WHile the Commissioners of the Church and King­dom of Scotland,The unseaso­nablenesse of D. Brambles writing. were on their way make their first addresses to his Majesty, 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 wisdom and charity of the Prelaticall party, to send out Doctor Bramble, to meet them with his Faire Warning. For what else? but to discourage them in in the very entry from tendering their propositions, and before they were ever heard, to stop his Maje­sties eares with grievous prejudice, against all that possibly they could speak; though the world sees that the onely apparent fountain of hope upon earth, for the recovery of the wofully confounded affaires of the King, is in the hands of that Anti-pre­laticall Nation: but it is the hope of these who love the welfare of the KING and the people, of the Churches and King­domes of Britain, that the hand of God which hath broken all the former devices of the Prelats, shall crush this their engine also.

Our warner undertaketh to oppugne the Scots discipline in a way of his own, none of the most rationall,The irationall way of the Warners wri­ting. He does not so much as pretend to state a question, nor in his whole Book to bring a­gainst any main position of his opposites, either Scripture, Father or reason, nor so much as assay to answer any one of their argu­ments against Episcopacy; only he culs out some of their by-te­nets, belonging little or nothing to the main questions, and from them takes occasion to gather together in a heap all the calum­nies which of old, or of late their known enemies out of the forge of their malice and fraud, did obtrude on the credulity of simple people: also some decorted passages from the books of their [Page 2] friends, to bring the way of that Church into detestation with­out any just reason.

The most of his stuffe is borrowed and [...]ong ago con­futed.These practises in our Warner are the less pardonable, that though he knows the chief of his allegations, to bee but borrow­ed from his late much beloved Comrades Master Corbet in his Lysimachus Nicanor, and Master Maxwel in his Issachart Burden, yet he was neither deterred by the strange punishments, which God from heaven inflicted visibly on both these Calumniators 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 design to dissemble here in Holland, that ever he heard of such Books as Lysimachus Nicanor, & Issachars Burden, much lesse of Master Baylies Answer to both, Printed some years agoe at London, Edenburg and Amsterdam, without a rejoynder from any of that faction to this day.

The contume­lions bitternes of the Warners spirit.However let our Warner be heard. In the very first page of his first chapter, we may tast the sweetnesse of his meek Spirit: at the very entry, he concludeth but without any pretence to an argu­ment there or else where, the discipline of the Church of Scotland to be their own invention, whereon they dote, the Diana, which them­selves have canonized, their own dreams, the counterfeit image which they faine hath fallen down from Jupiter, which they so much adore, the very quintessence of refined Popery, not only most injurious to the civil Magistrate, most oppressive to the Subject, most pernicious to both; but also incensistent with all forms of civil Government, destructive to all sorts of Policy, a rack to the conscience, the heaviest pressure that can fall on a people. So much truth and sobernesse doth the Warner breath out in his very first page.

Though he had no regard at all to the cleer passages of Holy Scripture, whereupon the Scots do build their Anti-Episcopall tenets; nor any reference to the harmony of the reformed Churches, which unanimously joyn with the Scots in the main of their Discipline, especially in that which the Doctor hates most therein, the rejection of Episcopacy: yet methinks some little re­spect might have appeared in the man to the Authority of the Magistrate, and civill Laws, which are much more ingeminated by [Page 3] this worthy Divine over all his book, then the holy Scriptures.

Can be so soon forget that the whole discipline of the Church of Scotland, as it is there taught and practised,The Warner stricks at the Scots 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 civill Law? the Warner may well be grieved, but hardly can he be ignorant, that the Kings Majesty at this day does not at all question the justice of these sanctions: what ever therefore be the Doctors thoughts, yet so long as he pretends to keep upon his face the mask of loyalty, he must be content to eat his former words, yea, to burn his whole book: otherwise he layes against his own professions, a slander upon the King, and His Royal Father, of great ignorance, or huge injustice, the one having established, the other offring to establish by their civil laws, a Church Discipline for the whole Nation of Scotland, which truly is the quintessence of Popery, pernicious and destru­ctive to all formes of civil Government, and the heaviest pres­sures that can fall upon a people.

All the cause of of this choler which the Warner is pleased to speak out, is the attempt of the Scots,In the thres­shold he stum­bles on the Kings consci­ence. to obtrude their Disci­pline upon the King, contrary to the dictats of his own consci­ence, and to compell forraign Churches to embrace the same. Ans. Is it not presumption in our warner, so soon 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 somewhat in his care, what he heard in se­cret, he ought not to have proclaimed it without a warrant; but we do 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 laws, a discipline contrary to the dictats of his own conscience. This great stumble upon the Kings conscience in the first page, must be an ominous cespitation on the threshold.

The other imputation hath no just ground:The Scots ne­ver offered to impose any thing upon England. the Scots did never meddle, to impose upon forraign Churches, there is question of none, but the English; and the Scots 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 Parlia­ment of England, which after long deliberation, and much de­bate, unanimously concluded the Presbyterian. Discipline in all [Page 4] the parts therof, 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 the set­ting up of Presbyteries and the [...]ynods in England and Ireland. Can here the Scots be said to compell the English to dance after their pipe, when their own Assembly of Divines begins the song, when the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament of Eng­land concurre without a disordering opinion, when the King himself for perfecting the harmony offers, to add his voice for three whole years together?

