The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 47
REVIEW.
SOmetimes the Author offends when pains is not taken to prove things that are generally confeſſed, as for inſtance to prove from the Word of God, that all ſcandalous perſons ought to have been removed from the Generall Aſſembly, and here he ſeems to carp at his taking pains to prove from the policy and Acts of this Kirk, that not onelyonly perſons Eccleſiaſtick having calling and power to vote, but others alſo are allowed to propone, hear, read and debate; yea, to preſent their thoughts in Writing to the Aſſembly: But albeit the point be generally confeſt by all Orthodox Churches, and known to all who have read the head de Conciliis yet was it to purpoſe for the Writer to take pains to prove it from the Acts of the Aſſemblies of this Kirk, becauſe he had to do not only with theſe who are acquainted with the head de Conciliis but alſo with others who are not wel acquainted with that head, I mean ſundry Profeſſors in the Land, who had need to have the ground and relevancy of this Argument cleared unto them, and it was a nearer and more convincing way to clear it from the received Doctrine of our own Church, then from the Doctrine of other Churches. Doth not Sir Archibald Johnſtone by the teſtimony of unqueſtionable witneſſes deſerve all the commendation that is given him? Why then ſhould it be carped at, if the things that are ſaid of him be true (as they are) they do indeed make the Argument more bulkſome; the Author doth once and again undervalue the light held forth by him, and pith of his Papers: I ſhall not deny the Author the teſtimony of Learning and ability, and wiſhes that the Lord may more & more increaſe, and more & more ſanctifie it unto him, that it may be improven for the Edification of many; But there is much of a Thraſonick ſpirit that as a vein runs through all this Vindication; the man whoſe light and pith he doth ſet ſo low hath (by the Grace of God) been inſtrumentall to hold forth very much light to the Kirk of God in Scotland, in things relating to the work of Reformation, and his pith (by the power of the Lord) hath been acknowledged in both Nations. The Writer in relating of the buſineſſe of the ſmothering of Sir Archibald Johnſtons Letter, is challenged by the Author of much want of ingenuity, and ſpeaking nothing of the truth; But let us ſee how this great challenge is made out? 1. He ſaith the Aſſembly never refuſed to have it read; but was it ever read? Was not the Aſſembly often deſired to cauſe read it? Was there not often much debate about the reading of it? And was it not for a long time waved from diet to diet, & at laſt buried? I fear not but this in the accompt of ingenuous men wil amount to a refuſal: But ſaith the Author, moſt part of the whole Aſſembly were earneſtly deſirous to have it read; if it was ſo, then were there ſome few who did carry it otherwiſe, notwithſtanding of the earneſt deſires of the moſt part of the Aſſemblie, and it argues no great freedome, when the earneſt deſires of the moſt part cannot prevail to gain the reading of a Letter, becauſe of the oppoſition of ſome few, who are otherwiſe minded. He doth withall intimate unto us, That none were more deſirous to have it read then the moſt part of theſe whom the Writer would inſi…uae (to be Readers unacquainted with the buſineſſe) to have been oppoſers of the Reading of it; I would ask him who were the oppoſers of the reading of it? men for the Publick Reſolutions, or men againſt them; I believe he will not deny but all the oppoſers of the Publick Reſolutions who were in the Aſſembly did earneſtly ſeek to have it read, and that all the men who oppoſed the reading of it were ſuch as were for the Publick Reſolutions, and ſome of them ſuch as did belong to the Commiſſion, and had hand in the contriving and carrying on theſe Reſolutions; this ſeems not to be denyed, but for taking off the weight off it, he comes to tell us that which he calls the truth, which he doubts not but the Writer knew in his Conſcience, had he been ſo ingenuous as to tell it; But I can anſwer him by warrant from the Writer, that he concealed nothing concerning which he had any perſwaſion in his Conſcience, as to the truth of it, in that which the Author ſpeaks of: The matter alleadged by him, is that all this was from tenderneſſe and reſpect to Sir Archibald Johnſton, by ſome of his friends in the Aſſembly who