The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 26
REVIEW.
I Think the Author did well enough know, that in ſetting down of the third Difference, the Writer did not mean of the Collective, but of the Miniſteriall Church, of which not only the greater part, but almoſt all had declared themſelves unſatisfied in Conſcience with the Engagement, excepting a few Miniſters ſcattered here and there in Presbyteries, who were known either to be oppoſers of the Work of God, or neutrall and indifferent therein from the beginning; it is true, they were too many in regard of the evill courſe they were engaged into; yet were they but few in number who did not at that time in ſome outward way, at leaſt, give ſome teſtimony againſt that Engagement, though (alas) ſome of theſe in theſe late Reſolutions, have now diſſembled it in their words, and moe have betrayed it in their actions, that what they then did in condemning the Engagement, and afterwards approving the ſolemn Publick Confeſsion of ſins, and engagement to duties, was againſt their hearts; when the Author hath ſtreatched their number to the utmoſt, the moſt he dare ſay of it, is the great part of whole Presbyteries in ſome places; But theſe ſome places that he ſpeaks of were ſo few, that it will be found they will come to a very poor accompt when they ſhall be named, they were ſo far from being like to amount to any number at the Generall Aſſembly. If he mean of theſe who were Members of the Aſſembly, that there were few (if any at all) who did not joyn in approving the Declaration of the Aſſembly againſt the Engagement: If he mean of theſe who ſubſcribed the diviſive Supplication, theſe were ſo few, that they did not all of them being put together, amount to the twentieth part of the Miniſtery of Scotland, and ſundry even of theſe, did before the Elections, joyn with their Presbyteries and Synods, in bearing teſtimony againſt the Engagement; I will not blame him for his charity to ſome of theſe men: The Writer did not ſay, that all of them were known to be oppoſers, or neutrall, or indifferent in the Work of God from the beginning, but ſpoke indefinitly, meaning (as I take it) of the bulk and generality of them; and I believe the Author himſelf being judge, but few inſtances to the contrary can be given; It is true that a great part of the Church of Scotland before the writing of the late Commiſsions Letter, had declared themſelves ſatisfied with the Commiſſions Reſolutions, and diſſatisfied with the courſe of the oppoſers thereof: But it is alſo true that there was a great part of the Church of Scotland, who had not declared themſelves ſatisfied with theſe Reſolutions; yea, a great part who had declared themſelves diſ-ſatisfied therewith; and it is a wonder to me that the Author ſhould ſay, that count when the Writer will, he ſhall find that the diſſenters from the Commiſsion 1648. were not fewer; yea, not ſo few as diſſenters from the Commiſsion 1651. I hope he is ſpeaking of the Miniſteriall Church in regard of both, the queſtion now being of pre-limiting the elections, and it being to no purpoſe to ſpeak of any other, in regard of theſe; let him name if he can, any Synod, Presbytery, or Kirk-Seſsion in Scotland that did give any teſtimony or evidence of their diſſent from the proceedings of the Commiſsion againſt the engagement 1648. If he will believe the teſtimony of the Generall Aſſembly 1650. the whole Miniſtery and body of the People in the Land did joyn in their Prayers and Supplications in private and in Publick againſt the engagement, and the Miniſters every where in their Sermons did bear clear teſtimony againſt it, and all the Church Judicatories, Synods, Presbyteries and Seſsions did petition the Parliament againſt it, and another declaration of the ſame Aſſembly, within a few dayes thereafter, in anſwer to a paſſage of the Declaration of the Engliſh Army, tels him ſomewhat to the ſame purpoſe; we do not remember, ſay they, that any of the Miniſters did preach and cry up a war againſt England, and as we know that the body of the Miniſtery were unanimous, and zealous in bearing a joynt teſtimony, both in their Sermons and otherwiſe, againſt that war, ſo theſe few that were ſilent have been cenſured for their ſilence; and the Committee of Eſtates at the ſame time in their Declaration teſtifie thus: Did not all the Judicatories of the Kirk unanimouſly oppoſe and declare againſt it? Did not the Miniſters faithfully Preach and Pray againſt it, and generally all that feared God in the Land Petition againſt it, and many ſuch Paſſages are to be found in our Publick