The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at St Andrews and Dundee, Treatise 2 · Review 52 – Review 53
REVIEW.
THe firſt thing the Author takes notice of in his Anſwer to this Objection, is that which is ſaid by the Writer, that the Act of the Aſſembly 1582. alleadged for the ſummary excommunication of theſe who decline the Gen. Aſſembly is groſly miſtaken, it being nothing againſt declining lawful or unlawful Aſsemblies, to which he retorts that the Writer is as groſſely miſtaken, whileſt he inſinuats that ſuch as ſpeak for the late Aſſemdo mean that ſuch an Act ſhould be againſt declining any Aſſem. null or unlawfull. Wel then, ſuppoſing the Writer to have been groſly miſtaken in the writing of ſuch a thing, and that a wrong conſtitute and erring Aſſembly, or onelyonly wrong conſtituted, is no otherways an Aſsem. then as a painted man is a man (as the Author ſpeaks) afterwards, and that the Aſſem. at St. Andrews & Dundee is but an unlawful Aſſembly, wrong in the Conſtitution (as is proven) and erring in its Acts, then might it warrantably have been declined and proteſted againſt, notwithſtanding of that Act 1582. or that Act 1638 or any other act of any of the Aſſemblies of this Kirk, as the ſix corrupt Aſſemblies upon the ſame reaſons, upon which they were afterward repealed, might in the time when they were ſitting have been warrantably proteſted againſt, as ſome other Aſsemblies which are inſtanced by the Writer, and paſt by the Author in ſilence were proteſted againſt; and ſo all the debate that was in the Meeting at Dundee for making uſe of theſe Acts againſt the Proteſters, was groundleſſe and without warrant: But the Writer is not ſo groſly miſtaken as the Author gives out, becauſe it hath paſt current, and doth ſtill ſtick with not a few, that the Acts of a Generall Aſſembly could not be proteſted againſt, much leſſe the Conſtitution thereof, though culpable and wrong, and the Author himſelf ſeems to come near the borders of it: That an Aſſembly cannot be well proteſted againſt in regard of its conſtitution though wrong, when in the ſame Vindication where he comes to weigh the reaſons whereupon the Proteſtation is built, he ſaith, That where a Generall Aſſembly it ſelf is proteſted againſt as unlawfull, and having no authority, who ſees not how ſad the conſequences moſt readily be in that Kirk, hardly can it by any outward meanes but turn to a fixed ſchiſme, which thing godly orthodox Chriſtians in all ages of the Kirk have deteſted and abhorred, chooſing rather ever to tolerate great offences which they did ſee, but could not amend, then to divide the Church of Chriſt: I know that he may ſay that he means not here of an Aſſembly wrong in its conſtitution; but if ſo, what commodious ſenſe in reference to that which he is ſpeaking of, to wit, proteſting againſt a Gen. Aſſembly will he put upon the reſt of his words, concerning godly mens tolerating great offences, rather then to divide the Church, an Aſſembly right in its conſtitution is no offence, much leſſe a great offence. He doth not deny that there was a debate at the Aſſembly at Dundee, concerning the ſummary excommunication of theſe who had proteſted, but tels us that it was not great nor long (If ſome who were preſent may be believed) it was proſecuted by ſundry with a great deal of earneſtneſſe and forwardneſſe, and though the Author (if I miſtake him not) was none of the proſecuters of it; yet it ſeems by his Vindication that his judgement is, That they might not onelyonly have debated it, but alſo have done it by the conſtitutions of this Kirk, if they would have minded ſeverity of cenſure, but it would have contribute ſomewhat for clearing of the Aſſembly in that debate, and for ſatisfying of others anent his judgement upon the point, if he had brought any act or conſtitution of this Kirk, that would have born the weight of ſummary excommunication againſt the Proteſters, for the Writer hath made it clearly to appear that neither the act 1582. nor the act 1638. doth at all meet with the Proteſters caſe, and the Author hath replyed nothing to the differences of the caſes, and therefore they may be ſtill taken as granted, what act the meeting at Dundee did in their debate look unto, whether that of 82 or that of 38. themſelves beſt know, but if it was the Act of the Aſſembly at Glaſgow (as the Author ſaith) upon which they had their eye, the Writer hath ſhewed how that could not with any ſhadow of reaſon be applyed to this caſe. The dedeclinator of the