WHile the Comissioners of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland, The unsea­sonablenes of Doctor Brambles warning. were on their way to make their first addresses to his Maje­stie, for to condole his most lamentable af­flictions, and to make offer of their best af­fections and services for his comfort, in this time of his great distresse; it was the wisedome and charity of the praelaticall party, to send out Doctor Bramble, to meet them with his Faire Warning. For what else? but to discou­rage them in the very entry from tendering their propositi­ons, and before ever they were heard, to stop his Majesties eares with grievous praejudice, against all that possibly they could speake; though the world sees that the only apparent fountaine of hope upon earth, for recovery of the wofully confounded affaires of the King, is in the hands of that Anti­praelaticall nation: but it is the hope of these who love the welfaire of the King and his people, of the Churches and Kingdomes of Britain, that the hand of God, which hath bro­ken all the former devices of the Praelats, shall crush this their engine also. The irra­tional way of the war­ners wri­ting.

Our warner undertaketh to oppugne the Scotes discipline in a way of his owne, none of the most rational. He does not [Page] [...] [Page 1] [...] [Page 2]so much as pretend to state a question, nor in his whole book to bring against any maine position of his opposites, either Scripture, father or reason, nor so much as assay to answer any one of their arguments against Episcopacy; onely hee culs out some of their by-tenets, belonging little or nothing to the maine questions, and from them takes occasion to gather together in a heape all the calumnies which of old, or of late their knowne enemies out of the forge of their ma­lice and fraud, did obtrude on the credulity of simple peo­ple: also some detorted passages from the bookes of their friends, to bring the way of that Church in detestation with­out any just reason.

These practises in our warner, The most of his stuffe is borrowed and long agoe con­futed. are the less pardonable, that though he knowes the chiefe of his allegations, to bee but borrowed from his late much beloved Comerads Master Corbet in his Lysimachus Nicanor, and Master Maxewell in his Issachars Burden, yet he was neither deterred by the strange punishments, which God from heaven inflicted vi­sibly on both these calumniatores of their mother Church, nor was pleased in his repeating of their calumnious argu­ments, to releeve any of them from the exceptions under the which they stand publickly confuted, I suppose to his own distinct knowledge, I know certainly, to the open view of thousands in Scotland, England and Ireland; but it makes for the warners designe to dissemble here in Holland, that ever he heard of such books as Lysimachus Nicanor, and Is­sachars Burden, much lesse of Master Baylies answer to both, printed some yeares agoe at London, Edinburgh and Amsterdam, without a rejoinder from any of that faction to this day. The con­tumelious bitternes of the warners spirit.

How ever let our warner be heard. In the very first page of his first chapter, wee may tast the sweetnes of his meek Spirit: at the verie entrie, he concludeth but without any [Page 3]pretence to an argument there or else where, the discipline of the Church of Scotland to be their owne invention, where­on they dote, the Diana, which themselves have canonized, their own dreams, the counterfeyt image which they faine hath fallen down from Iupiter, which they so much adore, the very quintessence of refined popery, not only most injurious to the civill Magistrat, most oppressive to the subject, most perni­cious to both; but also inconsistent with all formes of civill governement, destructive to all sorts of Policy, a rack to the conscience, the heaviest pressure that can fall on a people. So much truth and sobernes doth the warner breath out in his very first page.

Though he had no regard at all to the cleare passages of Holy Scripture, whereupon the Scotes doe build their Anti-Episcopall tenets; nor any reverence to the harmony of the reformed Churches, which unanimously joyne with the Scotes in the maine of their discipline, especially in that which the Doctor hates most therein, the rejection of Fpiscopacy: yet me thinks some little respect might have appeared in the man to the authority of the Magistrat, and civil Lawes, which are much more ingeminated by this worthy divine o­ver all his book, then the holy Scriptures.

Can hee so soon forget that the whole discipline of the Church of Scotland, as it is there taught and practised, The war­ner stricks at the Sco­tes disci­pline through the Kings sides. is established by acts of Parliament, and hath all the strength which the King and State can give to a civil Law? the war­ner may wel be grieved, but hardly can he be ignorant, that the Kings Majestie this day does not at all question the ju­stice of these sanctions: what ever therefore be the Doctors thoughts, yet so long as hee pretends to keep upon his face the maske of loyalty, he must be content to eat his former words, yea, to burne his whole book: otherwise hee layes, against his own professions, a slander upon the King, and [Page 4]His Royal Father, of great ignorance, or huge unjustice, the one having established, the other offring to establish by their civill lawes, a Church discipline for the whole nation of Scotland, which truly is the quintessence of Popery, per­nicious and destructive to all formes of civill governement, and the heaviest pressure that can fall on a people.

All the cause of this choler which the warner is pleased to speake out; In the threshold hee stum­bles on the Kings con­science. is the attempt of the Scotes, to obtrude their discipline upon the King, contrary to the dictars of his own conscience, and to compell forraigne Churches to embrace the same. Ans. Is it not presumption in our warner, so soone to tell the world in print what are the dictats of the Kings conscience, as yet he is not his Majesties confessor, and if the Clerk of the Closet had whispered some what in his eare, what he heard in secret, hee ought not to have proclaimed it without a warrant; but we doe altogether mistrust his re­ports of the Kings conscience: for who will beleeve him, that a knowing and a just King will ever be content, to command and impose on a whole Nation by his Lawes, a discipline contrary to the dictats of his owne conscience. This great stumble upon the Kings conscience in the first page, must be an ominous cespitation on the threshold.

The other imputation had no just ground: The Scots never of­fered to impose any thing upon En­gland. the Scotes did never medle, to impose any thing upon forraigne Churches, there is question of none, but the English; and the Scotes were never so presumptuous, as to impose any thing of theirs upon that Church. It was the assembly of divines at West­minster, convocat by the King and Parliament of England, which after long deliberation, and much debate, unani­mously concluded the Presbiterian discipline in all the parts thereof, to be agreable to the word of God: it was the two Houses of the Parliament of England without a contrary voice, who did ordaine the abolition of Episcopacy, and [Page 5]the setting up of Presbyteryes and Synods in England and Ireland. Can heere the Scotes be said to compell the English to dance after their pype, when their own assembly of di­vines begins the song, when the Lords and Commons as­sembled in the Parliament of England concurre without a discording opinion, when the King himselfe for perfecting the harmony offers, to adde his voice for three whole yeares together?

In the remainder of the chapter the warner layes upon the Scotes three other crimes: first, The elder praelats of England were E­rastians, and more, but the younger are as much anti-Erastian as the most riged of the Pres­bytery. That they count it Erastia­nisme to put the governement of the Church in the hand of the Magistrat. Answ. The Doctors knowledge is greater then to bee ignorant, that all these goe under the name of Erastians, who walking in Erastus ways of flattering the Magistrat, to the prejudice of the just rights of the Church, run yet out much beyond Erastus personall tenets; I doubt if that man went so far as the Doctor heere and else where, to make all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, but a part of the Magistrats civill power, which for its execution, the su­preame Governours of any state may derive out of the foun­taine of their supremacy to what ever hands civill or Ec­clesiastick themselfes think fit to commit it. Let the Doc­tor adde to this much knowledge, but a little ingenuity, and he shall confes that his Brethren the Later Bishops, who claime Episcopacy by divine right, are all as much against this E­rastian Caesaro-papisme, as any Presbiterian in Scotland. The elder Bishops indeed of England and all the Lawes there for Episcopacy seeme to be point blank according to the Erastian errours: for they make the crowne and royall supremacy the originall, root and fountaine whence all the discipline of the Church doth flow: as before the days of Henry the eight it did out of the Popes head-ship of the Church under Christ. How ever let the Doctor ingenuously [Page 6]speake out his sence, and I am deceived, if he shall not ac­knowledge, that how grosse an Erastian so ever himselfe and the elder Bishops of England might have been, yet that long agoe, the most of his praelatical friends have become as much opposit to Erastianisme, as the most rigid of the Presbiterians.

The other crime he layes to the charge of the Scotes is, The Sco­tes first and grea­test crime is irrecon­ciliablenes with Rome. that they admit no latitude in Religion, but will have every opinion afundamentall article of faith, and are averse from the reconciliation of the Protestant Churches: Ans. If the warner had found it seasonable to vent a little more of his true sence in this point, he had charged this great crime far more home upon the heade of the Scotes: for indeed though they were ever far from denying the true degrees of impor­tance which doe cleerly appeare among the multitude of Christian truthes, yet the great quarrell heer of the warner and his freinds against them, is that they spoiled the Canter­burian designe of reconcealing the Protestant Churches not among themselfes, but with the Church of Rome. When these good men were with all earnestnes proclaming the greatest controversies of Papists and Protestants, to be up­on no fundamentalls but only disputable opinions, wherein beleefe on either side was safe enough, and when they found that the Papists did stand punctually to the Tenets of the Church of Rome, and were obstinately unwilling to come over to England, their great labour was that the English and the rest of the Protestants, casting aside their needlesse be­leefe of problematick truths, in piety, charity and zeale, to make up the breach and take away the shisme, should be at all the paines to make the journey to Rome. While this de­signe is far advanced and furiously driven on in all the three Kingdomes, and by none more in Yreland then the Bishop of Derry, behold the rude and plaine blewcapes step in to [Page 7]the play and marre all the game: by no arte, by no terrour can these be gotten alongs to such a reconciliation. This was the first and greatest crime of the Scotes, which the Doctor here glances at, but is so wyse and modest a man as not to bring it above board.

The last charge of the chapter is, The Scotes were ever anti epis­copall. that the Scotes keep not still that respect to the Bishops of England, which they were wont of old in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reigne. Ans. In that letter cited by the warner from the generall assembly of Scotland. 1566. Sess. 3. there is no word of ap­probation to the office of Episcopacy: they speake to the Bi­shops of England in no other quality or relation, but as Mi­nisters of the word, the highest stile they give them is, re­verend Pastors and Brethren; the tenour of the whole Epistle is a grave and brotherly admonition to beware of that fatall concomitant of the most moderat Episcopacy, the trou­bling of the best and most zealous servants of Christ for idle & fruitles Ceremonies. How great a reverence the Church of Scotland at that time carried to praelacy, may be seen in their supplication to the secret counsell of Scotland, in that same assembly the very day and Session wherein they write the letter in hand to the Bishops of England. The Arch-Bishop of S. Andrews being then usurping jurisdiction over the ministry by some warrant from the state, the Assembly was grieved, not only with the popery of that Bishop, but with his auncient jurisdiction, which in all Bishops, Popish and protestant, is one and the same: That jurisdiction was the only matter of their present complaint; and in relation there­to they assure the counsel in distinct tearmes, that they would never be more subject unto that usurped tiranny thē they would be to the devill himselfe: So reverend an opinion had the Church of Scotland at that time of Episcopall jurisdiction.

But suppone that some fourscore yeares agoe, the Scotes [Page 8]before they had tasted the fruits of Protestant Bishops, The Prae­lates lately were found in the act of intro­ducing Po­pery, in­to the Church, and Tiran­ny into the Kingdom. had judged them tolerable in England, yet since that time by the long tract of mischiefes, which constantly has accompanied the order of praelacy, they have been put upon a more ac­curat inspection of its nature, and have found it not only a needles, but a noxious and poysonous weed, necessare to be plucked up by the root, and cast over the hedge. Beside al its former malefices, it hath been deprehēded of late in the very act of everting the foundations, both of Religion and governement, of bringing in Popery and Tiranny, in the Churches and States of all the three Kingdomes, ( Canter­burian self conviction cap. 1.)

And for these crimes, it was condemned, killed, and buried in Scotland, by the unanimous consent of King, Church and Kingdom: when England thereafter both in their Assembly and Parliament, without a discording voice had found it necessary, to root out that unhappy plant, as long agoe with great wisedome, it had been cast out of all the rest of the reformed Churches, had not the Scotes all the reason in the World, to applaud such pious just and ne­cessary resolutions of their English Brethren, though the warner should call it the greatest crime?

IN the second Chapter the warner charges the Scotes pres­bytery, with the overthrowing the Magistrats right in [Page 9]convocating of Synods. When he comes to prove this, he for­gets his challenge: and digresses from it to the Magistrates power of choysing elders and making Ecclesiastick lawes, avowing that these things are done in Scotland by Ecclesi­astick persons alone, without consent of the king or his counsel. Ans. It seemes our Warner is very ignorant of the way of the Scotes discipline, the ordinary and set meetings of all assemblies both nationall and provincionall since the first reformation are determined by acts of Parliament, with the Kings consent, so betwixt the King and the Church of Scotland, there is no question for the convocating of ordi­nary assemblies, for extraordinary, no man in Scotland did ever controvert the Kings power to call them when and where he pleased: as for the inhaerent power of the Church to meet for discipline, alswell as for worship, the Warner fals on it heereafter, we must therefore passe it in this place.

What hee meanes to speake of the Kings power in choy­sing elders or making Ecclesiastick Lawes, himselfe knowes: The war­ners Eras­tian and Tirannick principles, hated by the King. his Majestie in Scotland did never require any such privi­ledge, as the election of elders, or Commissioners to Par­liament, or members of any incorporation, civill or Eccle­siastick, where the Lawes did not expresly provide the no­mination to be in the crowne. The making of Ecclesiastick Lawes in England, alswell as in Scotland, was ever with the Kings good contentment, referred to Ecclesiastick as­semblies: but the Warner seemes to be in the mind of these his companions, who put the power of preaching, of admi­nistring the Sacraments and discipline in the supreame Ma­gistrat alone, and derives it out of him as the head of the Church to what members he thinks expedient to commu­nicat it: also that the legislative power alswell in Ecclesia­stick as civill affairs, is the property of the King alone. That the Parliaments and generall assemblies are but his arbitrary [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10]counsels, the one for matters of the state, the other for matters of the Church, with whom or without whom hee makes acts of Parliament and Church cannons, according to his good pleasure, that all the offices of the Kingdome, both of Church and State are from him, as he gives a Com­mission to whom he will to be a sheriffe or justice of peace, so he sends out whom he pleaseth to preach & celebrate Sa­craments by virtue of his regal mission. The Warner and his Erastian friends may well extend the royall supremacy to this largenes, but no King of Scotland was ever willing to accept of such a power though by erroneous flaterers, sometimes obtruded upon him, (see Canterburian self con­viction. cap. ult.)

The Warner will not leave this matter in generall, The War­ners igno­rant and false re­port of the Scotes procee­dings. he dis­cends to instance a number of particular incroatchments of the Scots Presbiters upon the royall authority: wee must dispence in all his discourse with a small peckadillo in reaso­ning, hee must bee permitted to lay all the faults of the Presbiterians in Scotland upon the back of the Presbitery it selfe, as if the faylings of officers were naturall to, and inse­parable from their office: mis-kenning this little mote of un­consequentiall argumenting, we will goe through his parti­cular charges, the first is, that King James anno 1579, re­quired the generall assembly, to make no alteration in the Church-Policy, till the next Parliament, but they contem­ning their Kings command, determined positively all their discipline without delay, and questioned the Arch-Bischop of Sainct Andrews for voting in Parliament according to the undoubted Lawes of the Land, yea twenty Pres­biters did hold the generall assembly at Aberdeen after it was discharged by the King. Ans. The Warner pos­sibly may know, yet certainly he doth not care what he writes in these things to which hee is a meere stran­ger: [Page 11]the authentick registers of the Church of Scotland convinces him heire of falshood. Bishops were abo­lished and Presby te­ries set up in Scot­land with King Iames consent. His Majestie did write from Stirling to the generall assembly at Edinburgh 1579, that they should ceasse from concluding any thing in the discipline of the Church, during the time of his minority; upon this desire the assembly did abstaine from all conclusi­ons, only they named a committee to goe to Striveling for conference which his Majestie upon that subject. What followeth thereupon? I. Immediatly a Parliament is called in October 1579, and in the first act declares and grantes jurisdiction unto the Kirk, whilk consistes in the true preach­ing of the word of Jesus Christ, correction of manners, and administration of the true Sacraments, and declares that there is no other face of Kirk, nor other face of Religion then is presently by the favour of God established within this realme, and that there be no other jurisdiction Ecclesiasti­cal acknowledged within this realme then that whilk is, and shalbe within the samen Kirk, or that which flowes therfra, concerning the premisses. II. In Aprile 1580. Proclama­tion was made ex deliberatione Dominorum Consilii in name of the King, charging all Superintendentes and Commissio­ners and Ministers serving at Kirkes. To note the names of all the subjectes alsweel men as women suspected to be Papistes or — and to admonish them — to give Confession of their faith according to the Forme approved by the Par­liament, and to submitte unto the discipline of the true Kirk within a reasonable space —: and if they faile — that the Superintendents or Commissioners presente a role or catalogue of their names unto the King and Lords of Secret Counsell whereby they shalbe for the time, between and the 15 day of Iulie nixt to come, to the end that the actes of Parliament made against such persones may be execute. III. The shorte Confession wes drawen up at the Kings [Page 12]command, which was first subscrived by his royall hand, and an act of Secret Counsell commanding all subjectes to sub­scrive the same; as is to be seen by the Act printed with the Confession, wherein Hierarchie is abjured, that is (as hath been since declared by Nationall assemblies and Parliamen­tes both called and held by the King) episcopacie is abjured. IV. In the assemblies 1580 and 1581 that Confession of faith and the second book of discipline (after debating many praeceding years) were approved (except one chapter de dia­conatu) by the Assemblie, the Kings Commissioner being al­wayes presente, not finde we any thing opposed then by him: yea then at his Majesties speciall direction about fifty classical Presbyteries were set up over all Scotland which remaine un­to this day, Was there heer any contempt of the roy all authority?