Papers, from the time of carrying on the engagement; yet the Author is ſo zealous to weaken every thing, that the writer ſaith, for differencing that which was done by the Commiſſion 1648. and the Commiſsion 1651. that he had rather retrench upon that which hath been often and truly declared by this Church of their being free of any acceſſion to the unlawfull engagement then not to do it; this deſerves his ſecond thoughts; but upon the other hand, beſide the generality of theſe in the land who are of known approven godlineſſe and piety, and are diſ-ſatisfied with the Publick Reſolutions, as will, I truſt, be acknowledged by godly men of a contrary mind, ſpeaking ſoberly, and without the heat of diſpute: It is eaſie to give him ſome inſtances of ſome Synods, and of many Prerbyteries, beſides many particular members in Presbyteries throughout all the corners of the Counrry, who were not onelyonly ſilent in ſpeaking for the Publick Reſolutions, but who did bear teſtimony and ſpeak openly againſt them: A thing ſo wel known that I need not ſtay to name the particulars, but they muſt ſtil be few in his catologue; we know ſaith he what the number of theſe amounted to at their greateſt Meeting at Edinburgh of late; If he mean that all the Miniſters of the Land who are of that judgement were at that Meeting, he is much miſtaken, and if not ſo, it is not much to the purpoſe, there are many Miniſters in the Land of that judgement, who were not at that Meeting, and yet there were very near a hundred Miniſters at that Meeting who are approven in the Conſciences of the godly throughout the Land. He acknowledges that many more of theſe then of the firſt were godly men, and had been faithfull formerly, but their preſent courſe at that time being not faithfulnes to the Cauſe, but prejudicial to it, and the whole Kirk and Countrey as he thinks, they might juſtly be referred and called before the Aſſembly as wel as the other. It is well that they were godly, and ſuch as had been formerly faithfull; as for their unfaithfulneſſe at that time, it is the point in queſtion betwixt them and the Authors and abbettots of the Publick Reſolutions, they are perſwaded in their Conſciences and have clearly holden forth the ſame unto others, that they were keeping the ground on which the Church of Scotland did run theſe many years paſt, for defending the Country and Cauſe againſt the enemies thereof; and if others did forſake their ground, they were not to be eſteemed unfaithfull, nor to be charged with that crime, becauſe they would not leave their Maſters Colours; I ſhal not inſiſt upon what he ſpeaks of the tender dealing which they met with, becauſe there may be opportunity to ſpeak to this afterwards, what is apparent in the Letter and Act of the Commiſsion is already ſpoken unto.
VINDICATION.
THe fourth conſideration proponed by the Writer, is, that the Reſolutions then (viz. 48) were agreeable to the Covenant, Acts and Conſtitution of former Generall Aſſemblies, whereas the Reſolutions of the late Commiſſion were point blank contrary to the Covenant, and the former Acts and Conſtitutions of this Kirk. Anſwer, this is the onelyonly materiall difference between the two Acts taken, to wit, from the matter that the Commiſsions Reſolutions 48. were right, but the other 51. wrong, and upon this alleadgance, that the Reſolutions of the late Commiſsion were contrary to the Covenant and Conſtitutions of this Kirk hangeth the ſtrength of the moſt part of the reſt of the arguments, brought to prove the unlawfulneſſe of the late Aſſembly; I will not challenge the Writer that alleadging the errour if theſe Reſolutions, he ſo often mentions, onelyonly the Covenant, and Acts and Conſtitutions of Aſſemblies, and ſeldome the Word of God or Scripture: For my part in ſpeaking of the truth or errour of an opinion, in mattrrs of Conſcience, or of the ſinfulneſs or lawfulneſs of a courſe, I would not mention, regulas regulatas ſine regula regulante, the ſubordinate rules without the Supream and Soveraign rules. But to the point 1. That the Reſolutions of the late Commiſſion were ſuch as the writer ſaith, is as eaſily denied as he affirmeth it, the greateſt part of the Land Miniſters, and others als intelligent in Religion as he, did, and do this day judge otherwiſe of them then he, and he ſhall never be able to prove what he affirmes, and the late Commiſsioners were, and yet are content that their late Reſolutions be examined, tryed and judged by the Kirk of Scotland, or all the Orthodox Chriſtian Churches of the world, by the Word of God, Covenant, and Conſtitutions of this Kirk.