The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 51
REVIEW.
THe Writer is not poſitive in delivering his own judgement upon this point, that is here ſo much inſiſted upon by the Author, but onelyonly ſaith that it is the opinion or conception of ſome with much appearance of reaſon, and therefore upon ſuppoſall that this opinion were not well grounded, he hath brought little or no diſadvantage either to himſelf or to the Proteſtation, in alleadging the ſame; yea, I believe he will take it for an advantage to have the Truth diſcovered unto him, either in this or any other particular,: For my part, I am loath, neither do I intend to fall upon the debate of this queſtion, or to deliver my judgement poſitively therein (becauſe, (if I be not miſtaken) it is a thorny queſtion, and full of difficulties on both hands, yet I cannot but take notice of ſome things that are ſet down by the Author in his large Anſwer to what was ſaid ſhortly by the Writer: Firſt, He tels us that the Writer doth but affirm that the Acts and Conſtitutions of the Aſſembly are wrong; and that his ſaying is not to be holden for ſententia lata, nor is it an Oracle: None ſpeaks Oracles but God, and the Writer takes no more upon him but to ſpeak his opinion as a poor weak man; but I believe the Author knows, that it is not only the opinion of the Writer, and of the Proteſters, and of ſuch Miniſters and Profeſſors as are unſatisfied with the Conſtitution of the Aſſembly, but alſo of many others, even of not a few of thoſe who were no oppoſites to the Publick Reſolutions; I have hitherto met with few or none in eſtimation for Piety and Godlineſſe that doth juſtifie and profeſſe their adherence to all the Acts of that Aſſembly as things tending to Edification, and promoving the work of Reformation in the Land; and ſeeing he is pleaſed to make bold with others, I think he will not offend if I appeal his Conſcience, whether he thinks theſe Acts of that Aſſembly that do relate to the cenſuring of all Miniſters, Expectants, Students, Elders and Profeſſors who do not acknowledge the Conſtitution of that Aſſembly, and ſubmit to the Acts thereof, ſuch Acts as in themſelves tend to the furthering of the work of Reformation, and advancing of Piety and Godlineſſe in the Land. Next, I take notice of that which he ſaith, that ſuppoſing as the Writer doth, that nothing was wrong in the point of forme, that there is nothing in the matter that will juſtifie the deed of the Proteſters, becauſe they proteſted againſt the lawfulneſſe of the Aſſembly, when as it had not come to any of theſe Proceedings which the Writer alleadgeth to be wrong on the matter; in this the Author is miſtaken, becauſe the rejecting of relevant exceptions proponed againſt ſundry of the Commiſſioners, both before and after the choſing of the Moderator was wrong on the matter, being prejudiciall to the right Conſtitution of the Aſſembly, and a preparative to the juſtifying of the Commiſſioners Proceedings. Thirdly I would have him to know that the Writer by theſe ſome, whom he ſpeaks of, doth not mean any of the Proteſters themſelves, though the Authority of ſome of them be of as great weight in the Proteſtant Churches as any of the Divines of this age, and being prior to the Proteſtation, needs not, nor ought not to be looked upon as the teſtimony of a party, but he means ſom Orthodox Writers, and theſe of chief, not in the Proteſtant Churches, whom (as I conceive) he thought he needed not to name, as having no great purpoſe to inſiſt much upon the buſineſſe: But for the Authors ſatisfaction, and the ſatisfaction of others, I ſhall name ſome, Firſt Calvin writing upon the 23. of the Acts hath theſe words, Naſcitur quaeſtio, ſi honore non eſt privandus qui malè officio fungitur, peccavit Paulus Pontificem honore ſpolians? Responſio. Inter Magiſtratus Civiles & Eccleſiae Praeſules aliquid eſt diſcriminis, quamvis enim Civilis Imperii confuſa ſit perverſa que adminiſtratio, Dominus tamen vult ſubjectionem ſalvam munere, ſed ubi ſpirituale regimen degenerat, ſolvuntur piorum conſcientiae ne injuſtae dominationi pareant; praeſertim ſi impii Sacerdotii titulum, falſo ad evertendam ſalutis doctrinam praetexant, ſibique dominationem arrogant qua ipſe Deus in ordinem cogitur. And Paraeus upon the ſame place moves the ſame Queſtion, and gives Anſwer to it in theſe words; Non ſequitur à Magiſtratu Politico ad Eccleſiaſticum, quia magna eſt diſſimilitudo, magiſtratus politicus poteſt eſſe