About that time some noble men had gote the revenues of the Bisshop-rickes for their private use; and because they could not enjoy them by any legal right, therefore for elu­ding the Law, they did effectuate that some Ministers should have the title of this or that Bishopricke; and the revenues were gathered in the name of this titulare or tulchan Bishop, albeit hee had but little part: e. g. Robert Montgomerie Minister at Sterline was called Arch-Bishop of Glasgow: and so it can bee instanced in other Bishop-rickes and abba­cies. Now this kind of praelats pretended no right to any part of the Episcopall office, either in ordination or jurisdic­tion: when some of these men began to creep in to vote for the Church in Parliament, without any Law of the State, without any commission from the Church, the generall assembly discharged them, being Ministers, to practise any more such illegall insolencies, with this ordinance of the Church, after a little debate, King James at that time did shew his good satisfaction.

But the Warner heere jumps over nolesse then twenty se­ven years time from the assembly at Edinburgh 1579, The inno­cency of the much maligned assembly of Aber­deen. to that at Aberdeen 1605, then was King James by the English Bi­shops perswasion resolved to put down the generall assem­blies of Scotland, contrary to the Lawes and constant prac­tise of that Church, from the first reformation to that day. The act of Parliament did bear that once at least a yeare the assembly should meet, and after their busines was ended they should name time & place for the next assembly. When they had met in the yeare 1602, they were moved to ad­journe without doing any thing for two whole yeares to 1604, when then they were conveened at the time and place agreed to by his Majestie, they were content upon his Ma­jesties desire without doing any thing againe to adjourne to the nixt yeare 1605, at Aberdeen, when that dyet came his Majesties Commissioner offered them a Letter: To the end they might be an Assembly and so in a Capacity to receave his Majesties Letter, with the Commissioners good pleasure they sate downe, they named their Moderator and Clark they received and read the Kings letter commanding them to rise, which they obeyed without any farther action at all but naming a dyet for the nixt meeting according to the Lawes and constant practise of Scotland, hereupon by the pernicious counsel of Arch-Bishop Banckroft at London, the King was stirred up to bring sore trouble upon a number of gracious Ministers. Christmas and other superstiti­ous festi­vals aboli­shed in Scotland, both by Church and State. This is the whole matter which to the Warner heir is so tragick an insolence, that never any Par­liament durst attempt the like. See more of this in the Hi­storicall vindication.

The nixt instance of our Presbiteryes usurpation upon the Magistrat is their abolition, (before any statute of Parliament thereupon) of the Church festivals in their first book of disci­pline. Ans. Consider the grievousnesse of this crime, in [Page 14]the intervall of Parliaments, the great counsel of Scotland in the minority of the Prince entrusted by Parliament to rule the Kingdome, did charge the Church to give them in wryte their judgement about matters Ecclesiasticall: in obedience to this charge the Church did present the counsel with a wryte named since the first book of disciplin: which the Lords of counsel did approve, subscribe and ratify by an Act of State: a part of the first head in that wryte was that Christmas, E­piphany, purification, and other fond feasts of the virgin Mary, as not warranted by the holy Scriptures, should bee laid aside. Was it any encroachment upon the Magistrate for the Church to give this advice to the privy counsell when earnestly they did crave it? the people of Scotland ever since have shewed their ready obedience to that direc­tion of the Church founded upon Scripture, and backed from the beginning with an injunction of the state.

His third instance of the Church of Scotlands usurpation upon the Magistrat is, The friends of Episcopa­cy thryves not in Scotland. their abolition of Episcopacy in the assembly 1580, when the Law made it treason to impugne the authority of Bishops, being the third estate of the King­dome. Ans. The Warner seemes to have no more know­ledge of the affairs of Scotland, then of Japan or Utopia, the Law hee speakes of was not in being some yeares after 1580, how ever all the generall assemblyes of Scotland are authorised by act of Parliament, to determine finally with­out an appeale in all Ecclesiastick affaires: in the named as­sembly Lundie the Kings Commissioner did sit and consent in his Majesties name to that act of abolition, as in the nixt assembly 1581, the Kings Commissioner Caprinton did erect in his Majesties name the Presbiteryes in all the Land; it is true, three yeares thereafter a wicked Courtier Captaine James Stuart, in a shadow of a closse and not summoned Parliament, did procure an act to abolish Presbiteries and [Page 15]erect Bishops, but for this and all the rest of his crimes that evill man was quickly rewarded by God before the world, in a terrible destruction: these acts of his Parliament the very nixt yeare were disclaimed by the King, the Bishops were put downe, and the Presbitry was set up again, and ne­ver more removed to this day.

The Warners digression to the perpetuity of Bishops in Scotland, to the acts of the Church and State for their re­stitution, is but to shew his ignorance in the Scotes story: what ever be the Episcopall boastings of other Nations, yet it is evident that from the first entrance of Christian Religion into Scotland, Presbiters alone without Bishops for some hundred yeares did governe that Church: and after the re­formation their was no Bishop in that Land, but in tittle and benefice till the yeare 1610; when Bancroft did consecrat three Scotes Ministers, all of them men of evill report, whom that violent Commissioner the Earle of Dunbar in the cor­rupt and null assembly of Glasgow, got authorised in some pairt of a Bishops office; which part only and no more was ratified in a posterior Parliament. Superintendents are no where the same with Bishops much lesse in Scotland where for a time only till the Churches were planted, they were used as ambulatory Commissioners, and visitors to preach the word, and administer the Sacraments for the supply of vacant and unsetled congregations.

The fourth instance is the Churches obtruding the second book of discipline, without the ratification of the State. Ans. The se­cond book of disciplin why not al ratified in Parlia­ment. For the Ecclesiastick enjoining of a generall assemblyes de­crees a particular ratification of Parliament is unnecessary; generall acts of Parliament commanding obedience to the acts of the Church, are a sufficient warrant from the State, be­side, that second book of disciplin was much debated with the King, and at last in the generall assembly 1590, his con­sent [Page 16]was obtained unto it: for in that assembly where unani­mously the subscription of the second book of disciplin by all the ministers of the Kingdome was decried, his Majestie some time in person and alwayes by the chancelor his Com­missioner was present, and in the act for subscription Sess. 10. Augusti 8. it is expresly said that not only all the Ministers but also all the Commissioners praesent did consent, among which Commissioners the chancelor, his Majesties Commis­sioner was chief. But neither the King nor the Church could get it to passe the Parliament in regaird of the opposition, which some States-men did make unto these parts thereof, which touched on their owne interest of unjust advantage, this was the only stick.

The next instance of the Churches encroachement is their usurpation of all the old rents of the clergy, The War­ners hipo­crisy, cal­ling that a crime, which himselfe counts a virtue. as the Churches patrimony, and their decerning in anassembly that nothing in the nixt Parliament should passe before the Church were fully restored to her rents. Ans. Consider heere the Warners hypocrisie and unjustice, he challenges the Presbi­terians for that which no praelate in the world did ever esteem a fault, a meer declaration of their judgement that the Church had a just right to such rents, as by law and long possession were theirs, and not taken away from them by any lawfull meanes. What if heere they had gone on with the most of the praelaticall party to advance that right to a jus divinum? what if they had put themselves by a com­mand from Court, into the possession of that right, with­out a processe, as diverse of the Warners friends were begun lately to doe in all the three Kingdomes? but all that he can here challenge the Scotes for, is a meere declaration of their simple right, with a supplication to the Regent his grace, that hee would indeavour in the nixt Parliament, to procure a ninth part of the Churches patrimony, for the mantainance [Page 17]of the ministry, and the poore of the country: for all the rent that the Churches then could obtaine or did petition, was but a third of the thirds of the benefices or tithes. That ever any assembly in Scotland did make any other addresse to the Parliament for stipends then by way of humble suppli­cation, it is a great untruth.

The last instance is, the erecting of Presbyteries through al the Kingdome, by an act of the Church alone. Ans. I have showne already the untruth of this alleadgeance; the proofe heere brought for it, is grounded only upon an ambiguous word which the Warners ignorance in the Scotish disciplin and Presbitery (though the maine subject of his booke) permits him not to understand. The Presbyteries were set up by the King after the assembly 1580, but the second booke of discipline of which alone the citation speaks, how ever enjoind by many assemblies, yet it could never be got­ten ratified in any Parliament, only because of these parts of it which did speake for the patrimony of the Church, and oppugne the right of patronages.

How well the Warner hath proven the Presbiterian prac­tises to be injurious to the Magistrate we have considered, The War­ner a grosse E­rastian. possibly he will bee more happy in his nixt undertaking, in his demonstrations that their doctrinall principles doe tram­ple on the Magistrats supremacy and Lawes; their first prin­ciple hee takes out of the second book of disciplin. Cap. 7. That no Magistrat nor any but Ecclesiastick persons may vote in Synods. Ans. Though I find nothing of this in the place cited, yet there is nothing in it that crosseth either the Laws or the Kings supremacy: for according to the acts of Parliament of Scotland both old and late and the constant practise of that Church, the only members of Pres­byteries are Ministers and ruling elders. Is it the Warners minde to vent here his super-Erastianisme, that all Ecclesia­stick [Page 18]assemblies Classicall, Provinciall, nationall are but the arbitrary Courts of the Magistrat for to advise him in the execution of his inhaerent power about matters Ecclesia­sticall; and for this cause, that it is in his arbitrement to give a decisive voyce in all Church assemblies, to whom and how many so ever hee will? Though this may bee the Warners minde, as it hath been some of his friends, yet the most of the praelaticall party will not man taine him heerein. How ever, such principles are contrary to the Lawes of Scotland, to the professions also and practises of all the Princes and Magistrats that ever have lived there.

But the Warner heere may possibly glaunce at another principle of his good friends, Praelatical principles impossibi­litate also­lid peace, betwixt the King and his Kingdoms who have been willing lately to vent before al Britaine in print their Elevating the supre­macy of Soveraignes so far above Lawes, that what ever peo­ple have obtained to bee established by never so many assem­blies and Parliaments and confirmed with never so many great seales of ratification, and peaceably injoyed by never so long a possession, yet it is nothing but commendable wisedome and justice for the same Prince who made the first concessions or any of his successors when ever they find themselfes strong enough, to cancell all and make void what ever Parliaments, Assemblies, royall ratifications, and the longest possession made foolish people beleeve to be most firme and unquestionable. To this purpose Bishop Max­wel (from whom much of this warning is borrowed) doth speak in his Sacro-Sancta regum Majestas. Though this had been the Cabine divinity of our praelats, yet what can be their intentions in speaking of it out in these times of confu­sion, themselves must declare: for the cleare consequente of such doctrine seemes to be a necessity either of such Warners perpetuall banishment from the Courts and eares of Sove­raignes, or else that subjects be kept up for ever in a strong [Page 19]jealousy, and feare that they can never be secure of their liberties, though never so well ratified by Lawes and pro­mises of Princes any longer then the sword and power re­maines in their owne hand to preserve what they have ob­tained. Such Warners so long as they are possessed with such maximes of state, are cleare everters of the first funda­tions of trust betwixt Soveraignes and subjects, they take away all possibility of any solid peace of any confident setle­ment in any troubled state, before both parties be totally ruined or one become so strong that they need no more to feare the others malcontentment in any time to come.

Our second challenged principle is that wee teach the whole power of convocating assemblies to be in the Church. Erastian praelats evert the legall foundati­ons of all govern­ment. Ans. The Warners citations prove not that we maintaine any such assertion, our doctrin and constant practise hath been to ascribe to the King a power of calling Synods, when and wheresoever he thought fit, but that which the Warner seemes to point at is, our tenet of an intrinsicall power in the Church to meet, as for the word and Sacraments so for dis­ciplin; in this all who are Christians, old and late, the prae­laticall and Popish party as well as others, goe along with us to mantaine in doctrine and practise, a necessity even in times of persecution, that the Church must meet for the worship of God and execution of Ecclesiastick disciplin among their owne members. In this the doctrine and practise of the Scots is according to their setled lawes, uncontroverted by his Ma­jestie. If the Warner will mantaine, that in reason and con­science al the Churches of the world are oblidged to dissolve and never more to meet when an erroneous Magistrat by his Tyrannous edict commands them to doe so, let him call up Erastus from the dead to be disciplined in this new doc­trine of the praelats impious loyalty.

The third principle is that the judgment of true and false [Page 20]doctrine of suspension and deprivation of Ministers belong­eth to the Church. The finall determi­nation of all Eccle­siastick causes by the Lawes of Scot­land, is in the gene­rall assem­bly. Ans. If this be a great heresie it is to be charged as much upon the state as upon the Church, for the acts of Parliament give all this power to the Church, neith­er did the lawes of England or of any Christian state, popish or protestant, refuse to the Church the determination of such Ecclesiastick causes; some indeed doe debate upon the power of appeales from the Church, but in Scotland by the law, as no appeale in things civill goes higher then the Parliament so in matters Ecclesiastick none goes above the generall as­sembly. Complaints indeed may goe to the King and Parlia­ment for redresse of any wrong has been done in Ecclesiastick Courts, who being custodes religionis may by their coercive power command Ecclesiastick Courts to rectifie any wrong done by them contraire to Scripture, or if they persist take order with them. But that two or three praelats should be­come a Court of delegats, to receave appeales from a gene­rall assembly, neither Law nor practise in Scotland did ever admit, nor can the word of God or any Equity require it. In the Scotes assemblies no causes are agitat but such as the Parliament hath agreed to bee Ecclesiastick and of the Churches cognisance: no Processe about any Church rent was ever cognosced upon in Scotland but in a civill Court: its very false that ever any Church censure, much lesse the highest of excommunication did fall upon any for robbing the Church of its patrimony. The divine right of discipline, is the tenet of the most of praelats.

Our fourth challenged principle is that wee maintain Ec­clesiastick jurisdiction by a divine right. Ans. Is this a huge crime? is there divine in the world, either Papist or Potestant, except a few praelaticall Erastians, but they doe so? If the Warner will professe (as it seemes hee must) the contradiction of that which he ascribes to us, his avowed te­net must bee that all Ecclesiastick power flowes from the [Page 21]Magistrat, that the Magistrat himself may execute all Church censures, that all the Officers appointed by Christ for the governement of his Church, may bee laid aside, and such a kind of governors bee put in their place, as the Magistrate shalbe pleased to appoint: that the spirituall sword and Kei­es of heaven belong to the Magistrate by vertue of his su­premacy, als wel as the temporall sword and the Keies of his earthly Kingdome: our difference heere from the War­ner will not (I hope) be found the greatest heresie.

Our last challenged principle is, All the power of the Church in Scot­land is le­gall, and with the Magistrats consente. that wee will have all our power against the Magistrat, that is, although hee dissent. Ans. It is an evill comentare that al must be against the Ma­gistrate, which is done against his consent: but in Scotland their is no such case: for all the jurisdiction which the church there does enjoy, they have it with the consent of the Magi­strat: all is ratified to them by such acts of Parliament as his Majestie doth not at all controvert. Concerning that odious case the Warner intimats, whither in time of persecutiō, when the Magistrat classheth with the Church, any Ecclesiastick disciplin be then to be exercised; himselfe can better answer it then we, who with the auncient Christians doe think, that on all hazards (even of life) the church may not be dissolved, but must meet in dens and caves and in the wildernes for the word and Sacraments and keeping it selfe pure by the divine ordinance of discipline. The pre­lats rather then to lay aside their owne inte­rest, will keepe the King and his people in misery for ever.

Having cleered all the pernicious practises and all the wicked Doctrines, which the Warner layes upon us, I think it needles to insist upon these defenses which he in his aboun­dant charity brings for us, but in his owne way, that he may with the greater advantage impugne them: only I touch one passage whereupon he make injurious exclamations: that which Mr. Gilespie in his theoremes wryts; when the Ma­gistrate abuses his power unto Tyranny and makes havock [Page 22]of all, it is lawfull to resist him by some extraordinary wayes and meanes, which are not ordinarily to bee allowed: see the principles from which all our miseryes and the losse of our gracious Master have flowed. Ans. Wee must heere yeeld to the Warner the great equity and necessity that every doctrine of a Presbyter, should be charged on the Presbytery it selfe, and that any Presbyter teaching the lawfulnesse of a Parliaments defensive armes is tantamont to the Churches taking of armes against the king. These small unconsequen­ces wee must permit the Warner to swallow downe without any stick, however wee doe deny that the maxime in hand was the fountaine of any our miseryes, or the cause at all of the losse of our late Soveraigne. Did ever his Majestie or any of his advised counsellers declare it simply unlawfull for a Parliament, to take armes for defence in some extraordinary cases, however the unhappines of the Canterburian Prelats did put his Majestie on these courses, which did begin and promote all our misery, and to the very last these men were so wicked as to refuse the lousing of these bands which their hands had tyed about his misinformed conscience, yea to this day they will not give their consent, that his Majestie, who now is, should lay aside Episcopacy, were it for the gay­ning the peaceable possession of all his three Kingdomes, but are urgers of him night and day to adhaere to their errours, up­on the hazard of all the miseries that may come on his person, on his family and all his people: yet few of them to this day durst be so bold as to print with this Warner, the unlawful­nes of a Parliaments armes against the Tyranny of a Prince in any imaginable case, how extraordinary soe­ver.