did perceive by looking on his Papers ſundry high reflexions againſt the Supream powers of the Kingdom, both King and Eſtates, which could not but have brought him in preſent trouble. This neceſſitates the telling more of the truth, which the Writer formerly ſpared to his own diſadvantage: The Letter was delivered to the Moderator Publickly, in the face of the Aſſembly, in the forenoon, a little after the ſitting down of the Aſſembly; upon the delivery thereof, the Moderator promiſed that it ſhould be read, and brack it open (being open in the hand of him that was Clerk to the Publick Reſolutions, and was now Clerk to the Aſſembly, opportunity was given to him, and ſundry of theſe who were for the Publick Reſolutions, and were the men who oppoſed the reading of it in the Aſſembly to read it in private) after which it was preſſed to be read with much earneſtneſſe and importunity at ſeverall Diets of the Aſſembly, and much debate there was to and fro at ſeverall occaſions about the reading of it, but the reſult was alwayes carried to a delay, untill at laſt the Proteſters leaving the Aſſembly, there was little or no more heard of it. That this was done out of meer kindneſſe, and reſpect to my Lord Wariſton from whom the Letter came is not likely: 1. Becauſe not onelyonly did he himſelf in the very boſome of it earneſtly beſeech; yea, obteſt and adjure in the Name of Chriſt, that what he wrote to the Aſſembly might be read and conſidered, but the neareſt and moſt intimate friends he hath in the world, who were like to be tender of his danger (if any) did preſſe the reading of it, I mean not onelyonly theſe in the Aſſembly who were of his intimate acquaintance, and intimatly engaged with him in the defence of the ſame Cauſe; but alſo his own wife who came to St. Andrews of purpoſe with that Letter; and that notwithſtanding ſhe was dealt with by ſundry of theſe who were for the Publick Reſolutions to take it up, and not to preſſe the reading of it (that there might be ſome handſome ſhift for the not reading of it) refuſed to do it, and Women are known to be as tender of their husbands dangers as others. 2. The Lord Wariſtons Judgement and expreſſions in all theſe things were well enough known before that time, to the King and to the Committee of Eſtates, and the reading might well have been a confirmation of the ſame thing, but would have furniſhed little or no new matter of ditty 3. There were no reflections in that Letter againſt the King & Committee of Eſtats, but in order to a conjunction with the Malignant party, and if the reading of theſe in the Aſſembly would have brought him preſent trouble, then ſurely it was not free nor ſafe for men who were of that opinion that the Publick Reſolutions did involve ſuch a conjunction, to ſpeak their judgement freely in the Aſſembly upon theſe Reſolutions, ſeeing his freedome of writing in theſe things would by the Authors own conceſſion have brought him to preſent trouble. 4. This was not the way to keep off the danger, but rather to fetch it on, becauſe it was the way to fil the Country with the noiſe of the Lord Wariſtons writing ſuch a Letter to the Aſſembly, which ſome that loved him after the delivery thereof, Publickly did ſmother and keep back from being read, notwithſtanding it was earneſtly preſt by moſt part of the Aſſembly, which report comming to the King, and to the Commiſſioners, would in all appearance have occaſioned them to call for the letter, which could not have been denyed nor put out of the way, being now publickly delivered, and ſo much debate made thereupon in the Aſſembly: But upon ſuppoſall that it was friendſhip and tender reſpect of ſome (which yet upon the former conſiderations may be juſtly doubted of, at leaſt it was all, or their moſt weighty reaſon) to the Lord Wariſton; yet to ſay nothing of their being more moved with the fear of his danger, then the prejudice of the publick Cauſe, which could not but ſuffer two ways by ſmothering of the Letters and Papers therewith ſent, both by the want of the light held forth therein, and by the imputation of ſmothering of it; I wonder that the Aſſembly ſhould have been ſo eaſily moved with theſe alleadgances which he ſpeaks of, to wit, that the Aſſemblies precious time, whereof they knew not how ſhort liberty they might have, ſhould be ſpent in reading a particular mans Letter, whereas the Committees were not yet nominate, nor the