In the remainder of the Chapter the warner layes upon the Scots three other crimes: First, That they count it Erastianisme to put the Government of the Church in the hand of the Magi­state. A [...]s. The Doctors knowledg is greater then to be ignorant, that all these goe under the name of tne Erastians,The elder pre­lats of Eng­la [...]d were E­rastians, and more, but the younger are as much anti-E­rastian as the most rigid of the Presbytery. who walking in Erastus ways of flattering the Magistrate, to the prejudice of the just rights of the Church, run yet out beyond Erastus perso­nall tenets; I doubt if that man went so far as the Doctor here and elsewhere, to make all Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction, but a part of the Magistrats civill power, which for its Execution, the su­preme Governours of any state may derive out of the fountain of their supremacy to what ever hands civill or ecclesiastick them­selves think fit to commit it. Let the Doctor adde to this much knowledge, but a little ingenuity, and he shall confesse, that his brethren the latter Bishops, who claim: Episcopacy by Divine Right, are all as much against this Erastian Cesaro-papisme, as any Presbyterian in Scotland. The Elder Bishops indeed of Eng­land and all the Laws there for Episcopacy seem to be point blank according to the Erastian errors: for they make the Crown and Royall Supremacy the originall, root and fountain whence all the iscipline of the Church did flow: as before the days of Henry the Eight it did out of the Popes headship of the Church [...]under Christ. However let the Doctor ingeniously speak out his sence, and I am deceived, if he shall not acknowledge, that how grosse an Erastian so ever himself and the eldest Bishops of England might have been, yet that long agoe, the most of his prelaticall friends have become as much opposite to Erastianisme, as the most rigid of the Presbyterians.

The other crime he layes to the charge of theThe Scots first and grea­test crime is irreconcilia­blenesse with Rome. Scots is, that they admit no latitude in Religion, but will have every opinion [Page 5] a fundamentall Article of Faith, and are averse from the reconci­alition of the Protestant Churches. Ans. If the Warner had found it seasonable to vent a little more of his true sense in this point, he had charged this great crime far more home upon the head of the Scots: for indeed, though they were ever far from denying the true degrees of importance, which do cleerly appear among the multitude of Christian truths, yet the great quarrel here of the Warner and his friends against them, is, that they spoyled the Canterburian designe of reconciling the Protestant Churches, not among themselves, but with the Church of Rome. When these good men were with all earnestness proclaiming the greatest con­troversies of Papists and Protestants to be upon no fundamen­tals, but onely disputable opinions, wherein belief 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 needless belief of problematick truths, in piety, charity and zeal, to make up the breach, and take away the schism, should be at all the pains to make the journey to Rome. While this de­signe is far advanced, and furiously driven on in all the three Kingdoms, and by none more in Ireland then the Bishop of Der­ry, behold, the rude and plain Blue-caps step in to the play, and mar all the Game: By no art, by no terrour can these be gotten along to such a reconciliation. This was the first and greatest crime of the Scots, which the Doctor here glances at, but is so wise and modest a man as not to bring it above board.

The last charge of the chapter is, that the ScotsThe Scots were ever anti-epis­copal. keep not still that respect to the Bishops of England, which they were wont of old in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign. Ans. In that Let­ter cited by the Warner from the general Assembly of Scotland, 1566. Sess. 3. there is no word of approbation to the Office of E­piscopacy; they speak 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 moderate Episcopacy, the troubling of the best and most zealous servants of Christ for idle and fruitless Ceremonies. How great a reverence the Church of [Page 6] Scotland at that time carried to Prelacy, may be seen in their Sup­plication to the secret Councel of Scotland, in that same Assembly the very day and Session wherein they writ the Letter in hand to the Bishops of England. The Arch-bishp 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 ancient 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 Councel in distinct terms, that they would ne­ver be more subject unto that usurped Tyranny, then they would be to the Divel himself. So reverend an opinion had the Church of Scotland at that time of Episcopal Jurisdiction.

The Prelates lately were found in the act of introdu­cing Popery in­to the Church, and Tyranny into the King­dom.But suppone that some fourscore yeers ago, the Scots, before they had tasted the fruits of Protestant Bishops, had judged them tolerable in England; yet since that time, by the long tract of mis­chiefs which constantly have accompanied the order of Prelacy, they have been put upon a more accurate inspection of its na­ture, and have found it not onely a needlesse, but a noxious and poysonous weed, necessary to be plucked up by the root, and cast over the hedge. Beside all its former malefices, it hath been deprehended of late in the very act of everting the founda­tions, both of Religion and Government, of bringing in Popery and Tyranny in the Churches and States of all the three King­doms, (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 ago with great wisdom it had been cast out of all the rest of the reformed Churches; had not the Scots 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 Scots Presbyte­ry with the overthrowing the Magistrates right in convocating of Synods. When he comes to prove this,No controver­sie in Scotland betwixt the King and the Church, about the convoca­ting of Sy­nods. he forgets his chal­lenge, and digresses from it to the Magistrates power of chusing Elders and making Ecclesiastick Laws, avowing that these things are done in Scotland by Ecclesiastick persons alone, without con­sent of the King or his Councel. Ans. It seems, our Warner is very ignorant of the way of the Scots Discipline: the ordinary and set meetings of all Assemblies both Nationall and provinciall 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 inherent power of the Church to meet for discipline, as well as for worship, the warner falls on it hereafter, we must there­fore passe it in this place.

