The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 43
REVIEW.
FIrſt, I deſire it to be conſidered, That he yeelds that the thing which was deſired by the Proteſters at the entry of the Aſſembly, before the choice of the Moderator, was not expreſly and formally (yea, nor implicitly nor materially) the trial and diſcuſſing of the Exception, as to the truth alleadged therein; but that the Commiſſioners ſhould have been laid aſide until the Aſſembly had been conſtitute to take the ſame into conſideration, which clears 2. things formerly aſſerted, 1. That it was not deſired that any ſentence ſhould be paſt upon the Commiſſioners by the Aſſembly, before the conſtitution thereof. 2. That the Commiſſioners (before the judging of their proceedings by the Aſſembly) did judge and give ſentence upon the relevancy of a deſire made againſt themſelvs, to wit, That they might be removed till their proceedings ſhould be firſt judged. 3. I deny not but this Exception behoved to have been tried and diſcuſſed, as to the relevancy of it, ſo far as was needful for laying aſide of the Commiſſioners till further trial: and to that which the Author ſaith, That it could not be done becauſe it did involve a great Queſtion de jure, which was yet queſtionable, and not clear; whereas it is yeelded by the Writer, that the Exception ought to be relevant in Law, at leaſt ſuch as prima fronte ſeems relevant. I anſwer. That that Queſtion was (prima fronte) relevant in Law, becauſe prima fronte agreeable to the very letter of the Law. I may appeal to himſelf, if the Publick Reſolutions do not prima fronte ſeem to be contrary to many things formerly expreſt in the Acts, Conſtitutions and Publick Papers of this Church; and though he would deny it, yet ſure I am all indifferent men will acknowledg it, that whatſoever may be in the matter it ſelf, yet there is at leaſt a ſeeming contrariety betwixt theſe: I ſhall remember him of the ſpeech of a judicious and godly man (whoſe words are cited by himſelf in his Vindication in another caſe) who in a Conference at St. Andrews about the Publick Reſolutions, when the Acts, Warnings and Declarations of the Aſſembly was objected againſt theſe Reſolutions, ſaid, I confeſs that you have the Sough of the Aſſemblies for you: yea, in this thing that prima fronte it ſeems to be ſo, we have the univerſal conſent almoſt of the whole Land, as wel theſe who are for the Publick Reſolutions, as thoſe who are againſt them; elſe what meant that which was ſo frequent in the mouths of ſome of the Commiſſion, and many others the laſt year, who when Acts of Aſſemblies and Publick Papers were objected, ſaid, That ſome men who had hand in the penning of theſe Papers had upon deſign foiſted in many things in them, which they now made uſe of againſt the Publick Reſolutions; and that which was then, and is ſtill frequenaly ſpoken by the generality of malignant and diſaffected men in the Land, to wit, The Church is now come to us, and we are not gone to them. Theſe things are more palpable and better known then that they can with any colour of truth be denied. But 3. Was not the Exception propounded by the Proteſters againſt the Commiſſioners diſcuſſed by the Aſſembly, as to the relevancy thereof, before the election of the Moderator? Did they not, after the propounding of it, ſuffer the Commiſſioners to ſit? which they could not have done unleſs they had rejected it: And how could they reject it, unleſs they had found it irrelevant? Was not the allowing of the Commiſſioners to ſit, after propounding of, and debate upon that Exception, as real a judging of the irrelevancy thereof, as the removing of other Commiſſioners upon Exceptions propounded againſt them, was a judging of thoſe Exceptions to be relevant? yea, doth not he himſelf expreſly ſay in anſwer to the Writers Dilemma, That it was indeed to be determined, that it was not relevant in that circumſtance of time? 4. I ſee not to what purpoſe it is, that he tels us, That the election of Commiſsioners was not queſtioned in their Presbyteries, that ſome of the Proteſters voted and conſented to the chuſing of them: That they had a formal Commiſsion, and that the Exception was perſonal as to that Aſſembly, & not propounded againſt their being Commiſsioners, but