Commiſſions Proceedings which is the firſt buſineſſe that ought to be tryed, yet looked upon, and that the Papers offered to be read did amount to a volume which would have taken up all the Aſſemblies time, though there had been no other buſineſſe, they being of a hundreth Sheets, and the Letter being of four or five ſheets of thick Write. There was more time ſpent upon the debate of reading of the Letter, then it would have been read in to, it being not above the halfe of theſe ſheets which the Author ſpeaks of; if his teſtimony who wrote it may be believed; neither was the Aſſembly ſo much ſtraitned with time, elſe they were no good husbands of it, becauſe the firſt day they refuſed to read the Letter, they ſpent a great part of a Seſſion more then would have ſerved for reading of the Letter, debating about a Miniſters mans and his gleeb, as many honeſt witneſſes can teſtifie; and the Letter was urged and preſſed to be read, not only before, but alſo after the nominating & ſetling all the Committees, both that which concerned the proceedings of the Commiſſion, and all others. It was not a particular mans Letter, if by a particular man he mean a private perſon writing of buſineſſes of his own; but it was the Letter of a publick ſervant of the Aſſembly, writing of the publick buſineſſes of the Aſſembly; I mean the Clerk who was by his place bound to offer unto the Aſſemb. from their Acts & Records what he knew to be contributive for clearing of their proceedings, eſpecially in buſineſſes of common concernment of the Church; and this Letter did contain only purpoſe and buſineſſe of that nature, and nothing at all of private or perſonall concernments: Amongſt other things, there was therewith ſent an Extract of many Acts of former Aſſemblies extracted out of the Regiſters of the Kirk, contradicting the Publick Reſolutions. For the length of the other Papers, they were not ſo long, but they might have been read in a day or two at moſt, or if the Aſſembly would not have read them, they might have committed them to ſome of their number to take inſpection if there was any thing therein that might contribut to give light to the Aſſembly in the matter of the Publick Reſolutions. It is ſomewhat ſtrange, that the Aſſembly being upon the conſideration and debate of theſe Reſolutions, whether they were agreeable to the Word of God, the ſolemn League and Covenant, the ſolemn engagement to Duties, and other Acts and Conſtitutions of the Kirk, that they ſhould have refuſed to take in conſideration, or to read what was timeouſly offered to them in the contrary, by their own Clerk; and it is more ſtrange, that notwithſtanding of this, they will in the Act wherein they approve theſe Reſolutions Preface thus, after due examination, long and much debate and mature deliberation, but muſt it (ſaith the Author) be ſuch a crime for which the Aſſembly muſt be judged null, that ſuch a motion was referred and delayed to a more convenient time. It was not a delay to a more convenient time, but a delay altogether; let the Author tell us, if he can, when that convenient time came, or whether the Letter was not wholly laid aſide, though not by a poſitive and formall reſolution, yet waved from Diet to Diet, and never read, which is the more conſiderable, that the reading of it before the Proteſtation being ſo much urged, and the Proteſtation containing reaſons againſt the unlawfulneſſe of the Aſſembly, becauſe of the want of freedome; yet even after that the Aſſembly went on, and approved the Commiſſioners Proceedings, without reading of that Letter, whatever the Author make of it; I doubt all circumſtances being conſidered, if ſuch an inſtance can be given in any free Aſſembly, the refuſing to read former Acts and conſtitutions of Aſſemblies, and other things timeouſly offered unto them from the word of God, and the Covenant and Publick Papers of the Kirk by their own Clerk out of their own Regiſters for clearing of the Commiſſions proceedings which were now in debate, and if the term of refuſall pleaſe not the Author, the Aſſemblies proceeding to ratifie the procedings of the Commiſſion, without reading or taking in conſideration theſe things offered unto them by their own Clerk, out of the Word of God, and their own Regiſters for clearing of theſe proceedings, notwithſtanding that the ſame was timeouſly offered, and earneſtly preſſed by many members of the Aſſembly, and promiſed by