The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 27
REVIEW.
I Shall not contend whether the difference taken from the matter, be the onelyonly materiall difference, it is certainly the mainly materiall difference, though the other differences of the time, and of Presbyteries & Synods, having declared themſelvs, and that taken from the nature of the thing be alſo important. It is true, that much of the ſtrength of ſeverall other of the Arguments hangs on this Alleadgeance, that the Reſolutions of the late Commiſſion, were contrary to the Covenant and Reſolutions of this Church, and (I hope) that this Aleadgeance will bear the ſtrength of all the Arguments that are founded thereupon. Theſe worthy Aſſemblies 1638, & 1639, joyned the matter with the form in the reaſons brought for nullifying of former unlawfull Aſſemblies. Before the Author gives anſwer to the difference, he taxeth the Writer, that alleadging the error of theſe Reſolutions, he ſo often mentions onelyonly the Covenant, Acts and Conſtitutions of the Aſſemblies, but ſeldome the Word of God or Scripture, and tells us for his part in ſpeaking of the truth or error of an opinion in matters of Conſcience, he would not mention regulatas ſine regula regulante. Well, it ſeems ſome of the Proteſters (if the Writer of this Paper be of that number) hath reſpect enough to the Acts and Conſtitutions of the Aſſembly; for the want of which, the Author challenged one of them not long ago, as ſaying, that he was not to be preſſed with them in matters of Conſcience; and it alſo ſeems that in matters of Conſcience, the Author likes not the maintaining, much leſſe the preſſing of theſe without the Word of God; and ſome will perhaps think▪ that a man of that mind might bear with his brother, ſaying, Preſſe me not with humane Conſtitutions in matters of Conſcience; ſed multum intereſt quid loquatur. The reaſon why the Writer doth often mention only the Covenant, Acts and Conſtitutions of Aſſemblies, is, becauſe when we ſpeak of a defection in reſolutions and actings from former Principles, it is the more near and convincing way to mention the former Acts and Conſtitutions of that Church, which immediatly muſt decide whether a delegated Commiſſion, which is only intruſted to execute former Acts, and hath no power to make new ones, hath walked according to their truſt, yea, or not: and a ſecond Reaſon is, becauſe the Writer took it for uncontroverted, as being acknowledged by all the Kirk of Scotland, that the Covenant and Acts and Conſtitutions of this Church, did preſuppoſe and include the firſt and ſupreme rule, the Word of God; And the Author cannot but know, that though the Writer had not mentioned the Word of God further then it is included in the Covenant, and Acts and Conſtitutions of the Church, he hath great Patrons for his ſo doing, to wit, the Aſſembly at Glaſgow 1638. which in their great Acts againſt Epiſcopacy, Five Articles of Pearth, Service Book, &c. do ſtate, vote and print the Queſtions anent them, meerly upon their contrariety to the Nationall Covenant, and Acts and Conſtitutions of this Church, without mentioning Regulam Regulantem, that being preſuppoſed by all as being included in Regula regulata. But to the point. Firſt, the Author deny…s, that the Reſolutions of the late Commiſſion, were contrary to the Covenant and Conſtitutions of this Kirk, and ſayes, that the greateſt part of the Land, Miniſters and others, as intelligent in Religion as the Writer is, did, and doth this day judge otherwiſe of them then he, and that he ſhall never be able to prove it. There hath been more ſaid for the proof of it, then for ought I know hath been anſwered to this day, or can be anſwered, if men deal fairly and ingenuouſly; and therefore I ſhall not here ſtay, to repeat and reſume theſe things, I ſhall onelyonly ask the Author a very few plain Queſtions, and deſire a down-tight and plain Anſwer to them in order to this point: Firſt, whether in the judgment of many of theſe who were by the Publick Reſolutions of the Commiſſion, 1651. admitted to truſt in the Army and State, the Solemn League and Covenant, and former Acts and Conſtitutions of this Church, were not oppoſite to theſe Reſolutions. Secondly, whether in the judgment of many of the godly in the Land, theſe Reſolutions and proceedings were not oppoſite to the Solemn League and Covenant, and the former Acts and Conſtitutions of this Church, and could not be reconciled therewith? Thirdly, whether it was not thought and ſpoken by no mean men, Members of the Commiſsion 1651, and others who carried on the Publick Reſolutions, that theſe who had hand in the penning of the Publick Papers of the Kirk theſe years paſt, had in reference to the matter then in debate foiſted in many ſentences and expreſsions in theſe Papers contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Judicatories