now in the Aſſembly conveened: What is all this as to the keeping of the Aſſembly from conſidering and diſcuſſing of the ſame? VVere there not others who had a formal and uncontroverted Commiſsion, not objected againſt in the Presbytery, who yet upon perſonal exceptions propounded in the Aſſembly, were removed til theſe exceptions ſhould be diſcuſſed and tried? And was it not as free to propound perſonal exceptions in the Aſſembly as in the Presbytery? and being propounded there, were they not of as great weight as if propounded elſ-where? And ought not the Aſſembly to have taken them in conſideration? VVere they not primo inſtanti, the proper Judges of them, as well as the Presbytery? That ſome of the Commiſsioners were choſen by expreſs vote and conſent of ſome of the Proteſters themſelves, as Mr. Robert Blaire in the Presbytery of St. Andrews, Mr. James Wood in the Univerſity of St. Andrews by Mr. Sam. Rutherford; it may be true, Mr. Sam. Rutherford his deſire of Peace and teſtifying of reſpect to theſe men being ſuch as it is, together with the hopes that he had of their being inſtrumental to accommodate things in a right way at the Aſſembly: but that hinders not why the Proteſters might not warrantably propound the Exception at the Aſſembly. Another branch is, That the Aſſembly had not as yet choſen their Moderator, and was not yet conſtitute, and therefore could not diſcuſs that queſtion, &c. But not to repeat that they did diſcuſs the relevancy of other Exceptions, yea, of that ſame that was propounded againſt the Commiſsioners, as to their ſitting, or not ſitting till the matter ſhould be further tried: It is to be conſidered, that if controverted Commiſsions and Members, upon Exceptions propounded againſt them, be laid aſide till trial, which hath alwaies been the cuſtom of the Aſſemblies of this Church. It is not ſo very material whether the ful diſcuſsing of the Exception be before the chuſing of the Moderator or after it; there are practiſes and inſtances of both wayes; ſome Aſſemblies firſt diſcuſſing the controverted Commiſsions and Members, and then chuſing the Moderator; others laying aſide theſe things til the Moderator be firſt choſen; and then immediatly before the doing of any thing elſe, falling upon the diſcuſsing of them; though it ſeems the moſt regular way, that the controverted Commiſsions and Members be laid aſide, the uncontroverted ones being a competent number, ſhould proceed to the choice of a Moderator, and thereafter, before the doing of any thing elſe, put that to a point which concerns the reſt of their conſtituent Members. In the caſe now in queſtion both were deſired, either to diſcuſs the Exception, as to the truth or falſhood of the alleadgance before the chuſing of a Moderator; or elſe, to lay aſide the Commiſsioners, and to do it immediatly thereafter: but both were refuſed, which was the more conſiderable, becauſe the Exception propounded againſt them, was but meerly perſonal, or upon perſonal or particular ſcandals, but of more common concernment, and in things relating to the Cauſe, as breach of Publick Truſt, defection from the Cauſe and Covenant, which did require conſideration before the admitting theſe perſons. I would ask the Author this one Queſtion: Upon ſuppoſal that the Aſſembly after the Commiſsioners ſitting and voting therein many dayes; yea, even in the condemning of the Proteſtation, and citing of the Proteſters; ſhould have found their proceedings to involve a courſe of defection from the Cauſe and Covenant, and therupon have removed and cenſured them: Could Beholders have looked upon this as a handſom way of proceeding, that they would not take into conſideration an Exception deſerving ſuch things, when it was firſt propounded unto them, and offered to be inſtructed; but would judge the Exception irrelevant, cenſure others for proteſting, becauſe of refuſing to accept of it: admit the Cōmiſsioners to be fellow-Judges in condemning that Proteſtation & after al this find theſe Cōmiſsioners guilty of the thing alleadged in that ſame very Exception when ffrſt proponed, & remove & cenſure them upon it; Are things handſom? or do they wel cohere? or can a tender eye look upon them without offence? How much fairer had it been, firſt to remove