the Moderator to be read; I believe common reaſon teaches, and theſe who treat of the nullity of Judicatories, and ſentences tel us that it is a relevant groud of a declinator, or appeal, if the judge give ſentence, without hearing what is timeouſly offered unto him out of his own Acts; and the Laws by which he is bound to judge, for clearing of the cauſe. As to that inſtance given by the Author of a Paper laid aſide in the Aſſembly 48. or 49. The Writer ſaith, that he is ſo far from remembring it well, that he doth not remember it at all; neither yet doth others whoſe memories are better then his; Its ſtrange that the Author ſhould know it for certain, and yet ſhould neither know what Aſſembly it was, not what the buſineſſe was, nor who the perſons were; yet becauſe he affirms it for certain, I ſhal not deny it, nor ſay that it is untrue, but till he tell us the particular circumſtantiat caſe, and make it to appear that it is a paralel of the caſe now in queſtion; I think he wil alow us not to lay weight upon it. Before he cloſe his Anſwer to this Argument, he labours to Vindicate the Commiſsioners from being Authors of ſmothering a Paper of Sir Archibald Jonſtons, becauſe of a Proteſtation therein contained, againſt a Paper of theirs, approving what was done by the King and Committee or Eſtates againſt the Miniſters of Sterline, and tells if the Writer meant ſo, it is a wrongfull ſlandering of them: The Writer hath ſaid nothing that may import that which the Author cals a ſlander: He thinks that it is inſinuate; but I think he hath more inſinuated it himſelf, whileſt he ſaith 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 to trouble. But was there any thing in that Proteſtation that would have brought him in trouble? I think it will not be alleadged; why then ſhould that have been ſmothered, where even the reaſon which is alleadged to have been the true reaſon of ſmothering theſe Papers did fail? VVhat ground of challenge there was againſt the Commiſsions Paper doth not properly belong to this debate, and I ſhal not now meddle much with it, but leave it to the Miniſters of Sterlin whom it doth concern; yet did ſome judicious men, even ſome of thoſe of the Civill Judicatory to whom it was given in, think that the Commiſsion had gone too far therein, to give wound to the liberties of the Kirk in theſe things, which many worthy faithfull Miniſters of this Kirk have been zealous to maintain and ſuffer for; I mean refuſing to ſubject Miniſter Doctrine to the Civill Magiſtrate as the proper and immediate judge thereof; He gives the ſumme of that Paper in ſome particulars: The firſt is the clearing of the Committees calling before them the Miniſters of Sterlin; he ſhould have ſaid the Committees citing and confining of them becauſe of their Preaching againſt the Publick Reſolutions; and that before they were cited and ſentenced, by any other Judicatories of the Kirk; yea, before there was (by the Authors confeſsion) any determination of the Church in that particular caſe; yea, when there was clear and poſitive determinations of the Church upon their ſide, and Acts binding them (under the pain of cenſure) not to be ſilent, nor to ſpeak ambiguouſly, but to bear teſtimony againſt ſuch courſes, which alſo by the Oath of God in the Covenant, they were bound to reveal and make known. As to that practiſing of the obſtructing of the Leavies, which he ſo frequently mentions, he would tell what it was beyond the bounds of their Calling, left his Readers think that he would fain have them to believe ſomewhat of theſe Miniſters, that did not become the Miniſters of the Goſpel, but cannot tell what it is. He ſaith, that the end why they were called, was, That ſome convenient courſe might be taken in relation to them, and ſecuring the Garriſon from danger, but hath not told us what that convenient courſe was, or could have been; neither (I think) can he tell us, but by juſtifying the courſe that was taken, that is, the detaining of theſe Miniſters from their charges by Confinement. What convenient courſe could the Committee of Eſtates take in order to theſe Miniſters, in an orderly way for preventing any pretended or apprehended danger that was like to come to the Garriſon by their preaching, they having now declared themſelves that they could not, but for the diſcharging of their conſciences, continue to give warning againſt the ſinfulnes of theſe reſolutions; they