The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 38
REVIEW.
I Shal paſs the Authors interludes, of the Writers believing that he hath cleared as with a Sun beam, and gained his point; and of that he doubts not but that the Writer and ſome others did intend to challenge for more; and that there was a flagrant ſlander ſpread by ſome; and that there was preſumption enough in ſome men; and come unto the diſcuſſing of that Sophiſme (as he is pleaſed to call it) whereinto he will not determine, whether out of inanimadvertencie or willingly the Writer (as he alleadges) hath run. But let us hear what this Sophiſme is; The main and principal queſtion de jure (which ſhould have been cleared (ſaith he) to the effect that ſcandal might have been juſtly charged upon the Commiſſioners, was not the Generall or Theſis whether betraying of truſt, and making defection from the Covenant, &c. be ſuch a fault as deſerves excluſion from ſitting as a Member in a Generall Aſſembly; but this particular Hypotheſis, whether the reſolving that all perſons, excepting ſuch as are notoriouſly prophane, &c. may be admitted to joyn in Arms for juſt and neceſſary defence of the Kingdom, when otherwiſe there cannot be Forces had in warrantable prudence, ſufficient for the defence of it, &c. If the right ſtating of the Hypotheſis were the thing now directly in queſtion, it were needfull to conſider more largely of the Authors ſtating of it; but becauſe it comes in on the by, I ſhall onelyonly deſire theſe few things to be taken notice of in the ſtate of the queſtion which he gives; firſt, That it doth ſuppoſe ſomething untrue, to wit, That Forces (in warrantable prudence) ſufficient for defence of the Kingdom, could not otherwiſe be had, unleſſe all perſons in the Land (excepting theſe included in the exceptions ſet down in the anſwer to the Quaere) were brought forth. If we may ſuppoſe, that Forces equall in number to thoſe who were invading the Land, were Forces ſufficient in warrantable prudence to defend the Land, that number, yea the double of it were to be found be North Forth, (to ſpeak nothing of other parts in the Land, out of which there were alſo Leavies made both of Horſe and Foot) though all the perſons in queſtion for their Malignancie and diſ-affection to the Cauſe, had been laid aſide. The Forces which by theſe Reſolutions was leavied, were by the acknowledgment of all who knew both the Armies as numerous, if not more numerous than the Forces of the Adverſaries, and yet the Leavies in many places was but the fourth Fenſible man, and in few or no places beyond the third; whence it will follow, that either the two part of the perſons in theſe places where the Leavies were made, were ſuch as did fall within the exceptions contained in the Commiſſions Anſwer to the Quaere, or elſe that there was no ſuch neceſſity of an univerſall coming forth, as was allowed in that Anſwer, and that therefore the neceſsity that was alleadged for imploying of theſe men who were formerly excluded, was but meerly pretended. Secondly, That there were no ſuch Items (as he adds) in the Commiſsions anſwer to the Quaere, which was the foundation of the Publick Reſolutions, and the main thing in debate betwixt the Commiſsion and the oppoſites of theſe Publick Reſolutions; The firſt Item reſolving, that the time of Civill cenſures inflicted by the Parliament upon perſons acceſſorie to former Malignant courſes, as the ſinfull Engagement might be diſpenſed with and taken off by the Parliament, with this proviſion, That none ſhould be admitted to places of power and truſt but ſuch as are qualified poſitively according to the rule of the Word of God in that caſe holden forth in our Solemn Engagement, (To paſſe by the way of carrying of it, which was palpable and obvious to the whole Land) was not added until the Forces were almoſt compleatly leavied, and the bulk of the Malignant Party brought into employment, and places of power and truſt in the Army. The ſecond Item, ordaining Presbyteries to proceed with perſons formerly guilty of malignant courſes, for admiſsion of them into Publick repentance, in a way conform to the rules ſet down by the Generall Aſſembly, for admitting ſuch upon teſtimonies from Presbyteries, bearing ſatisfaction given by then, conform to theſe rules, was not at all included in the Commiſsions anſwer, neither was there ſo much of it as one word in that large Warning of the 7. of Jan. 1651. emitted by the Commiſſion for ſtrengthening of that Anſwer, and when anything of that kind in latter Warnings, Acts and Letters came to be added, was alwayes holden forth but as expedient, in order to the employing of theſe men, but never was preſſed in any of theſe Papers as a neceſſary duty to exclude all theſe from being employed for defence of the Cauſe and Kingdom, who did not give evidence of their repentance, according to the Acts of the Generall Aſſembly; nay, it could not be ſo preſſed, unleſſe they had deſtroyed the foundation which they had laid in their anſwer to the Quaere, and in that Warning. The truth is, what was done in the matter of repentance, in order to the employing theſe men, was upon the ſtumbling and out-crying of many againſt the Publick Reſolutions, as they came firſt forth, and yet ſo as the firſt ground was alwayes holden faſt as to the matter of judgment; and for practice, the buſineſſe was hereby rather made worſe before the Lord, and to the point of guiltineſſe, then it was before; The