What he means to speak of the Kings power in chusing Elders or making Ecclesiastick Laws, himself knows:The Warners Erastian and Tyrannick 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, civil or ecclesaistick, where the Laws did not expresly provide the nomination to be in the Crown. The making of Ec­clesiastick Laws in England as well as in as in Scotland, was ever with the Kings good contentment, referred to Ecclesiast [...]k Assem­blies: but the Warner seems to be in the mind of those his com­panions, who put the power of preaching, of administring the Sa­craments and Discipline, in the supreme Magistrate alone, and de­rives it out of him as the Head of the Church, to what Members he thinks expedient to communicate it: also that the Legislative Power, aswel in Ecclesiastick as civil Affairs, is the property of the King alone. That the Parliaments and general Assemblies are but his arbitrary Councels, the one for matters of State, the other [Page 8] 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 Kingdom both of Church and State are from him, as he gives a commission to whom he will to be a Sheriff or Justice of Peace, so he sends out whom he pleaseth to preach and celebrate Sacraments by vertue of his Regal mission The Warner and his Erastian friends may well extend the Royal Supremacy to this largenesse, but no King of Scotland was ever willing to accept of such a power though by erroneous flatterers, sometime obtruded upon [...]m, (se Canterburian self conviction, cap. ult.)

The Warners ignorant and false report of the S [...]ts pro­ceedings.The warner wil not leave this matter in generall, he discends to instance a number of particular incroachments of the Scots Pres­byters upon the Royal authority: we must dispence in all his dis­course with a small piccadillo in reasoning, he must be permitted to lay all the faults of the Presbyterians in Scotland upon the back of the Presbytery it self, and if the faylings of Officers were naturall to, and inseparable from their Office: mis-kennning this little mote of unconsequentiall argumenting, we will go 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-Bishop of S. Andrews for voting in Parliament according to the undoubted Laws of the land, yea 20 Presbyters did hold the generall Assembly at Aberdeen after it was discharged by the King. Ans. The VVar­ner possibly may know, yet certainly he doth not care what he writes in these things to which he is a meer stranger: the authentick Registers of the Church of Scotland convinces him here of falshood.Bishops were abolished and Presb teries set up in Scot­lan [...] with King Iames consent. His Majesty did write from Stirling to the Generall Assembly at Edenburg 1579. that they should cease 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 go to Striveling for conference with his Majestie upon that Sub­ject. What followeth thereupon? I. Immediately a Parlia­ment is called in October 1579, and in the first Act declares and grants jurisdiction unto the Kirk, which consists in the true [Page 9] 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 realm, and that there be no other jurisdiction Ecclesiastical acknowledged within this Kingdom then that which is within the samen Kirk, or that which flowes therefrom concerning the premisses. II. In A­pril 1580 Proclamation was made ex deliberatione Dominorum Consilii in name of the King, charging all Superintendents and Commissioners and Ministers serving at Kirks. To note the names of all the Subjects aswel men as women suspected to be Papists or—and to admonnish them—to give Confession of their faith acording to the form approved by the Parliament, and to submit unto the discipline of the true Kirk within a reasonable space—: and if they fail—that the Superintendents or Commissioners present a role or catalogue of their names un­to the King and Lords of secret Counsel where they shall be for the time between and the 15 day of July next to come, to the end that the acts of Parliament made against such persons may be exe­cute. III. The short confession was drawn up at the Kings com­mand, which was first subscribed by his royal hand, and an act of Secret Counsel commanding all subjects to subscribe the same; as it is to be seen by the Act printed with the Confession, wherein Hierarchie is abjured, that is (as hath been since declared by Nati­onal assemblies and Parliaments both called and held by the King) Episcopacy is abjured. IV. In the assemblies 1580 and 1581, that Confession of faith and the second book of discipline (after debating many praeceding yeares) were approved (except one chapter de diaconatu) by the Assembly, the Kings Commis­sioners being alwayes present, nor finde we anything opposed them by him: yea then at his Majesties special direction about fifty classical Presbyteries were set over Scotland which remain unto this day; was there here any attempt of the royal authority?