them, and preſently or immediately after the choice of the Moderator, to diſcuſs the Exception? There is more danger to the Cauſe, & offence to God & his People in raſh admiting ſuch as are guilty, then in cautious delaying even of innocent perſons when legally challenged: If innocent, they may afterwards be admitted with more honour and reſpect; but if guilty, either they ſhal be continued Members with much detriment to the cauſe, or elſe ſhalbe caſten out with more ſhame both to themſelvs and to the Aſſembly, who at firſt refuſed to lay them aſide till they were tryed. Becauſe the Author ſaw that an objection might be moved againſt what he hath ſaid from the Aſſemblies removing of other Members who were excepted againſt before the choice of the Moderator; therefore for preventing of it he tells us, that there was a wide difference, becauſe the exceptions againſt them, were as to their relevancie for their removing, in caſes every way clear and determined before, in ſo far as was requiſite for that, to wit, Proteſtations in Presbyteries againſt their election, ſtanding cenſures, excluding them from all Church-Judicatories unrepealed: To which I return theſe particulars; Firſt, Some even before the choice of the Moderator were removed upon exceptions againſt whoſe elections there was no Proteſtation, and who were under no ſtanding cenſure either of one kinde or another, to wit, Mr. Robert Canden Commiſsioner from the Presbytery of Dunce, who was removed upon this exception, that that Presbytery could not chooſe Commiſsioners, being ſo few in number as they were; here was no Proteſtation, the man under no cenſure, yea nor the ground of the exception clear and unqueſtionable in Law as to any act of any former Aſſembly, onelyonly primâ fronte, it ſeemed relevant that two or three could not chooſe; therefore was be thereupon removed, though afterwards, (if my information hold) he was again (as ſeems upon not finding the exception not relevant) admitted. Secondly, Neither was a Proteſtation againſt the election, ſufficient to make it clear upon the Authors grounds. I ſuppoſe that it had been alleadged, that the ground of the Proteſtation was not clear, but queſtionable; as to the relevancy of it by his ground ſuch a Proteſtation againſt the election, would not have been enough to lay the Commiſsioners aſide, till the matter had been tryed. To come nearer the caſe, let us ſuppoſe that ſome of the oppoſers of Publick Reſolutions had in the Presbyterie or in the Univerſite of St. Andrews proteſted againſt the election of the Commiſsioners there, upon this ground, that theſe who were elected, were inſtrumentall in the Publick Reſolutions, will the Author, ſay, this had been ſufficient to lay theſe Commiſsioners aſide, from ſitting as Members of the Aſſembly, till the matter had been tryed: If ſo, why then was not the proponing of that exception in the Aſſembly againſt all theſe who were Members of the Commiſsion, and had hand in theſe Reſolutions, ſufficient to lay them aſide: Os, if that be denyed, I would deſire to know a reaſon of the difference, if it be ſaid, that all the Commiſsions which were laid aſide, becauſe of Proteſtations againſt them, were ſuch as were proteſted againſt upon clear & unqueſtionable grounds. I anſwer, that it was not ſo, as appears by the inſtance already given, to which I adde another, to let ſee what partiality of proceeding there was in theſe things even upon the Authors own grounds: Did not the Aſſembly lay aſide the Commiſſion of theſe who were firſt choſen by the Presbytery of Glaſgow upon this ground, that the Commiſſioners were oppoſers of the Publick Reſolutions, which (if we may believe the Author) was yet a queſtionable hypotheſis in jure. Thirdly, I ſuppoſe that in theſe caſes which (he ſaith) were clear, any perſons intereſted ſhould have objected, that the Proteſtation was falſe and fictitious; or that their being uoder cenſure, was a meer alleadgance, or that the ground of the Proteſtation and cenſure was an hypotheſis not yet determined in jure. I ask him, whether the Aſſembly in theſe caſes, was to admit the perſons, or to lay aſide the Commiſſions, and remove the perſons, till the matter ſhould be tryed? If he ſay, they were not to be admitted, then they