The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 46
REVIEW.
THe Author doth not deny, and I beleeve he cannot, but that the Kings Letter, and the Commiſſioners Speech, did contain ſomewhat relating to Puniſhment and Cenſure; but ſeeks a ſhift by telling us, That if any thing of that kind was, it was for Oppoſing the Leavies, and weakning the hands of the Kingdom, and ſtrengthning the hands of the Enemy. If either the Letter or the Speech had been exhibited, they had ſpoken beſt for themſelves; none of them is ſubjoyned to that Coppy of his Vindication, which is come to my hands. But upon ſuppoſal that it was as he ſaith (of which yet he ſeems not to be very confident, and therefore afterwards helps himſelf with his wonted word, That it was not for differing from the publick reſolutions ſimply or meerly) what better is it then it was? Did not all the Aſſembly to whom that Letter was written and that Speech ſpoken know, that the oppoſing of Leavies, and weakning the hands of the Kingdom, and ſtrengthning the hands of the Enemy which was meant of, was Preaching and bearing Teſtimony againſt the publick Reſolutions, neither doth it take off the difficulty. That it was joyned with expreſſions of earneſt deſire to endeavour by all fair means to gain them: Theſe deſires could very well ſtand with incitations to Cenſures, and that whatever was the way of proponing, whether by way of meer deſire (as the Author alleadges) or otherwayes, yet was it not without threatning ſpeeches, upon the matter of which, I am content that Judgment may be given by the Letter and Speech themſelves: He dare affirm, That in Speaking & Voting about theſe Reſolutions there was as great Freedom and Liberty as was in Aſſemblies theſe years paſt, yea, more then was in ſome of them, but in this he is too daring: Was there any Aſſembly theſe years paſt, that had ſo many bonds and reſtraints upon them (as we have already inſtanced) all that he inſtances is, That ſome of theſe who accuſes this Aſſembly of the want of Freedom and Liberty, have in other Aſſemblies endeavoured to carry matters with ſtrong hand, calling down with ſharp reflections, and flouting ſuch as any way dared to ſpeak and vote in a different way from them: For proof of this, he gives us, It is well known: and the acknowledgment of ſome of themſelves in their late Confeſſions. I think indeed that it is wel known that too often in moſt of our Kirk Judicatories, there was in moſt men that ſate therein, too much of a carnal Spirit, and too little of the ſober, holy, grave, ſpiritual, meek way of the holy Ghoſt: And ſome of theſe men have, as to their own carriage in Judicatories, acknowledged this, and are indeed convinced of it, before the Lord, deſiring mercy in his ſight, and grace, That if ever it ſhall be again allowed them to ſit in Judicatories, there may be more of the beauty and image of the Lord upon them, and their way. But that they cryed down ſuch with ſharp reflections, and flouting as dared to ſpeak or vote otherwayes then they did, is that which no man is able to make good, & which (I t…ow) their own conſciences doth not accuſe them of: haply ſome would have expected that the Author would have ſpared to have reflected upon theſe perſons in their confeſſions, ſeeing he is a man ſubject to the like Paſſions that others be; and I doubt not to the ſame convictions and confeſſions upon them His defence of the Kings Letter is ſuch, that I fear ſhall ſatisfie few. 1. He repeats, that it was not therin deſired to cenſure any for differing from the publick reſolutions ſimply, to what I have ſpoken already. Next it is but a ſubterfuge, which he ſaith, That it was not deſired that the Aſſembly ſhould cenſure them without trying or approving their reſolutions; but the King ſuppoſing them to be right and juſt in themſelves, and after the Aſſembly ſhould after due triall finde them to be ſuch, deſired that ſuch as had oppoſed them (howbeit it could not be but to the prejudice of the defence of the Cauſe and Kingdom) might be dealt with to be reclaimed, or if that could not be obtained, cenſured. There is nothing here for anſwering what is alleadged by the Writer, to wit, that the Aſſembly whileſt they had not yet medled with the publick reſolutions, and had not found them right, were ſtirred up to cenſure theſe that could not be reclaimed from them; and taking