IN this chapter the challenge is, Appeals in Scot­land from a generall assembly were no lesse irra­tionall then illegall. that there are no appeales from the generall Assembly to the King, as in England from the Bishops Courts to the King in Chauncery, where a Commission uses to be given to delegats, who discusse the appeales. Ans. The warner considers not the difference of the Government of the Church of Scotland from that which was in England. what the Parliament is in the State, that the generall assembly is in the Church of Scotland: both are the highest courts in their owne kind. There is no appeale any where in moderat Monarchies to the Kings person, but to the King in certaine legall courts; as the Warner here con­fesseth the appeale from Bishops lyes not, to the King in his person, but to the King in his court of Chauncery. As no man in Scotland is permitted to appeale in a civil cause from the Lords of Session; much lesse from the Parliament; so no man in an Ecclesiastick cause is permitted by the verie civil Law of Scotland to appeale from the general assembly. According to the Scots order & practise, the King in person or else by his high Commissioner sits als usually in the generall assembly, as in Parliament. But though it were not so, yet an appeale from a generall assembly to be discussed in a Court of delegats, were unbeseeming and unreasonable, the one Court consisting of above two hundred, all chosen men the best and most able of the Kingdome; the other but of two or three, often of very small either abilities or integrity, who yet may be more fitt to decerne in an Ecclesiastick cause then a single Bishop over his officiall, the ordinary trusted in [Page 24]all acts of jurisdiction for the whole dioces. But the Scots way of managing Ecclesiastick causes is a great deale more just, safe and Satisfactory to any rationall man then that old popish order of the English, where all the spirituall juris­diction of the whole dioces was in the hand of one merce­nary officiall without all reliefe from his sentence, except by an appeale, as of old to the pope and his delegats, so therafter to the King, though never to be cognosced-upon by himselfe, but as it was of old by two or three delegats, The Churches just severi­ty against Montgo­mery and Adamson was ap­proven by the King and the parties themselfe. the weakest of all courts, often for the quality and ever for the number of the judges.

Two instances are brought by the Warner to prove the Church of Scotlands stopping of appeals from the generall Assembly to the King, the cases of Montgomery and A­damson: if the causes and events of the named cases had been wel knowne to the Warner, as he made this chapter disproportionally short, so readily he might have deleted it al together. Both these men were infamous not only in their Ministeriall charges but in their life & conversation; both became so insolent that contrary to the established order of the Church & Kingdome, being suborned by wicked states­men, who in that day of darknes had wel neer brought ruine both to King and country, would needs take upon them the office of Arch-Bishops. While the assembly was in proces with them for their manifold and high misdeameanors, the King was moved by them and their evill patrons, to shew his high displeasure against the assemblyes of the Church. they for his Majesties satisfaction sent their Commissioners and had many conferences; whereby the pride and contempt of these prelats did so encrease, that at last they drew the sen­tence of excommunication upon their own heads: the King after some time did acknowledge the equity of the Church proceedings, and professed his contentment their with: [Page 25]both these unhappy men were brought to a humble confessi­on of their crimes, and such signes of repentance, that both after a renunciation of their titulare Bishopriks were read­mitted to the function of the ministry, which they had deser­ted. Never any other before or after in Scotland did appeale from the generall assembly to the King: the late excommu­nicat praelats in their declinatour against the assembly of Glasgow, did not appeale as (I remember) to the King, but to another generall assembly to bee constitute, according to their own Popish and Tyrannical principles.

THE Warner in his fourth Chapter offers to prove, that the Scottish discipline doth exempt Ministers from pu­nishment for any treason or sedition they can act in their pulpits. Ans. This challenge is like the rest, very false. The rules of the Church discipline in Scotland obliges Churchmen to bee subject to punishment, not only for every fault for which any other man is lyable to censure, but ordaines them to bee punished for sundrie things, which in other men are not at all questionable: and what ever is censurable in any, they appoint it to be much more so in a Minister. It is very untrue, that the pulpits in Scotland are Sanctuaries for any crime, much lesse for the grievous crimes of sedition and treason. Let the Warner remember, how short a time it is, since an Episcopall chayre or a canonicall coate did priviledge in England and Ireland from all cen­sure [Page 26]either of Church or State, great numbers, who were no­toriously knowne to be guilty of the foulest crimes. Was e­ver the Warners companion Bishop Aderton challenged for his Sodomy, so long as their commune patrone of Canterbury did rule the court? did the warner never heare of a prelate very sibb to Doctour Bramble, who to this day was never cal­led to any account for flagrant scandals of such crimes as in Scotland are punishable by the gallows? the Warner doth not well to insist upon the Scots Clergie exempting them­selfe from civill punishments: no where in the world are Churchmen more free of crimes deserving civil cognisance then in Scotland: and if the ears and eyes of the world may be trusted, the popish clergy this day in Italy and Spaine are not so challengeable, as the praelaticall divines in England and Ireland lately were for many grosse misdemeanors.

But why does the Warners anger run out so farre as to the preachers in Holland? The War­ner is inju­rious to the Mini­sters of Holland. is it because he knoweth the Church disciplin in Holland to be really the same with that he op­pugnes in the Scots, and that all the reformed Churches doe joyne cordially with Scotland in their rejection of E­piscopacy? is this a ground for him to slander our Brethren of Holland? Is it charity for him a stranger to publish to the world in print that the ministers in Holland are seditious oratours, and that they saucily controll the Magistrats in their pulpits? Their crime seemes to be, that for the love of Christ their master, they are zealous in their doctrin, to presse upon the Magistrat as well as upon the people the true prac­tise of piety, the sanctification of the sabbath day, the sup­pression of heresy and shisme, and repentance for the sins of the time & place wherein they live. This is a crime whereof few of the Warners friends were wont to be guilty of: their shamefull silence and flattery was one of the great causes of all the sins and calamities that have wracked the three King­domes: [Page 27]the streame of their sermons while the enjoyed the pulpit, was to encourage to superstition and contempt of piety, to sing asleepe by their ungracious way all, that gave eare unto them. The man is impatien, t to see the Pastors of Holland or any where, to walk in another path then his own, and for this cause would stirre up their Magistrats against them: as it was his and his Brethrens custome to stirre up the Magistrats of Britan and Ireland to imprison, banish, and heavily vex the most zealous servants of God, only for their opposition to the praelats profanity and errours. The War­ner (I hope) has not yet forgotten, how Doctor Bramble and his neighbour Lefly of Down did cast out of the Ministry, and made flee out of the Kingdome, men most eminent for zeale, piety and learning, who in a short time had done more good in the house of God, then all the Bishops that ever were in Ireland, I meane Master Blaire, Master Levingston, Ma­ster Hamilton, and Master Cuningham, and others.

The Warner needed not to have marked as a singularity of Geneva, that there all the Ecclesiasticks, quâ tales, are punishable by the Magistrats for civil crimes; for wee know none of the reformed Churches, who were ever following Rome in exeeming the Clergy from saecular jurisdiction, ex­cept it were the Canterburian Praelats: who indeed did skarre the most of Magistrats from medeling with a canonical coat though defiled with drunckenesse, adultery, scolding, fighting, and other evils, which were too common of late to that order.

But how does hee prove, The pre­tended de­claration of King Iames, was Bishop A­damsons lying libel. that the Scots Ministers exempt themselves from civill jurisdiction? first (saith he) by the de­claration of King James 1584. Ans. That declaration was not from King James, as himselfe did testify the yeare thereafter under his hand, but from Master Patrike Adam­son, who did acknowledge it to bee his owne upon his death [Page 28]bed, and professed his repentance for the lyes and slaunders, wherewith against his conscience hee had fraughted that in­famous libell.

His second proofe is from the second booke of discipline Chapter II, Though alwayes in England yet never in Scot­land had Commis­sarie any jurisdicti­on over Ministers. It is absurd that Commissaries haveing no func­tion in the Church, should be judges to Ministers to depose them from their charges. Ans. Though in England the Commissary and officiall was the ordinary judge to depose and excommunicat all the Ministers of the diocese, yet by the Lawes of Scotland no Commissaries had ever any juris­diction over Ministers. But though the officialls jurisdiction together with their Lords the Bishops were abolished, yet doth it follow from this, that no other jurisdiction remaineth whereby Ministers might be punished either by Church and State, according to their demerits? is not this strongly reasoned by the Warner?

His third proofe is the case of James Gibson, Iames Gibson was never absolved by the Church from his Proces. who had rai­led in pulpit against the King, and was only suspended, yea thereafter was absolved from that fault. Ans. Upon the complaint of the Chancelor the alleadged words were con­demned by the generall assembly: but before the mans guil­tines of these words could bee tryed, hee did absent himselfe: for which absence he was presently suspended from his Ministry: in the nixt assembly he did appeare and clear­ed the reason of his absence to have been just feare and no contumacy, this hee made appeare to the assemblyes satis­faction, but before his processe could be brought to any issue, he fled away to England, where he died a fugitive never re­stored to his chardge, though no tryell of his fault was per­fected. Master Blacks ap­peale from the coun­sel cleered.

The fourth proofe is Mr. Blacke his case: heereupon the Warner makes a long and odious narration. If wee interro­gat him about his ground of all these Stories, he can produce [Page 29]no warrant but Spots-woods unprinted book: this is no au­thentick register whereupon any understanding man can re­ly, the writer was a profest enemy, to his death, of the Scot­tish disciplin, he spent his life upon a Story for the disgrace of the Presbytery and the honour of Bishops: no man who is acquainted with the life or death of that Author will build his beleefe upon his words. This whole narration is abun­dantly confuted in the historicall vindication, when the Warner is pleased to repeat the challenge from Issachars burden hee ought to have replyed something after three yeares advisement to the printed answer.

The matter (as our registers beare) was shortly thus, in the yeare 1596 the Popish and malignant faction in King James his court grew so strong that the countenance of the King towards the Church was much changed, and over all the Land great feares did daily increase of the overthrow of the Church discipline established by Law. The Ministers in their pulpits gave free warning thereof, among others Mr. Black of Saint Andrews, a most gracious and faithful Pastor, did apply his doctrine to the sins of the time; some of his E­nemies delated him at Court for words injurious to the King and Queen: the words hee did deny and all his honest hea­rers did absolve him by their testimony from these calum­nies: of himselfe hee was most willing to be tryed to the ut­termost before all the world, but his Brethren finding the libelled calumnies to bee only a pretence and the true inten­tion of the Courtiers therein was, to stop the mouthes of Mi­nisters, that the crying sins of the time should no more bee reproved in pulpits, they advised him to decline the judge­ment of the counsel, and appeale to the generall assembly, as the competent judge according to the word of God and the Lawes of Scotland, in the cause of doctrin; for the first instance they did never question, but if any thing truely [Page 30]seditious had been preached by a Minister that he for this might be called before the civill Magistrat and accordingly punished but that every Minister for the application of his doctrine according to the rules of scripture to the sins of his hearers for their reclaming, should be brought before a ci­vill court at the first instance, they thought it unreasonable and defired the King in the nixt assembly might cognosce upon the equity of such a proceding. The Ministers had many a conference with his Majestie upon that subject, often the matter was brought very neare to an amicable conclusi­on, but because the Ministers refused to subscribe a band for so great a silence as the Court required against his Maje­sties countenancing of treacherous Papists, and favouring the enemies of religion, a seveer Sentence was pronounced not only against Master Black, but also all the Ministers of Edinburgh.

In the meane time malcontented States-men did adde oyle to the flame, The tu­mult of the seven­teenth day of Decem­ber was harmelesse and no Mi­nister guil­ty of it. and at the very instant while the Ministers and their friends are offering a petition to his Majestie, they subborne a villane to cry in one part of the streets the Mini­sters are slain, and in another part of the streets that the King was killed: whereupon the People rush all out to the streets in their armes, and for halfe an howr at most were in a tu­mult, upon meere ignorance what the fray might be, but without the hurt of any one man: so soone as it was found that both the King and Ministers were safe, the people went all peaceably to their houses. This is the very truth of that innocent commotion, whereupon the Warner heere and his fellowes elsewhere make all their tragedies. None of the Ministry were either the authors or approvers thereof, though diverse of them suffered sore troubles for it.

THE Warner in his fifth chapter chardges the Scotes for subjecting the King to the censure of excommunication and bringing upon princes all the miseries which the popes excommunications of old wont to bring upon Anathema­tised Emperours. Ans. The prae­lats ordi­narly, but the Pres­bytery never were for rash ex­communi­cations. It does not become the Warner and his fellowes to object to any the abuse of the dreadfull sentence of excommunication, no Church in the world was ever more guilty of that fault then the praelats of England and Ireland, did they ever censure their own officialls for the pronouncing of that terrible sentence most profanly against any they would, had it been for the non-payment of the smallest summes of mony. As for the Scotes, their doctrine and practise in the point of excommunication is as conside­rat as any other church in the world, that censure in Scot­land is most rare and only in the case of obstinacy in a great sin: what ever be their doctrine in generall with all other Christians and as I think with the praelaticall party them­selves, that the object of Christian doctrine Sacraments and disciplin is one and the same, and that no member of Christ, no sone of the Church, may plead a highnes above admo­nitions and Church censures, yet I know they never thought it expedient so much as to intend any processe of Church a­nimadversion against their Soveraigne. To the worlds end I hope they shal not have againe greater grievances and tru­er causes of citation from their Princes then they have had already. It may be confidently beleeved that they who upon so pregnant occasions did never so much as intend the [Page 32]beginning of a processe against their King, can never be supposed in danger of any such proceeding for time to come. How ever, The Prae­lats flatter Princes to their ruine. we love not the abused ground of the Warners flattering of Princes to their owne great hurt: is it so indeed that all the sins of princes are only against God, that all Kings are not only above all lawes of Church and State but when they fall into the greatest crimes that the worst of men have ever committed, that even then their sins must not be against any man or against any law? such Episcopall doctrin spurrs on princes to these unhappy praecipies, and oppressed people unto these outrages that both fall into inextricable calamities.

THE sixth Chapter is spent on an other crime of the Pres­bytery; The Scots Ministers preaching for justice, was just and neces­sary. it makes the Presbiters cry to the Magistrat for ju­stice upon capitall offenders. Ans. What hes Presbytery to doe with this matter were it never so great an offence: will the Warner have all the faults of the praelaticall faction, flow from the fountaine of Episcopacy? this unconsequentiall reasoning will not be permitted to men below the degrees of Doctors. But was it a very great crime indeed for Ministers to plead the cause of the fatherlesse and widowes, yea the cause of God their Master and to preach unto Magistrats, that according to Scriptures murtherers ought to die, and the Land bee purged from the staine of innocent blood? when the shamefull impunity of murther made Scotland by [Page 33]deadly fends, in time of peace a feild of warre and blood, was it not time for the faithfull servants of God to exhort the King toexecute justice, and to declare the danger of most frequent pardons drawne from his hand often against his heart by the importunity and deceitfull information of powerfull solicitors, to the great offence of God against the whole land, to the unexpressible griefe and wrong of the suffering party, to the opening also of a new floodgate of more blood which by a legall revenge in time easily might have been stopped? Too much pitty in sparing the wilfull shedders of innocent blood ordinarlie proves a great cruel­ty, not only to wards the disconsolat oppressed who cry to the vicegerents of God the avenger, for justice in vaine, but also towards the soule of him who is spared and the life of many more who are friends either to the oppressor or op­pressed.

As for the named case of Huntly let the world judge, Huntlyes notorious crymes. whether the Ministers had reason often to give Warning a­gainst that wicked man and his complices. Beside his apos­tacy and after-seeming-repentance his frequent relapses into avowed popery, in the eighty eight he banded with the King of Spaine to overthrow the religion and government of the whole Iland and after pardon, from time to time did renew his treasonable plots for the ruine of Britain: hee did commit many murders, he did invade under the nose of the King, the house of his Cousin the Earle of Murray, and most cruelly murdered that gallant Nobleman, hee appea­red with displayed Banner against the King in person, he killed thereafter many hundreds of the Kings good people, when these multiplyed outrages did cry up to the God of heaven, was is not time for the men of God to cry to the jud­ges of the earth to doe their duty, according to the war­rant of many Scriptures? what a dangerous humour of flat­tery [Page 34]is this in our Praelats, not only to lull asleep a Prince in a most sinfull neglect of his charge, but also to cry out upon others more faithfull then themselves for assaying to breake of their slumber by their wholesome and seasonable admo­nitions from the word of God?

The nixt challenge of the Scotes Presbyters is that they spoile the King of his Tythes, Never any question in Scotland betwixt the King and the Church, for Tythes and patro­nages. first fruits, patronage and dependence of his subjects. Ans. The Warner understands not what he writes, the Kings Majestie in Scotland never had, never craved any first fruits: the Church never spoi­led the King of any Tythes, some other men indeed, by the wickednesse most of Praelats and their followers, did cou­sin both the King and the Church of many Tythes: but his Majestie and the Church had never any controversie in Scot­land about the Tythes: for the King, so far as concerned himselfe, was ever willing that the Church should enjoy that which the very act of Parliament acknowledgeth to bee her patrimony. Nor for the patronages had the Church any plea with the King: the Church declared often their minde of the iniquity of patronages, wherein they never had from the King any considerable opposition, but from the Nobi­lity and gentry the opposition was so great, that for peace­sake the Church was content to let patronages alone, till God should make a Parliament lay to heart what was incum­bent for gracious men to doe, for liberating congregations from their slavery of having Ministers intruded upon them by the violence of Patrones. Which now at last (blessed be God) according to our mind is performed. As for the de­pendence of any vassals upon the King, King Iames a­vowes himselfe a hater of Erastianis­me. it was never que­stioned by any Presbyterian in Scotland.