Commiſsion not only ranverſing former Acts made by themſelves for excluding theſe from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who were in the rebellion after Dumbar, till the next Generall Aſſembly, and making new Acts for receiving of them; but receiving promiſcuouſly ſuch as came unto them, and by their example teaching Presbyteries to do the like, by which was produced a fearfull mocking of the Ordinance of God in publick Repentance, which no doubt hath been one of the provoking cauſes of the Lords wrath, to draw on theſe dreadfull ſtroaks wherewith he hath again ſmitten our Armies and our whole Land. But to the hypotheſis it ſelf, granting to the Author that which he alleadges, that this hypotheſis was not clear at the time of the Proteſtation, becauſe as yet there was not any particular determination thereanent in former Generall Aſſemblies. Firſt, I doubt of that aſſertion of his, That when an imputation of ſcandall depends upon a particular hypotheſis which at leaſt is queſtionable, and the very point in controverſie betwixt them and their accuſers, it is againſt all reaſon and equity, that they ſhould be holden to be under a preſumption of ſcandall, untill that particular hypotheſis be diſcuſſed and cleared, and therefore untill that be done, the adverſaries alleadgeance againſt them, is to be held but as a meer alleadgeance, upon which they are not to be excluded from ſitting as Members in the Aſsembly, until their cauſe be judged and tryed. I ſuppoſe that ſome Commiſſioners to the Aſsembly ſhould object againſt other Commiſsioners that had comitted murder, and ſhould offer inſtantly to verifie the ſame, and deſire that the perſons againſt whom it is propounded ſhould be removed from ſitting as Members until it migbt be tryed; and they in the mean time ſhould ſay, that it was true, they had taken the life of ſuch perſons, but in their own juſt and neceſſary defence, and therefore they could not be holden under a ſcandal of murder, nor be thereupon removed from ſitting in the Aſſembly, till that particular Hypotheſis were firſt determined: Would the Author think it a wrong done to theſe perſons, or rather a duty in reference to the conſtitution of the Aſsembly to remove them t…l the matter ſhould be cognoſced upon? 2. I do affirm, That not only former Aſsemblies, but the Aſsembly 1651. did remove Commiſsioners upon Exceptions propounded againſt them, the grounds wherof was not yet clearly determined in Law; for inſtance, The Commiſsioners of the firſt Election of the Presbyterie of GLASGOVV, who were laid aſide (as for other Reaſons, ſo alſo for this as one, in foro controdictorio, ſuſtained to be relevant) becauſe of the Exception of the oppoſing of Publick Reſolutions propounded againſt them. Next, Mr. Robert Cauden Commiſſioner from the Presbytery of Dunce, was removed upon the propounding of this exception, that there were but three or four Miniſters in that Presbyterie to chuſe Commiſſioners, all the reſt of the Churches thereof being vacant; and can any Determination of this Kirk be produced, that three or four Miniſters in a Presbytery, where the reſt of the Churches of that Presbytery are vacant, cannot chuſe Commiſſioners to the General Aſſembly. 3. I do upon the ground which the Author himſelf laies down, prove the carriage of the Commiſſioners to have been ſcandalous, and ſuch as did miniſter juſt ground of excepting againſt them, why they ſhould not ſit as Members in the Generall Aſſembly, till their carriage ſhould be firſt tried: my Argument is this, Whoſoever Commiſſioners of the General Aſſembly being in their truſt and carriage in the Publick Affairs of the Kirk limited and tyed to proceed according to Acts of former General Aſſemblies, does upon the accompt of the diſcharge of their truſt, declare many godly Miniſters in the Church of Scotland (till then of unqueſtionable integrity and faithfulneſs in the work of GOD) to be Malignants and unfaithful in the cauſe, &c. and requires Presbyteries to cenſure them, and to refer and cite them to the General Aſſembly, becauſe of their oppoſing of Reſolutions taken and iſſued by them, concerning which there is no particular Determination in any former Aſſembly: They give ſcandal and offence in the diſcharge of their truſt, and may juſtly becauſe thereof be excepted againſt, as not fit to ſit in the General Aſſembly as Members thereof, before their carriage be tryed: But the Commiſſioners of the Aſſembly 1651. who were Members of the Commiſſion, were ſuch; Ergo, &c. The aſſumption is clear, the matters of fact contained therein being evident from their own Papers, and that they were not warranted by any Act of the Aſſembly ſo to do; is the Authors own ground. The firſt Propoſition I prove thus: Whoſoever ſo far tranſgreſſes the bounds of their Commiſſion, as upon the accompt thereof, to declare many formerly faithful, to be Malignants, unfaithful, and ordains them to be cenſured and cited, when they have no warrant thereby ſo to do, gives ſcandal and offence in the diſcharge of their truſt: But the Commiſsioners by ſo doing did ſo far tranſgreſs the bounds of their Commiſsion, &c. Ergo what the Author will here anſwer I do not well know; But I would faine have him to tel a reaſon why the Commiſsion dealt ſo ſharply with many godly men, as to iſſue ſuch Declarations and Warnings againſt them, and to appoint them to be cenſured and cited, and to ſtir up the Civil Magiſtrate againſt them, becauſe of their oppoſing