it as the Author doth alleadge, That the King did ſuppoſe them to be right, and withall, that he ſpake nothing to the Aſſembly to allow a fair hearing to theſe of a contrary minde, or to ſearch whither they were right or wrong. It ſaith that the Kings Letter did contain a clear intimation of his minde to the Aſſembly, not only in order to theſe who ſhould continue to oppoſe, or could not be reclaimed, but alſo in order to theſe who ſhould vote pro or contra in the Aſſembly; that Letter and that Speech were but an expreſſe of the Commiſsions Warnings and Acts, and Acts of Parliament made there anent, in order to the furthering the execution thereof, by getting them backed with a new Act of the Aſſembly to the ſame purpoſe as afterwards they were: I cannot well decern whither the parentheſis caſt in by the Author in theſe words; howbeit it could not be but to the prejudice of the defence of the Cauſe and Kingdom, be cited by him as the Kings words, or interlined as his own, and therefore ſhall not give judgement of them. 2. His next defence, That the King was bound by the Treaty to follow the advice of the Commiſsion of the Kirk, in matters Eccleſiaſtick, in intervalls of Aſſemblies; which he looſeth himſelf by acknowledging that he ſhould have uſed his judgement of diſcretion upon any reſolutions given him by the Commiſsion; but becauſe the Author interlaces in order to this, ſeverall particulars; therefore in anſwer to what he ſaith in this part of his defence, I offer theſe things. Firſt, That there is nothing here ſpoken by the Author that makes for the vindication of the Kings Letter; It ſpeaks indeed to the vindicating, at leaſt to the excuſing of the King himſelf in writing ſuch a Letter, becauſe he was adviſed by the Commiſsions, as to the publick Reſolutions, but that doth not ſay, that the Letter did not contain ſuch things as were apt to hinder liberty of voting in the Aſſembly. Secondly, I acknowledge that the King was indeed in a right tickliſh condition; But who had put him in that condition, but the Authors and Abettors of the Publick Reſolutions, who after an expreſſe Article of the Treaty for removing of Malignants from him, and expreſſe deſires from the Generall Aſſembly and their Commiſſion renewed again and again, and expreſſe Anſwers to the Quaere proponed by himſelf, of bringing in the Malignant Party; In the negative did adviſe him to imploy and bring in that Party for his own defence, and the defence of the Cauſe and Kingdom. Thirdly, As to the peremptorineſſe of ſome to have in that condition in the Articles of the Treaty; I know it not, but though it was ſo, it was no more then his Predeceſſors was uſed to be tyed unto before the Reformation in the old Oath of Coronation, and which his own Father had condeſcended unto in the Treaty at the Bricks, as appears in the Acts of the Aſſemblies, and the Acts of Parliament 1639, and 1640. Forthly, As to the Authors quarrelling of the words of the Article as peremptory and generall in the Letter, becauſe no more is ſaid, but that He ſhould follow the advice of the Commiſſion; and his quarrelling ſome for oppoſing and ſtopping of a motion made by others, that it ſhould be expreſly added, agreeable to the Word of God, and Doctrine and Conſtitutions of this Church: He ſhould have told the circumſtances of time and place, and perſons; For my part I profeſſe ingenuouſly, I remember no ſuch things, and others alſo who may be preſumed to know it, ſay the ſame. But let it be ſo, they did in this but adhere to the former way, which (as alſo this Article) did ſuppoſe that addition which the Author ſpeaks of, though neither Kirk nor State thought fit to expreſſe it, leſt occaſion of jangling ſhould have been given thereby. But the Author by this his carping ſhews, that when he pleaſes, he can quarrell with ſome things in the Treaty, and with the Acts of Aſſemblies thereanent, as well as others; and I believe, he would think it hard meaſure to have it inferred from this, that he doth vilifie the Acts of the Aſſembly, and that his profeſſions to the Government, Diſcipline and Conſtitutions of this Kirk, are not ſtraight nor upright: I ſhall not charge him with unfaithfulneſs, but if he was one of thoſe who was inſtructed by this Church in the Treaty at the Hague, he hath (by that which is fallen from his Pen) here furniſhed ſome occaſion to his