The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 42
REVIEW.
THE Author ſtudies in this place to take off ſome things alleadged by the Writer in order to the proceedings of the Aſſembly, but let us ſee how he doth it: 1. It is yeelded that notwithſtanding of the Exception proponed againſt the Commiſſioners, they were not only admitted to ſit and Vote in the choice of a Moderator, but alſo afterwards in every thing that came before the Aſſembly for many dayes together before the trying of their proceedings; yea, that before that tryal they ſate as Judges to give vote and ſentence upon the Proteſtation, one Reaſon whereof was the Aſsemblies refuſing to remove them, till the Exception proponed againſt them ſhould be diſcuſsed; for the defence whereof he alleadges, 1 That the Aſsembly immediatly after the choice of the Moderator, did fall upon the tryal of that Exception: but as that was not enough, becauſe by the Acts of the Aſſembly already cited, and conſtant practiſe of Aſſemblies in the matter of Exceptions; Perſons excepted againſt, are immediatly to be laid aſide till the matter be tryed: So was it alſo defective in this, That during the time of the tryal, the Commiſſioners did ſit and Vote in the Aſſembly. 2 He ſaies, That the Aſſembly could not adjourn and be idle all the time that the Committee was to be on that buſineſs: but could not the Aſſembly have ſitten, and be imployed about buſineſs, unleſs theſe who were Members of the Commiſſion did ſit and vote in ſuch buſineſs as came before them? were they Members ſine quibus non? 3. He alleadges, That it had been the practiſe of the preceding Aſſemblies ſince 38. But neither doth that looſe the difficulty, becauſe in none of theſe Aſſemblies was there any Exception proponed againſt the Commiſſioners, nor was there cauſe for it: He is miſtaken in his Inſtance in the Aſſembly 48, as we have already cleered, and therefore he muſt ſeek for another Defence. But in that which follows, he plaies the acurate Logician, and finds the Writer in a groſs Paralogiſm, which he thinks can beguile none but theſe, who are too ſimple, and too willing to be beguiled. I would not willingly be beguiled, yet I muſt profeſs my ſelf ſo ſimple, that when I have put on the Authors Spectacles, and looked throw them as attentively as I can, I cannot diſcover the Paralogiſm nor the Sophiſtry thereof, but to me it ſtill ſeems to be a plain and convincing Argument. The Writer alleadges, That the Members of the Commiſſion ſate as Judges to give Vote and Sentence upon the Exception proponed againſt themſelves before the Aſſembly did judge of their proceedings; and he brings this for proof of his alleadgance, That before any Judgment given anent their proceedings, they ſate as Judges upon the Proteſtation, whereof the rejecting of that Exception was a ſpecial Reaſon. To this the Author Anſwers, That it is a Paralogiſm becauſe the thing which was judged, was not the truth or falſhood of the thing contained in it; to wit, Whether the Commiſſioners proceedings were right, or wrong; but only whether the Aſſembly refuſing to remove the Commiſsioners when this Exception was alleadged againſt them, in the way that it was alleadged, and before the alleadgance was tryed, did any thing contrary to the freedom and duty of the Aſſembly, or if the Proteſters did wrong the Aſſembly in declining it upon that ground, I ſhall not now trouble my ſelf to prove that by judging of that Reaſon of the Proteſtation they did judge of the proceedings of the Commiſsioners right or wrong, becauſe this will fall in afterwards, more directly in the laſt Argument; but taking what the Author grants, I Reaſon thus, Who ſo judges of the relevancy, or non-relevancy of one Exception in order to their own ſitting, or not ſitting Judges of one Exception againſt themſelves: But the Commiſsioners before the approving of their proceedings did judge of the relevancy, or &c. Ergo, the Firſt Propoſition is cleer, and may be illuſtrated by Inſtances. I ſuppoſe the Author in one aſſembly ſhould object againſt ſome men that they cannot ſit as Members till they be tryed, becauſe they are Papiſts, or Murderers, or Adulterers, which he offereth to inſtruct, and when the Aſſembly comes to judge upon the point & exception relevant or not relevant to remove theſe men, if theſe men themſelves ſhould ſit and Vote in this queſtion, were not this to admit them to be Judges of one Exception proponed againſt themſelves. The Second Propoſition is the Authors own grant, for beſides other things to that purpoſe, he ſaith, The Commiſsioners ſitting and Voting as Judges in this matter was no irregularity, or elſe the Aſſembly 48 was alſo irregular, wherein the Proteſters may well remember the Commiſsioners voted as well as other Members upon the relevancy of the Exception given in by the Parliament againſt themſelves: Well then, the Commiſsioners in the Aſſembly, 51. did Vote upon the relevancy of the Exception given in againſt themſelves. If any would deny it, it is eaſie to prove it thus, Who ſo were admitted to judge of the relevancy or non-relevancy of the grounds of the Proteſtation were admitted to judge of the relevancy or non-relevancy of that Exception, becauſe it was one of the main grounds of the Proteſtation: But the Members of the Commiſſion, &c. Ergo. The Author, or ſome others, wil haply think, What need all this? it is granted that it was ſo, and the thing that is denied is, That they did not ſit as Judges to give ſentence of the right or wrong of their own proceedings: Perhaps ere all be done, we ſhall alſo find them doing that, but if it be granted, That they did judge of the relevancy of that Exception, all is granted that was alleadged by the Writer, to wit, That they ſate as Judges to give Vote and Sentence upon the very Exception proponed againſt themſelves; and ſo he hath committed no Paralogiſm, but by the Authors own conceſſion which he cannot get