About that time some noble men had got the revenues of the Bi­shop-ricks 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 Bishoprick; and the revenues were gathered in the name of this titulare or tulchan Bishop, albeit he had but little part: e. g. [Page 10] Robert Montgomery Minister at Sterline was called Arch-Bishop of Glasgow: and so it can be instanced in other Bishop-ricks and Abbacies. Now this kind of praelats pretended no right to any part of the Episcopal 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 General assembly discharged them, being Ministers, to practise any more such illegal insolencies with this ordinance of the Church; after a little debate, King James at that time did shew his good satisfaction.

The innocen­cy of the much maligned as­sembly of A­berdeen.But the Warner here jumps over no less then twenty seven years time from the assembly at Edingburgh 1579. to that at Aberdeen 1605. then was King James by the English Bishops perswasion resolved to put down the general assemblies of Scotland, contra­ry to the Lawes and constant practice of that Church, from the first reformation to that day. The act of Parliament did bear that once at least a year the assembly should meet, and after their busi­ness was ended they should name time and place for the next as­sembly. When they had met in the yeer 1602, they were moved to adjurn without doing any thing for two whole years 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 to adjourn to the next year 1605, at Aberdeen; when that dyet came, his Majesties Commissioner offered him a Letter: To the end they might be an Assembly and so in a Capaci­ty to receive his Majesties Letter, with the Commissioners good pleasure they sate down, they named their Moderator and Clark, they received and read the Kings letter commanding them to rise, which they obeyed without any further action at all but naming a dyet for the next meeting according to the constant practise of Scotland; hereupon by the pernicious counsel of the Arch-Bishop Banckroft at London, the King was stirred up to bring sore trou­bles upon a number of gratious Ministers. This is the whole matter which to the Warner here is so tragick an insolence, that never a­ny Parliament durst attempt the like. See more of this in the Hi­storicall vindication.

Christmas and other su­perstitious fe­stivals abolish­ed in Scotland, both by Church and State.The next instance of our Presbiteryes usurpation upon the Ma­gistrate, is their abolition (before any statute of Parliament there­upon) of the Church festivals in their first book of discipline. Ans. [Page 11] Consider the griveousness of this crime; in the intervall of Parlia­ments, the great Councel of Scotland in the minority of the Prince entrusted by Parliament to rule the Kingdom, did charge the Church to give them in write their judgement about matters Ec­clesiasticall: in obedience to this charge the Church did present the councel with a write named since the first book of discipline a which the Lords of councel did approve, subscribe and ratifie by an Act of State: a part of the first head in that write was that Christmas, Epiphany, Purification, and other fond feasts of the Virgin Mary, as not warrented by the holy Scriptures, should be laid aside. Was it any encroachment upon the Magistrate for the Church to give this advice to the privy councel 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 Magistrate, 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 Kingdom. Ans. The Warner seems to have no more knowledge of the affaires of Scotland, then of Japan or Uto­pia; the Law he speaks of was not in being some years after 1580, however all the general assemblies of Scotland, are authorised by Act of Parliament, to determin finally without an appeal in all Eclesiastick affairs: in the named assembly Lundie the Kings Com­missioner did sit and consent in his Majesties name to that act of abolition, as in the next assembly 1581, the Kings Commissioner Caprinton did erect in his Majesties name the Presbyteries in all the Land; it is true, three years thereafter a wicked Courtier Captain James Stuart, in a shadow of a close and not summoned Parliament, did procure an act to abolish Presbyterie and erect Bishops; but for this and all other crimes that evil man was quickly rewarded by God before the world, in a terrible de­struction: these acts of this Parliament the very [...]t year were dis­claimed by the King, the Bishops were put down and the Presby­tery 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 [Page 12] shew his ignorance in the Scots story: what ever be the Episco­pall boasting of other Nations, yet it is evident that from the first entrance of Christian Religion into Scotland, Presbyters alone without Bishops for some hundred years did govern the Church: and after the reformation there was no Bishop in that Land, but in tittle and benefice till the year 1610; when Bancroft did con­secrate three Scots Ministers, all of them men of evil report; whom that violent Commissioner the Earl of Dunbar in the cor­rupt and nul assembly of Glasgow, got authorised in some part of a Bishops office; which part only and no more was ratified in a posterior Parliament. Superintendents are nowhere the same with Bishops, much less in Scotland, where for a time only til 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 second book of disci­pline why not at all ratified in Parliament.The fourth instance is the Churches obtruding the second book of discipline, without the ratification of the State. Ans. For the Ecclesiastick enjoyning of a general assemblies decrees, a particular ratification of Parliament is unnecess [...]ry; general acts of Pa [...]lia­ment 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 General assembly 1590, his consent was obtained unto it: for in that assembly where unanimously the subscription of the second book of disciplin by all the ministers of the Kingdom was decryed, his Majestie some time in person & always 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 present 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 regard of the oppo­sition, which some States-men did make unto these parts thereof, which touched on their own interest of unjust advantage; this was the only stick.