What is added in the rest of the Chapter, is but a repeti­tion of that which went before, to wit, the Presbyters deny­ing to the King the spirituall government of the Church, [Page 35]and the power of the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven: such an usurpation upon the Church, King James declared un­der his hand (as at length may be seen in the Historicall vin­dication) to be a sinne against the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which puts in the hand of the Magistrat the power of preaching and celebrating the Sacraments: a power which since that time no Magistrat in Britaine did assume, and if any would have claimed it, none would have more opposed, then the most zealous patrones of Episcopacy. The injurious invectives, which the Warner builds upon this his Erastian assertion, wee passe them as Castles in their aire, which must fall and evanish for want of a foundation. Only before I leave this Chapter, let the Warner take a good Sentence out of the mouth of that wyse Prince King James, to testifie yet farther his minde against Erastianisme. His Majestie in the yeare 1617 having come in progresse to visit his auncient Kingdome of Scotland, and being present in persone at a publick disputation in Theologie in the Universitie of St. Andrews, whereof also many both Nobles and Church-men of both Kingdomes were auditors; when one of those that acted a part in the disputation, had affirmed and went about to maintaine this assertion that the King had power to depose Ministers from their Ministeriall function. The King him­self as abhorring such flatterie, cried out with a loud voice, Ego possum deponere Ministri caput, sed non possum deponere ejus officium.

IN the seventh chapter the Warner would cause men be­lieve many more of the Presbyteries usurpations upon the [Page 36]civill Magistrate. The Pres­bytery co­gnosceth only upon scandals, and that in sewer civil things then the Bishops­courts were wont to meddle with. The first is that all offences whatsoever are cognoscible in the consistory upon the case of scandals. Ans. First the Presbyterie makes no offence at all to come before the consistory, but scandall alone. Secondly these civill offences (the scandall whereof comes before the Pres­bytery) are but very few, and a great deale fewer than the Bishops officiall takes notice of in his consistoriall court. That capitall crimes past over by the Magistrate should bee censured by the Church, no society of Christians who have any discipline, did ever call in question. When the sword of the Magistrat hes spared a murderer, an adulterer, a Blasphemer; will any ingenuous, either praelaticall or popish divine, admitte of such to the holy table without signes of repentance?

The Warners second usurpation is but a branch of the first, that the Presbyterie drawes directly before it selfe the cogni­sance of fraud in barganing, false measures, oppression and in the case of Ministers, brybing, usury, fighting, per­jury, &c. Ans. Is it then the Warners minde, that the notorious slander of such grosse sins does not deserve so much, as an Ecclesiastick rebooke? Shall such persons with­out admonition be admitted to the holy communion? Se­condly the named cases of fraud in barganing, false measu­res, oppression, come so rarely before our Church-judica­tories that though these thirty yeares I have been much con­versant in Presbyteries, yet did I never see, nor doe I re­member that ever I heard any of these three cases brought before any church assembly. In the persone of Ministers, I grant, these faults which the canons of the Church in all times and places make the causes of deprivation are cog­nosced upon in Presbyteries, but with the good liking (I am sure) of all both papists and praelats, who themselves are free of such vices. And why did not the Warner put in a­mong [Page 37]the causes of church mens deprivation from office and benefite, adultery, gluttonny and drunkennes? are these in his, &c. which he will not have cognoscible by the Church in the persons of Bishops and Doctors?

The Warners third challenge amounts to an high crime, that Presbyterian Ministers are bold to preach upon these scriptures which speake of the Magistrats duty in his office, or dare offer to resolve from scripture any doubt, which per­plexeth the conscience of Magistrats or people, of Husband or Wife, of Master or Servant, in the discharge of their Christian duty one to another. What ever hath been the negligence of the Bishop of Derry, yet I am sure, all the preaching Praelats and Doctors of England pretended a great care to goe about these uncontroverted parts of their ministerial function, and yet without medling with the My­steries of State, or the depths of any mans particulare vocati­on; much lesse with thejudgement of jurisdiction in politi­call or aeconomicall causes.

As for the Churches declaration against the Late engage­ment; The Churches proceed­ings in the late enga­gement cleered from mistakes. did it not well become them to signify their judge­ment in so great a case of conscience, especially when the Parliament did propone it to them for resolution, and when they found a conjunction driven on with a cleerly malig­nant partie, contrary to solemne oathes and covenants, unto the evident hazard of Religione and them who had been most eminent instruments of its preservation; was it not the churches duty to give warning against that sinne, and to exhort the ring leaders therein to repentance?

But our Warner must needs insist upon that unhappy en­gagement, and fasten great blame upon the Church for gi­ving any advice about it. Ans. Must it be Jesuisitisme, and a drawing of all the civill affaires to the Churches barre in ordine ad Spiritualia, for an assembly to give their advice [Page 38]in a most eminent and important case of conscence, when earnestly called upon in a multitude of supplications from the most of the Congregations under their charge; yea when required by the States of the Kingdome in severall expresse messages for that end? It seemes, its our Warners conclusi­on, if the Magistrat would draw all the Churches in his ju­risdiction to a most unlawfull warre, for the advancement of the greatest impiety and unjustice possible, wherein nothing could be expected by all who were engaged there­in but the curse of God; if in this case a doubting Natione should desire the assemblies counsel for the state of their sou­les, or if the Magistrate would put the Church to declare what were lawfull or unlawfull according to the word of God, that it were necessary heer for the servants of God to be altogether silent, because indeed warre is so civill a busi­nes, that nothing in it concernes the soule, and nothing a­bout it may be cleered by any light from the word of God.

The truth is, the Church in their publick papers to the Par­liament, declared oftner then once, that they were not a­gainst, but for an engagement, if so that Christian and friend­ly treaties could not have obtained reason, and all the good people in Scotland were willing enough to have hazarded their lives and estates, for vindicating the wrongs done, not by the Kingdome of England, but by the sectarian party there, against God the King, covenant and both Kingdo­mes: but to the great griefe of their hearts, their hands were bound and they forced to sit still, and by the over great cunning of some, the erroneous mis-perswasions of others and the rash praecipitancy of it, that engagement was so spoiled in the stating and mannaging, that the most religi­ous with peace of conscience could not goe along nor en­courage any other to take part therein. The Warner touches on three of their reasons: but who will looke upon their pu­blick [Page 39]declarations, shall find many more, which with all faithfullnesse were then propounded by the Church, for the rectifying of that action, which, as it stood in the state and managment, was cleerly foretold to be exceeding like to destroy the King and his friends of all sorts in all the three Kingdomes. The irreparable losses and unutterable cala­mities which quickly did follow at the heeles, the misbe­leefe and contempt of the Lords servants and the great dan­ger religion is now brought unto in al these Kingdomes, hes, I suppose, long agoe brought griefe enough to the heart of them whose unadvised rashnes and intemperate fervour did contribute most for the spoiling of that designe.

The first desire about that engagement which the Warner gives to us, concernes the security of religion. In all the de­bate of that matter, it was aggreed (without question upon all hands, that the Sectarian party deserved punishment for their wicked attemptes upon the Kings persone, contrary to the directions of the Parliamentes of both Kingdomes, and that the King ought to be rescued out of their hands, and brought to one of his houses for perfecting the treaty of peace which often had been begunne: but here was the question; Whither the Parliament and Army of Scotland ought to de­clare their resolutiones to bring his Majestie to London with honour, freedome and safty, before he did promise any se­curity for establishing Religion; The Parliaments of both Kingdomes in all their former treaties had ever pressed upon the King a number of propositions to be signed by his Maje­stie before at all he came to London: was it then any fault in the Church of Scotland to desire the granting but of one of these propositions concerning Religion and the covenant, before the King were brought (by the new hazard of the lives and estats of all the Scottish nation) to sit in his Parliament in that honnor and freedome which himselfe did desire? There [Page 40]was no complaint, when many of thirty propositions were pressed to be signed by his Majestie for satisfaction and secu­rity to his people, after so great and long desolations: how then is an out-cry made, when all other propositions are postponed, and only one for Religion is stuck upon, and that not before his Majesties rescue and deliverance from the hands of the sectaries, but only before his bringing to Lon­don in honor freedom and safety? This demande, to the Warner, is a crime, and may be so to all of his beleefe, who takes it for a high unjustice, to restraine in any King the abso­lute power by any condition: for they doe mantaine that the administration of all things both of Church and state does reside so freely and absolutly in the meere will of a Sove­raigne, that no case at any time can fall out, which ought to bound that absolutnesse with any limitation.

The second particular the Warner pitches upon, is the Kings negative voyce; behold how criminous we were in the point; When some (most needlesly) would needs bring into debate the Kings negative voyce in the Parliament of England, as one of the royall praerogatives to bee maintai­ned by our engagement: it was said, that all discourse of that kynde might bee laid aside as impertinent for us: if any debate should chance to fall upon it, the proper place of it was, in a free Parliament of England; that our Lawes did not admit of a negative voyce to the King in a Parliament of Scot­land; and to presse it now as a prerogative of all Kings, (be­sides the reflection it might have upon the rights of our Kingdome,) it might put in the hand of the King a power to deny all and every one of these things, which the Parlia­ments of both Kingdomes had found necessary for the setling the peace in all the three dominions. Wee marvail not, that the Warner heere should taxe us of a great errour, seeing it is the beleefe of his faction, that every King hath not onely [Page 41]a negative but an absolute affirmative voyce in all their Par­liaments, as if they were nothing but their arbitrary coun­sels for to perswade by their reasons but not to conclude nor impede any thing by their votes; the whole and intire power of making or refusing Lawes being in the Prince alone, and no part of it in the Parliament.

The Warners third challenge against us about the ingage­ment is, as if the Church had taken upon it to nominate the officers of the army; and upon this he makes his invectives. Ans. The Church was farre from seeking power to nomi­nate any one officer: but the matter was thus; when the State did require of them, what in their judgement would give satisfaction to the people, and what would encourage them to goe along in the ingagement? one and the last parte of their answer was, that they conceived if a Warre shalbe found necessarie, much of the peoples encouragement would depend upon the qualification of the commanders, to whom the mannaging of that great trust should be commit­ted: for after the right stating of the Warre, the nixt would be the carying on of it by such men who had given constante proofe of their integrity. To put all the power of the King­dome in their hande, whose by past miscariadges had given just occasion to suspect their designes and firmenesse to the interest of God before their owne or any other mans, would fill the hearts of the people with jealousies and feares, and how wholsome an advice this was, experience hath now too cleerly demonstrate.

To make the world know our further resolutiones to medle with civile affaires, the Warner is pleased to bring out a­gainst us above 80 yeares old stories, and all the stuffe which our malicious enemy Spotsewood can furnish to him: from this good author he alledges that our Church discharged merchants to traffique with Spaine, and commanded the [Page 42]change of the mercat dayes in Edenburgh. Ans. Both these calumnies are taken of at length in the Historicall Vin­dication. After the Spanish invasion of the yeare eighty eight, many in Scotland kept correspondence with Spaine for treacherous designes: the Inquisitors did seduce some, and persecute others of our merchants in their traffique, the Church did deale with his Majestie to interceed with the Spa­nish King for more liberty to our country men in their tra­ding: and in the meane time while an answer was returned from Madrile, they advertised the people to be warry, how they hazarded their soules for any worldly gaine which they could find about the inquisitors feet.

As for the mercat dayes, The Church medled not with the mun­day mer­cat but by way of supplica­tion to Parlia­ment. I grante, it was a great griefe to the Church, to see the fabbath day profaned by handy la­bour and journeying, by occasion of the munday-mercats in the most of the great tounes: for remedie heerof, many supplications have been made by the Assembly to the Par­liament: but so long as our Bishops satte there, these peti­tiones of the Church were alwayes eluded: for the praelats labour in the whole Iland was to have the sunday no Sab­bath, and to procure by their Doctrine and example the profanation of that day by all sorts of playes, to the end people might be brought back to their old licentiousnes and ignorance, by which the Episcopall Kingdome was advan­ced. It was visible in Scotland, that the most eminent Bi­shops were usual players on the Sabbath, even in time of divine service. And so soone as they were cast out of the Par­liament, the Churches supplications were granted, and acts obtained for the carefull sanctification of the Lords day, and removing of the mercats in all the land from the Mun­day to other dayes of the week.

The Warners nixt challenge of our usurpation is, the as­sembly at Edinburgh 1567 their ratifying of acts of Parlia­ment, [Page 43]and summoning of all the country to appeare at the nixt assembly. The Church once for safty of the infant Kings life, with the concur­rence of the secrete counsel did cal an extraordi­nary meet­ing. Ans. If the Warner had knowne the histo­ry of that time, he would have choysed rather to have omit­ted this challenge, then to have proclaimed to the world the great rottennesse of his own heart; at that time the condition of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland was lamentable, the Queen was declared for popery, King James's Father was cruelly without any cause murthered by the Earle of Bothwell; King James himselfe in his infancy was very neare to have been destroyed by the murtherer of his Father, there was no other way conceivable of saftie for Religion for the infant King, for the Kingdome, but that the Protestantes should joine together for the defence of King James against these popish murtherers. For this end the generall assembly did crave conference of the secrete counsel: and they with mutual advise did call for a meeting of the whole Protestant party: which did conveen at the time appointed most fre­quently in an extraordinary and mixed assembly of all the considerable persons of the Religion, Earles, Lords, Bar­rons, Gentlemen, Burgesses and Ministers, and subscribed a bond for the revenge of King Henryes death, and the de­fence of King Iames his life: This mixed and extraordinary assembly made it one of the chiefe articles in their bond to de­fend these Actes of the Parliament 1560 concerning religi­on, and to endeavour the ratification of them in the nixt en­suing Parliament. As for the assemblies letter to their Brethren for so frequent a meeting at the nixt extraordinary assembly, it had the authority of the secret counsel; it was in a time of the greatest necessity, when the Religion and liberties of the land were in evident hazard from the po­tent and wicked counsels of the popish party, both at home and abroad; when the life of the young King was daily in vi­sible danger from the hands of them who had murthered his [Page 44]Father, and ravished his Mother. Lesse could not have been done in such a juncture of time by men of wisedom and courage, who had any love to their Religion, King and country: but the resolution of our praelats is to the contrary, when a most wicked villaine had obtained the connivance of a Queen to kill her husband, and to make way for the killing of her Son in his Cradle, and after these murders to draw a nation & Church from the true Religion, established by Law, into popery; and a free Kingdome to an illegall Tyranny; in this case there may be no meeting, either of Church or State, to provide remedies against such extraor­dinary mischiefes. Beleeve it, the Scotes were never of this opinion.

What is subjoined in the nixt paragraph of our Churches praesumption to abolish acts of Parliament; By the lawes and customes of Scot­land the Assembly praecieds the Par­liament in the refor­mation of Ecclesias­tical abu­ses. is but a repeti­tion of what is spoken before. Not only the lawes of Scotland but equity and necessity referres the ordinary reformation of errours and abuses in Religion to the Ecclesiasticall assem­blies: what they find wrong in the Church, though ratified by acts of Parliament, they rectify it from the word of God, and thereafter by petition obtaines their rectification to be ratifyed in a following Parliament, and all former acts to the contrary to be annulled. This is the ordinary Methode of proceeding in Scotland and (as I take it) in all other States and Kingdomes. Were Christians of old hindred to leave paganisme and embrace the Gospell, till the emperiall la­wes for paganisme and against Christianity were revoked? did the oecumenicall and National Synods of the auncients stay their reformation of heresies and corruptions in reli­gion, till the lawes of State (which did countenance these errors) were cancelled? Was not popery in Germany France and Britaine so firmely established, as civil lawes could doe it? It seems, the Warner heer does joyne with his Brother [Page 45] Issachar, to proclaime all our Reformers in Britaine France and Germany, to be Rebells for daring by their preachings and Assemblies to change these things, which by acts of Parliaments had been approven, before new Parliaments had allowed of their reformation. Neverthelesse this plea is foolishly intended against us, for the Ministers protestation against the acts of Parliament 1584, establishing (in that houre of darknes) iniquity by a law, and against the acts of the Assembly of Glasgow declaring the unlawfulnesse of Bi­shops and ceremonies; which some Parliaments upon Epis­copall mis-information had approven: both these actions of the Church were according to former Lawes and were rati­fied afterward by acts of Parliament yet standing in force which for the Warner (a privatman, and a stranger) to challenge, is to contemne much more grossly the law, then they doe, whom here he is accusing of that crime.

By the nixt Story the Warner will gaine nothing, The Church parte in the road of Ruth­ven clee­red. when the true case of it is knowne. In King Iames minority, one Captaine Iames Stuart did so farre prevail upon the tender and unexperienced yeares of the Prince, as to steale his countenance unto acts of the greatest oppression; so farre that Iames Hamelton Earle of Arran (the nixt to the King in blood, in his health a most gallant Prince, and a most zealous professor of the true Religion) in time of his sick­nes, when he was not capable to commit any crime against the State, was notwithstanding spoiled of all his livelyhood and liberty: his Lands and honour with the dignity of high Chancelor of Scotland were conferred on that very wicked Tyrant Captain Iames, a number of the best affected and prime nobility impatient of such unheard-of oppressiones, with meere boasts and no violence at the road of Ruthven chased away that unhappy chancelor from the Kings perso­ne, this his Majestie for the time professed to take in so good [Page 46]part that under his hand he did allow it for good service, in his letters to the most of the Neighbour princes: he dealt also with the secrete counsel and the chiefe judicatories of the land, and obtained from them the approbation of that act of the Lords as convenient and laudable, promising likewise to ratify it in the nixt ensuing Parliament. When the Lords for their more abundante cleering required the Assemblies declaration there upon, the Ministers declined to medle at all with the case; but the Kings Majestie sent his Commissioners to the Assembly, entreating them withall earnestnesse to declare their good liking of that action, which he assured them was for his good, and the good both of the Church and Kingdome: for their obedience to the Kings importunity they are heer railed upon by the wise Warner. It is true, Captaine Iames shortly after creept in againe into Court, and obtained a sever revenge against the authors of that action, before a Parliament could sit to approve it, but within a few monthes the same Lords with some more did at Striveling chase againe that evill man from the Court: whither he never more returned, and this their action was ratified in the nixt Parliament, and so stands to this day unquestioned by any but such as the Warner, either out of ignorance or malice.