Biſhops 38. ſtriking at the eſsentiall conſtitution of the Government, and againſt the rule it ſelf; and that of the Proteſters acknowledging the government and the rule, and proteſting onelyonly againſt the conſtitution, becauſe not agreeable to the rule. It ſeems that all that they had their eyes upon was, that they found in the act of Glaſgow, that proteſting againſt, and declining of the Aſſembly was by the acts of this Kirk cenſurable with ſummary excommunication, but ſhould they not have found what the acts were, and whether they were applicable to the preſent caſe: The Author grants that it could not be gotten tryed whether it doth mean 1582. or ſome others for want of the Regiſters, which were then in the Baſs; I ſhall not ſay that this is ſome evidence that the members of that meeting were not very well acquainted with the acts of the Aſsemblies of this Church, and that it had not been much amiſs for them to have read and peruſed theſe acts of Aſsemblies which were offered unto them a little after their down ſitting under their Clerks hand, concerning the Publick Reſolutions: If my information fail me not, a good part of the Regiſters, particularly the great Book of the old acts of the Aſsemblies, in which that act of the Aſsembly 1582. is inſert, was then in Dundee, in the hand of their then Clerk, who took ſome pains to find out that act, but could not fall upon it: It may haply ſeem ſtrange to ſome, that becauſe they found theſe words which (to wit, declining and Proteſting againſt the Aſsembly) by the Acts of the Aſſembly is cenſurable with ſummary excommunication in an act of an Aſsembly at Glaſgow, that they will have ſuch reſpects there to, without looking upon theſe acts, or conſidering their grounds, or extent, thence to infer that theſe acts were applicaple to this caſe; this were to defer more reſpect to the authority of that grave Aſsembly then was fit, or they themſelves would have taken with, if they had been ſitting; for they did nothing without viewing and peruſing the Regiſters themſelves, and proving and clearing every thing thereby, that they did alleadge therefrom, which Vindicates that Aſſembly ſufficiently from the abſurdities here alleadged by the Writer againſt theſe who alleadged ſuch an act. The Author thinks that the Writer is in a great miſtake in his dilemma, but let us ſee what his miſtake is: The writer anſwering a common alleadgance, that there is an act of a Gen. Aſſembly appointing ſuch as decline the Aſſembly to be ſummarily excommunicated, denyes that ever the Church in any of her Aſſemblies made any ſuch act in ſo generall and unlimited termes; and he gives this for a reaſon of his denyall, that from hence it will follow, either that they thought that an Aſſembly could not be wrong in its conſtitutions, and could not erre, or elſe that though wrong in conſtitution, or erring, that they could not be proteſted againſt; both which he ſaith is abſurd: To this the Author anſwers, that conſidering that the act appointing ſuch to be ſummarily excommunicated, is intended only againſt proteſting againſt, and declining of a Generall Aſſembly, not in any particular acts or act thereof which he confeſſes 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 latter, &c. But firſt to paſſe by, that he ſeemeth in all this debate to ſuppoſe that there is ſuch an act in ſo generall and unlimited termes which I believe ſhall not be found, nor doth the words of the act of the Aſſembly 38. ſay or ſuppoſe any ſuch thing. It deſerves conſideration, which he ſaith, that that act concerning the excommunicating ſuch as proteſt againſt, or decline an Aſſembly, is intended onelyonly againſt thoſe who proteſt againſt the being of an Aſſembly, and not in any particular act or acts thereof, becauſe as the Writer told him, the act 1582. which is the onelyonly, act relating to that buſineſſe (ſo far as I know, or can be informed by theſe who take moſt pains in the Records of the Aſſemblies) is not anent declining Aſſemblies, in their being and conſtitution, but againſt appealing from lawfull acts of lawful Aſſemblies to the Civill Magiſtrate in Eccleſiaſtick cauſes, for ſtoping of Eccleſiaſtick Diſcipline. Secondly, though an Aſſembly wrong conſtitute and erring both, or onelyonly wrong conſtitute be no otherwayes an Aſſembly then a painted man is a man, that it is not really or truly, but ſeemingly only, yet it being ſeemingly an Aſſembly, it gets ordinarily and in common expreſſion, that denomination; and as a painted