The Warners hypocrisy, cal­ling that a crime, which himself counts a vertue.The next instance of the Churches encroachment is their usur­pation of all the old rents of the clergy, as the Churches patrimo­ny, and their decerning in an assembly that nothing in the next Parliament should passe before the Church were fully restored to her rents. Ans. Consider here the Warners hypocrisie and un­justice; [Page 13] he challenges the Presbyterians for that which no Prelate in the world did ever esteem a fault, a meer declaration of their judgment, 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 means. What if here they had gone on with the most of the prelatical 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 divers of the Warners friends were begun lately to do in all the three Kingdoms? But all that he can here challenge the Scots for, is a meer declaration of their simple right, with a sup­plication to the Regent his Grace, that he would indeavour in the next Parliament, to procure a ninth part of the Churches pa­trimony, for the maintenance of the ministry, and the poor of the Country: for all the rent that the Churches then could obtain, 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 all the Kingdom, by an Act of the Church alone. Answ. I have shewn already the untruth of this Allegation; the proof here brought for it, is grounded only upon an ambiguous word, which the Warners ignorance in the Scotish Discipline and Presbytery (though the main subject of his Book) permits him not to under­stand. The Presbyteries were set up by the King after the As­sembly 1580; but the second Book of Discipline, of which alone the citation speaks, how-ever injoyned by many Assemblies, yet it could never be gotten ratified in any parliament, only because of those parts of it which did speak for the patrimony of the Church, and oppugne the right of patronage.

How well the Warner hath proved the Presbyterian practices to be injurious to the Magistrate, we have considered;The Warner a gross Erastian. possibly he will be more happy in his next undertaking, in his demonstrations that their doctrinal principles do trample on the Magistrates Su­premacy and Laws. Their first principle he takes out of the second book of Discipline, Chap. 7. That no Magistrate, nor any but Ecclesiastick persons may vote in Synods. Ans. Though I finde nothing of this in the place cited, yet there is nothing in it [Page 14] 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 practice of that Church, the onely members of Presbyteries are Ministers and ruling Elders. Is it the Warners minde to vent here his super-Erastianism, that all Ecclesiastick As­semblies, Classical, Provincial, National, are but the arbitrary courts of the Magistrate, for to advise him in the execution of his inhe­rent power about matters Ecclesiastical; and for this cause, that it is in his arbitrement to give a decisive voice in all Church As­sembles to whom and how many soever he will? Though this may be the Warners minde, as it hath been some of his friends; yet the most of the prelatical party will not maintain him herein. How-ever, such principles are contrary to the Laws of Scotland, to the professions also and practices of all the Princes and Magi­strates that ever have lived there.

Prelaticall principles im­possibilitate all solid peace, be­twixt the King and his King­doms.But the Warner here may possibly glance at another principle of his good friends, who have been willing lately to vent before all Brittain in print, their elevating the supremacy of Soveraigns so far above Laws, that whatever people have obtained to be esta­blished by never so many Assemblies and Parliaments, and con­firmed with never so many great seals of ratification, and peace­ably enjoyed by never so long a possession; yet it is nothing but commendable wisdom and justice for the same Prince who made the first Concessions, or any of his successors, whenever they find themselves strong enough, to cancel all, and make void what ever Parliaments, Assemblies, Royall ratifications, and the longest possession, made foolish people beleeve to be most firm and un­questionable. To this purpose, Bishop Maxwel (from whom much of this VVarning is borrowed) doth speak in his Sacro-Sancta regum Majestas. Though this had bin the Cabin-divinity of our Prelats, yet what can be their intentions in speaking of it out in these times of confusion, themselves must declare: for the clear consequent of such doctrine seems to be a necessity either of such Warners perpetuall banishment from the Courts and ears of Soveraigns, or else that subjects be kept up for ever in a strong jealousie, and fear 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 remains in their own hand to preserve what they have obtained. Such Warners, [Page 15] so long as they are possessed with such maximes of state, are clear everters of the first fundations of trust betwixt Soveraigne and Subjects, they take away any possibility of any solid peace of any confident settlement in any troubled State, before both parties be totally ruined, or one become so strong that they need no more to feare the others malecontentment in any time to come.

Our second challenged principle is that we teach the whole power of convocating assemblies to be in the Church.Erastian Pre­lats evert the legal foundati­ons of all Go­vernment. Ans. The Warners citations prove not that we maintain 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 seems to point at is, our tenet of an intrinsicall power in the Church to meet, as for the Word and Sacraments, so for discipline; in this all who are Christians, old and late, the Prelaticall and Popish party as well as others, go a­long with us to maintain in doctrin and practise a necessity e­ven in times of persecution, that the Church must meet for the worship of God and execution of Ecclesiastick discipline among their own Members. In this the doctrine and practise of the Scots is according to their setled laws, uncontroverted by his Majestie. If the VVarner will maintain, that in reason and conscience all the Churches of the world are obliged to dissolve and never more to meet when an erroneous Magistrate by his Tyrannous E­dict commands them to do so, let him call up Erastus from the dead to be disciplined in this new doctrine of the Prelats impious loyalty.