magiſtratus; quamvis ſit impius ideoque ei obtemperandum quoad non praecipit quid impium; ſed Miniſtri Eccleſiae deficientes à puritate doctrinae, & spargentet falſa dogmata, jam non amplius ſunt Miniſtri Chriſti; Paulus Magiſtratum quamvis impium agnoſcit pro Magiſtratu; Impium vero pontificem non agnoſcit pro pontifice. He will alſo finde moe writing upon that place ſpeaking to the ſame purpoſe: as alſo upon the 2. Cor. 10.8. and 13.8. and 10. It is not now my purpoſe to fall upon the conſideration of the extent of the meaning of thoſe Divines in theſe places, it is enough that I give him their teſtimonies ſpeaking as much clearly as the Writer ſaid they did. 4. I doubt if for any thing that is ſaid by the Author, this exception will be found ſo dangerous and …: Firſt, He thinks that it is to open a wide gap to confuſion, inferring that abſurd conſequence that that Aſſembly is not compleatly conſtitute in the being of an Aſſembly, till all the Acts of it be concluded and ended; and that till it be concluded, no man can acknowledge nor ſubmit to it, but with a reſerve. The reaſon of this conſequence muſt be, becauſe haply in the cloſe they may make an Act wrong upon the matter, which one Act nullifies the Aſſembly, though they had done all other things well, but ſo ſaid not the Writer, neither can any ſuch thing rationally be gathered from his words; the moſt that he inſinuates i…, that an Aſſembly proceeding wholly wrong upon the matter, or in the moſt ſubſtantiall and materiall things, or in the rules of its conſtitutions of greateſt concernment, or as that ſo far as an Aſſembly proceeds wrong upon the matter, it is ſo far without authority, as appears from his own words in the inference which he makes from the power which the Commiſſioners have committed unto them by their Presbyteries, and from the Concluſion that he makes in order to the Aſsembly now in queſtion, to wit, That they having in moſt of all, and the moſt material of their proceeding proceeded contrary to the truſt committed unto them by Presbyteries; It furniſheth another conſiderable reaſon for declining of them. Secondly, He thinks that it will alſo infer the nullity of Presbyteries, and make Miniſters no Miniſters, if they ſhall proceed wrong upon the matter, which no man will not ſee to be contrary to the practice of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, in relation to the Prieſts and Church-Judicatories among the Jewes whilſt they were a Church. But to ſay nothing of the difference between Miniſters, Parliaments, and Aſsemblies, the one being ordinary and fixed; the other not ſo, the moſt that it would infer would be this, That in ſo far as they proceed wrong, or that if in the moſt ſubſtantiall and materiall parts of their duty, they proceed wrong upon the matter, their authority is not to be acknowledged, and this ſeems not a very dangerous conſequence. Thirdly, He thinks this contrary to the judgment of the Aſsembly of Glaſgow, concerning which he thinks it remarkable, that in declaring the nullity of ſome preceding Aſsemblies, they do never take an Argument from the matter to prove the nullity of them, whilſt yet (ſaith he) there was very fair occaſion to have done it, if that the Aſſembly had been in the Writers mind. The Writer hath not yet poſitively declared his mind in this matter: But the Author upon ſecond thoughts will find his remark concerning the Aſsembly of Glaſgow not well grounded, becauſe that Aſsembly in proving the nullity of ſome preceding Aſſemblies, do reaſon not only from the form, but alſo from the matter or grounds of their proceeding in their Acts, as appears in the laſt reaſon brought for nullifying the Aſsembly at Pearth, which is this, That the ground of their proceeding was not the Word of God, the Confeſſion of Faith, and Acts of former Generall Aſsemblies, but the Kings Commandment onelyonly. For the queſtion was thus ſtated, whether the Five Articles in reſpect of his Majeſties Commandment ſhould paſs in Act or not, as the Records of that pretended Aſsembly bear, where it is declared; That for the reverence and reſpect which they bear to his Majeſties Royal Command, they do agree to the foreſaid Articles. And that the Church of Scotland had reſpect to the matter as well as to the form, in annulling theſe Aſſemblies, is manifeſt from that notable Act at Edinburgh, in the year 1639. concerning the cauſes and remedies of the bygone evils of this Kirk, in which the fifth Cauſe is declared to