion to paſſe uncontrolled. But the Author (if this pleaſe not the writer) deſires him to anſwer what he will for clearing of the Order of the Commiſſion 48. and it will ſerve aſwell the Order of the Commiſsion 51. as to any illegality relating to the Conſtitution of the Aſſembly; becauſe, ſaith he, upon the form both clearly were alike, excepting what will make for the advantage of the latter; and as for the matter in both it was alike, as to the General Aſſemblies Judgment at the time of the Proteſtation, and alſo in reipſa, as he takes upon him to make good. It ſeems that it doth not pleaſe the Author himſelf very wel, and I think it wil pleaſe the Writer much worſe, becauſe of the things which I have mentioned, and other things as weighty which may occur to him, as to that of the 48. I have already given clear anſwers for the writer, or rather vindicated his own, that there was a vaſt difference both in the form as alſo in the matter; and that both, as the Aſſemblies judgement at the time of the Proteſtation (unleſs they were not to admit the judgment of former Aſſemblies in theſe particulars) as alſo in reipſa, and he ſhall but loſe his labor, and not be able to make good what he undertakes.
VINDICATION.
THat which may ſeem to ſay ſomewhat againſt the other Particular (viz. That no mans Commiſſion was rejected, nor any man choſen to be a Commiſſioner was refuſed to have vote in the Aſſembly upon that accompt, that he was unſatisfied with the Reſolutions) is in the Anſwer to the 3. Objection, Branch 4. Firſt, (beſide ſomthing that hath been anſwered already) he ſaith, Policie taught the Aſſembly ſo to do: The votes of ſo few a number not being likely to prove ſo great diſadvantage to the buſineſſe, as the profeſſed denying to them a vote would have done. Anſwer, If the Writer had uſed ſo much modeſty and reſpect to the Aſſembly as to have ſaid, That poſſibly Policy might have taught them to do this, or it may be probably thought it was thus, it had been ſomewhat tolerable: But I muſt ſay it is too much boldneſſe thus to have ſaid, poſitively, That Policy did teach them it. Good Sir, did you ſee into the hearts of men in the Aſſembly, to ſee this political deſign moving them to do this? Or can you bring a demonſtration from any evidence without, that their doing of it, did ariſe from no other principle or motive but this? But if it be ſo that they did it upon a political motive and end: yet if it was ſo really as none was rejected or refuſed, to have vote upon the accompt of diſſatisfaction, that exception is to no purpoſe to the point. We are upon the freedom of the Aſſembly, which is to be meaſured by the acts done about the Conſtitution and managing of it, conſidered according to the Matter of them, and not according to the Intentions and Moral Motives whereupon men does them. But the Writer does add two things further for Anſwer. 1. That the diſcuſſing and judging of the Commiſſions of theſe in Glaſgow and Sterling, who were unſatisfied with the publick reſolutions, were laid aſide; becauſe Mr. Rob Ramſay his Proteſtation againſt the Election, taken from their Diſſatisfaction, could not be diſcuſſed, until theſe Reſolutions were either condemned, or approven, which was in effect to exclude them from voting, becauſe of not approving the Publick Reſolutions; and this is ſo much the ſtronger, conſidering that it was refuſed to lay aſide the Commiſſions of theſe that carried on the Reſolutions until their proceedings ſhould be tryed and approven. Anſw. 1. Beſides that Mr. R. Ramſay his Proteſtation was not againſt theſe of Sterling at all, ſo that it is impertinent to ſay, that their Commiſsion was laid aſide becauſ of that Proteſtation: And beſides, that the Commiſsions of others controverting with them, and pretending by as probable reaſons their Commisſion as theſe, was laid aſide alſo. It followeth not hence that they were ſimply excluded from voting, but ſuſpended from voting for a time, and had not vote in that particular which might well had been without imputation of pre-limitation on the Aſsembly, as hath been ſhewen before. 2. The Conſideration added for confirmation is very inconſiderable; becauſe the Commisſions of theſe of Glaſgow and Sterling were controverted in the very Election, and therfore their Commisſion could not but be laid aſide untill the grounds of the Controverſie ſhould be diſcuſſed, that it might be ſeen whether they were orderly elected, or not; but theſe others had their Commisſion by Elections orderly and uncontroverted in the Presbyteries that ſent them; yet neither were they to have vote in the matter of the Reſolutions. What is ſaid from the Exception made againſt their Admisſion to vote at all, given in to the Aſſembly, ſhall be anſwered afterwards. Secondly (ſaith he) it is to be conſidered, That the Aſſembly did ſuſtain & approve the Letter and Act of the Commisſion for citing ſuch as were unſatisfied, which was a real excluding of all theſe upon their disſatisfaction, at leaſt from being Judges in that particular. Anſw. 1. The Writer doth here, as all along this Paper, bear his Reader in hand, that the Commisſion hath given order for citing ſuch as were unſatisfied indefinitly, which is contrary to the truth; for only ſuch (as all means uſed, do continue in oppoſing) were to be cited, as is evident by the Act and Letter. 2 It is true, after tryal and examination of the Commisſions proceedings, they did approve that Act and Letter: But did not the Aſſembly, 48. do the ſame in relation to the Letter and Act of the then Commisſion of the like nature? But yet further, Did not all Commisſioners from Presbyteries, who were unſatisfied (excepting ſuch only whoſe Commisſions were controverted in the very Election) were yet undiſcuſſed, and were pleaſed to ſtay in the Aſſembly, ſit and vote in that ſame very particular; I mean the Reſolutions of the Commiſſion, how then could they be really excluded from being Judges in that particular wherein they really did ſit Judges; or were any of them excluded after the Act and Letter was approven? If it be ſaid, That the approving of that Act and Letter did import, that they ought in the judgment of the Aſſembly to have been excluded. I anſwer, 1. Yet though this may ſay ſomewhat, that the Aſſemblies determination in this point de jure did not agree wel with that pre-ceding fact in admitting ſuch Members to judge in that particular, yet it ſaith nothing to the point in hand, ſeeing theſe Members of whom we ſpeak did really and actually without any Letter or exception made againſt them Judg, not only in other matters, but alſo in that very particular. Thus much in anſwer to the firſt Reaſon againſt the late Aſſembly, and what is brought in that Paper for confirming and upholding of it: If it have any force Malignants may think themſelves obliged to the Proteſters for teaching them, if ever they ſhall have power again, how to call in queſtion and condemn their Aſſembly 48. yea, and if they find it make for their purpoſe, even other Aſsemblies too, even that Solemn Aſsembly 38. as unfree and unlawful, becauſe of pre limitation in the election of Commiſſioners.