I am weary to follow the Warner in all his wandrings; The inte­rest of the generall assembly of Scot­land, in the reforma­tion of England. at the nixt loupe he jumps from the 1584 to the 1648, skip­ping over in a moment 64 yeares. The articles of Strive­ling mentions that the promoving of the worke of Refor­mation in England and Ireland, bee referred to the generall assembly, upon this our friend does discharge a flood of his choler: all the matter of his impatience heere is, that Scot­land when by fraud they had been long allured, and at last by open violence invaded by the English Praelats, that they might take on the yock of all their corruptions, they were [Page 47]contented at the earnest desire of both the houses of Parlia­ment, and all the wel-affected in England, to assist their Brethren, to purge out the leaven of Episcopacy, and the Service book with all the rest of the old corruptions of the English and Irish Churches; with the mannaging of this so great and good an Ecclesiastick worke, the Parliament of Scotland did intrust the generall assembly. No mervaile that Doctor Bramble a zealous lover of all the Arminianisme, Popery and Tyranny, of which his great patron Doctor Lade stands convicted yet without an answer to have been brin­ging in upon the three nations, should bee angry at the dis­coverers and dis-appointers of that most pious work as they wont to style it?

What heere the Warner repeats, it is answered before, The vio­lent ap­prehension of Masse-Priests Priests in their act of idola­try repro­ved by the Warner. as for the two Storyes in his conclusion, which he takes out of his false Author Spots-wood, adding his owne large am­plifications; I conceive, there needs no more to be said to the first, but that some of Iohn Knocks zealous hearers un­derstanding of a Masse-Priest at their very side committing idolatry contrary to the Lawes, did with violence break in upon him and sease upon his person and Masse-cloathes, that they might present him to the ordinary Magistrat to receave justice according to the Law; This act the Warner wil have to be a huge rebellion, not only in the actors, but also in Iohn Knocks, who was not so much as present thereat.

What first he speaks of the Assemblies convocating the people in armes to be present at the tryall of the popish Lords and their avowing of that their deed to the King in his face we must be pardoned to mistrust the Warner heerin upon his bare word without the releefe of some witnes, and that a more faithfull one then his Brother in evill, Mr. Spotswood, whom yet heere he does not professe to cite. Against these popish Lords after their many treasons and bloody murders [Page 48]of the lieges, the King himselfe at last was forced to arme the people; but that the generall assembly did call any unto armes we require the Warners proofe that we may give it an answer.

THE Warners challenge in this chapter is that we man­taine our discipline by a Iure divino, and for this he spe­wes out upon us a sea of such rhetorick, as much better be­seemed. Ans. Mercurius Aulicus then either a Warner or a praelate. In this challenge he is as unhappy as in the rest, it is for a matter wherein the most of his owne Brethren (though our Adversaries) yet fully agree with us that the discipline of the Church is truely by divine right, The War­ner and his Praelatical Erastian brethren are obli­ged by their owne principles to advise the King to lay asi­de Episco­pacy and set up the Praesbyte­ry in all his domini­ons. and that Jesus Christ holds out in scripture the substantials of that Governement whereby he will have his house to be ruled to the worlds end; leaving the circumstantials to be determi­ned by the judicatories of the Church according to the ge­nerall rules, which are clear also in the word for matters of that nature. In this neither Papists nor the learndest of the Praelats find any fault with us; yet our Warner must spend a whole Chapter upon it.

It is true as we observed before the elder Praelats of Eng­land in Edwards & Elizabeths dayes, as the Erastians now, did mantaine that no particular Governement of the Church was jure divino, and if this be the Warners mind, it were ingenuity in him to speake it out loud, and to endeavour [Page 49]to perswade his friends about the King of the truth of this te­net, he was never imployed about a better and more seaso­nable service: for if the discipline of the Church be but hu­mano jure then Episcopacy is keeped up upon no conscience, conscience being bottomed only upon a divine right, so Epis­copacy wanting that bottom may well be laid aside at this time by the King for any thing that concernes conscience since no command of God nor warrant from scripture tyes him to keep it up. This truely seemes to be the maine ground whereupon the whole discourse of this Chapter is builded. Is it tolerable that such truthes should be concealed by our Warners against their conscience, when the speaking of them out might be so advantagious to the King and all his Kingdomes, how ever wee with all the reformed Churches doe beleeve in our heart the divine right of Synods and Pres­byteries, and for no possible inconvenient can be forced to deny or passe from this part of truth, yet the Warner heere joynes with the elder Praelats who till Warner Banckrofts ad­vancement to the sea of Canterburry did unanimously deny Episcopacy to be of divine right, and by consequent affir­med it to be moveable, and so lawfull to be laid aside by princes, when so ever they found it expedient for their af­faires to be quyte of it, why does not the warner and his Brethren speake plainly their thoughts in his Majesties eares? why do they longer dissemble their conscience, only for the satisfaction of their ambition, greed, and revenge? sundry of the Praelaticall divines come yet further to joyne fully with Erastus in denying not only Episcopacy and all other particular formes of Church government to be of di­vine institution, but in avowing that no governement in the Church at all is to be imagined, but such as is a part of the civill power of the Magistrat. The Warner in the Chapter and in diverse other parts of his booke seemes to agree with [Page 50]this judgment: and upon this ground if he had ingenuity he would offer his helping hand to untie the bonds of the Kings conscience, if heere it were straytened, by demonstrating from this his principle, that very safely without any offence to God and nothing doubting for conscience sake, his Majestie might lay aside Episcopacy and set up the Presby­tery so fully as is required in all his dominions though not upon a divine right which the Presbyterians beleeve, yet upon Erastus royall right which the Warner here and else­where avouches.

What the Warner puts heere again upon the Presbyterie, The prae­laticall party were late­ly bent for Popery. the usurpation of the temporall sword in what indirect rela­tion so ever, its probation in the former chapter was found so weake and naughty, that the repetition of it is for no use: only wee marke that the Warner will have the Presbitery to be an absolute papacy, for no other purpose but to vent his desire of revenge against the Presbyterians, who gave in a challenge against the Praelats, especially the late Canterbu­rians, among whom Doctor Bramble was one of some note, to which none of them have returned to this howre an an­swer; that their principles unavoidably did bring backe the pope. For a Patriarch over all the westerne Churches, and among all the Patriarches of the whole Catholick Church a primacy in the Roman, flowes cleerly out of the fountaine of Episcopacy, according to the avowed doctrine of the En­glish praelats: who yet are more liberall to the pope in gran­ting him beside his spirituall super-inspection of the whole Catholick Church, all his temporall jurisdictions also in the patrimony of S ^t. Peter, and all his other faire principalities within and without Italy. There is no ceremony in Rome that these men stick upon: for of all the superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies of Rome, their images and altars and adorations before them are incomparably the worst; yet [Page 51]the Warners friends without any recantation we have heard of, avow them all; even an adoration of and to the altar it selfe. As for the doctrines of Rome what points are worse then these which that party have avowed in expresse tear­mes, a corporall presence of Christs body upon the Altar the Tridentine justification, free-will, finall apostacy of the Saints: when no other thing can be answered to this our sore challenge, it is good to put us off with a Squib that the Presbyterie is as absolute papacy as ever was in Rome.

The Presbyterian position which the Warner heere offers not to dispute but to laugh at, that Christ as King of his Church according to his royall office and Scepter hes ap­pointed the office bearers and lawes of the house, is accorded to by the most and sharpest of our adversaries, whether En­glish or Romish, as their owne tenet: howbeit such foolish consequences, that all acts of Synods must be Christs Lawes, &c. neither they nor wee doe acknowledge.

His declamations against the novelty of the Presbyterie in the ordinary stile of the Jesuites against Protestants, The Prae­lats pro­fesse now a willing­nes to a­bolish at least three parts of the former Episcopa­cy. and of the pagan Philosophers against the Christians of old, who will regarde: our plea for the Praesbyterie is, that it is scriptu­rall; if so; it is auncient enough: if not; let it be abolished. But it were good, that heer also the Warner and his friends would be ingenuous, to speake out their minds of Episcopa­cy. Why have they all so long deceived the King, in assu­ring him that English Episcopacy was wel warranted both by Scripture and antiquity. Be it so (which yet is very false) that something of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter had any footing in Scripture, yet can they be so impudent, as to af­firme, that an English Bishop in his very flesh and blood, in his substantiall limbs was ever knowne in the World till the pope was become Antichrist? A Bishop by virtue of his of­fice a Lord in Parliament, voycing in all acts of State, and [Page 52]exercising the place of a high Thesaurer, of a Chancelor, or what ever civill charge the favour of a Prince did put upon him; a Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdicti­on, with out any Presbytery; a Bishop exercising no ju­risdiction himselfe in any part of his dioces, but devolving the exercise of that power wholly upon his officials & Com­missaries; a Bishop ordaining Presbyters himselfe alone, or with the fashionall assistance of any two Presbyters, who chaunce to be neare; a Bishop the only Pastor of the whole dioces, and yet not bound to feed any flock, either by word or Sacrament, or governement, but having a free liberty to devolve all that service upon others, and himself to wayte at court so many yeares as he shall think fit. This is our En­glish Bishop not only in practise but in law, and so was hee defended by the great disputants for praelacy in England.

But now let the Warner speake out, The porti­on of Epis­copacy, which yet is stuck to, cannot be kept up upon any principle either of honour or con­science. if any such treasure can more be defended or was ever knowne in scripture, or seen in any Christian Church for 800. yeares and above, af­ter the death of Christ. I take it indeed, to be conscience, that forces now at last the best of our Court-divines to devest their Bishop of all civill imployment in Parliament court or Kingdome, in denying his solitarines in ordination, in re­moving his officiall and Commissary courts, in taking away all his arches, Arch-Bishops, Arch-Deacons, deane and Chapter and all the, &c. in erecting Presbyteries for all ordinations and spirituall jurisdiction. It is good that conscience moves our adversaries at last to come this farre towards us: butwhy will they not yet come nearer, to acknow­ledge that by these their to lately recanted errours they did to long trouble the world; and that the little which yet they desire to keepe of a Bishop is nothing lesse then that English Bishop but a new creature of their own devising ne­ver known in England which his Majestie in no honnour is [Page 53]obliged to mantaine for any respect either to the lawes or customes of England, and least of all, for conscience?

While the Warner with such confidence avowes, The smal­lest porti­on of the most mo­derat E­piscopacy is contrary to scrip­ture. that no text of Scripture can be alleadged against Episcopacy, which may not with more reason be applyed against the Presbytery; behold I offer him here some few, casting them in a couple of arguments, which according to his great pro­mises, I wish, he would answer at his leasure.

First I doe reason from Ephesians 4.11: all the officers that Christ has appointed in his Church for the Ministry of the word, are either Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors or Doctors: but Bishops are none of these fyve: Ergo they are none of the officers appointed by Christ for the Mi­nistry of the word. The Major is not wonte to be questio­ned: the minor thus I prove; Bishops are not Apostles, E­vangelists, nor prophets: for its confessed, all these were extraordinary and temporary officers: but Bishops (say yow) are ordinary and perpetuall: our adversaries pitch upon the fourth, alleadging the Episcopall office to be pastorall; but I prove the Bishop no Pastor thus; no Pastor is superior to o­ther Pastors in any spirituall power: but according to our ad­versary, a Bishop is superior to all the Pastors of his dioces in the power of ordination and jurisdiction. Ergo. The doubt heer is only of the Major, which I prove Argumento à pari­bus: no Apostle is superior to an Apostle, nor an Evange­lists to an Evangelist, nor prophet to a prophet nor a Doc­tour to a Doctour in any spirituall power according to scrip­ture. Ergo no Pastor to a Pastor. Againe I reason from 1. Tim. 4.14. Math: 18.15. 1. Cor. 5.4.12.13, What taks the power of ordination and jurisdiction from Bishops, destroyes Bishops: as the removall of the soule kills the man, and the denyall of the forme takes away the subject; so the power of ordination and jurisdiction the essentiall forme, whereby the [Page 54]Bishop is constitute and distinguished from the Presbyter and every other Church officer, being removed from him, he must perish: but the quoted places take away cleerly these powers from the Bishop: for the first puts the power of or­dination in the Presbytery, and a Bishop is not a Presbytery; the second puts the power of jurisdiction in the Church; and the third in a company of men which meet together: but the Bishop is not the Church nor a company of men met toge­ther: for these be many, and he is but one persone.

When the Doctors learning he; satisfied us in these two, he shall receave more scripturall arguments against Episco­pacy. The Prae­lats una­ble to an­swer their opposits. But why doe wee expect answers from these men, when after so long time (for all their boasts of learning and their visible leasure) none of their party hes hade the cou­rage, to offer one word of answer to the Scriptures and Fa­thers, which in great plenty Mr. Parker and Mr. Didoclave of old, and of late that mitacle of learning most noble So­mais, and that Magazin of antiquity Mr. Blondel have prin­ted against them?

What in the end of the Chapter the Warner addes of our trouble at King James his fiftie and five questions 1596, and of our yeelding the bucklers without any opposition till the late unhappy troubles; we answer that in this as every where else the Warner proclaines his great and certaine knowledge of our Ecclesiastick story: the troubles of the Scots divines at that time were very small, for the matter of these questi­ons, all which they did answer so roundly, that ther was no more speach of them therafter by the propounders: but the manner and time of these questions did indeed perplex good men, to see Erastian and Prelaticall counsellors so farr to prevaile with our King, as to make him by captious questi­ons carpe at these parts of Church-discipline, which by sta­tuts of Parliament and acts of Assemblyes were fully establi­shed.

Our Church at that time was far from yeelding to Episco­pacy: Prelacy was ever grievous to Scot­land. great trouble indeed by some wicked States-men was then brought upon the persones of the most able and faithfull Ministers, but our land was so far from receiving of Bishops at that time, that the question was not so much as proposed to them for many yeares thereafter, it was in Ann. 1606 that the English Praelats did move the King by great violence to cast many of the best and most learned Preachers of Scotland out of their charges, and in Ann. 1610, that a kind of Epis­copacy was set up in the corrupt assembly of Glasgow; under which the Church of Scotland did heavily groane till the yeare 1637, when their burdens was so much increased by the English praelaticall Tax-masters, that all was shaken of together, and divine justice did so closly follow at the heeles, that oppressing praelacy of England as to the great joy of the long oppressed Scotes, that evill root and all its branches was cast out of Britaine, where wee trust, no shadow of it shall ever againe be seen.

HAving cleered the vanity of these calumnious challenges, where with the Warner did animate the King and all Magistrates against the Presbyterians, let us try if his skill be any greater, to inflame the people against it. Hee would make the World beleeve that the Presbyterians are great transsubstantiators of whole Common-wealths into beasts, [Page 56]and Metamorphosers of whole Kingdomes of men, into Ser­pents with two heads; how great and monstrous a Serpent must the Presbytery be, when shee is the Mother of a Dragon with two heads. But it is good, that she has nothing to doe with the procreation of the Dragon with seven heads, the great Antichrist, the Pope of Rome: this honour must bee left to Episcopacy: the Presbytery must not pretend to any share in it.

The Warners ground for his pretty similitude is, There is no Lord­ship but a meer ser­vice and ministry in the Pastors of the Church that the Presbyterians make two Soveraignities in every Christian State, whose commands are contrary. Ans. All the evill lyeth in the contrariety of the commands: as for the double Soveraignity, ther is no shew of truth in it: for the Pres­byterians cannot bee guilty of coordinating two Soveraigni­ties in one State, though the Praelats may wel be guilty of that fault; since they with there Masters of Rome mantaine a true hierarchie, a Spirituall Lord-ship, a domination and principality in their Bishops above all the members of the Church, but the Presbyterians know no [...], no dominion, no Soveranity in Church officers, but a meer ministry un­der Christ. As for the contrariety of commands, its true: Christs Ministers must publish all the commands of their So­veraigne Lord, whereunto no command of any temporall Prince needs or ought to be contrary; but if it fall out to bee so, it is not the Presbytery; but the holy Scriptures, which command rather to obey God then man. Dare the Warner heere oppose the Presbyterians? dare he mantaine a subordi­nation of the Church to the State in such a fashion, that the cleer commands of God published by the Church ought to give place to the contrary commands of the State? if the Warner must needs invert and contradict Christ ruling of this case, let him goe on to preach doctrine point blank to the Apostles, that it is better to obey men then God. It falls [Page 57]out as rarely in Scotland as any where in the world, that the Church and State run contrary wayes; but if so it happen, the commune rules of humane direction towards right and wrong judgement must be followed: if a man find either the Church or the State or both command what he knowes to be wrong (for neither the one nor the other hath any infallibi­lity) their is no doubt but either or both may be disobeyed, yet with this difference, that for disobedience to the Churches most just commands, a man can not fall under the smallest temporall inconvenient without the States good pleasure, but for his disobedience to the most unjust commands of the State he must suffer what ever punishment the law does in­flict without any releefe from the Church.

Two instances are brought by the Warner, of the Church and States contrary commands: the first the King comman­ded Edenburgh to feast the frensh Ambassadours, but the Church commanded Edenburgh to fast that day when the King desired them to feast. Ans. Heer were no so contra­ry commands, but both were obeyed, the people did kepe the humiliation, and some of the Magistrats that same day did give the banquet to the frensh Ambassadours as the King commanded; that for this any Church censure was inten­ded against them it is a malitious calumny, according to the author of this fable his owne confession, as at length may be seen in the unloading of Issachars burden.