of the Church, which they then made uſe of for their own ends. 4. whether the ſin of imploying many Malignant & diſ-affected men in our Armies, which is confeſt in the ſolemn Publick Confeſsion of ſins, be not comprehenſive of imploying of ſuch in our defenſive war againſt James Grahame. Fifthly, whether the Solemn Engagement in the 48, do not bind us to avoid all the ſins that we acknowledged in the Solemn Confeſsion, and all the ſnares and temptations that led thereunto, and to endeavour all the contrary duties? Sixthly, whether the Generall Aſſembly and their Commiſsion, after the coming of the Engliſh Army to invade this Land, did not poſitively, and oftener then once, determine and warn againſt the imploying and intruſting Malignant and diſ-affected men in our Armies, even in the caſe of ſcarcity of men for the Lands defence? Seventhly, whether at the time of the Commiſsion its giving their anſwer to the Parliaments Quere, there was not a very numerous Party of Malignant and diſ-affected men in the Land, who did adhere to their former principles? Eighthly, whether the Anſwer to the Quere, or any thing contained in the Publick Reſolutions do acknowledge it, or hold it forth as ſinfull and unlawfull to imploy and intruſt Malignant and diſ-affected men in the defence of the Cauſe and Kingdome? Or whether that Anſwer and theſe Reſolutions, do acknowledge and hold it forth to be lawfull to imploy and intruſt ſuch? Ninthly, whether there be any Act, or Conſtitution, or Warning, or Declaration of this Church, or any Publick Evidence of her judgment before the Anſwer to the Quere, that ſpeaks for the warranting and allowing the Publick Reſolutions? or what it is, or where we may finde it? Tenthly, that the Commiſsioners are yet content to have their late Reſolutions tryed and judged by the Church of Scotland, is no great matter, when they have firſt pre-limited an Aſſembly, excluding many of theſe who were of a contrary mind, and conſtituting it moſtly of theſe who are of their own judgment, and have made Acts for cenſuring of all who ſhall not acknowledge the Conſtitution of that Aſſembly, and after conference, ſubmit to the obedience of theſe Acts; but if the Author would take the collective Church of Scotland to ſit as Judges upon the late Reſolutions of the Commiſsion; and ſtate the queſtion thus, whether are the late Reſolutions of the Commiſsion, agreeable to the Solemn League and Covenant, and to former Acts, Conſtitutions, Warnings and Declarations of this Church, I fear the determination ſhould be in the negative; ye…, if the whole Miniſteriall Church ſhould ſpeak their hearts of that Queſtion as before the Lord, I ſtill fear it ſhould be in the negative, all the Orthodox Churches in the World is a broad word, and I ſay no more of it, but that men well skilled in their doctrine, and to whom (I believe) the Author himſelf in this reſpect, and for piety and learning will not deny an honourable teſtimony, do teach us otherwayes. The matter is already pleaded by the Word of God, and Acts and Conſtitutions of this Church, and I ſhall now ſpeak no more thereof.
VINDICATION.
BƲt ſecondly, whatever be to be ſaid to the nature of theſe Reſolutions, yet the matter was at leaſt alike to the General Aſſembly at the time of the conſtitution of the Aſſembly, and the Proteſtation againſt the ſame; for the reſolutions and proceedings of the Commiſsion 48. were no leſſe quarrelled by an oppoſit Party, then were the reſolutions of the Commiſsion 51. the Party quarrelling 48, being no leſſe then the Parliament, and in this onelyonly few Miniſters, and the reaſons of the former were a great deal ſtronger and harder to be looſed; the Generall Aſſembly was here Judge to both, as in the firſt quarrell, the Commiſsion would not be abſolved from the accuſation charged upon them untill all was heard and tryed, ſo the Commiſsion 51, could not be condemned for the exceptions and alleadgeances of a few Brethren, before that any of them were or could be cognoſced upon. By all this which hath been ſpoken, that what the Writer ſaith, ſhutting up the ſame, that theſe things being put together, make up a wide difference between that which was then done 48, and that 51 was but a groundleſſe aſſertion; we have evidently ſhowen that there is no difference betwixt the one deed and the other (ſo that if the one was guilty of pre-limitation of election of Commiſsioners, ſo was the other no leſs) except that the deed of the Commiſsion 51, was a great deal more ſparing and moderate. So we have vindicated that particular anſwer to the firſt reaſon againſt the freedome and lawfulneſs of the late Aſsembly, alleadging pre-limitation of the election of Commiſsioners, viz. that the Commiſsion did nothing therein but what was done by the Commiſsion 48, whoſe deed the Proteſters maintains with us.