behoved to refuſe to hear all Parties intereſſed, and to take a queſtionable caſe for clear and granted, before they hear and try which ſeems to be abſurd. If he ſay, that they were to fall upon the diſcuſſing of queſtions and objections hinc inde, then I pray you, why not one queſtionable exception as well as another? Why not the queſtionable exception proponed againſt the Commiſſioners, as well as the queſtionable exception contained in the Proteſtation againſt the election in Presbyteries? And if he ſay, that it was not abſurd to lay aſide the perſons, notwithſtanding of their alleadging that the Proteſtation was falſe and fictitious, &c. but that the matter being queſtionable, they were to be laid aſide till it ſhould be tryed and cleared; then why not alſo the Commiſsioners upon the exception of a ſcandall of defection proponed againſt them notwithſtanding of their denying thereof, and aſſerting the contrary, ſeeing (by his own ground) the matter was not yet clear to the Aſſembly, either upon the one hand or the other. By theſe things we may ſee what will come of the Authors concluſion, to wit, that no exception queſtionable could be diſcuſſed, until the Judicatory were firſt conſtituted, and the Moderator choſen; and that therefore it makes nothing againſt the freedom of the late Aſſembly, that before it was conſtituted, and the Moderator choſen, that the Commiſsioners were not removed upon the exception made againſt them, becauſe the relevancy of the exception was queſtionable in many things de jure, belonging thereunto, being controverted at leaſt, and not primâ fronte clear; the clearing and diſcuſsing whereof, did belong moſt intimately and eſſentially to the verifying or falſifying of the exception upon the matter it ſelf; whereupon the Meeting not conſtitute into a Judicatory could not meddle; upon which Concluſion I ask theſe queſtions. Firſt, If no exception queſtionable could be diſcuſſed untill the Judicatory were conſtitute, and the Moderator choſen, then, how did the Meeting at St. Andrews before the conſtituting of the Judicatory, and chooſing of the Moderator, reject the exception proponed by the Proteſters againſt the Commiſsioners, as not relevant to remove them, was not that to diſcuſſe an exception queſtionable, as to the relevancie of being a ground of removing or not removing. Secondly, I ask how it came to paſſe that they removed the Commiſsioners of Glaſgow upon the exception of their oppoſing the Publick Reſolutions, was not that alſo to diſcuſſe an exception queſtionable, as to the relevancie of being a ground, as before. Thirdly, If the relevancy of the exceptions was queſtionable in many points De jure belonging thereunto, the clearing and diſcuſsing whereof, did belong moſt intimatly and eſſentially to the verifying or falſifying of the matter it ſelf, how could it be judged and diſcuſſed as to the relevancy thereof, and yet this be no prejudice to a judgement upon the matter contained therein? or how could the exception be found non-relevant, and the Commiſsioners proceedings be alſo found to involve a courſe of defection. Fourthly, If the clearing and diſcuſsing of that exception had ſuch connection with the matter of the Commiſsioners proceedings that firſt when it was proponed, it could not be judged before the judging of the queſtionable hypotheſis of their proceedings, how came it to paſs that the Aſſembly afterward did judge it, and admitted the Commiſsioners themſelves to ſit as judges therein before the judging of that hypotheſis. Fifthly, If the exception was ſo queſtionable in jure, how could the Aſſembly before the diſcuſsing of the Commiſsioners proceedings, ſo ſeverely reprove the diſſenters for proponing of it, and condemne the Proteſtation founded thereupon. Theſe things to my weak underſtanding ſeems inconſiſtent, and ſuch as ordinary Readers cannot reconcile. In the laſt place he labors to give anſwer to the writers Dilemma, to wit, at the refuſing to remove the Commiſsioners upon the exception proponed againſt them, was to determine either that the exception was not relevant, or it was falſe, but both were abſurd. His anſwer is, That it was indeed to be determined, that it was not relevant in that circumſtance of time when it was proponed for