of Publick Reſolutions; whileſt, by his own acknowledgment, there was, as yet, no determination of the Church in favours of theſe Reſolutions, or againſt the oppoſers of them: I thought it had been his mind that the Commiſsion could not cenſure any, or ordain any to be cenſured for oppoſing Reſolutions of their own, not yet determined nor approven in a General Aſſembly; and I would have him to give a reaſon, why he accompts it againſt all equity that when the imputation of ſcandal againſt the Commiſsioners depends upon a particular hypotheſis, which at leaſt is queſtionable, and the very point of controverſie betwixt them and their accuſers (as he calls them, though unjuſtly, becauſe they, as Members of the Aſſemblie, were doing of that duty which is common and competent to every Member of the Aſſembly, that is, to object what they know of ſcandal againſt any other Member, that the Aſſembly might be conſtituted of perſons rightly qualified) they ſhould be holden to be under a preſumption of ſcandal until that hypotheſis be diſcuſſed and cleared, and why it ſhould be agreeable to equity and reaſon, that upon ſuch a particular hypotheſis, which at the leaſt is queſtionable, and the very point in controverſie betwixt the Commiſsion, and many faithful men, and ſome Synods, and not a few Presbyteries in the Land, ſhould be holden not only to be under a preſumption of ſcandal, but alſo ſuch as did deſerve to be publickly declared againſt as Malignant and unfaithful, and appointed to be cenſured and cited: It ſeems that whilſt the Author reaſons thus about his hypotheſis, that what he gains one way he loſeth another. I ſee not how by his queſtionable hypotheſis he can defend the equity of the Commiſſions proceedings in their Warnings, Remonſtrances, and Acts againſt theſe who were unſatisfied with, and did oppoſe the Publick Reſolutions; and when he ſhall do it, I hope his own grounds ſhall help the Proteſters to prove the equity and reaſon of removing Commiſſioners, even upon ſuppoſal that it was but a queſtionable hypotheſis. 4. I deſire to know of the Author, by what power, or in what capacity the Commiſſion did look upon them, to determine this queſtionable hypotheſis: as a Commiſſion they could not do it, becauſe there is no clauſe in their Commiſſion that gives them power or warrant to determine any point of Doctrine not formerly determined by the Church of Scotland; but their Commiſſion ties them in all things to walk according to former Determinations, Acts and Conſtitutions of General Aſſemblies; and I think he will not ſay that by vertue of any other power or capacity they either did it, or could do it. The Author hath by his own confeſſion and ground, brought the Commiſſion a greater length in the exerciſe of their power, then ever the Gen. Aſſembly did give to them, or (for any thing I know) did mean to give unto them, that is, To determine points of Doctrine of great importance and conſequence; as to the ſecurity of Religion, and of the Cauſe and Covenant, not formerly determined by this Church in any of her Gen. Aſſemblies, & upon theſe Determinations to declare ſuch as are unſatisfied with, and do oppoſe the ſame, not only to be cenſurable, but alſo appoint them to be cenſured: I thought if any thing had been the proper work of a Gen. Aſſembly this had been it. But more directly to the point: I do affirm that this Hypotheſis, the Publick Reſolutions determined by the Commiſſion of the General Aſſembly 1650. and iſſued to this Kirk in their Publick Warnings, Letters, Remonſtrances &c. do contain and involve a courſe of defection, was at the time of the Proteſtation clearly determined in former General Aſſemblies, becauſe the General Aſſemblies of this Kirk had often before that time determined an aſſociation in Councel and Armes with the Malignant partie, even in the ca…e of the defence of the Kingdom againſt forraign invaſion; to be ſinful and unlawful, as will appear to any who ſhall be pleaſed to read the Declarations, Warnings and cauſes of Humiliations, and Publick Papers of this Church theſe years paſt; and particularly the Solemn Publick Confeſſion of Sins, and Engagement to Duties; and the Declarations and Warnings iſſued by the General Aſſembly 1650 upon the Engliſh invading of this Land: But theſe Reſolution did involve ſuch a Conjunction, becauſe they did involve a Conjunction with all the Subjects in the Land, excepting theſe few included in the Exceptions contained in the Anſwer to the Quaere; but amongſt theſe was the very body and bulk of the Malignant party, who are by theſe Reſolutions allowed to be taken in and employed in the defence of the Kingdom, without any repentance or forſaking of their malignant waies, as a thing neceſſarily previous to the employing of them, and without which they could not be employed. Theſe were the things which the Proteſters alleadged and offered to verifie, not only the general, that the Commiſsioners had made defection from the Cauſe and Covenant; but that theſe particular Reſolutions concluded and carried on by them, did involve a defection from the Cauſe and Covenant; this (I ſay) they offered to inſtruct from former Acts of Aſsemblies ſpeaking clearly and poſitively there anent; which yet were refuſed to be heard by the Meeting until they firſt ſhould conſtitute themſelves in an Aſsembly including theſe Members, againſt which the Exception was propounded, a greater imputation upon their freedom then they will eaſily wipe off.