As for his second instance, The War­ner is ful of calum­nious un­truths. the difference of the Church and State about the late ingagement we have spoken to it in the former chapter at length: the furthest the Church went was by humble petitions and remonstrances to set before the Parliament the great danger, which that ingagement (as it was stated and mannaged) did portent to religion, the Kings Person & whole Kingdom, when contrary to their whole some advices the ingagement went on, they medled not to oppose [Page 58]the act of State further then to declare their judgement of its unlawfulnesse, according to the duty of faithfull watch­men Ezek. 33. It is very false that the Church has chased any man out of the country, or excommunicated any for fol­lowing that engagement, or have put any man to sack­cloath for it, unto his day. Neither did ever any man call the freedome of the late Parliament in question, how unsa­tisfied soever many were with its proceedings.

When the Warner heapes up so many untruths in a few lines, in things done but yesterday before the eyes of thou­sands, we shall not wonder of his venturing to lye consident­ly in things past long before any now living were borne: but there are a generation of men who are bold to speake what makes for their end upon the hope that few wil be at the pains, to bring back what hes flowne from their teeth to the touch­stone of any solide tryall.

IN the tenth chapter the Warner undertakes to shew the antipathy of Presbyteries to Parliaments; albeit there bee no greater harmony possible betwixt any two bodies, then betwixt a generall assembly and Parliament, a Presbyterie and an inferior civill court, if either the constitution or end or dayly practise of these judicatories be looked upon: but the praelaticall learning is of so high a flight, that it dare un­dertake to prove any conclusion: yet these men are not the first, that have offered to force men to beleeve upon unan­swerable [Page 59]arguments though contrary to common sence and and reason that snow is black and the fire cold and the light dark. The eight desires of the Church about the ingage­ment were just and necessary.

For the proofe of his conclusion he brings backe yet a­gaine the late engagement: how often shall this insipide col­wort be set upon our table? Will the Warner never be filled with this unsavory dish? The first crime that here the War­ner marks in our Church against the late Parliament in the matter of the ingagement is, their paper of the eight desires: upon this he unpoureth out all his good pleasure, not willing to know that all these desires were drawne from the Church by the Parliaments owne messages, and that well neare all these desires were counted by the Parliament it self to be very just and necessary: Especially these two which the wise Warner pitches upon as most absurd for the first a security to religion from the King upon oath under his hand and seale: where the question among us was not for the thing it self, but only about the time, the order and some part of the matter of that security. And for the second, the quali­fication of the persons to be imployed, that all should be such who had given no just cause of Jealousy; no man did question, but all who were to have the managing of that warre should be free of all just causes of Jealousy, which could be made appeare not to halfe a dossen of Ministers, but to any competent judicatory according to the lawes of the Kingdome. The Warner has not been carefull to informe himselfe, where the knot of the difference lay, and so gives out his owne groundlesse conjectures for true Historicall narrations, which he might easily have helped by a more attentive reading of our publick declarations.

The second fault he finds with our Church is, that they proclaime in print their dissatisfaction with that ingagement as favourable to the malignant party, &c. Ans. The [Page 60]Warner knows not that it is one of the liberties of the Church of Scotland established by law and long custome to keep the people by publick declarations in their duty to God, It is one of the li­berties of the Church of Scot­land to publish declarati­ons. when men are like to draw them away to sin according to that of Esay. 8. v. 12.13. What in great humility piety and wise­dome was spoken to the world in the declaration of the Church concerning that undertaking, was visible enough for the time to any who were not peremptor to follow their owne wayes: and the lamentable event since has opened the eyes of many, who before would not see, to acknow­ledge their former errours: but if God should speake never so loud from Heaven, the Warner and his party will stoppe their eares: for they are men of such gallant Spirits, as scorne to submit either to God or men, but in a Romane constan­cy they will be ever the same though their counsels & wayes be found never so palpably pernicious.

The third thing the Warner layes to the charge of our Church is, The leavy was never offered to be stopped by the Church. that they retarded the leavies. Ans. In this also the Warner shewes his ignorance or malice: for how sore soever the Levy (as then stated & mannaged) was against the hearts of the Church, yet their opposition to it, was so cold-rife and small, that no complaint needs bee made of any retardment from them. So soone as the commanders thought it expedient, there was an Army gotten up so nu­merous and strong, that with the ordinary blessing of God was aboundantly able to have done all the professed ser­vice: but where the aversion of the hearts of the Church and the want of their prayers is superciliously contemned, The Church was not the cause of the ga­thering at Mauchlin Moore. what mervaile, that the strongest arme of flesh bee quickly bro­ken in peeces?

The fourth charge is most calumnious, that the Church gathered the country together in armes at Mauchline moor to oppose the expedition. Ans. No Church man was the [Page 61]cause of that meeting a number of yeomen being frighted from their houses, did flee away to that corner of the Land, that they might not be forced against their conscience to goe as souldiers to England: while their number did grow, and they did abide in a body for the security of their persons, up­on a sudden a part of the Army came upon them: some Mi­nisters being neare (by occasion of the communion at Mau­chlin the day before) were good instruments with the peo­ple to goe away in peace. And when the matter was tryed to the bottom by the most Eagle-eyed of the Parliament, no­thing could be found contrary to the Ministers protestation, that they were no wayes the cause of the peoples convening or fighting at Mauchlin.

The paralell that the Warner makes betwixt the generall assembly and Parliament is malicious in all its parts. The assem­bly is help­full and not hurt­full to the Parlia­ment. For the first, though the one Court be civill, and the other Spiritu­all, yet the Presbyterians lay the authority of both upon a divine fundation, that for conscience sake the Courts civil must be obeyed in all their Lawfull commands, alsewell as the assemblyes of the Church; God being the author of the politick order as well as the Ecclesiastick, and the revenger of the contempt of the one alswell as of the other. But what doth the Warner meane, to mock at Ministers for carrying themselves as the Ambassadors of Christ, for judging accor­ding to the rule of Scripture, for caring for life eternall? is he become so shamefullie impious, as to perswade Ministers to give over the care of life eternall, to lay aside the holy Scrip­ture, and deny their ambassage from Jesus Christ? behold what Spirit leads our praelats, while they jeere the World out of all Religion, and chase away Ministers from Christ, from Scripture, from eternall life.

Of the second part of the parallell, that people are more ready to obey their Ministers then their Magistrats what shall [Page 62]be made? all the power which Ministers have with the people is builded on their love to God and religion: how much so ever it is, a good Statseman will not envy it: for he knowes that God and conscience constraine Ministers to imploy all the power they have with the people to the good of the Ma­gistrat, as the deputy and servant of God for the peoples true good. The Warner heer understands best his owne meaning, while he scoffes at Ministers for their threatning of men with hells fire. Are our Praelats come to such open proclamations of their Atheisme, as to printe their desires to banish out of the hearts of people all feare not only of Church-censures, but even of hell it selfe? whither may not Satan drive at last the instruments of his Kingdome?

The third parte of the paralell consists of a number of unjust and false imputations before particularly refuted.

What he subjoines of the power of the generall Assembly to name Comittees to sit in the intervalls of Assemblies, The ap­pointment of comit­tees is a right of every court as well Ec­clesiastick as civil. it is but a poore charge: is it not the dayly practise of the Parliaments of Scotland to nominat their Comittees of State for the intervalls of Parliament? Is it not ane inhaerent right to every Court to name some of their number to cognosce upon things within their owne spheare at what ever times the court it selfe finds expedient; how ever the judicatories of the Church by the lawes of the Kingdome being authorized to meet when themselves think fit both ordinarly and pro re nata, their power of appointing Comittees for their owne affaires was never questioned: and truely these Comittees in the times of our late troubles when many were lying in waite to disturbe both Church and State, have been for­ced to meet oftner then otherwise any of their members did desire: whose diversion from their particular charges (though for attendance on the publick) is joyned with so great fashery and expence, that with all their heart they could [Page 63]be glade to decline it, if feare of detriment to the Church made not these meetings very necessary.

THE bounds and compasse of the Warners rage against the Presbytery is very large; There is no rigour at all in the Pres­bytery. not being content to have incensed the King and Parliament against it, he comes downe to the body of the people, and will have them beleeve the speciall enimity of the Scots discipline against them, first because it inflicts Church censures upon every one for the smallest faults. Ans. The faults which the Warner men­tions may well be ane occasion of a private advice in the eare, but that any of them did ever procure the smallest censure of the Church, it is a great untruth: no man who knowes us will complaine of our rigour, heerwe wish we were able to refute upon as good reason the charge of our slaknes in the mouth of sectaries as we are that of our strictnes in the mouth of Erastianes. Wee would know of the Warner, what are these Sabbath recreations, which he saith are void of scandal, and consistent with the dutyes of the day; are they not the stage playes and the other honest pastimes, wherewith his friends were wonte to sanctify the Lords day, as no more a Sabbath then any other day in the yeare, and much lesse then diverse popish festivalls? An Aposteme in the lowest gutt will shew it selfe by the unsavory vapours, which now and then are eructat from it. That ever in Scotland there was one word of debate about starch and cuffs, is more then the Warner can prove.

The second oppression, Crimes till repen­ted of ought to keep from the holy table. whereby the Presbytery trods the people under foot is a rare cruelty; that persons, for grievous crimes whereof the Magistrate takes notice, are called to Ecclesiastick repentance. Will the Doctor in his fury a­gainst us, run out upon all his owne friends for no appea­rance of a fault? Will either the English or popish praelats admit murtherers, whoores or theeves to the holy table without any signes of repentance? Is not the greatest crime the ground of the greatest scandal? Shall small scandals be purged away by repentance, and the greatest be totally past by? The Doctor heer may know his owne meaning but others will confesse their ignorance of his minde.

The third grievance he would have the people conceive against the Presbytery is, Excom­munica­tion in Scotland is not in­jurious to any. the rigour of their excommunica­tion; in this also the Warner seemes to know little of the Scots way, let excommunication be so seveer in Scotland as is possible, yet the hurt of it is but small: it is so rare an acci­dent, men may live long in Scotland, and al their life never see that censure execute; I have lived in one of the greatest Ci­ties of that land and for fourty seven yeares even from my birth to this day, that censure to my knowledge or hearing was never execute there in my dayes but twice; first upon ane obstinat and very profaine Papist; and nixt on some hor­rible scandalous praelats. Againe when any is excommuni­cated by the Church, we goe no further with them then Pauls commande: 2. Thes. 3.14. only they who are not tyed to them by naturall bonds, abstaine from familiar and unne­cessary conversation, to bring them by the sence of this shame to repentance for their fins.

Thirdly the civil inconvenientes which followe that cen­sure come along from the State and the acts of Parliament, for which the Church ought not to be challenged; especially by praelats who wont to allow their officials to excommuni­cat [Page 65]whole incorporations of people for a small debt of mony, and to presse the contemners of that frivolous and profane sentence, with all the civil inconvenientes they could. Fourth­ly what ever be the laws in Scotland against them who con­tinues long in the contempt of Excommunication, (which are not inflicted but for great sins and after a long processe) yet certainly their execution is very farre from all cruelty, as they who know the proceedings of that land, will beare witnes.

What he objects about fugitives; it is true, when a pro­ces is begunne, a fugitive may have it concluded, and sent after him; but we count not that man a fugitive from disci­pline or contumacious as the Warner quarrels us, who upon just feare to hazard his life does not compear.

PRaelaticall malice is exorbitant beyond the bounds of all shew of moderation: The War­ners out­rage a­gainst the Presbytery was it not enough to have calum­niat the Presbytery to Kings, Princes and Soveraignes, to Parliaments and all Courts of Justice, to people and all particular persons, but yet a new chapter must be made to shew in it the hurtfullnes of Presbytery to all orders of men: wee must have patience to stand a little in the unsavoury aire of this vomite also. The Prae­lats were constant oppressors: of the No­bility and gentry.

Unto the nobility and gentry the Presbitery must be hurt­full, because it subjecteth them to the censures of a raw hea­dy novice and a few ignorant artificers. Ans. Its good that our praelats are now turned pleaders against the oppression [Page 66]of the Nobility and gentry: its not long since the praelatical clergy were accustomed to set their soule feet on the necks of the greatest peeres of the three Kingdomes with to high a pride and pressure; that to shake of their yock, no suffering, no hazard has been refused by the best of the Nobility and gentry of Britaine: but natures and principles are so easy to be changed, that no man now needs feare any more oppres­sion from the praelats, though they were set downe again and wel warned in their repaired throns.

But to the challenge we answer, The way of the Sco­tes Pres­bytery is incompa­rably bet­ter then that of the English E­piscopacy. that the meanest Elder­ship of a small Congregation in Scotland consists of the Pa­stor, and a dozen (at least) of the most wise pious and lear­ned that are to be found in the whole flock; which yet the Warner heer makes to be judges but of the common people in matters of smallest moment. But for the classicall Pres­bytery, to which he referres the Ecclesiasticall causes of the Nobility and gentry, and before whom indeed every Church processe of any considerable weight or difficulty does come, though it concerne the persons of the meanest of the people, this Presbytery does consist ordinarly of fifeteen Ministers (at least) and fifeteen of the most qualified noblemen, gent­lemen and Burgesses, which the circuit of fifteen parishes can affoord, these (I hope) may make up a judicatory of a great deale more worth then any officiall court, which con­sists but of one judge, a petty mercenary lawyer, to whose care alone the whole Ecclesiastick jurisdiction over all the Nobility and gentry of diverse shyres is committed, and that without appeale as the Warner has told us, except it be to a Court of delegats; a miserable releefe that all the Nobili­ty, gentry and Commons of a Kingdome, who are op­pressed by Episcopall officials, have no other remedie but to goe attende a Committee of two or three civilians at London deputed for the discussing of such appeales.

The Presbyterian course is much more ready, solide and equitable: if any grievance arise from the sentence of a Pres­bytery, a Synode twice a yeare doth sit in the bounds, and attends for a week, or if need be, longer, to determine all appeales, and redresse all grievances: now the Synode does consist of all the Ministers within the bounds, which ordi­narly are of diverse whole shyres as that of Glasgow, of the upper and neather ward of Clidsedaile, Baerranfrow, Lennox, Kile, Carrick and Cunninghame; also beside Ministers, the constant members who have decisive voice in Synodes, are the chiefe Noblemen, Gentlemen and Burgesses of all these shyres, among whom their be such parts for judgment as are not to be found nor expected in any inferiour civil Court of the Kingdom, yet if it fall out so, that any party be grieved with the sentence of a Synode, there is then a farther and fi­nall appeale in a Generall assembly, which consists of as many Burgesses and more Gentlemen from every shire of the Kingdome then come to any Parliament: beside the prime Nobility and choisest Ministry of the land; having the Kings Majestie in persone, or in his absence, his high Commissioner to be their praesident. This meeting yeerly (or oftner, if need be) sits ordinarly a month; and if they think fit, longer: the number, the wisedome, the eminency of the members of this Court is so great, that beside the unjustice, it were a very needlesse labour to appeal from it to the Parlia­ment, for (as we have said) the King or his high Commissio­ner, sits in both meetings albeit in a differēt capacity: the num­ber and qualification of knights and Burgesses is ever large as great in the assembly as in the Parliament: only the difference is, that in the Parliament all the Nobility in the Kingdom sit without any election and by virtue of their birth, but in the Assembly only who for age, wisedome and piety are cho­sen by the Presbyteries as fittest to judge in Ecclesiastick af­fairs: [Page 68]but to make up this oddes of the absence of some Noble­men, the Assembly is alwayes adorned with above ane hun­dred of the choifest Pastors of the whole land, none whereof may sit in Parliament: nothing that can conciliate authority to a Court, or can be found in the Nation, is wanting to the generall assembly; how basely so ever our praelats are pleased to trample upon it.

The second alledged hurt which the Nobility have from the Presbytery, All questi­ons about patrona­ges in Scotland are now ended. is the losse of their patronages by congre­gations electing their Pastors. Ans. Howsoever the judg­ment of our Church about patronages is no other then that of the Reformed divines abroad, yet have our Presbyteries alwayes with patience endured patrons to present unto va­cant Churches, till the Parliament now at last hath taken away that grievance.

The Nobilities last hurt by the Presbytry is their losse of all their impropriations and Abey-lands. The pos­sessors of Church lands were ever feared for Bishops, but never for the Presby­tery. Ans. How Sy­cophantick an accusation is this? for who knowes not, how farre the whole generation of the praelaticke faction doe ex­ceed the highest of the Presbyterians in zeale against that which they call Sacriledge? never any of the Presbyterians did attempt either by violence, or a course of Law, to put out any of the Nobility or gentry from their possessions of the Church-lands, but very lately the threats and vigorous activity of the praelats, and their followers were so vehement in this kinde, that all the Nobility and gentry who had any interest, were wackned (to purpose) to take heed of their rights. In the last Parliament of Scotland when the power of the Church was as great as they expect to see it againe, though they obtained the abolition of patronages, yet were the possessors of the Church-lands and tythes so little har­med that their rights therto were more cleerly and strongly confirmed, then by any praeceding Parliament.

The fourth hurt is that every ordinary Presbyter wil make himselfe a Noblemans fellow. Ans. No where in the World does gracious Ministers (though meane borne men) receive more respect from the Nobility then in Scotland: neither any where does the Nobility and gentry receive more duely their honour then from the Ministers there. That insolent speach fathered on Mr. Robert Bruce is demonstrat to be a fabulous calumny in the historicall vindication.