removing of them from the Aſſembly, and this he denyes to have been abſurd or to contradict clear reaſon, and tells us, that he hath cleared the contrary. When I had read theſe words again and again, I could not with any perſwaſion, fall upon the Authors meaning, his way of expreſſion being dubious, he ſaith, it was to be determined, which makes me ſuſpect that he may haply point at the determination which was afterwards made by the Aſsembly, when the relevancy of that exception was condemned in the Proteſtation: If that be his meaning, he hath but covered himſelf with fig-tree leaves, becauſe the rejecting of it was the actuall determining of the irrelevancy of it, as to the being a ground of removing the Commiſsioners out of the Aſsembly; but if he mean that it was determined not relevant when proponed; I would know why it was not relevant in that circumſtance of time, whether becauſe of the matter contained therein, as not being relevant in jure, or becauſe the Aſsembly could not judge thereof, the Moderator not being yet choſen, nor the Aſsembly conſtituted? If he ſay, not relevant upon the matter at that circumſtance of time, then this non-relevancie was either becauſe the exception was founded upon things done by the Commiſsioners agreeable to the Law, and ſo no matter of exception, but matter or commendation, or elſe becauſe founded upon things queſtionable, and yet not determined in jure: Not the firſt, becauſe that had been to determine the Commiſſioners proceedings to be agreeable to the Law before the trying of them: Not the laſt, becauſe that had been to determine, that the proceedings of the Commiſſioners were not yet determined by the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, before the trying and judging of theſe proceedings. The truth is, the Aſſembly gave no ſuch judgment upon that exception, nor no ſuch reaſon of their rejecting of it; but the only reaſon that was ſpoken of, and did carry the buſineſſe in the Aſſembly was, that the Aſſembly could not fall upon the tryall of it, the Moderator not yet being choſen, and the Aſſembly not conſtituted; & if this be the Authors meaning, when he ſaith it waa indeed to be determined not relevant in that circumſtance of time when it was proponed. It is no anſwer at all; Firſt, Becauſe the Aſsembly could have judged thereof before the chooſing of the Moderator, other Aſſemblies ſeverall times having ſo done; and this ſame Aſsembly did judge the relevancy of ſundry exceptions, as to the laying aſide of the Commiſſioners; yea the irrelevancy of this ſame exception by the Authors own conceſsion in theſe very words; by what authority they could judge the relevancy of one exception, by the ſame authority they might have judged the relevancy of another, and by what authority they could reject it as irrelevant, by the ſame authority they could have diſcuſsed it relevant or not relevant. Secondly, Becauſe it was alſo urged after the chooſing of the Moderator, but was not then condeſcended unto; but the Commiſsioners againſt whom it was proponed, were ſtill allowed to ſit as Members of the Aſsembly, without having any regard to that exception, which gave probable grounds to think, that the rejecting of it before the choice of a Moderator upon that pretext, was but a meer pretext: becauſe a Moderator now being choſen, it was ſtill rejected; and therefore rejected as ſimpliciter irrelevant, without reference to any circumſtance of time, as appeareth by condemning it in the Proteſtation. But it may haply be ſaid, That by the circumſtance of time when it was proponed, he means all the intervall of time that was between the proponing of it, and the judging of the Commiſsioners proceedings. If ſo it was relevant in no circumſtance of time, it being proponed meerly in order to their removall for that intervall of time, when their proceedings were now approven and condemned, it would have been very impertinent and uſeleſſe to propone any ſuch exception. He would let his Readers know in what circumſtance of time it was relevant. As to the removing of the Commiſsioners before judging of their proceedings; for if any circumſtance of that time it was relevant, the Aſſembly did wrong in not finding it to be ſo; and if in no circumſtance of that time it was relevant as to that effect, he doth but triffle with his Readers in telling them that it was not relevant in that circumſtance of time it was proponed, it had been candide and fair dealing to have told them that it was relevant in no circumſtance of that time, or not relevant at all, but this would not have been well digeſted.