VINDICATION.
IT is known that the Belgick Remonſtrance in the Proteſtation againſt the Synod of Dort alleadged a matter of Scandal againſt the moſt part of the Members thereof, viz. That they had made a Schiſm, and were Schiſmatick; The point de jure in theſi, That Schiſm was a foul ſcandal, and ſuch as made them unfit to ſit in that Judicatory as Members, I ſuppoſe was cleer, and the Remonſtrants brought many plauſible Preſumptions that they were guilty of it more plauſible a great deal then this Writer alleadges againſt the late Commiſsioners, they bring Particular inſtances of Facts, as keeping ſeparated Congregations and Preſbyteries from the Remonſtrant refuſing to joyn in Prayers or Sacraments with them: whereas our Writer alleadges nothing but Generals, offence of many godly, pregnant preſumptions, men undertaking to inſtruct, &c. But here was a Queſtion in Hypotheſi, Whether it be a ſchiſm to keep ſeparated Congregations and Preſbytries from, and to refuſe to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments with men that had departed in their doctrin from ſuch and ſuch Articles of the Doctrin of that Reformed Kirk as the Remonſtrants had done? And therefore theſe Miniſters accuſed by them, could not be held as under ſcandal of Schiſm, or Preſumption thereof, until the Points in Controverſie were tryed, Whether the Remonſtrants Tenents were Erroneous, and of what conſequence and importance they were; and until then, the Remonſtrants Challenge of Schiſm againſt them could not be reputed but a meer Alleadgance. I know other things were Anſwered to this Reaſon of that Proteſtation by the forrain Divines from the Members themſelves in Controverſie betwixt the one and the other; but it may be evidently perceived in ſundry of their judgments upon that Proteſtation that they had all one Eye to this that we have ſaid. Hence is it that of the judicious Brittain Divines in the ſecond Branch of their Anſwer to that Accuſation, Conſtat haec Synodus ex perſonis nulla cenſura Eccleſiaſtica notatis nullo publico aut legitimo judicio de Sciſmate convictis unquam aut condemnatis Proteſtatio autem Remonſtrantium facta in contrarium vim, latae ſententiae habere non debet. And that of the Naſ…ean Divines Eſt veneranda & ſancta haec Synodus Congregata in eum finem ut doctrinam Remonſtranium propoſitam defenſamque audiat, ad Dei verbum probe examinet de ejus veritate vel falſitate pronunciet eouſque igitur ſententiam de ſciſmate ejuſque authoribus ſuſpendendam eſſe ſentiamus. So ſay we, The many buſineſſe of the late General Aſſembly was to Hear, Try, and Examine the Proceedings and Reſolutions of the late Commiſſioners whether they were conform to the Word of God, the Covenant, and Conſtitutions of this Kirk, and what could be ſaid for, or againſt them; and therefore until then was the matter of Defection objected againſt them to be ſuſpended. From all this that hath bee ſaid, it is evident, That ſeeing the Aſſembly was to go about the Tryal of the Commiſſions proceedings with all convenient expedition, it is no wayes a relevant exception againſt the Freedom and Conſtitution of the Aſſembly that they were admitted to ſit as Members notwithſtanding the Exception that was alleadged againſt their ſitting: And as for the ſame Objection, it was ſo far from ſticking upon the Proteſters themſelves at firſt, That Mr. Andrew Cant with the good-liking of all of them, ſo far as could be perceived, did put Mr. Robert Blair, and Mr. William Ret upon the List of Moderation; and ſundry of them gave their Vote to Mr. Robert Blair To be Moderator, Let be to fit as an ordinary Member of the Aſſembly.