avoided: It is proved that the writer did alleadge which was not that they did judge of the right or wrong contained in the exception (though that alſo might have been alleadged) but that they did judge of the Exception proponed againſt themſelves, before any judgment given by the Aſſembly upon their proceedings; and now its granted that they did judge of the relevancy thereof, as to their ſitting or not ſitting; and was not this to be both Judge and Party? who then is guilty of the Paralogiſm the Writer or the Author? The Writer ſaith, They were admitted to judge of the Exception proponed againſt themſelves; and this by the Authors grant hath a real truth in it, becauſe they were admitted to judge the relevancy or irrelevancy of it as to their ſitting or not ſitting (yea the Commiſſioners did oftner then once judge this before their proceedings were judged by the Aſſembly. Firſt, They judged it at the firſt proponing and rejecting thereof by the Aſſembly before the choice of the Moderator, for none of them were then removed, neither was leſs weight laid upon what was ſpoken by them, as to the rejecting of that Exception then upon what was ſpoken by any other Member of the Aſſembly who was not queſtioned. 2 They judged it in judging of the Proteſtaion, at which time they did approve of what the Aſſembly had formerly done in rejecting of it, and did condemn the Propoſers of it, as doing wrong to urge it, and to decline the Aſſembly thereupon. The Author ſaith, They were not admitted to ſit as Judges in that Exception, becauſe they did not judg of the right or wrong of the things contained therein; and this is a non-ſequitur, becauſe they were admitted to judge of the relevancy thereof which did as well concern them, the exception being proponed againſt themſelves, as the right or wrong of the things contained therein. But he alledgeth, 1 That this was no irregularity, or elſe the Aſſembly 48. was as irregular. He doth often make his retreat upon that Aſſembly when he is ſtraited, but it wil allow him no help in this particular, becauſe there was no ſuch exception proponed nor judged in that Aſſembly. 2 He alleadges, That their Voting in that matter of the Proteſtation, being no other thing then that which he hath ſaid, was no prejudice or advantage in the matter of their proceedings, becauſe the alleadgance of their carrying on in their proceedings a courſe of defection at the time, and in the manner that it was alleadged might have been found one un-relevant exception for their removal from being Members before the tryal of their proceedings, and conſequently the refuſing to admit it as one exception to that effect an un-relevant ground of Exception againſt the Aſſembly, and yet haply afterwards their proceedings might have been judged to be ſuch as they were alleadged to be without any Croſſing or Contradiction betwixt the one Act and the other. I ſuppoſe that all were true which is here ſpoken of, yet what is this to prove that they did not at all judge of the exceptions proponed againſt themſelves: It is already yeelded, That they did judge of it as to the irrelevancy of it for removing of them before trial. But that the determining of the one, did prejudice the determination of the other: Yea, go far to determine it, I prove Firſt thus, If ſo be the exception as to the relevancy thereof did include many Points de Jure, the cleering and diſcuſſing whereof did belong moſt intimately and eſſentially to the verifying or falſifying of the exception upon the matter itſelf; then did the determining of the one, bring a prejudice to the determination of the other, if not go far to determine: But the Firſt is true, and agreeable to the Authors own words in the next Page of his Vindication. Ergo, alſo the laſt, The Conexion ſeems cleer becauſe the determining of the relevancy or irrelevancy of the exception did alſo determine theſe point… de Jure, which did belong moſt intimatly and eſſentially to the verifying or falſifying of the exception upon the matter; as for Inſtance, the Aſſemblies determining that the Proteſters objecting againſt the Commiſsioners that their Reſolutions did involve a courſe of defection was not a relevant exception whereupon to remove them, was alſo a determining of this Point de jure, that theſe Reſolutions did not involve a courſe of defection, this did indeed belong moſt intimately and eſſentially to the falſifying of the exception upon the matter, and ſo to the prejudging of the determination; yea, to the determining of the other queſtion: Or more cleerly thus, If ſo be the exception could not be determined as relevant or irrelevant till the queſtionable hypotheſis of the publick Reſolutions was firſt determined, then did the determining of the relevancy or irrelevancy of the exception involve a determination of the right or wrong of their Reſolutions: But the Firſt is manifeſt from the Authors own words, where he ſaith, That the main and principal queſtion de jure which ſhould have been cleered that that ſcandal might have been charged upon the Commiſſioners was the particular hypotheſis, if this ſcandal could not be charged upon the Commiſſioners, but by clearing of this hypotheſis: How could the Commiſſioners be cleered of that ſcandal, and found ſuch as were fit to ſit in the Aſſembly notwithſtanding of the exception thereof proponed againſt them without cleering that hypotheſis. In theſe things I deal fairly and candidly ſo far as my light reaches, without detaining the truth in unrighteouſneſs, or ſeeking to darken or pervert the ſame ſo far as my underſtanding doth reach; and I think I may refer it to the Conſciences of theſe who Condemn the Proteſtation, and that exception as irrelevant if they would have ſo done but upon perſwaſion that the Commiſſioners proceedings were right, and if after the Vote of Condemning the Proteſtation, they could notwithſtanding therof have alſo condemned their Proceedings.