Readers to think that he hath ſome hand in, or ſome way winked at the firſt modell of the Treaty, as it was firſt ſettled and tranſacted between the King and the Commiſſioners; wherein notwithſtanding that there was an expreſs inſtruction, that his Majeſty ſhould not onelyonly conſent and agree, that all matters Eccleſiaſticall ſhould be determined by the Generall Aſsemblies, and ſuch as in the intervalls of Aſsemblies ſhould be authorized by them; but that his Majeſty in things Eccleſiaſtick, ſhould follow the advice of the Gen. Aſſem. of this Kirk, and ſuch as ſhould be authorized by them; yet the matter was ſo tranſacted, as that theſe 2 clauſes of the Kings following the advice of the Aſsembly, & ſuch as ſhould be authorized by them, and of his being content that in the Intervals betwixt Aſsemblies, things Eccleſiaſtick ſhould be determined by ſuch as ſhould be authorized by them, were wholly left out: And if he had any hand in, or did wink at the omitting of this Article of the Treaty at the Kings Coronation: That it ſhould not be preſt upon the King to declare according thereto, albeit by the Treaty he was expreſly bound ſo to do, he would either forbear to preſs the Treaty ſo much upon others; or learn to be more tender thereof himſelf. Fourthly, as to his Queſtion, what a Civill Magiſtrate may do in a point of doctrine wherein he himſelf is convinced in Conſcience upon good grounds, of the error of ſome doctrine and practice of ſome Miniſters, which hath not been particularly determined in h…potheſi by the Conſtitution of the Kirk, whether he may not exhort a Generall Aſsembly being conveened, to cenſure ſuch without prelimitation, for encroaching on the liberty and freedom of the Aſsembly in judging and voting in it? I ſhall not debate, it ſeems that he himſelf doubts of it; but this was not our queſtion, the point was determined by the Conſtitutions of this Kirk, and this anſwer was once given to the King by the Commiſſion of the Kirk, upon his moving the queſtion; and they did exceedingly wrong him, who by contrary Anſwers did draw him in many ſnares, and put him upon many rocks. Fifthly, as to his great anſwer of active and paſſive prelimitation, it will not ſerve him much ſtead in this particular, becauſe the Aſsembly did really vote, act and cenſure according to the deſire of that Letter, which is evidence ſufficient to prove, that the prelimitation was both active and paſſive. It is not evidence enough to prove, that a deſire hath impreſſion upon me that I grant the ſame, and do accordingly; what other proof doth the Aſsembly at Glaſgow 1638, bring to verifie the paſſive prelimiting of the Aſsembly at Glaſgow 1610, and at Pearth 1618, by the King his threatning Letters and Commandments; but this, that the Letters came to the Aſsembly, and that the Aſſembly did proceed according to the deſire thereof; will the Author admit of no proof of paſſive prelimitation, unleſs evidence can be brought from a mans own breaſt. That this very thing, and nothing elſe was the thing that weighed with him for approving the Publick Reſolutions, cenſuring the Proteſters, and laying a foundation for cenſuring all, both Miniſters and Profeſsours, that ſhould continue to oppoſe theſe Reſolutions. I cloſe this purpoſe with the words of theſe Divines and Lawyers, cited before in the book containing their gravamina againſt the Councel of Trent: Manifeſtimum eſt Tridentinam hanc Synodum nequaquam eſſe aut dici poſſe liberum Concilium, ſed ſervum potius & multis nominibus duriſſimè obſtrictum atque captivum. Liberum etenim dicitur, quod metu omni & coactione caret, ubi Concilia omnia omneſqueres non ex aliena vel voluntate vel gratia, vel etiam ex permiſſu alterius aut imperio pendent, ſed ab his omnibus expeditae ſunt & integrae, nec cujuſquam aut odium aut invidia, aut minae extimeſcendae ſunt, nec res ulla ſit quae plus polleat apud eum qui dicit ſententiam, quod ipſius honeſta voluntas & judicium minimè coactum. Denique ubi quae ſalutaria quiſque & veritati conſentanea eſſe, intus, & apud animum intelligit, eadem etiam ſine ullius periculi metu in medium proponere liberè & in faciem cuivis modeſtè dicere liceat, cujus rei praeclarum exemplum in Paulo Apoſtolo nobis propoſitum eſt, qui (ut ad Gal. 2. ipſe ſcribit) Petro Apoſtolo in faciem oblocutus erroris eum in Antiochenſi Synodo publicè arguit.
VINDICATION.
