The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 36
REVIEW.
ALbeit the Author is pleaſed to ſay, That the Writer ſhall never be able to make good, that the Publick Reſolutions were diametrally oppoſite to clear ſtanding Acts, Remonſtrances, and Declarations of former Aſſemblies, yet he, or ſome others in his room hath often made this good, out of theſe Acts, Remonſtrances, Declarations, &c. wherein the very contradictory of the Publick Reſolutions, is clearly ſet down upon the very circumſtantiat caſe of defending the Cauſe and Countrey againſt forraign Invaſion; and therfore though there were no more to uphold the Argument but this, the concluſion thereof may ſafely be aſſented to, without any new Edition of the Writers in following his Argument: I am glad that the Author is brought to acknowledg, that all hangs upon this, and doubts that ſome of his friends who quarrell at ſundry former Acts, Remonſtrances and Declarations, as not knowing how to reconcile them with Publick Reſolutions, approve him in this. He would remember, & others would be informed, that in the beginning of the Meeting at St. Andrews, this point was offered to be inſtantly verified out of the Records of the Church under the Clerks hand, who is general…y acknowledged to know them beſt of a…y, and was bound by his place and particular Acts of Aſſemblies, to offer them unto them, and yet they could not be heard; and the exception being relevant in it ſelf (as is acknowledged by the Author) and rejected when offered to be inſtructed: as to the matter of fact it is alike as if it had been proven, for it ſtands for proven in Law, as to the Judge who refuſes to admit probation to be inſtantly produced ex actis ſuis. To his firſt particular anſwer I reply. Firſt, That no like accuſation nor exception came into the Aſſembly 1648, from the very Parliament (or any other) againſt the Members of the Commiſſion who were Commiſſioners to the Aſſembly; neither after a long and ſerious debate was it found (either by our preſent Proteſters or any others) and concluded that none of them could be removed from ſitting in the Aſſembly, and voting in other matters, until their proceedings were firſt heard and tryed. There was in the Aſſembly 1648. no ſuch accuſation nor exception, nor debate, nor concluſion, which is a ſhort and clear anſwer for juſtifying that Aſſembly, and for vindicating the truth of that which is alleadged by the Writer in anſwer to the firſt Objection, to wit, That ſuch exceptions being propounded, were never rejected; and doth withal give a clear reaſon why the one Aſſembly ſhould be condemned, though the other be juſtified; becauſe the one Aſſembly rejected ſo releuant an exception, which the other did not, it being never propounded unto them. In all this buſineſs the Author is greatly miſtaken, and (whether through miſ-information, or how I know not) doth aſſert that for a truth which never had a being, and therefore all his defences built upon it do at one inſtant fall to the ground. The ſtory which as it ſeems he hints at in the 48. was briefly this▪ In the year 1648. the Aſſembly being met and conſtituted without any exception propounded or mentioned by any perſon or party whatſoever, againſt theſe who had been Members of the former Commiſſion, and were now Members of the Aſſembly, after they had ſitten five or ſix dayes, as is evident from comparing the date of their firſt Seſſion with the date of the Papers after mentioned, the Committee of Eſtates (for the Parliament was adjourned a good while ere then, as is evident from the printed Acts therof) hearing that the Aſſembly were now gone a good length in the tryal of the proceedings of the Commiſſion, ſent in the Earle of G…encarn the Treaſurer-Depute, and Archibald Sydeſerf to the Aſſemblie with a Paper wherein they did deſire, 1. That the Aſſembly would be pleaſed to appoint ſome of their number to meet with ſuch as ſhould be appointed by the Committee of Eſtates, for compoſing of miſ-underſtandings betwixt Kirk and State, and for clearing the Marches betwixt the Civil and the Ecleſiaſtick Power, and theſe Queſtions which had been debated betwixt the PARLIAMENT and the COMMISSIONERS of the GEN. ASSEMBLY. 2. That they would be pleaſed to forbear the emitting of any Declaration, either to this Kingdom, or the Kingdom of England, relating to the then Engagement and proceedings. 