VINDICATION.
THirdly, Howſoever it be true, that the thing which was deſired by the Proteſters in the entry of the Aſſembly, before the choice of the Moderator was not expreſly and formally the trial and diſcuſſion of the Exception given againſt the Commiſſioners, as to the truth alleadged therin, 1. Whether the Commiſſioners indeed had carried on a courſe of defection from the Covenant and Cauſe, but that the Commiſſioners ſhould have been laid aſide until the Aſſembly had been conſtituted to take that into conſideration; yet certain it is that they having been choſen to have been Commiſsioners unqueſtionably by the Society they came from (and that ſome of them by the expreſs vote & conſent of ſome of the Proteſters themſelves, as Mr. Robert Blaire in the Presbytery, and Mr. James Wood in the Ʋniverſity of St. Andrews, by Mr. Samuel Rutherford) and having a formal Commiſsion, and ſo the Exception being perſonal (as in relation to that Aſſembly) and not propounded againſt their being Commiſsioners: But now in the Aſſembly conveened of neceſsity, the Exception behoved to have been tryed and diſcuſſed and judged, as to the relevancy of it, for their preſent removing, and laid aſide until it ſhould be tried and diſcuſſed as to the truth of the thing contained in it; for the Writer himſelf confeſses, that every Exception upon alleadgance of Scandal is not a ſufficient and relevant ground to that effect: Now there was a great Queſtion about that Exception, namely, concerning a Queſtion de jure belonging to it, as we have before cleared. Now tell me, if the Aſſembly before the Election of the Moderator, and before it was conſtitute into a Judicatory, could try, diſcuſs, and judge that Queſtion (which of neceſsity it behoved to do, ere it could be clear about the relevancy of their exception for their removing, becauſe, as the Writer grants, the exception relevant to remove perſons, muſt be prima fronte, clear in the Law) Certainly it could not, and therfore of neceſsity they could not upon that exception be removed before the election of the Moderator, and conſtitution of the Judicatory; As for their Members excepted againſt, and therupon removed, there was a wide difference, the exceptions againſt them were, as to the relevancy for their removing, in caſes every way clear and determined before, in ſo far as was requiſit for that, to wit, Proteſtations in Presbyteries againſt their election, ſtanding cenſures excluding them from all Kirk Judicatories unrepealed. So we ſee the exception wherewith the Writer meets here, may ſtand good with a little exception, viz. That no Exception queſtionable could be diſcuſſed until the Judicatory were firſt conſtitute, and the Moderator choſen; and therfore it makes nothing againſt the freedom of the late Aſſembly, that before it was conſtitute, and the Moderator choſen, the Commiſsioners were not removed upon the Exception made againſt them, becauſe the relevancy of the Exception was queſtionable in many points de jure belonging therunto, being controverted, at leaſt not prima fronte: The clearing and diſcuſsing thereof did belong most intimatly and eſsentially to the verifying or falſifying of the Exception upon the matter it ſelf, wherwith a meeting not conſtitute into a Judicatory could not meddle. 4. As to the Writers Dilemma in the end, That the refuſing to remove the Commiſsioners upon the Exception made againſt them, was to determine, either that the Exception was not relevant or that it was falſe, and both were abſurd. We Anſwer, it was indeed to be determined that it was not relevant in that circumſtance of time when it was proponed for removing them off the Aſsembly; and whereas he ſaith this were to contradict clear reaſon, this is but a naked aſsertion, and we have cleared the contrary.