VINDICATION.
SO we ſhall now paſſe to the next ground of the Proteſtation, what is contained in the Writer of the ſecond Paper his replyes to the firſt objection; or other Objections is either nothing to the infringing of our anſwer, or cleared by what hath been ſaid already, only this much I adde, Theſe men who he ſaith hath fallen from their ſtedfastneſſe, and made defection, at which others could not wink, becauſe of their former integrity; ſome of them have been ſtedfaſt in the truth and Cauſe of God, when others that accuſes them knew it not: ſome of them we doubt not will by Gods grace give teſtimony of their ſtedfaſtneſſe in it in their ſuffering condition, when ſome that accuſes them may be will be found, or already are tampering about and deviſing gloſſes how they may with ſome colour ſhuffell themſelves looſe from Articles of the Covenant; And the Writer ſhal never be able to inſtance that they have made defection in their late Reſolutions, either from any Article of the Covenant, or from the truth of Religion in any head thereof, Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government received and eſtabliſhed in this Kirk, or from practiſing according to that truth, I mean by any Publick allowed practiſe or courſe contrary thereunto, for as for perſon all failings add ſhort commings in particular duties, they know themſelves to be but men compaſſed with a body of death, and we doubt not but they are as far from Phariſaicall juſtifying of themſelves as others. As to the other partculars mentioned in the Proteſtation 'that they ſtirred up the Civill Magiſtrate againſt ſuch as were unſatisfied with their Proceedings; Its contrary to truth as ſhall be cleared afterwards, there alleadged prelimitating of the Aſſembly, is cleared before, as it formed and inlarged in the ſecond Paper. The Meeting at St. Andrews had no liberty nor freedome to vote in matters agitated and debated therein, which is alleadged to be manifeſt from the particulars, that the Commiſſion had in their Remonſtrances and Papers ſtirred up the Civill Magiſtrate againſt ſuch as did differ from them in their Reſolutions and Proceedings, and accordingly the Magiſtrate had confined ſome Miniſters; viz. thoſe of Sterline upon that accompt, and had made Laws and Acts of Parliament ordaining all ſuch to be proceeded againſt as enemies to Religion and the Kingdom. 2. The Commiſſioners had by their Warnings and Papers to Presbyteries, ſtirred up the Presbyteries to cenſure ſuch, and cite them to the Generall Aſſembly, and accordingly the Presbyteries did cite many of them. 3. The Kings Majeſty wrote to the Aſſembly a Letter moving and ſtirring them up to puniſh and cenſure thoſe who differed from the Publick Reſolutions, and the Commiſſioner did ſecond the ſame by his ſpeech to the Aſſembly, intimating, that he hoped ſuch a courſe ſhould be taken with them, that all others may be deterred from the like thereafter, none of theſe things that Meeeing did reſent, but were ſilent thereat, and afterwards did approve. I Anſwer, To the firſt particular, it is contrary to the truth that the Commiſſion had in their Papers ſtirred up the Civill Magiſtrate againſt ſuch as did differ from them about their Reſolutions and Proceedings; the Writer if he would have dealt ingenuouſly and faithfully, either with the Commiſsioners, or with ſuch as was to read this Paper, he ſhould have inſtanced or produced ſome, at leaſt one or two (for he ſpeaks as if this had been done in ſundry Papers) paſſages out of their Papers bearing this. 2. That the Civill Magiſtrate did confine (as the Writer termeth, their requiring them to ſtay at Perth for a ſpace, untill their buſineſſe ſhould be cognoſced) the Miniſters of Sterlin being ſtirred up thereunto by the Commiſſioners, and that he confined them upon that accompt, viz. That they differed from the Publick Reſolutions, both are affirmed wrongfully and contrary to the truth, the