3. That before the General Aſſembly did proceed to any approbation of the actions of the Commiſſioners of the former Aſſemblies, that in theſe things which might relate to the then Engagement, and to theſe Queſtions that had been debated betwixt the Parliament and them, they might be firſt heard. In order to theſe deſires there paſſed ſeveral Papers betwixt the General Aſſembly, and the Committee of Eſtates: But in none of theſe is there any Exception propounded by the Committee of Eſtates againſt any of the Commiſſioners of the former Aſſemblies, nor any deſire thereupon, that they might be removed until theſe Exceptions ſhould be tryed and diſcuſſed: But all the Objections and Exceptions they ſpeak of, is, Objections & Exceptions againſt the proceedings of the Commiſſion in reference to the Engagement, which though they were a good while waited for, and again and again deſired, yet did not the Committee of Eſtates offer one tittle of particular Objection or Exception againſt the proceedings of the Commiſſion in the matter of the Engagement, before the tryal and approbation of theſe proceedings by the General Aſſembly, much leſs did they offer any Objection or Exception againſt the Members of the Commiſſion, who were Members of the Aſſembly. The Committee of Eſtates did afterwards print and publiſh very ſharp and reflecting Papers againſt that Aſſembly, and their Declaration, wherein as was probably conceived, they had the help or ſome very able Miniſters and Lawyers, and yet in all theſe they do not ſo much as once inſinuate any thing of this kind that they did propound ſuch an Exception againſt the Members of the Commiſſion, who were Members of that Aſſembly, which doubtleſs they would not have omitted if any ſuch thing had been: But if the Author will not truſt none of theſe things, which if need were can be atteſted by many who were eye & ear witneſſes therto. To the effect that there be no place for gainſaying in this matter, I have ſet down after the cloſe of this Review, the true Copy of the Papers that paſt betwixt the Committee of Eſtates and the General Aſſembly at that time in that buſineſs, extracted faithfully out of the Regiſters of the Committee of Eſtates; againſt which no flying report that he hath heard, and taken impreſſion from, can bear any weight. That Myſtery of Iniquity which the Author ſuppoſes to have found againſt all the late Gen. Aſſemblies of this Church, is but a Myſtery of his own very groundleſs and uncharitable fanſie, wherein he may haply pleaſe himſelf, but brings no edification to his Readers, nor advantage to his Cauſe thereby: It were better for him to be exerciſed in diſcovering true Myſteries of Iniquity, which are nearer home, and as yet a vail to his eyes, then thus to ſtretch his ingyne and ſpend his time to find a knot in a Ruſh. But what is that Myſtery? The Writer tels us, ſaith he of one Act made anno, 1601. and renewed anno, 1648. and ſaith, That it doth neceſſarily infer, that the Commiſſioners of a former Aſſembly ſhould not be admitted as Members of a ſucceeding Aſſembly, though there be no ſcandal nor exception propounded upon their proceedings until they be tryed; much leſs when a ſcandal or except on is propounded. This ſaith the Author, is a fair blow by one ſtroke given to the late conſtitutions of all the Aſſemblies of this Church Poſterior to that Aſſembly at Glaſgow without exception, and moſt of all to the Aſſembly 48. for in all of them Commiſſioners of the preceding Aſſemblies reſpective have been admitted to ſit as Members, before their proceeeings were tryed and judged; and in that Aſsembly 1648. they were admitted to ſit, notwithſtanding exceptions being made againſt their ſitting, by the Supream Civil Power of the Land. But if this be candid and concludent reaſoning, I deſire leave of him to diſcover another Myſterie of Iniquity in his own words, before he cloſe this purpoſe that gives as great a blow to all the late Conſtitutions of all the Aſsemblies of this Church ſince the 38. none excepted; his words are theſe, I confeſs that thus much may be inſerted by one ſticking preciſely to the Letter of the Act, That after the Aſſembly is conſtituted, the handling all other matters ſhould be ſuſpended until the Commiſſioners proceedings be tryed and put to a point, during which tryal the Commiſſioners that are Members vi materiae muſt be removed; becauſe the ſame perſons cannot try their own proceedings. But ſo it is, that though the Letter of the Act and vis materiae do infer theſe things, yet after the conſtituting of the Aſſembly, Commiſſioners of all the preceding Aſſemblies reſpective ſince the 38. have been admitted to ſit as Members of the Aſſembly, before the tryal and diſcuſſing of their proceedings: Therfore there is one Myſtery of Iniquity in the Authors words, which pulls down all theſe Aſſemblies of the Church. What Myſtery of Iniquity imaginable that reaches unto the pulling down of the Aſſemblies can be found in the Writers words, but this, That theſe Acts 1601. & 1648. do croſs the ordinary practice of all theſe Aſſemblies in this particular, concerning the trying and diſcuſſing of the proceedings of the Commiſſioners, or that the proceeding of all theſe Aſſemblies in this