be the keeping and authorizing corrupt Aſſemblies at Lithgow 1606 and 16…8; at Glaſgow, 1610; at Aberdeen 1616; at St. Andrews 2617; at Pearth 1618; which Aſſemblies are declared to be null and unlawfull, as being called and conſtituted quite contrary to the Order and conſtitutions of this Kirk, received and practiſed everſince the Reformation of Religion, and withall labouring to induce Novations in this Church, againſt the order and Religion eſtabliſhed. Whence it appears, that either the Author hath not known, or elſe hath not conſidered, that this Kirk hath laid weight upon the matter for nullifying of theſe Aſſemblies, as well as upon the form; and (I believe) Orthodox Divines arguing againſt corrupt counſels, do the ſame; any who doubt it, may be pleaſed to read that learned Review of the Councell of Trent, and that Book of the Gravamina againſt the Councell of Trent, in the laſt of which it is firſt proven by many inſtances that many Councels both of old and late have erred, and from thence that concluſion is inferred; Ergo neceſſario ex hoc conſequitur illud Concilium tantum recte dici & eſſe Chriſtianum, in quo ex verbo Dei & non ex hominum traditionibus, conſtitutionibus, decretis, ſomniis, aut ulla denique quantumvis inveteratâ conſuetudine, res religionis judicetur atque determinetur, quamvis magni in eo interſint viri. Etenim externam illam ſpeciem authoritatis ſapientiae humanae excellentiae & ſanctimoniae deteſtatur & rejicit Propheta inquiens, Quomodo dicitis, ſapientes ſumus, & lex Domini apud nos eſt, attamen ecce mendacium operatus eſt ſtylus, falſo & fruſtra ſcripſerunt Scribae, pudefacti ſunt ſapientes perterriti & capti ſunt, ecce verbum Domini reprobaverunt, quae ergo illis ſapientia reliqua eſſe poterit, Jer. 8. Which words are applyed at length to the Councel of Trent, & the whole purpoſe cloſed thus; at que ex his quae de Chriſtianorum Conciliorum proprietatibus breviter diximus hactenus planum fit & irrefragabiliter efficitur Pontificiam Synodū quae Tridentî habetur, & nunc prope finita exiſtimatur ne que generalis vel univerſalis, ne que liberi nec etiam Chriſtiani concilii nomine dignam eſſe, a… que adeo Concilii nomine prorſus indignam, juxta regulam communem & vulgo tritiſſimam, Si re priveris nec nomen habere mereris, & quid opus eſt multis conjecturis in re plena & aperta cum ipſa forma procedendi qua utuntur & Seſſiones quas vocant, & quae ex his conſequutae ſunt determinationes Canones & decreta manifeſtiſſime doceant quam diſsimilis ſit Tridentina illa congregatio, pro libero & Chriſtiano Concilio, opus ipſum, artificem quod dicitur arguit, exitus etiam acta probabit. Theſe paſſages and many ſuch which may be cited from the Writings of Orthodox Divines make it appear, that they lay weight upon the matter as to the nullifying of Councels. To that part of the Authors Reply which concerns the reaſons brought by the Writer, to wit, that Kirk-Judicatories have no power for deſtruction, but that all their power is for edification, and that whatſoever power the Commiſſioners of a Generall Aſſemblie have, it is by Commiſſion from their Presbyteries; which Commiſſion limits them to the Word of God, and to the Covenant; and to Acts of former Generall Aſſemblies. I anſwer theſe few things: Firſt, That he layes more upon the Writer, than the Writer doth aſſert or inſinuate either as his own judgment, or the judgment of others, he hath neither ſaid nor inſinuate, that the making of ſome wrong Acts, doth make an Aſſembly null; Neither do I think that he would ſay or inſinuate any thing of this kind; he did as little deny the authority of the Parliament 48, as any other. But if there be no difference between the Aſſembly and the Parliament in theſe caſes, and that no reaſon can be given why it ſhould not have place in relation to the one as well as to the other, I ſhall deſire him to reconcile his judgment with Calvin his Aliquid Diſcriminis, and with Pareus his Magna Diſsimilitudo. The Author knowes that the Civill Power is Architectonick and Deſpotick; the Eccleſiaſtick but Hyperetick or Diaconick; the one Lordly, the other but ſtewardly and meerly Miniſteriall. The other reaſon (if we may believe the Author) is never a whit nearer to the purpoſe then the former; for (ſuch he) to let paſs what he ſaith in the antecedent. That what ever power Commiſſioners of a Gen. Aſſembly have, it is by Commiſſion, &c. which deſerves examination, and if he mean that Commiſsioners ſitting together, and