However the Warner may know that in all Europe where Bishops have place, it hes ever, (at least these 800 yeares) been their nature to trample under foot the highest of the Nobility. As the Pope must be above the Emperour, so a little Cardinal Bellarmin can tell to King Iames, that hee may well be counted a companion of any Ilander King: were the Bishops in Scotland ever content, till they got in Parlia­ment the right hand and the nearest seates to the throne, and the doore of the greatest Earles, Marquesses and duks? was it not Episcopacy, that did advance poore and capricious pedants to strive for the whyte staves & great Seales of both Kingdomes, with the prime Nobility; and often overcome them in that strife? In Scotland I know, and the Warner will assure for England and Ireland, that the basest borne of his brethren hes ruff led it in the secreet counsel, in the roy­all Exchequer, in the highest courts of justice, with the greatest Lords of the Land: its not so long, that yet it can be forgotten, The prae­lats conti­nue to an­null the being of al the refor­med Chur­ches for their want of Episco­pacy. since a Bishop of Galloway had the modesty to give unto a Marquise of Argile, tanta mont to a broadly in his face at the counsel table. The Warner shall doe well to reckon no more with Presbyters for braving of Noble­men.

The nixt hee will have to bee wronged by the Presbytery are the orthodoxe clergy. Ans. All the Presbyterians to him (it seemes) are heterodoxe; Episcopacy is so necessary [Page 70]a truth that who denies it, must be stamped as for a grievous errour with the character of heterodox. The following words cleere this to be his mind, they losse (saith hee) the confortable assurance of undoubted succession by Episcopall or­dination: what sence can be made of these words, but that all Ministers who are not ordained by Bishops, must lie un­der the confortlesse uncertainty of any lawfull succession in their ministeriall charge, for want of this succession through the lineall descent of Bishops from the Apostles; at least for want of ordination by the hands of Bishops, as if unto them only the power of mission and ordination to the Ministry were committed by Christ: because of this defect the Presbyterian Ministers must not only want the confort of an assured and undoubted calling to the Ministry, but may very well know and be assured that their calling and Ministry is null. The words immediatly following are scraped out after their printing: for what cause the author lest knoweth: but the purpose in hand makes it proba­ble, that the deletted words did expresse more of his mind, then it was safe in this time and place to speake out: it was the late doctrine of Doctor Brambles prime friends, that the want of Episcopall ordination did not only annull the calling of all the Ministers of France, Holland, Zwit-zerland, and Germany, but also did hinder all these societies to be true Churches: for that popular Sophisme of the Jesuits our prae­lats did greedily swallow; where are no true Sacraments, there is no true Church; and where is no true Ministry, there are no true Sacraments; and where no true ordination, there is no true ministry; and where no Bishops, there is no true ordination: and so in no reformed country but in England and Ireland where were true Bishops, is any true Church. When Episcopacy comes to this height of elevation, that the want of it must annuall the Ministry, yea null the Church and [Page 71]all the Reformed at one strock, is it any mervaill, that all of them doe concurre together for their own preservation, to abolish this insolent abaddon and destroyer? and notwith­standing all its ruine have yet no disconfort at all, nor any the least doubt of their most lawfull ordination by the hands of the Presbytry.

After all this was writen, is heer it stands, The Prae­lats are so baselie injurious to all the reformed Churches that their selfes are ashamed of it. another copie of the Warners book was brought to my hand wherin I found the deleted line stand printed in these distinct tearmes, and put it to a dangerous question whither it be within the payle of the Church, the deciphering of these words puts it beyond all peradventure that what I did conjecture of the Warner and his Brethrens minde, of the state of all the reformed Church­es, was no mis-take, but that they doe truely judge the want of Episcopall ordination to exclude all the Ministers of other Reformed Churches, and their flocks also from the lines of the true Church. This indeed is a most dangerous question: for it stricks at the root of all. If the Warner out of remorse of conscience had blotted out of his book that er­rour, the repentance had been commendable: But he hes left so much yet behind unscraped out, as does shew his minde to continue what it was, so that feare alone to pro­voke the reformed heere at this unseasonable time, seemes to have been the cause of deleting these too cleare expressi­ons of the praelaticall tenet against the very being and subsis­tence of all the Protestant Churches, which want Episcopa­cy, when these mē doe still stand upon the extreame pinacle of impudency and arrogance, denying the Reformed to be true Churches, and without scuple averring Rome as shee stands this day, under the counsel of Trent, to be a Church most true, wherin there is an easy way of salvation, from which all separation is needlesse, and with which a re-uni­on were much to be desired? That gracious faction this day [Page 72]is willing enough to perswade, or at least to rest content without any opposition that the King should of himselfe without and before a Parliament, (though contrary to ma­ny standing Lawes) grant under his hand and seale a full li­berty of Religion to the bloody Irish, and to put in their hands, both armes, Castles and prime Places of trust in the State; that the King should give assurance of his endeavour, to get all these ratified in the nixt Parliament of England, these men can heare with all moderation and patience: but behold their furious impatience, their whole art and indu­stry is wakned, when they heare of any appearance of the Kings inclination towards covenanting Protestants: night and day they beate in his Majesties head, that all the mis­chieves of the world does lurke in that miserable covenant, that death and any misfortune, that the ruine of all the King­domes ought much rather to bee imbraced by his Majestie, then that prodigious Monster, that very hell of the Cove­nant, because forsooth it doth oblige in plane tearmes the taker to endeavour (in his station) the abolition of their great Goddesse, praelacy.

The nixt hurt of Ministers from the Presbytry, The gene­rality of the Epis­copal cler­gy have ever been covered with igno­rance, beg­gery, and contempt. is, that by it they are brought to ignorance, contempt and beggery. Ans. Whither Episcopacy or Presbytry is the fittest instru­ment to avert these evills, let reason or experience teach men to judge. The Presbyteriall discipline doth oblige to a great deale of severer tryalls in all sort of learning requisite in a divine before ordination then doth the Episcopall: let either the rule or practise of Presbyterian and Episcopall or­dination be compared or the weekly Exercises and monthly disputations in Latine upon the controverted heads be look­ed upon which the Presbytry exacts of every Minister after his ordination all the dayes of his life: for experience let the French, Dutch and Scots divines who have been or yet are, [Page 73]be compared with the ordinary generation of the English Clergie, and it will be found, that the praelats have not great reason so superciliously to look downe with contempt upon their Brethrens learning. I hope, Cartwright, Whi­taker, Perkins, Reynolds, Parker, Ames, and other Pres­byterian English were inferior in learning to none of their opposits: some of the English Bishops has not wanted good store of learning, but the most of them (I beleeve) wilbe con­tent to leave of boasting in this subject, what does the Warner speake to us of ignorance, contempt and Beggery? does not all the world know, that albeit some few, scarce one of twenty, did brook good benefices, yea plurality of them whereby to live in splendor at Court, or where they listed in their non-residency, neverthelesse it hath been much com­plained, that the greatest parte of the priests, who had the cure of soules thorow all the Kingdome of England, were incomparably the most ignorant, beggerly and contemp­tible clergy, that ever have been seen in any of the reformed Churches? neither did we ever heare of any great study in the Praelats to remeed these evils, albeit some of them be pro­vident enough for their owne families. Doctor Bramble knowes who had the skill before they had sitten seven yeare in their charge to purchase above fifeteen hundred pounds a yeare for themselves and their heirs what somever.

The third evil which the Ptesbytery brings upon Minis­ters is that it makes them prat and pray nonsence everlast­ingly. Ans. The Prae­lats conti­nue to hate preaching and prayer but to ido­lize a po­pish ser­vice. It is indeed a great heartbrake unto igno­rant, lazy and unconsciencious Ministers to be put to the paines of preaching and prayer, when a read service was wont to be all their exercise: but we thought that all indiffe­rently ingenuous men had long agoe been put from such impudence. It was the late labour of the praelats by all their skill to disgrace preaching and praying without booke, to [Page 72] [...] [Page 73] [...] [Page 74]cry up the Liturgy as the only service of God, and to idolize it as a most heavenly and divine peece of write, which yet is nought but a transcript of the superstitious breviary and idolatrous missall of Rome. The Warner would doe well to consider and answer after seven yeares advisement Mr. Bailie his pararell of the service with the missall and Breviarie, be­fore hee presente the world with new paralels of the English liturgy, with the directories of the Reformed Churches. Is it so indeed, that all preaching and praying without book is but a pratting of non-sence everlastingly, why then con­tinues the King and many well minded men to be deceived by our Doctors, while they affirme that they are as much for preaching in their practise and opinion as the Presbyterians, and for prayer without book also, before and after sermon, and in many other occasions? it seemes these affirmations are nothing but grosse dissimulation in this time of their low­nesse and affliction, to decline the envy of people against them for their profane contempt of divine ordinances; for wee may see heere their tenet to remaine what it was, and themselves ready enough, when their season shall be fitter, to ring it out loud in the eares of the World, that for divine service people needs no more but the reading of the liturgy, Vide la­ [...]ium. cap. 7. that sermons on week dayes and Sundayes afternoon must all be laid aside, that on the Sabbath before noone Sermon is needlesse, and from the mouths of the most Preachers very noxious; that when some learned Schollars are pleased on some festivall dayes to have an oration, it would be short and and according to the Court paterne, without all Spirit and life for edification; but by all meanes it must bee provided, that no word of prayer either before or after be spoken, ex­cept only a bidding to pray, for many things even for the welfare of the soules departed; and all this alone in the words of the Lords prayer. If any shall dare to expresse the [Page 75]desires of his heart to God in privat or publick in any words of his own framing hee is a grosse Puritan, who is bold to offer to God his own nonsence rather then the auncient; and well advised prayers of the holy Church.

The Warner is heer also mistaken in his beleefe, that ever the Church of Scotland had any Liturgy, they had and have still some formes for helpe and direction, but no ty ever in any of them by law or practise: they doe not condemne the use of set formes for rules, yea nor for use in beginners, who are thereby endeavouring to attaine a readinesse to pray in their family out of their owne heart in the words which Gods spirit dytes to them; but for Ministers to suppresse their most confortable and usefull gift of prayer by tying their mouth unto such formes which themselves or others have composed wee count it a wrong to the giver, and to him who has re­ceived the gift, and to the gift, and to the Church for whose use that was bestowed.

In the nixt place the Warner makes the Presbytry injuri­ous to parents, Episcopall warrants for clan­destin mar­riages, rob Parents of their chil­dren. by marying their children contrary to their consent, and forcing them to give to the disobedient as large a portion as to any other of their obedient children, and that it is no mervail the Scots should doe these things who have stripped the King the father of their country of his just rights. Ans. By the Warners rule all the actions of a nation where a Presbytry lodges must be charged on the back of the Pres­bytry. II. The Parliament of Scotland denyes, that they have stripped the King of his just rights; while he was stirred up and keeped on by the praelaticall faction to courses de­structive to himselfe and all his people; after the shedding of much blood, before the exercise of all parts of his royall go­vernment, they only required for all satisfaction and secu­rity to religion and liberties, the grant of some few most e­quitable demands. The unhappy Praelats from the begin­ning [Page 76]of our troubles to this day finding our great demande to runne upon the abolition of their office, did ever presse his Majestie to deny us that satisfaction, and rather then Bishops should be laid aside they have concluded that the King himselfe, and all his family and all his three King­domes shall perish: yet with all patience the Scotes con­tinue to supplicat and to offer not only their Kingdome, but their lives and estats and all they have for his Majesties ser­vice upon the grant of their few and easy demands; but no misery either of King or people can overcome the desperat obstinacy of Praelaticall hearts.

As for parents consent to the mariage of their children, how tenderly it is provided for in Scotland it may be seen at length in the very place cited. It was the Bishops, who by their warrants for clandestine mariages, and dispensations with mariages without warrant have spoiled many parents of their deare children: with such abhominations the Pres­bytery was never acquainted; all that is alleadged out of that place of our discipline is, when a cruel parent or tutor abuses their authority over their children, and against all reason for their owne evill ends perversely will crosse their children in their lawfull and every way honest desires of mariage; that in that case the Magistrats and Ministers may be intreated by the grieved childe to deale with the unjust parent or tutor, that by their mediation reason may be done. I beleeve this advice is so full of equity, that no Church nor State in the world will complaine of it: but how ever it be, this case is so rare in Scotland that I professe, I never in my life did know, nor did heare of any child before my dayes, who did assay by the authoritative sentence of a Magistrate or Minister to force their parents consent to their marriage. As for the War­ners addition of the Ministers compelling parents to give portions to their children, that the Church of Scotland haths [Page 77]any such canon or practise its an impudent lie, but in the place alledged is a passage against the sparing of the life of adul­terers, contrary to the Law of God: and for the excom­munication of Adulterers, when by the negligence of the Magistrat their life is spared, this possibly may be the thorne in the side of some which makes them bite and spurne with the heele so furiously against the Authors and lovers of so severe a discipline.

The Presbyteries nixt injury is done to the Lawyers, Sy­nodes & other Ecclesiastick Courts revoke their Sentences. Ans. No such matter ever was attempted in Scotland; fre­quent prohibitions have been obtained by curtisan Bishops, against the highest civil judicatories in England, but that e­ver a Presbitry or Synode in Scotland did so much as assay to impede or repeale the proceedings of any the meanest ci­vil court, I did never heare it so much as alleaged by our ad­versaries.

The nixt injury is against all Masters, Serious ca­techising is no Episco­pal crime. and Mistresses of fa­milies, whom the Presbytery will have to be personally exa­mined in their knowledge once a yeare, and to be excom­municat, if grosly and wilfully ignorant. Ans. If it bee a crime for a Minister to call together parcels of his congre ga­tion to be instructed in the grounds of Religion, that ser­vants and children and (where ignorance is suspected,) others also may be tryed in their knowledge of the Catechisme; or if it bee a crime that in family-visitations oftener then once a yeare the conversation of every member of the Church may be looked upon; we confesse the Ministers of Scotland were guilty thereof, and so farre as we know the generality of the Episcopall faction may purge themselves by oath of any such imputation: for they had somewhat else to doe, then to be at the pains of instructing or trying the Spirituall State of every sheep in their flocks: we confesse likewise, that it is [Page 78]both our order and practise to keep off from the holy table, whom wee find groslly and wilfully ignorant: but that ever any for simple ignorance was excommunicat in Scotland, none who knowes us will affirme it.

The last whom he will have to be wronged by the Presby­tery are the common people, Church fessions are not high com­missiones. who must groane under a high commission in every parish, where ignorant governors rule all without Law, medling even in domesticall jarres be twixt man and wife, Master and Servant. Ans. This is but a gybe of revenge for the overthrow of their Tyrannous high Commission-Court, where they were wont to play the Rex at their pleasure above the highest subjects of the three King­doms, and would never give over that their insolent dome­neering court, till the King and Parliaments of both King­domes did agree to throw it down about their eares. The thing he jeares at, is the congregation all Eldership, a judi­catory which all the Reformed doe enjoy to their great con­fort as much as Scotland. They are farre from all arbitrary judications; their Lawes are the holy Scripture and acts of superior Church-judicatories, which rule so clearly the ca­ses of their cognisance, that rarely any difficulty remaines therein: or if it doe, immediatly by reference or appeal it is transmitted to the Classes or Synode. The judges in the lowest Eldership (as wee have said before) are a doszen at least, of the most able and pious who can bee hade in a whole congregation to joine with the Pastors one or more as they fall to be: but the Episcopall way is to have no disci­pline at all in any congregation: only where there is hope of a fyne, the Bishops officiall will summon before his owne learned and conscientious wisedome, who ever within the whole dioces have fallen into such a fault as hee pleaseth to take notice of: as for domestick infirmities, Presbyterians are most tender to medle therein; they come never before [Page 79]any judicatory, but both where the fault is great, and the scandal thereof flagrant, and broken out beyond the wals of the family.

These are the great injuries and hurts which the Church discipline has procured to all orders of men in the whole re­formed world, when Episcopacy has been such an innocent lambe, or rather so holy an angel upon earth, that no harme at all has ever come by it to any mortall creature: a misbe­leeving Jew will nothing misdoubt this so evident a truth.

THough in the former Chapters the Warner has shewed out more venome and gall then the bagge of any one mans stomack could have been supposed capable of, yet as if he were but beginning to vomite, in this last Chapter of the covenant a new flood of blacker poyson rusheth out of his pen. His undertaking is great, to demonstrat cleerly that the covenant is meerly void wicked and impious. His first clear demonstration is, that it was devised by strangers, im­posed by subjects, who wanted requisite power, and was extorted by just feare of unjust suffering, so that many that took it with their lips, never consented with their hearts. Ans. This cleer demonstration is but a poor and evill argu­ment: the Major, if it were put in forme, would hardly be granted, The Cove­nant was not disho­nourable to union. but I stand on the minor as weake and false for the covenant was not devised by strangers, the Commissioners of the Parliament of England together with the Commissio­ners of the Parliament and generall assembly of Scotland [Page 80]were the first and only framers thereof, but they who gave the life and being to it in England were the Lords and Com­mons assembled in Parliament at West-Minister by the Kings call, and at that time acknowledged by his Majestie without any question about the lawfullnes of their constitution and authority: these men and that Court were not I hope great strangers in England. The covenant was not imposed upon the King: but the Parliaments of both Kingdomes made it their earnest desire unto his Majestie, that he would be plea­sed to joyne with them in that Covenant, which they did judge to be a maine peece of their security for their Religion and liberties in all the three Kingdomes. As for their impo­sing of it upon the subjects of England, an ordinance of Par­liament (though the King consent not) by the uncontrover­ted lawes of England, is a sufficient authority to crave obe­dience of all the subjects of England, during the continuan­ce of that Parliament.