The third Principle is that the judgment of true and false doctrine,The finall de­termination of all Eccle­siastick causes by the Laws of Scotland, is in the generall Assembly. of suspension and deprivation of Ministers belongeth to the Church. 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 Laws of England or of any Christian State, Popish or Prote­stant, refuse to the Church the determination of such Eccclesiastick causes; some indeed do debate upon the power of appeals from the Church; but in Scotland, by the Law, as no appeal in things civil goes higher then the Parliament, so in matters Ecclesiastick none goes above the Generall Assembly. Complaints indeed may go to the King and Parliament for redresse of any wrong has been done in Ecclesiastick Courts, who being Custodes Religionis may by [Page 16] their coercive power command Ecclesiastick Courts to rectifie a­ny wrong done by them contary to Scripture, or if they persist take order with them. But that two or three P [...]aelates should be­come a Court of delegates, to receive appeals from a general assem­bly, neither Law nor practice in Scotland did ever admit, nor doth the word of God or any Equity require it. In the Scots assem­blies no causes are agitat but such as the Parliament hath agreed to be Ecclesiastick and of the Churches cognisance: no process 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 we maintain Ecclesia­stick jurisdiction by a divine right. Ans. Is this a huge crime? is there divine right in the world, either Papist or Protestant, ex­cept a few praelatical Erastians, but they doe so? If the Warner will profess (as it seems he must) the contradiction of that which he ascribes to us, his avowed tenet must be that all Ecclesiastick power flowes from the Magistrate, that the Magistrate himself may execute all Church censures, that all the Officers appointed by Christ for the government of his Church, may be laid aside, and such a kind of governors be put in their place, as the Magistrate shall be pleased to appoint: that the spiritual sword and Keyes of heaven belong to the Magistrate by vertue of his supremacy, as wel as the temporal sword and Keyes of his earthly Kingdom: our difference herefrom the Warner will not (I hope) be found the greatest heresie.

All the power of the Church in Scotland is legal, and with the Magistrates consent.Our last challenged principle is, that we will have all our power against the Magistrate, that is, although he dissent. Ans. It is an evil commentary that all must be against the Magistrate, which is done against his consent: but in Scotland there is no such case: for all jurisdiction which the Church there doth enjoy, they have it with the consent of the Magistrate: all is ratified to them by such acts of Parliament as his Maj [...]stie doth not at all con­trovert. Concerning that odious case the Warner intimates, whi­ther in time of persecution, when the Magistrate classheth with the Church, any Ecclesiastick discipline be then to be exercised; himself can better answer it then we, who with the ancient Christians do think that on all hazards (even of life) the Church [Page 17] may not be dissolved, but meet in dens and in the caves and in the wil­derness for the word and Sacraments and keeping it self pure by the divine ordinance of Discipline.

Having cleered all the pernicious practises and all the wicked D [...]ctrines, which the Warner layes upon us,The Prelats rather then to lay aside their own interest, will keep the King and his people in mi­sery for ever. I think it needless to insist upon these defences which he in his abundant charity brings for us; but in his own way, that he may with the greater advantage impugne them: only I touch one passage whereupon he makes in­jurious exclamations: that which Mr. Gilespie in his theoremes writes; when the Magistrate abuses his power unto Tyranny and makes havock of all, it is lawful to resist him by some extraordinary wayes and means, which are not ordinarily to be allowed: see the principles from which all our miseries and the loss of our Gra­tious Master hath flowed. Ans. We must here yeeld to the Warner the great equity and necessity that every doctrine of a Presbyter, should be charged on the Presbytery it self, and that any Presbyter teaching the lawfulness of a Parliaments defensive arms is tantamont to the Churches taking of armes against the King. These smal in­consequences we must permit the Warner to swallow down with­out a stick; however we do deny that the maxime in hand was the fountain of any of our miseries, or the cause at all of the loss of our late Soveraign: Did ever his Majesty or any of his advised Councel­lors declare it simply unlawful for a Parliament, to take arms for defence in some extraordinary cases, however the unhappiness of the Canterburian Praelats did put his Majesty upon these courses, which did begin and promote all our miserie; and to the very last these men were so wicked as to refuse the loosing of the 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 gaining of the peaceable possession of all his three Kingdoms, but are urgers of him night and day to adhere 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 unlawfulness of a Parliaments armes against the Tyranny of a Prince in any imaginable case, how extraordinary soever.