real ſtory of that buſineſſe was this in ſumme: The Committee being informed that the Miniſters of Sterlin were in their publick Doctrine, and otherwiſe practiſing the hindering of the Leavies, according to Publick Reſolutions, and moving ſundry perſons in the Garriſon of Sterlin to quite and deſert their charge, which tended to the endangering of the whole Land, and particularly that Garriſon, the only Bulwark of the whole land under God, the Committee repreſented the matter to the Commiſsion of the Generall Aſsembly, ſhewing them that they could not permit that Garriſon to be endangered, yet in regard they were Miniſters, they deſired the Commiſsion to take a dealing with them firſt, and required the Commiſsion to make report to them what effect their dealing with their brethren ſhould take. The Commiſsioners accordingly having met at St. Andrews, and having had a Conference with theſe Brethren, & having found by their own acknowledgment that in Publick they had practiſed againſt Publick Reſolutions, & in private had given to ſome perſons as they ſaid, asking their advice, reſolution that it was not lawfull to continue in that ſervice being in ſuch a conjunction as the Reſolutions carried: Firſt they laboured to give them ſatisfaction about their reſolutions, but having effectuated nothing therein, at laſt they dealt with them in moſt earneſtneſſe and tenderneſs, both publickly and privatly to give aſsurance that they would not proceed to do or ſpeak any thing in their Publick Doctrine, or in private to the hindering and obſtructing of the Leavies which were going on, according to the Reſolutions; or might tend to the moving of any of the Garriſon to quite their charge, which they refuſed peremptorily to do, and ſo departed home from the Conference: The Commiſsion having ſent a meer report and narration; rei geſtae, without more or leſs to the Committee of Eſtates, according as they were required; the Committee required theſe Brethren by Letter to come to Perth, that ſome courſe might be taken in relation to them for ſecuring the Garriſon of Sterlin from danger. The Brethren having come to Perth, but not at the firſt Diet appointed to them, the Committee required them to attend at Perth, or at Dundee, untill the Kings return from Aberdeen, that there might be a more ful Meeting of the Committee, a great part of the moſt conſiderable members thereof being with him, after the Kings return, a Paper being ſent in by the Committee of Eſtates to the Commiſsion of the Kirk, requiring the Commiſsions advice as about other Paſſages that had paſſed between them and theſe Brethren, what ſhould be done with theſe Brethren in relation to ſecuring of the Garriſon of Sterline, the Commiſsion declared in their anſwer as to this, they could not take upon them to determine, the matter being meerly Civil, but that they deſired and expected that the Committee would deal with them in tenderneſſe and reſpect, as being Miniſters of the Goſpel; this is the truth of the buſineſſe in ſum, ſo it doth appear evidently, that the Civill Magiſtrate did confine them (as they are ſo pleaſed to term it) neither being ſtirred up thereunto by the Commiſsioners, nor yet upon their accompt of meer difference from the Commiſsion, and Publick Reſolutions, but upon the accompt of their active oppoſing of their Reſolutions to the obſtruction of the Leavies, and endangering the Garriſon, and their refuſing to deſiſt from that oppoſition; but neither muſt it be forgotten here what was the time of that confinment (as the Writer termeth it) and compearing of theſe Brethren before the Committee: If the Writer be ignorant of it, let him know it was this, Mr. Robert Dowglas, and Mr. James Wood being dealt with by ſome of theſe Brethrens intimate friends, to interceed with the Parliament that was then conveened to paſſe from calling them further, did readily undertake it & obtained their deſire, ſo that they were diſmiſsed preſently, and then one of theſe Brethren came and acknowledged to theſe two their kindneſſe done in their behalfe, yet now in the Proteſtation, and in this ſecond Paper it is requited with a ſlander, that they with other Commiſsioners ſtirred up the Civill Magiſtrate againſt them for differing from Publick Reſolutions.