man drawen by the hand of a cunning Painter may deceive theſe who have not diſcerning eyes, and be taken for a true man, ſo an Aſſembly wrong in the conſtitution and acts, or in the conſtitution onelyonly, may by the vermilion of fair pretext put upon it paſſe with many for a true Aſſembly; yea, in ordinary way of expreſſion, an Aſſembly which hath any thing of the colour or ſhadow of the being of a lawfull and right proceeding Aſſembly is called an Aſſembly, though wrong in its conſtitution, or alſo erring in its acts, and therefore to have ſaid ſimply in an act, that decliners of a Generall Aſſembly without any qualification, lawfull, or unlawfull, erring or unerring, or any thing in the act inſinuating or expreſſing the ſame ſhould be excommunicated, it would follow, that though an Aſſembly ſhould be wrong conſtitute and erre in its Proceedings, yet it could not be declined. As to the third, to paſſe by that the Generall Aſſembly at St. Andrews and Dundee is none of theſe Aſſemblies, but an Aſsembly wrong both in its conſtitutions, and in its acts, The Act if it were ſo generall as that cited and anſwered by the VVriter, it would ſuppoſe more then any of theſe, to wit, a Generall Aſsembly which is onelyonly ſuch, nomine tenus and ſecundum apparentiam in regard of its conſtitution, and a Generall Aſſembly right upon the conſtitution, and erring wholly even in the thing of greateſt conſequence upon the matter; as to this ſimile of his brought from the words of Chriſt, Math. 18. It doth not hold, becauſe Chriſt never maintained it to be unlawfull to decline any Church, true or falſe, as theſe whom the VVriter ſpeaks of in his objection. The truth is, that the VVriter meant of propounding and anſwering that objection, to remove a groſs miſtake that hath been ordinary in the mouths of many; that a Generall Aſsembly could not be declined nor proteſted againſt, becauſe of an act of an Aſsembly appointing ſuch to be ſummarily excommunicate which in the common conſtruction that paſt upon it was ſo expounded, that whoſoever upon whatſoever ground did proteſt againſt a Generall Aſsembly of this Church, or any of the acts thereof right or wrong, were by the acts of the Aſsembly ſummarily to be excommunicated, which miſtake the VVriter ſtudieth to take off, by holding torch the abſurd conſequences, that would have followed upon ſuch an act, as that thereby to make it appear that there is no ſuch act in ſo abſolute and il-limited termes as will reach theſe who proteſt againſt Aſsemblies wrong in their conſtitution, or alſo erring in their acts, and this being gained, he hath all that he did intend to prove and hold forth in this particular.
Concluſion of the VINDICATION.
HEre I leave the Writer with theſe additionall reaſons, and leaves all that hath been ſaid hither til to be impartially pondered by the Chriſtian Reader, and accordingly judged of. The Father of Lights give unto thee, and all his ſervants and people in the Land, Wiſdome, even that which is from above, pure and peaceable.
REVIEW.
THe Author hath been pleaſed to leave the VVriter here with his additionall reaſons, and other things contained in his anſwers to Objections; but if ſome of good judgment be not miſtaken, he hath done it to the diſadvantage of his cauſe, becauſe he hath left him with many things that were brought by him in that Paper of additionall reaſons unanſwered, I ſhall not ſay what ſome have ſaid, that if the things in that Paper which the Author hath not anſwered hold relevant and true, they would go far to juſtifie the Proteſtation, and annull the Aſsembly, albeit all his anſwers to the things which he hath taken notice of had not been ſatisfyingly taken off; but I confeſs that I do ſomewhat wonder that the Author having taken ſo much pains to contend with no ſmall earneſtneſs and at length about many things that are in the by, and things that are of no ſuch conſequence in the cauſe, ſhould yet paſſe in ſilence, not a few things of importance contained in that Paper, which did more concern him to have anſwered; I ſhal ſay no more, but wiſhes the Lord graciouſly to appear in the convincing and comfortable determination of this queſtion to all his ſervants and people in this poor deſolate and diſtracted Church, that our bruiſe which is ſore, and our wound which is incurable may be bound up and healed by his hand who hath ſmiten us in his wrath, becauſe of the multitude of our iniquities; To the praiſe and glory of his free Grace in all the Churches. AMEN.
FINIS.