voting in a Generall Aſſembly, have only a delegated and deputed power ſubordinate to Presbyteries, can hardly be reconciled with ſound doctrine concerning Church-Government, yet ſuppoſing it to be ſo, no more followes, but that in ſuch Acts as the Aſſembly makes contrary to the limitations and rules contained therein, they may get no obedience, and that ſuch Acts may be declined and proteſted againſt, &c. The Author doth here grant, that the Writer infers no more but this much, forgetting (as he ſaith) in ſo ſhort bounds what he intended to prove. It will be hard to make it appear that the Writer did intend to prove any more: The Author may ſtrain that indefinite expreſſion of his, an Aſſembly proceeding wrong upon the matter, as though he had meant, that the leaſt wrong Act in the leaſt thing, did make an Aſſembly null, though to the conſtitution and Acts of it in all things elſe it were never ſo right: But ſo abſurd an aſſertion can hardly be ſuppoſed to have entred in the thoughts of any rationall mau; and I think it is clear from the reaſon, that he bring, that this is not his meaning, becauſe he ſays that Church-Judicatories have no power to deſtruction, but all their power is to edification; in theſe things then in which they imploy their power to edification, and make right Acts (having other neceſſary requiſites of lawfull conſtitution) they are not null, nor to be declined. The Author in repeating that reaſon tells us, that that which is ſaid by the Writer, to wit, What ever power Commiſſioners of a Generall Aſſembly have, it is by Commiſsion from the Presbyteries, doth deſerve examination; I wiſh he had alſo told us what ſtumbles him in this; as for that which he ſuſpects to be the Writers meaning, that Commiſsioners ſitting together, and voting in a Generall Aſsembly, have onelyonly a delegated and deputed power ſubordinate to Presbyteries, there is no cauſe to ſuſpect him of ſuch a meaning, as that there being nothing in his words that look that way. I alſo wiſh, that the Author in repeating of the Writers Argument had made mention not onelyonly of limitations and rules in generall contained in the Commiſſion of the Preſbyteries, but of the particular limitations and rules ſpecified by the Writer, that is, the Word of God, the Covenant, and Acts of former Generall Aſſemblies, becauſe it is not upon the breach of limitations and rules ſimply, but upon the breach of theſe limitations and rules ſet down in their Commiſſion that the Writer layes weight. The Authors ſimilitude of the Parl. and Aſs. is anſwered already, and ſhewn what maybe conceived by ſome, why the paralel holds no…, though as to this point, the difference betwixt him and the Writer, ſeems not to be ſo wide as he would give out. His concluſion is, That he hopes that by what hath been ſaid, that it is ſufficiently evidenced, that the Writer hath brought no conſiderable reaſon for the nullity of the late Aſsembly, even ſuppoſing ſundry of the Acts and Conſtitutions thereof were wrong upon the matter, he ſhould have ſaid, ſuppoſing the moſt of all its Acts, and the moſt materiall of them to be wrong upon the matter, for ſo it was ſuppoſed and affirmed by the Writer, and upon the ſuppoſall the Author ſhould have told his judgment upon the point: The reaſon may be conſiderable enough, and ſuch as brings no diſadvantage ether to the Writer or to the Proteſtation, for any thing that is yet ſaid by him for infringing thereof; yea, I wil aſsure him that it is moſt conſiderable & weighty in the hearts of moſt part of the godly in the Land, who do not ſtand ſo much to diſpute and debate Legal forms, as they do look to Acts of the Aſſembly, and to what good or what ill is done by them for promoving or hindering the Kingdome of Jeſus Chriſt, and the good of ſouls, where they ſee not godlineſſe advanced, and the hands of the godly ſtrengthened, and their hearts made glad; but a wound given to Piety, and the hands of the wicked ſtrengthened, and their hearts made glad; it is not externa ſpecies autoritatis, to uſe the words cited before, nor any thing that is in that, or can be ſaid for it that will conciliat reſpect and authority to Aſſemblies in mens conſciences; and if there were no more in the late Aſſembly at S. Andrews and Dundee, but the looſing of authority in the conſciences of the godly in the Land by th…i… wrong Acts, it is that which concerns the Author and others who had hand in theſe Acts, exceedingly to think upon.
VINDICATION.