particular have not been agreable unto, but diſſonant from the Rule holden forth in theſe Acts: And doth not the Author yeeld, That both by the Letter of the Act, and vi materiae, that they ought to have been removed? But ſo have they not been in any of theſe Aſſemblies before the judging of their proceedings: Doth not then that Myſtery of Iniquity work in him, as well as in the Writer? But he tels us, that it cannot be inferred from thence that they may not be admitted in any waies to be Members of the Aſſembly, not ſo much as to vote in the Election of a Moderator, which was the thing required by the Proteſters (if he had dealt fairly he ſhould have ſaid, which is the thing inferred by the Writer; but perhaps he ſaw ſome diſadvantage in that) be it ſo, That that inference cannot be made from thence, yet may this inference well be made from thence, That after the chuſing of the Moderater they cannot be admitted to ſit and vote in any buſineſs in the Aſſembly before their proceedings be allowed or diſallowed, and that if they be admitted before that time, theſe Acts of the Aſſembly are clearly croſsed and contradicted, which being done by all theſe Aſsemblies ſince 38. they are to be pulled down as null. When the Author ſhal extricate himſelf and his Readers out of this Myſtery of Iniquity, he ſhall alſo help the Writer how to clear himſelf of the other. The truth is, though there hath been ſome croſſing between theſe Aſſemblies and the practice of the Aſſembly ſince the 38. both the one way and the other, by the ſitting of the Commiſſioners of the former Aſſembly, not only till the Aſſembly was conſtitute and in the choice of a Moderator, but alſo afterwards in the debating and voting of other buſineſs before the allowing or diſallowing of their proceedings; yet doth not this reach any blow to the conſtitutions of theſe Aſſmblies, becauſe the Act of the Aſſembly 1601. till the year 1648. was almoſt inter non cognita, & non apparentia; yea, there was no cauſe to urge it, the Commiſſioners of all theſe Aſſemblies carrying themſelves faithfully, and not being under any ſcandal or any exception therupon proponed againſt them. And albeit things belonging to former order being propounded and urged (eſpecially in caſes of conſequence upon the matter) cannot be paſt by, unleſs they be formally repealed; yet if through inadvertency or cuſtom they come to be omitted, there being no particular emergent giving occaſion to urge them, yet doth not this give any blow to the Judicatory wherein theſe forms ſhould be uſed; neither doth he, who ſaith, that their own Laws preſcribes ſuch a form, prove guilty of any Myſtery or Iniquity. But the Author inſiſts, That the Aſſembly 48. which did renew that Act, did at the very ſame time admit the Commiſſioners of the preceding Aſſembly, ſundry of the preſent Proteſters, and amongſt the reſt none more then the Writer of this Paper, and the Suggeſter to him of this Conſideration, being chief actors in the buſineſs, to ſit as Members of the Aſſembly, before their proceedings were tryed: yea, and to vote in ſundry other maters during the time of their tryal, and that whereas there was exception made againſt them. I paſs his rubbing upon the Writer of the Paper, and I know not that Suggeſter to him of that conſideration, as being a thing ordinary to him in all this Debate, & yet little either for his own honor, or for the edification of others: I think theſe now are not aſhamed to give their mutual help and aſiſtance one to another either by ſuggeſting or digeſting as God hath gifted them, what may contribute for the defence of the Truth. But ſure I am, though he may ſpeak his fanſie, and vent his reflecting conjectures that he neither knows who writ the Paper, or if any, or who ſuggeſted that conſideration to him, or what their acting was in that buſineſs in the Aſſembly 48. If he ſhall take into conſideration the circumſtances of proceedings in the Aſſembly 48. which revived the act of the Aſſembly 1601. he will not need to think it ſtrange that they did admit the Commiſsioners of the former Aſſembly to ſit & vote in other matters before their proceedings were tryed and judged, becauſe the motion of reviving that act was not made till a very little time before the report of their proceedings by the Committee of the Aſſembly, to whom the inſpection of the Commiſsion-Book was committed: any who looks upon the acts of the Aſſembly will find, that the act 1601. was revived, and the Commiſsions proceedings approven both in one day, the one in the fore-noon, and the other in the after-noon; and I beleeve that he ſhall not find that in the interval betwixt theſe two Acts, any thing was voted in the Aſſembly. He inſinuates, as if at that time there had been a debate about the removing of the Commiſſioners, upon exception