THe next Argument proper to the ſecond Paper is, becauſe in the Aſſembly at St. Andrews, perſons allowed by the Acts and Policy of this Kirk, to ſpeak their Conſciences were denyed liberty ſo to do, and to prove this, the Author taketh much pains to ſhew from eight old Aſſemblies of this Kirk, that not onelyonly perſons Eccleſiaſtick having calling power to vote, but others alſo are allowed to propone and reaſon, yea to preſent their thoughts in Writing to the Aſſembly, but he needed not to have been at ſo much pains in caſting over ſo many Aſſemblies for this purpoſe; the point is generally confeſſed in all Orthodox Kirks, and knows to all who have read the Common head De Conciliis in their Syſtems. Secondly he ſaith, that Sir Archibald Johnſtone (whom he mentions with many Encomia, to make the matter he hath to ſpeak more bulkſome) having written his minde to the Meeting, not able to come himſelf, about the matters to be agitated in the Aſſembly, holding forth much clear light from Scripture and Acts of former Aſſemblies in theſe particulars, (if it was much light he herd forth in ſome of theſe ſame particulart in conference at Pearth, it was but very little, and no much to be feared by any of the contrary mind) alſo the Letter was publickly delivered and required to be read by him that preſented it; the Moderator having broken it up, promiſed to cauſe read it, and many Members did at ſundry occaſions preſs the reading of it, yet it could never be obtained, but was ſmothered together with a Proteſtation contained therein, againſt a Paper of the Commiſsioners to the Parliam. approving what was done by the King and Committee of Eſtates to the Miniſters of Sterlin. Anſwer. Here is much want of ingenuity, and nothing of the truth of the matter making againſt the freedome of the Aſſembly; the Aſsembly never refuſed to have it read: Moſt part of the whole Aſsembly was earneſtly deſirous to have it read, and now more then the moſt part of theſe whom the Reader would inſinuate to be Readers unacquainted with the buſineſs, to have been the oppoſers of the reading of it, and ſmotherers of it, as being of a different judgment from Sir Archibald, and feared for the pith of his Papers. The truth of the buſines was this, as I doubt not but the Writer knows in his Conſcience, had he been ſo ingenuous as to tell it to ſome perſons in the Aſsembly, hearing much reſpect and tendernes to Sir Archibald, partly becauſe of intimate friendſhip with him, partly becauſe of many former good ſervices, did plead for a delay, alleadging that it was unreaſonable that the Aſsemblies precious time whereof they knew not how ſhort liberty they might have, ſhould be ſpent in reading any particular mans Letters, whereas the Committees were not as yet nominated and conſtituted, and the proceeding of the Commiſſion which (by the appointment of former Aſsemblies) ought to be the firſt buſines taken to conſideration, were not ſo much as once looked upon, and indeed the Papers which were ſent and deſired to be read concerning his minde, amounted to ſuch a volume, as the reading thereof might have taken up all the time that the Aſsembly could probably expect for ſitting, though never any other buſines had been touched. There was (if my memory fail me not) a Letter of four or five ſheets of thick Writ, and other Papers with it, required to be read before the Aſsembly did enter upon the firſt Action, the appointing of Committees, amounting to an hundred ſheets at leaſt, and muſt it be ſuch a crime as for which the Aſsembly muſt be judged null, that ſuch a motion was referred and delayed to a more convenient time, which was the onelyonly thing the Aſſembly did, and that not of their own inclination, but upon much entreaty and pleading of ſome of his beſt wel-wiſhers in the Aſſembly, who although they alleadged the cauſe we have only mentioned in publick, yet had another cauſe of their pleading ſo earneſtly for this which they did in a private way communicate to ſome who were deſirous they ſhould be read, whereby they moved them to deſiſt from urging ſo earnestly the reading of them, not out of fear to his Papers, or diſ-reſpect to his Lordſhip, but out of meer kindnes and reſpect, becauſe viz. they did perceive by looking on them (I believe) in private ſundry high reflections againſt the Supream Powers of the Kingdom, both King and Eſtates, which could not but have brought him in preſent trouble. This is the true ſtory of that buſines, judge thou now (ingenuous Reader) impartially, if this was a conſcientious or relevant argument, to nullifie that Aſsemb. but adde to that other in the Aſsembly 48 or 49. (I did not diſtinctly remember which, but the thing is certain, and the Writer will remember better) a Paper then, concerning matters then in debate given to the Aſsembly, and deſired to be read, was publickly laid aſide and refuſed to be read, and yet the lawfulnes of that Aſſembly, is not questioned. The Writer in the cloſe of this argument, would inſinuate to his Reader, that the Commiſſioners had been Authors of ſmothering theſe Papers of Sir Archibald Johnſtons, becauſe of a Proteſtation therein contained, againſt a Paper of theirs, approving what was done by the King and Committee to the Miniſters of Sterlin; but if he meaneth ſo, it is a wrongfull ſlandering of them, the Commiſſioners were far from deſiring them to be ſmothered, though one or two out of tender reſpect to his Lordſhip, were unwilling that he ſhould be brought in trouble by them, nor feared they his Proteſtation againſt that Paper of theirs, againſt which, neither he, nor any for him, could have any juſt ground of challenge; the ſumme and ſubſtance whereof was nothing elſe but a clearing of the Committees calling before them the Miniſters of Sterlin (after they had been dealt with by the Commiſsion of the Kirk about their preaching and practizing to the obſtructing of the Leavies according to Publick Reſolutions, and occaſioning ſome to relinquiſh their charge in the Garriſon of Sterlin, and they refuſed to deſiſt) that ſome convenient courſe might be taken in relation to them, in ſecuring the Garriſon from danger from the guilt of encroaching upon the Liberties of the Kirk charged upon them by a Proteſtation of theſe Miniſters of a very high ſtrain, and together approving theſe Brethrens proteſting in ſo far as it was proviſionall for the Liberties and Priviledges of the Kirk, and expriming that theſe Brethren might be dealt with by the King and Committee in a tender and reſpectfull way as Miniſters of the Goſpel.