The last part of the demonstration is dishonorable indeed to the English Nation if it were true, it was no dishonour to England to joyne with their brethren of Scotland in a Cove­nant for mantainance of their Religion and Liberties: but for many of the English to sweare a covenant with their lippes, from which their heart did dissent and upon this diffe­rence of heart and mouth to plead the nullity of the oath, and to advance this plea so high as to a cleer demonstration, this is such a dishonour and dishonesty, that a greater can­not fall upon a man of reputed integrity, Especially when the ground of the lie and perjury is an evident falshood: for the covenant was not extorted from any flesh in England by feare of any unjust suffering; so far was it from this, that to this day it could never be obtained from the Parliament of England, to enjoyne that covenant upon any by the penul­ty of a two pence.

The Warners second demonstration is no better then the first, the ground of it is, Covenan­ters were not de­ceived, but under­stood what they sweare. that all oathes are void which have deceipt and errour of the substantiall conditions incident to them. This ground had need to be much better cautioned, then heere it is, before it can stand for a major of a clear de­monstration: but how is the minor proved? behold how much short the Warners proofes are of his great boastings. His first argument is grounded upon an evident falshood, that in the Covenant we sweare the lately devised discipline to be Christs institution. Ans. There is no such word nor any such matter in all the Covenant: was the Warners ha­tred so great against that peece of write, that being to make cleare demonstrations against it, hee would not so much as cast his eye upon that which he was to oppugne, Covenan­ters sweare to endeavour the reformation of England, ac­cording to the word of God and the best reformed Churches, but not a word of the Scotes Presbytery, nor of any thing in any Church even the best reformed, unlesse it be found ac­cording to the paterne of Gods holy word.

The second ground of his demonstrantion is also an evi­dent errour, The War­ner unwit­tingly comends the Cove­nant. that the covenant in hand is one and the same with that of King Iames. Ans. Such a fancy came never in the head of any man, I know; much lesse was it ever wri­ten or spoken by any: that the Covenant of King Iames in Scotland 1580, should bee one and the same with the Cove­nant of all the three Kingdomes 1643, whatsoever iden­tities may appeare in the matter and similitude, in the ends of both; but the grossest errors are solide enough grounds for praelaticall clear demonstrations. Yet heere the War­ner understands not how hee is cutting his own vines; his friends in Scotland will give him small thanks for at­tributing unto the nationall Covenant of Scotland, (that Covenant of King Iames) these three properties, that it [Page 80] [...] [Page 81] [...] [Page 82]was issued out by the Kings authority, that it was for the maintenance of the Lawes of the realme, and for the main­tenance of the established Religion: tyme brings adversa­ries to confesse of their own accord long denyed truthes. But the Characters, which the Warner inprints upon the solemne league and Covenant of the three Kingdomes, wee must bee pardoned to controvert, till he have taken some leasure to trie his wilde assertions. First that the league is against the authority of the King, secondly that it is against the Law; and thirdly that it is for the overthrow of Religion. The man cannot think, that any should beleeve his dictats of this kind without proofe, since the expresse words of that league do flatly contradict him in all these three positions.

His gentle memento, that Scotland, when they sued for aid from the crowne of England, had not the English dis­cipline obtruded upon their Church, might heer have been spaired: was not the English discipline and liturgy obtruded upon us by the praelats of England with all craft and force? did we ever obtrude our disciplin upon the English? but when they of their owne free and long deliberate choice had abolished Bishops and promised to set up Presbytery, so far as they had found it agreable to the word of God, were wee not in all reason obliged to encourage and assist them in so pious a work?

In the nixt words the Warner for all his great boasts fin­ding the weaknes of all the former grounds of his seconde demonstration, The King did not clame the sole and absolute possession of the mi­litia. he offers three new ones: which doubtles will doe the deid: for he avowes positively that his follo­wing grounds are demonstrative, yet whosoever shalbe pleased to grip them with never so soft an hand shall find them all to be but vanity and wind. The first, after a num­ber of prosyllogismes rests upon these two foundations, first that the right of the militia resides in the King alone: second­ly [Page 83]that by the covenant the militia is taken out of the Kings hands; and that every covenanter by his covenant disposes of himselfe and of his armes, against the right which the King hath into him. Ans. The Warner will have much adoe to prove this second so, that it may be a ground of a clear demonstration: but for the first that the power of the militia of England doth reside in the King alone, that the two houses of Parliament have nothing at all to doe with it, and that their taking of armes for the defence of the liberties of England or any other imaginable cause against any party countenanced by the Kings presence against his lawes must be altogether unlawfull; if his demonstration be no clearer, then the ground where upon he builds it, I am sure, it will not be visible to any of his oppofits: who are not like to be convinced of open rebellion by his naked assertion, upon which alone he layes this his mighty ground. Beleeve it, he had need to assay its releefe with some colour of ane argu­ment; for none of his owne friends will now take it of his hand for ane indemonstrable principle, since the King for a long time was willing to acknowledge the Parliaments jointe interest in the militia, yea to put the whole militia in their hands alone for a good number of yeares to come: so farre was his Majestie from the thoughts, that the Parlia­ments medling with a parte of the militia, in the time of e­vident dangers, should be so certainly and clearly the crime of rebellion.

The Warners second demonstrative ground wee admit without question in the major, that where the matter is evi­dently unlawfull, the oath is not binding; but the applica­tion of this in the minor is very false. All that hee brings to make it appeare to be true, is that the King is the supreame Legislator, that it is unlawfull for the subjects of England to change any thing established by Law, especially to the [Page 84]prejudice of the Praelats without their own consent, they being a third order of the Kingdom; otherwise it would be a harder measure then the Friers and Abbots received from Henry the eight. The change of lawes in England ordinarly beginne by the two houses without the King. Ans. May the Warner be pleased to con­sider how farre his dictats heere are from all reason, much more from evident demonstrations. That the burden of Bi­shops and ceremonies was become so heavy to all the three Kingdomes, that there was reason to endeavour their lay­ing aside, he does not offer to dispute; but all his complanit runnes against the manner of their removall: this (say I) was done in no other then the ordinary and high path-way, whereby all burdensome Lawes and customes use to be re­moved. Doth not the Houses of Parliament first begin with their ordinance before the Kings consent be sought to a Law? is not an ordinance of the Lords and Commons a good war­rant to change a former Law during the sitting of the Parlia­ment? The Lawes and customes of England permit not the King by his dissent to stoppe that change. The King did really consent to the aboli­tion of Bishops. I grant for the tur­ning an ordinance to a standing Law, the Kings consent is required, but with what qualifications and exceptions wee need not heere to debate, since his Majesties consent to the present case of abolishing Bishops was obtained well neere as farre as was desired; and what is yet lacking, wee are in a faire way to obtaine it: for the Kings Majestie long agoe did agree to the rooting out of Episcopacy in Scotland, he was willing also in England and Ireland to put them out of the Parliament, and all civil courts, and to divest them of all civil power, and to joyne with them Presbyteries for or­dination and spirituall jurisdiction; yea to abolish them to­tally name and thing, not only for three yeares but ever till he and his Parliament should agree upon some setled order for the Church, was not this Tantamont to a perpetuall abo­lition for all and every one in both houses having abjured E­piscopacy [Page 85]by solemne oath and Covenant, the Parliament was in no hazard of agreing with the King to re-erect the fallen chaires of the Bishops: so there remained no other, but that either his Majestie should come over to their judge­ment, or by his not agreing with them, yet really to agree with them in the perpetuall abolition of Episcopacy, since the concession was for the laying Bishops aside ever, till hee and his houses had agreed upon a settled order for the Church. If this be not a full and formall enough consent to the ordinance of changing the former Lawes anent praelat [...], his Majestie, who now is, easily may and readily would supply all such defects: if some of the faction did not con­tinually, for their own evill interests, whisper in his eares pernicious counsel, as our Warner in this place also doeth by frighting the King in conscience from any such consent, for this end he casts out a discourse, the sinshews whereof are in these three Episcopall maximes. The Prae­lats would flatter the King into a Tyran­ny. First that the legislative power is sollie in the King, that is according to his Brethrens Cōmentary, that the Parliament is but the Kings great coun­sel of free choyce, without or against whose votes hee may make or unmake what Lawes he thinks expedient; but for them to make any ordinance for changing without his con­sent of any thing that has been, or instituting any new thing, or for them to defend this their legall right and custome (time out of mind) against the armes of the Malignant party, no [...] may deny it to be plaine rebellion.

II. The prae­lats takes to them­selves a negative voice in Parlia­ment. That the King and Parliament both together cannot make a Law, to the praejudice of Bishops without their own consent, they being the third order of the Kingdome: for albeit it be sacriledge in the Lords and Commons, to clame any the smallest share of the legislative power, (this in them were to pyck the chiefest jewel out of the Kings Crowne) yet this must be the due priviledge of the Bishops, they must [Page 84] [...] [Page 85] [...] [Page 86]be the third order of the Kingdome, yea the first and most high of the three, far above the other two temporall States of Lords and Commons; their share in the Legislative pow­er must be so great, that neither King nor Parliament can passe any Law without their consent, so that according to their humble protestation, all the Lawes and acts, which have been made by King and Parliament, since they were expelled the house of Lords, are cleerly voide and null.

That the King and Parliament in divesting Bishops of their temporall honour and estats, The Prae­lats grieve that Monks and Friers, the Pope and Car­dinals were easten out of England by Henry the eight. in abolishing their places in the Church, doe sin more against conscience then did Henry the eight and his Parliament, when they put down the Abbots and the Fryers. Wee must beleeve that Henry the eight his abolishing the order of Monks was one of the acts of his greatest Tyranny and greed: wee must not doubt, but according to Law and reason, Abbots and priours ought to have kept still their vote in Parliament, that the Mona­steryes and Nunryes should have stood in their integrity, that the King and Parliament did wrong in casting them down, and that now they ought in conscience to be set up againe, yea that Henry the eight against all reason and conscience did renounce his due obedience to the Pope, the Patriarch of the West; the first Bishop of the universe, to whom the superinspection and government of the whole Catholick Church in all reason doth belong. Though all this be heere glaunced at by the Warner, and elsewhere [...] prove it to be the declared mind of his Brethren, yet we must be pardoned not to accept them as undenyable principles of cleare demonstrations. [...] supremacy of Kings is not pre­judged by the Cove­nant.

The last ground of the Doctors demonstration is, that the covenant is ane oath to set up the Presbyterian govern­ment in England at it is in Scotland and that this is contrary to the oath of Supremacy; for the oath of Supremacy makes [Page 87]the King the only supreame head and governour of the Church of England, that is, the civil head to see that every man doe his duty in his calling; also it gives the King a su­preame power over all persons in all causes: but the Presby­tery is a politicall papacie, acknowledging no governours but only the Presbyters: it gives the King power over all per­sons as subjects, but none at all in Ecclesiastick causes. Ans. Is there in all this reasoning any thing sound? First what article of the covenant beares the setting up of the Presbyterian government in England as it is in Scotland? II. If the oath of supremacy import no more then what the Warners expresse words are here, that the King is a civil head, to see every man doe his duty in his calling, let him be assured that no Presbyterian in Scotland was ever con­trary to that supremacy. III. That the Presbytery is a pa­pacy, and that a politicall one, the Warner knowes it ought not to be graunted upon his bare word. IV. That in Scot­land no other governors are acknowledged then Presbyters, himselfe contradicts in the very nixt words, where he tells that the Scots Presbytery ascribes to the King a power over all persons as subjects. V. That any Presbyterian in Scotland makes it sacriledge to give the King any power at all in any Ecclesiastick cause; it is a senselesse untruth.

The Warners arguments are not more idle and weake, The War­ners inso­lent vanity. then his triumphing upon them is insolent: for he concludes from these wise and strong demonstrations, that the poor covenant is apparently deceitfull, unvalide, impious, re­bellious, and what not? yea that all the learned divines in Europe wil conclude it so, & that all the covenanters them­selfes who have any ingenuity, must grant this much; and that no knowing English man can deny it, but his owne conscience will give him thely. Ans. If the Warner with any seriousnesse hath weighed this part of his owne write, and [Page 88]if his mind goe along with his pen, I may without great presumption pronounce his judgment to be none of the most solide.

His following vapours being full of aire we let them eva­nish, only while he mentioneth our charging the King with intentions of changing the Religion and government, we answer, that we have been most willing alwayes to ascribe to the King good intentions but withall we have long avo­wed that the praelaticall party have gone beyond intentions to manifest by printed declarations and publick actions their former designe to bring Tiranny upon the States, and po­pery upon the Churches of all the three Kingdomes: and that this very write of the Warners makes it evident, that this same minde yet remaines within them without the least shew of repentance. So long as the conscience of the court is mannaged by men of such principles, it is not possible to free the hearts of the most understanding, from a great deale of Jealousy and feare to have Religion and lawes still over­turned by that factione.

But the Warner commands us, The cove­nant is not for propa­gating of Religion by armes. to speake to his Dilemma, whither we think it lawfull or unlawfull for subjects to take armes against their prince meerly for Religion. We answer, that the reasons whereby he thinks to conclude against us, on both sides are very poor, if we shall say, it is unlawfull; then he makes us to condemne our selfes, because our co­venant testifies to the world, that we have taken up armes meerly to alter Religion, and that we beare no alleadgance to our King but in order to Religion, which in plaine tear­mes is to our owne humours and conceits. Ans. There be many untruthes here in few words, first how much reality and truth the Warner and some of his fellowes beleeves to be in that thing which they call Religion, their owne heart knowes; but it can be no great charity in him to make the [Page 89]Religion of all covenanters to be nothing but their owne humours and conceits. Secondly it is not true that Covenan­ters beare no alleadgance to the King but only in order to religion. III. The Parliament of England denied that they took up armes against their King, though to defend them­selves against the popish praelaticall and malignant faction, who were about to destroy them with armes. IV. They have declared, that their purpose was not at all, to alter Religion but to purge it from the corruptions of Bishops and ceremonies that to long had been noxious unto them. V. They have oft professed that their armes were taken for the defence of their just liberties, whereof the preservation and reformation of Religion was but one.

The other horne of his Dilemma is as blunt in pushing as the former. If we make it lawfull (saith he) to take up armes for Religion, we then justify the independents and Ana­baptists; wee make way for any that will plant what ever they apprehend to be true Religion by force, and to cut the throat of all Magistrats, who are in a contrary opinion to them; that it is a ridiculous partiality for any to priviledge their own Religion as truth and Gospell. Ans. The War­ners black Atheisme. Whether will these men goe at last, the strength of this reason is blak atheisme, that their is no realty of truth in any Religion, that no man may be permitted to take his Religion for any thing more but his owne apprehension, which without ridi­culous folly he must not praeferre to any other mans appre­hension of a contrary Religion: this is much worse then the pagane Scepticisme, which turned all reality of truth into a meer apprehension of truth, wherein their was no certainty at all: this not only turnes the most certaine truths, even these divine ones of Religion, into meer uncertaine concep­tions; but which is worse, it wil have the most orthodoxe beleever so to think, speake and act, as if the opinions of [Page 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [Page 90]Independents, Anabaptists, Turks, Jews, Pagans or grosse Atheists were as good, true and solide as the beleefe of Moyses or Paul, were of the truths revealed to them from heaven. Secondly we say that subjects defence of their Religion and liberties established by Law, against the violent usurpation of Papists, Praelats or Malignants, is not the planting of Religi­on by arms; much lesse is it the cutting of the throats of al Ma­gistrats who differ in any point of Religion. The Prae­lats con­demne the defensive armes of the Dutch & Frensh Prote­stants. III. In the judgement of the praelaticall party, the defensive armes of the Protestants in France, Holland, and Germany, must be als much condemned as the offensive armes of the Anabap­tists in Munster, or of the sectaries this day in England. Can these men dreame that the World for their pleasure will so farre divest themselves of all Religion and reason, as to take from their hands so brutish and Atheisticall maximes.

The Prae­lats decline the judge­ment of counsels. He concluds with a wish of a generall counsel, at least of all protestant Churches for to condemne all broatchers of seditious principles. Ans. All true covenanters goe before him in that desire, being confident that he and his fellowes as they have declined al ready the most solemne assemblies of their owne countries, upon assurance of their condemna­tion; so their tergiversation would be als great, if they were to answer to an oecumenick Synod. The Prae­lats over­throw the foundatiōs of Prote­stant Re­ligion. What (I pray) would the Warner say in a counsel of protestants for the practise of his party pointed at in his last words? I meane their purging the Pope of Antichristianisme, of purpose to make way for a recon­ciliation, yea for a returne to Rome, as this day it lyes under the wings of the Pope and Cardinals. The Prae­lats are stil perempto­rie to de­stroy the King and all his Kingdoms if they may not be resto­red. Also what could they answer in a Christian counsel unto this charge, which is the drift of this whole Book, that they are so farre from any re­morse for all the blood and misery, which their wickednes (most) has brought on the former King and all his King­domes these eleven yeares, that rather then they had not [Page 91]the Covenant and generall assembly in Scotland destroyed as an Idoll and Antichrist, they wil chuse yet still to im­broyle all in new calamities? This King also and his whole Family, the remainder of the blood and Estats in all the three Kingdomes, must be hazarded for the sowing together of the torne mytres, and the reerecting of the fallen chayres of Praelats. If Bishops must lie still in their deserved ruines, they perseveer in their peremptory resolution, to have their burials sprinckled with the ashes of the royall Family and all the three Kingdomes.