could not ſentence them with any Eccleſiaſtick cenſure, & to confine or impriſon upon points of their doctrin and Minieſtriall Calling, without any Eccleſiaſtick proceſſe going before in a Kirk ſettled in her Judicatories, Government and Diſcipline. I know not if the Author will juſtifie it as orderly, The next thing done in the Paper was, to vindicate the Committee from the guilt of encroaching on the Liberties of the Church, charged upon them by a Proteſtation of theſe Miniſters, which (as he alleadges) was of a very high ſtrain. I confeſs that the Commiſſion was concerned to endeavour the vindication of the Committee, becauſe they were acceſſory to what was done, as we have ſhewed before; but how they have acquitted themſelves in that Vindication, ſhall not now be inſiſted upon, neither yet the ſtrain of the Proteſtation, which is no higher then the truth will bear; but to make up all that Paper, did alſo approve theſe Brethrens Proteſting, in ſo far as it was proviſionall for the Liberties and the expreſſe deſires that theſe Brethren might be reſpectfully uſed as Miniſters of the Goſpel. To which I ſhall ſay nothing, but leave to theſe that can have opportunity to read that Paper, and then they will be beſt able to judge what that approbation was, and what arguments are uſed in the body of the Paper for enforcing the deſire in the Concluſion concerning their uſage.
VINDICATION.
THe laſt Argument is, that it cannot be a lawfull free Aſſembly in which perſons under tryall are admitted to ſit as judges in the ſame thing for which they are under tryall: But the Meeting at St. Andrews and Dundee was ſuch, the Commiſsioners therein were admitted to ſit as judges in the ſelf ſame things for which they were under tryal: This is abſolutly denyed, but the Writer goes about to prove it by the inſtance of ſome particulars: 1. Becauſe the Commiſsioners before the approbation of their Proceedidgs, did ſit as judges of the Proteſtation, a part whereof was, that their Proceedings ſhould not be ratified, becauſe they did involve a conjunction with the Malignant party, contrary to, &c. 2. They did alſo before the approbation of their Proceedings judge the perſons who had given it in, and did give their votes amongſt others, who of them ſhould be cited in order to cenſure. 3. Nay the Committee wherein that buſineſſe relating to the Proteſtation and in giving of advice was handled, was for the moſt part of it made up of Members of the Commiſsion, which thing will be acknowledged we believe (ſaith he) by indifferent men very unſuitable and unconſiſtent with the liberty of a free Generall Aſſembly, and then he addeth, that neither would he have others, nor do they themſelvs lay much weight upon this argument, unleſſe two points of fact upon which it is grounded be found true: Firſt, that the Proteſtation was judged, and the five Members (it is yet queſtionable whether they were Members or not; their Commiſsion being controverted, unleſſe he thinks them eſſentially members) were appointed to be cited before the approving of the Commiſsion of the Kirk. Secondly, that the members of the Commiſsion had voice in theſe things, inſinuating, that if theſe matters of fact be clear, as they were informed; the Argument is voted to batter down that Aſſembly, as not free, and as null. Anſwer: It is true theſe five perſons were appointed to be cited before the approbation of the Proceedings of the Commiſsion, but not in relation to cenſure, abſolutly and peremptorily; but to anſwer for their deed of Proteſting, and in caſe they ſhould not juſtifie it, or paſſe from it to be cenſured; whether the Proteſtation it ſelf was judged before the approbation of the Commiſsion, my memory ſerveth me not to ſay poſitively, I ſuppoſe it was, yet let it be cleared by the Minutes of the Aſſembly; but give me leave to ſay it humbly, that granting both theſe matters of fact, yet the argument will be found by any indifferent judicious man in the world, able to bear little weight, and in effect but a meer paralogiſme in the whole probation of the Aſſumption, viz. that the Commiſſioners did fit Judges in the very thing in which they were under tryall: For as to the firſt particular, might not the Aſſembly have judged the Proteſtation before the approbation of the Commiſſion, and yet in judging of it, not have judged the matter wherein the Commiſſioners were yet under tryall: yea verily they