IN this Chapter the challenge is, that there are no appeals from the general Assembly to the King, as in England from the Bishops [Page 18] Courts to the King in Chauncery,Appeales in Scotland from a generall As­sem [...]ly were no lesse irrati­onal then ille­gall. where a Commission uses to be given to delegats who discusse the appeals. 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 general assembly is in the Church of Scotland: both are the highest Courts in their own kinde. There is no appeal any where in moderate Monarchies to the Kings person, but to the King in certain legall Courts, as the Warner here confesseth the appeal from Bishops lies not to the King in his person, but to the King in his Court of Chancery. As no man in Scotland is permitted to ap­peal in a civill cause from the Lords of Session, much lesse from the Parliament; so no man in an ecclesiastick cause is permitted by the very civil Law of Scotland, to appeal from the general Assembly. Ac­cording to the Scots order and practice, the King in person, or else by his high Commissioner, sits as usually in the generall Assembly, as in Parliament. But though it were not so, yet an appeal 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 Kingdom; the other but of two or three, often of very small either abilities or integrity, who yet may be more fit to discern in an Ecclesiastick cause, then a single Bishop or his Official, the ordinary Trustee in all acts of Jurisdiction for the whole Dioces. But the Scots way of managing Ecclesiastick causes is a great deal more just, safe and Satisfactory to any rational 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 relief from his Sentence, except by an appeal, as of old to the Pope and his Delegats, so thereafter to the King, though never to be cognosced upon by himself; but as it was of old by two or three Delegats, the weakest of all Courts, often for the quality, and ever for the number of the Judges.

The Churches [...]st severity a­ [...]inst Mont­ [...]mery & A­ [...]mson was [...]proven by [...]e King and [...]e parties [...]mselves.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 well known to the Warner, as he made this chapter disproportionably short, so readily be might have deleted it altogether. But these men were infamous not onely in their Mini­steriall charges, but in their life and conversation; both became so insolent, that contrary to the established order of the Church and Kingdom, being suborned by wicked Statesmen, who in that day of [Page 19] darkness had well neer brought ruine both to King and Countrey, would needs take upon them the Office of Arch-Bishops. While the Assembly was in Process with them for their manifold and high misdeameanors, the King was moved by them and their evil Patrons, to shew his high displeasure against the Assemblies of the Church; they for his Maj [...]sties 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 therewith: both these unhappy men were brought to a humble confession of their crimes, and such signs of repentance, that both after a renunciation of their titulary Bishopricks were re-admitted to the function of the Ministry, which they had deserted. Never any other before or after in Scotland did appeal from the ge­nerall Assembly to the King; the late Excommunicate Prelate in their declinator against the Assembly of Glasgow, did not appeal as (I remember) to the King, but to another Generall Assembly to be constitute, according to their own Popish and Tyrannicall prin­ciples.

THe Warner in his fourth Chapter,The pride of Prelats lately, but never the Presbytery did exempt their fellows from punishment for their civill faults. offers to prove that the Sco­tish Discipline doth exempt Ministers from punishment for any treason or sedition they can act in their Pulpits. Answ. This chal­lenge is like the rest, very false. The rules of the Church Discipline in Scotland obliges Churchmen to be subject to punishment, not only for every fault for which any other man is lyable to censure, but or­dains them to be punished for sundry things, which in other men are not at all questionable; and whatever is consu [...]able in any, they ap­point it to be much more so in a Minister. It is very untru [...], 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 Chaire or a Canonicall Co [...]t did priviledge in England and Ireland from all censure either of Church or State great numbers, who were notoriously known to be guilty of the foulest crimes. Was ever the War [...] companion [Page 18] [...] [Page 19] [...] [Page 20] Bishop Aderton challenged for his Sodomy, so long as their common Patron of Canterbury did rule the Court? did the Warner never hear of a Prelate very sibb to D [...]ctor 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 Clergy, exempting themselves from civill pu­nishments; no where in the world are Churchmen more free of crimes deserving civill 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 Prela [...]icall Divines in England and Ireland lately were for many gross [...] misdemeanors.

The Warner is injurious to the Mini­sters of Hol­land.But why does the Warners anger run out so far as to the Preachers in Holland? is it because he knoweth the Church D scipline in Hol­land to be really the same with that he oppugnes in the Scots, and that all the Reformed Churches doe joyn 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 Orators, and that they saucily controll the Magistrates in their Pul­pits? Their crime seems to be, that for the love of Christ their Ma­ster, they are zealous in their doctrine, to presse upon the Magistrate as well as upon the people the true practice of piety, the sanctificati­on of the Sabbath day, the suppression of heresy and schism, and re­pentance for the sins of the time and place wherein they live. I his 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 Kingdoms: the stream of their Sermons while they enjoyed the Pul­pit, was to encourage to superstition and contempt of piety, to sing asleep by their ungracious way all that gave ear unto them. The man is impatient 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 Magistrates against them: as it was his and his Brethrens custom to stir up the Magistrates of Britain and Ireland to imprison, banish, and heavily vex the most zealous servants of God, only for their oppositi­on to the Prelats profanity and errours. The Warner (I hope) has not yet forgotten, how Doctor Bramble and his neighbour Lesty of Down did cast out of the Ministry, and made flee our of the Kingdom, men most eminent for zeal, piety and learning, who in a short time had done more good in the house of God, then all the Bishops that [Page 21] ever were in Ireland, I mean Mr. Blair, Mr. Levington, Mr. Hamil­ton, Mr. 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 we know none of the refor­med Churches, who were ever following Rome in exempting the Clergy from saecular jurisdiction, except it were the Canterburian Praelates: who indeed did scare the most of Magistrats from medling with a canonical coat though defiled with drunkenness, adultery, scolding, fighting, and other evils, which were too common of late to that order.