made againſt them; but in this he is miſtaken ſtill: There was no exception made againſt them, nor any debate thereupon, as we have already cleared. If it be asked, what then was the reaſon of reviving the Act 1601. the reaſon was, becauſe the Committee of Eſtates did the day before the report made of the proceedings of the Commiſſion) deſire that the Aſſembly would not proceed to the approbation of theſe proceedings before they might be heard in theſe things that did relate to the Engagement (as we have already ſhown) And the Aſſembly knowing that this was but a ſhift to gain time, and to devide the Aſſembly, as they thought fit to call the Committee, if they had any new Objections againſt the proceedings of the Commiſſion, or only the ſame Objections made by the Parliament or their Committees before; and upon the Reply of the Committee of Eſtates, that they had juſt and material Exceptions, beſides any formerly made, to continue til the next day at 10. hours, and to appoint that time for hearing theſe Exceptions; ſo for preventing of the like inconveniences for time to come they thought fit to renew the Act 1601. But it wonders me that in all the Authors Anſwer to this point, he doth not ſo much as once touch upon the parity of the reaſon brought by the Writer for making of the Act in the Aſſembly 1601. and urging it in the Aſſembly 1651. there being in both theſe Aſſemblies a ſcandal of defection upon the Commiſſioners of the Kirk; upon the firſt, for taking upon them to give in Petitions to the Parl. for votes in Parlament to the Miniſters that ſhould be provided to Presbyteries, as repreſenting the true Church of God, and being the Third Eſtate of the Realm; upon the latter, for taking upon them to bring in the Malignant party, which did not fal out (nor the like in any of the Aſſemblies ſince the 38.) and therefore there is no reaſon to queſtion the Conſtitution of theſe Aſſemblies, for not proceeding according to that Rule, it neither being urged, nor there being any cauſe to urge the ſame.
VINDICATION.
IN the next place to come to a more direct Anſwer: It is certain, That every propounding of Exceptions or Alleadgance of ſcandals againſt perſons, and offering to prove them, is not ſufficient to deprive them from being Members of, or ſitting in the General Aſſembly: for were it ſo, perverſe and bold men might return and diſappoint the Church of all Gen. Aſſemblies for ever: this the Writer of the late Paper acknowledges in anſwer to Objection 3. againſt the preſent Argument and therfore he proceeds to qualifie the Exception which may be ſufficient for that effect, by ſetting down three Conditions requiſit in it, wherein …e ſpeaks not altogether amiſs, of which we ſhall make our uſe (we hope) for our advantage, having added a little before for further clearing. Firſt then we humbly conceive, that as to the admitting to, or removing from ſitting in the General Aſſembly: of neceſſity there muſt be difference acknowledged betwixt Exceptions made in Presbyteries or ſocieties, by whom Commiſſioners are choſen to a General Aſſembly, againſt the election of ſuch or ſuch perſons, nominated to be Commiſsioners, and the Exceptions made in the Aſſembly it ſelf againſt ſuch as have been choſen by Societies from whence they came without, queſtion, exception or contradiction, and have a formal and regular Commiſsion; the former…l confeſſe being followed, and being preſented, doth ſuſpend perſons from being admitted to ſit as Members in the Aſſembly, until the exceptions be tryed, becauſe it is as yet under queſtion whether they be elected and commiſsionated, which muſt be known before they ſit as men clothed with authority, clothed to judg, but the other cannot alwaies: I grant it may and ought when (as the writer qualifies) firſt the exception for the matter prima fronte appears to be relevant in Law, an evident, and undoubted fault. Secondly, that for the truth of the fact in application to the perſons againſt whom it is made there be a ſcandal of ſome preſumptions for it if either of theſe be wanting (I cannot in any ways accord with the Writer in that alternative which he addeth in the ſecond condition, or ſom offering to inſtruct and make it out; ſuppoſe the matter be relevant clearly in Law; for grant that, and ſtill the abuſed conſequence followeth of a ready way made for perverſe and bold perſons to diſappoint the Kirk of all-Aſſemblies for ever) if either (I ſay) of theſe be wanting, the exception is not relevant to remove perſons from ſitting as Members in the Aſſembly before the Exception be tryed and judged; though it be true, that the Aſſembly being conſtitute, the exception and grounds thereof ought to be tryed with all convenient diligence and expedition which was offered to the Proteſters in the preſent caſe and debate.