might; for why? they might as to that part of it, that is alleadged in this argument, viz. that the Commiſſioners proceedings ſhould not be ratified, have judged that they ſhould go on to try them, and if they did find them right and agreeable to the Word of God, and the Conſtitutions of this Kirk in that caſe to ratifie them; and I dare take it upon me, that if they did judge the Proteſtation before the approbation of the Commiſſion, they did no other thing in relation to that particular. Now to judge that they ſhould go on in the tryall of the proceedings of the Commiſſion to approve them as it ſhould be found, as ſaid is, and to judge in the thing wherein the Commiſſion was under tryall, to judge upon the proceedings, whether they were agreeable, as ſaid is, or not, in themſelves, are not the ſame but very different things, as any that hath half an eye may ſee and decern. And did not the Members of the Commiſsion 48. judge and vote with others, that that Aſſembly ſhould go on in trying the proceedings, ratifie them if they ſhould be found right and yet will he not ſay for that, nor can it in truth be ſaid, that they judged and voted in that thing wherein they were under tryall; and therefore it is evident, the Commiſsioners might ſit as Judges of the Proteſtation, even before the approbation of their proceedings, and yet it no wayes followes they did as Judges in the ſame thing wherein they were under tryall, whether the Writer hath reaſoned thus looſely out of miſtake, or on purpoſe, I cannot tell, I can hardly ſuppoſe the former of them, conſidering that this Paper evidences he is no child, if the latter be true, he hath ſure promiſed himſelf very undecerning Readers, and his carriage is the more foul. To the ſecond, the Commiſsioners might alſo have given vote with others, who of the Proteſters ſhould be cited and judged them alſo, and that before the approbation of their own proceedings, and yet ſo as it could follow no ways that they had ſitten as judges in the ſame, wherein they were under tryall, i.e. their own proceedings: for why they might have voted with others, & they did in no other maner of ways vote in the matter of theſe perſons citation, but that they ſhould be cited to anſwer and be tryed upon the grounds of the Proteſtation, and they might alſo with others judge the grounds of the Proteſtation, and found them not relevant, and thereupon ſentenced them for proteſting and declining the Generall Aſſembly upon ſuch grounds, and yet the Aſſembly might have found upon tryall the proceedings of the Commiſsion afterward wrong and cenſurable without any contradiction. There is not a ground of the Proteſtation, but it might have been found non-relevant for proteſting againſt the Aſſembly, before the tryall of the Commiſſions proceedings, and yet nothing being thereby imported more for approbation then for condemnation of the proceedings of the Commiſsion. As to the third particular, the force of it fals to the ground with the two former, for it containeth no new grounds, but only a ſeeming aggravation of them, if they might ſit in the Aſſembly in plenâ Curiâ, and judge deciſivè, they might as well in a Committee both deliberative and praeparatoriè, In theſe matters, viz. upon the Proteſtation and Proteſters, and yet not judge any thing in the thing wherein themſelves were under tryall, nor yet done any thing therein that could be any prejudice for approving or diſ-approving of their own proceedings. Nay, I dare affirm it, that neither the Writer, nor any that was in the Aſſembly, ſhall be able to inſtance, that any of the Commiſsioners did judge or vote either in the Aſſembly, or any Committee of the Aſsembly, or any Act of it importing either formally, or by way of conſequence, approbation or continuance of their own proceedings. I ſhall here but adde one word that any of the Commiſſioners did vote in the Aſsembly in the matter relating to the perſons of the Proteſters, or were on any Committee for that purpoſe: It was not their prejudice or to their advantage, but being a thing well known, I believe, to their own conſciences, that ſome of theſe Commiſsioners were perſons moſt tenderly affected towards them of any, and ſo did carry themſelves. Now I leave it to the impartiall underſtanding Reader to be judged if this laſt Argument againſt the Aſſembly is able to bear much weight, give it all the props the Writer requireth to ſuſtain it.