The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 28
REVIEW.
IT is eaſie to give ſundry materiall differences: 1. Theſe Reſolutions at the time of the Conſtitution of the Aſſembly, and the giving in of the Proteſtation; beſides that, they were againſt the clear Letter of Acts of former Aſſemblies. So were ſundry ſtanding up in the Aſſembly, and offering inſtantly to verifie that it was ſo; but in the 48, the proceedings were agreeable to the Acts of the Aſſembly; and albeit there were ſome who deſired that theſe proceedings might not be approven till they were heard; yet none did offer inſtantly, or at all to verifie, thathey had carryed on a courſe of defection, contrary to the Covenant, and Acts and Conſtitutions of the Church. Secondly, in the 48, the proceedings of the Commiſſion were not teſtified againſt, by Presbyteries and Synods, much leſſe diſſented from, and proteſted againſt by many in the Commiſsion it ſelf: but ſo it was in the 51, not onelyonly did Presbyteries and Synods bear teſtimony againſt theſe things, but a great part of the Commiſſion; yea, ſo great a part, that whoſo ſhall reckon, I believe, ſhall find them very near, if not equall the one half of the number, to whom the truſt of theſe things were committed by the Generall Aſſembly. Thirdly, in the 48, there was no exception at all proponed from the unfreedome of Elections, or from perſons under ſcandall, becauſe of defection and back-ſliding from former principles; but ſo it was in the 51. Theſe things evidence a very great difference between the one and the other at the time of the Conſtitution of the Aſſembly, & the Proteſtation againſt the ſame, and to take off any thing that the Author ſaith, for proving them to be alike, I do deſire it further to be conſidered, That as in the 48, it was not the Parliament who was the party quarrelling the Commiſsion before the Aſſembly, the Parliament being riſen a good while before the Aſſembly ſate down: So, in all this buſines of the quarrelling that was made againſt the Commiſsion in the Aſſembly 48, is much miſ-taken and miſ-repreſened by the Author all alongs his Vindication, as ſhall in its proper place be cleared. Secondly, that it was not deſired (as the Author doth inſinuate) that the Commiſsion 51, ſhould be condemned for the exceptions and alleadgeances of a few brethren before that any of theſe Reſolutions were or could be cognoſced upon, but onelyonly that they ſhould not be admitted to ſit as Members of the Aſſembly, untill the exceptions proponed againſt them were tryed and diſcuſſed. Thirdly, that in the 48, as the party quarrelling did not either at the time of the Conſtitution of the Aſſembly, or afterwards before the trying and approving of the Proceedings of the Commision, offer any reaſons to the Aſſembly againſt theſe Proceedings; ſo the reaſons which they did afterwards offer, were not very ſtrong nor hard to be looſed, much leſſe ſtronger and harder to be looſed, then the reaſons offered in the 51, by theſe Miniſters, the laſt being founded upon the Word of God and the Covenant, and the clear Acts and Conſtitutions of this Church, and the other not ſo; Theſe things being thus diſcuſſed, it ſtill appears that the Writer had good reaſon to ſay, that there is a wide difference betwixt that which was done by the Commiſsion 1648, and that which was done by the Commiſsion 1651. as to the pre-limiting of the Aſſembly, and that the Proteſters have reaſon to condemne the laſt, though they maintain the firſt.
VINDICATION.
WE ſhall adde ſome further conſiderations in anſwer to the firſt Reaſon; But ere we proceed, a word upon what the Writer of the 2. Paper hath upon the 2. Objection, which either he hath formed to himſelf, or found I know not where, viz. That it was in the Commiſsions power, not onelyonly to appoint theſe who oppoſed the Publick Reſolutions to be cited to the Generall Aſſembly, but alſo to have cenſured them by vertue of a clauſe contained in the Commiſsion; and that therefore having keeped themſelves far within the bounds of the Commiſſion, &c. The Writer of this Paper for clearing of this buſineſs, runs out in a diſcourſe concerning the nature of delegated Judicatories, that they are and muſt be from the light of nature and common reaſon, limited to a certain rule in all their adminiſtrations, to wit, to ſtanding Lawes of the Incorporations to which they do belong, and to a certain end, viz. the good and preſervation of the whole body, and in application unto, or accuſation againſt the late Commiſsioners of the Generall Aſſembly their Reſolutions: He affirms, they were not onelyonly without the warrant of an Act of the Aſſembly (which ſhould have been their rule) and not only not contributive for the preſerving and advancing of the Work of Reformation, but expreſly contrary to the clear letter of the Covenant, and multitudes of Acts, and deſtructive to the Work; and that therefore aſſuming to themſelves a power to cenſure or cite ſuch as did oppoſe them; they did not onelyonly go beyond the bounds of their Commiſsion, but deſtroyed the very end of it, viz. the preſervation of the Liberties of the Kirk, in bringing Generall Aſſemblies to bondage, by excluding all ſuch as would not conſent to the courſe of defection, a dangerous and damnable preparative, laying a foundation for the totall over-throw of Diſcipline, yea of Doctrine and Worſhip; yea, the Commiſsion being once corrupted, the introducing of Prelacie, Service-Book, Popes ſupremacy, the whole body of Poperie. Here certainly, the Writer hath filled his Pen nigrae ſucco fuliginis, to render the Commiſsioners odious and deteſtable to all. But to theſe briefly: Firſt, if it was another man that proponed the Objection then the Writer himſelf. I verily think, he did not mean that the Commiſsioners had power by their Commiſsion to cite and cenſure oppoſers of any Reſolutions made by themſelves, right or wrong (neither doth the Objection as ſet down by the Writer himſelf import any ſuch thing) but oppoſers only of their juſt and right reſolutions, ſuch as (I doubt not) he took the late reſolutions to be, and therefore all the Writers running out upon the nature of a delegated Judicatory, &c. as to that Objection, is but a fighting againſt his own ſhadow. Secondly, we know and acknowledge, that delegated Judicatories are limited to a certain end, and a certain rule; yea, we think further, that Judicatories not delegated, but having power originally in themſelves humane are ſo limited too. But that the late Commiſsioners did in their Reſolutions carry on a courſe of defection, contrary to the expreſs letter of the Covenant and multitude of Acts of this Kirk, and deſtructive to the Work of Reformation, and that they deſtroyed the Liberties of the Kirk, brought the Generall Aſsembly to bondage, is ſaid, but was never, nor will never be proven; and ſo but a foul calumnie and falſe accuſation of the Brethren, of which that uncharitable expreſsion, calling what the Commiſsioners did, damnable, (which being uſed for aggravation here, cannot ſimply mean onelyonly, that the thing done was worthy to be condemned, as every errour even the leaſt is but alſo damnable to the doers) I pray the Lord give the Writer repentance and forgiveneſs.