THe other paſſage we would ſpeak a word to, is his Anſwer to the laſt Objection: He ſaith, To make an Act appointing ſuch as decline a Generall Aſſembly, to be ſummarly excommunicate, were either to ſuppoſe that a Generall Aſſembly could not be wrong conſtitute, or could not erre in their proceedings, or elſe ſuppoſe they ſhould be wrong conſtitute, and erre, yet they ought not to be declined and prote…ted againſt: both of which are equally abſurd. There he ſaith, That the Act of the Aſſembly 1582. alleadged for that purpoſe, is groſly miſtaken, it being nothing againſt declining unlawful Aſſemblies (he is as groſly miſtaken, while he inſinuateth, that ſuch as ſpeak for the late Aſſembly, do mean that ſuch an Act ſhould be againſt declining any Aſſembly lawfull or unlawfull … but againſt appealing from a lawfull Aſſembly to the Civill Magiſtrate, and then cloſeth, that from theſe things it may appear how unwarrantable the Meeting at Dundee (it muſt be ſtill for ought he hath alleadged, the General Aſſembly at Dundee) did upon alleadgiance of this Act, fall in debate of the ſummary excommunication of theſe who had proteſted. Any debate that was in the Aſſembly, was no great or long debate upon that matter, and it was not ſo much out of any purpoſe or deſire to do it, as to finde out what they might have done by the Conſtitutions of this Kirk, if they would have minded ſeverity of cenſure; neither was it that Act of Aſſembly 1582. ſo much that they looked to, as the Authority of the ſolemn Aſſembly of Glaſgow 1638. which in the ſentence of Excommunication againſt the pretended Biſhops, and making there proteſting and declining of that Aſsembly, one of the cauſes of their excommunication, which by the acts of Aſsembly is cenſurable with ſummary excommunication (whether it doth mean that act 1582, or ſome others, could not be gotten tryed at Dundee for want of the Regiſters then in the Baſſe; but ſuch reſpect was had to the authority of that grave Aſsembly, that the truth of the relation made by it was not queſtioned) ſo that all the abſurdities alleadged here by the Writter, ſtrikes as wel againſt that Aſsembly, as againſt any man that alleadgeth ſuch an act; and the Aſsembly at Dundee ſuppoſing themſelves to be a free lawfull Generall Aſsembly, alleadged no other ground in falling upon debate of that matter then which the Aſsembly of Glaſgow alledged (and the Aſsembly of Glaſgow ſaith, there hath been ſuch an act made) by a Dilemma, he is in a great miſtake himſelf, for conſidering that the act appointing ſuch to be ſummarily excommunicate, who &c. is intended onelyonly againſt proteſting againſt, and declining of a General Aſsembly, not in any particular act or acts thereof (which we confeſs may be proteſted againſt) but againſt the very being of it as null in it ſelf, and having no authority, there is no neceſsity either of the one ſuppoſition, or of the other following upon it, not of the later; for the act we ſpeak of ſaith, that decliners of a Generall Aſsembly ſhould be excommunicate, but an Aſsembly wrong conſtitute and erring both, or only wrong conſtitute, is no otherwiſe an Aſsembly, then a painted man is a man: nor yet the former, for I ſhal give you a third, it ſuppoſeth a Generall Aſſembly rightly conſtitute and not erring de facto, though not altogether infallible in it ſelf, or rightly conſtitute in all things belonging to the being of a free and lawfull Aſſembly, though it may be erring in ſome particular Acts, and ordains excommunication to be the cenſure of theſe that declineth and proteſteth againſt ſuch an Aſſembly, I mean as to the very being of it. Truly this dilemmatick argument of the Writers have been made aſwell againſt that Act made by Jeſus Chriſt, Math. 18.17. He that neglecteth to hear the Church, let him be as an heathen or publican, id eſt, Excommunicate: For, I ſuppoſe this canon, comprehends not onelyonly ſuch perſons as having offended againſt particular Brethren comes by degrees of proceſſe before the Church, but alſo ſuch as ſhould offend onelyonly immediatly againſt that Church it ſelf. 2. It is propounded in generall termes without any expreſs diſtinction or limitation; he that neglects to hear the Church let him be excommunicate; Juſt as this, he that declines a Gen. Aſsemgly, let him be excommunicate: Might not then thoſe that heard that canon firſt propounded, reaſon it juſt as the Writer doth here (if his argument were good) to make ſuch an one as that is unreaſonable: For it were to ſuppoſe either that a Church cannot be corruptly conſtitute, and did erre, yet that it ought not to be diſobeyed or declined, but the argument had been a Cavillation; for neither did follow neceſsarily to be ſuppoſed, there was a third, a Church univocally ſo called, id eſt, a Church right conſtitute, and doing dutie though not unerrable in it ſelf.