But how doth he prove,The pretend­ed declaration of King James, was Bishop A­damsons lying libel. that the Scots Ministers exempt them­selves from civil jurisdiction? first (saith he) by the declaration of King James 1584. Ans. That declaration was not from King James, as himself did testifie the year thereafter under his hand, but from Mr. Patrike Adamson, who did acknowledge it to be his own upon his death bed, and professed his repentance for the lyes and slanders, wherewith against his conscience he had fraughted that infamous libell.

His second proof is from the second book of disciplin Chapter II,Though al­ways in Eng­land yet never in Scotland had Commis­saries any ju­risdiction over Ministers. It is absurd that Commissaries having 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 excommunicate all the Ministers of the di­ocese, yet by the Laws of Scotland no Commissaries had ever any ju­risdiction over Ministers. But though the officials 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 or State, according to their de­merits? is not this strongly reasoned by the Warner?

His third proofe is the cause of James Gibson, James Gibson was never ab­solved by the Church from his Process. who had railed in Pulpit against the King, and was only suspended; yea, thereaft [...]r was absolved from that fault. Ans. Upon the complaint of the Chancelor the alledged words were condemned by the generall Assembly: but before the mans guiltiness of these words could be tryed, hee did absent himselfe; for which absence, he was presently suspend­ed from his Ministry: in the next Assembly he did appeare and clear­ed the reason of his absence to have been just feare, and no contu­macy; this he made appeare to the Assemblies satisfaction, but before his processe could bee brought to any issue, he fled away to [Page 22] England, where he died a fugitive, never restored to his charge though no tryal of his fault was perfected.

Mr. Blacks ap­pe [...] fro [...] the Councel cleer­ed.The fourth proof is Mr. Black his case: hereupon the Warner makes a long and odious narration. If we interrogate him about his ground of all these Stories, he can produce no warrant but Spotswoods unprinted Book: this is no an h [...]tick R [...]gist [...]r whereupon any un­derstanding man can rely; the Writer was a p [...]ofest enemy, to his death, of the Scotish Discipline, he spent his life upon a Story for the d [...]sgrace of the Presbytery and the honour of Bishops: no man who is acquainted with the life or death of that Authour, will build his belief 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, he ought to have replyed something after three yeers advisement to the printed Answer.

The matter (as our Registers bear) was shortly thus: In the yeer 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 fears did daily encrease, of the overthrow of the Church Discipline established by Law. The Ministers in their Pulpits gave free warning thereof: among others, Mr. Black of S. Andrews, a most gracious and faithfull 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 he did deny and all his honest hearers did absolve him by their testimony from these calumnies: of himself he was most willing to be tryed to the uttermost before all the world, but his Brethren finding the libelled calumnies to be onely a pretence, and the true intention of the Courtiers therein was to stop the mouthes of Ministers, that the crying sins of the times should no more be re­proved in pulpits, they advised him to decline the judgment of the councell, and appeal to the general Assembly, as the competent Judge according to the word of God and the Laws of Scotland, in the cause of doctrine; for the first instance they did never question, but if any thing truely seditious had been preached by a Minister, that he for this might be called before the civil Magistrate, 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 reclai­ming, should be brought before a civil court at the first instance, they thought it unreasonable, and desired the King in the next As­sembly might cognosce upon the equity of such a proceeding. The [Page 23] Ministers had many a conference with his Majesty upon that sub­j [...]ct; often the mat er was brought very near to an amicable conclu­sion, but because the Ministers refused to subscibe 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 se­vere Sentence was pronounced not only against Master Black, but also all the Ministers of Edinburgh.

In the mean time,The Tumult of the seven­teenth day of December was harmless, and no Mini­ster guilty of it. malcontented States-men did adde oyl to the flame, and at the very instant, while the Ministers and their friends are offering a Petition to his Majesty, they suborn a villane to cry in one part of the Streets, That 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 half an hour at most, were in a tumult, upon meer ignorance what the fray might be, but without the hurt of any one man; so soon 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 here and his fellowes else­where make all their Tragedies. None of the Ministry were the Au­thors or approvers thereof, though divers of them suffered sore troubles for it.

THe Warner in his fifth Chapter,The Prelats ordinarily, but the Presbytery never were for rash Excom­munications. charges the Scots for subjecting the King to the censure of Excommunication, and bringing up­on Princes all the miseries which the Popes Excommunications of o [...]d were wont to bring upon Anathematised Emperours. Ans. 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 Prelats of England and Ireland; did they ever censure their own Officials for the pro­nouncing of that terrible sentence most profanly against any they would, had it been for the non-payment of the smallest sums of mo­ney? As for the Scots, their doctrine and practice in the point of Ex­communication is as considerate as any other Church in the world, that censure in Scotland is most rare and only in the case of obstinacy [Page 24] in a great sin; what ever be their doctrine in generall with all other Christians and as I think with the P elaticall party themselves, that the object of Christian doctrine Sacraments and Discipline is one and the same, and that no member of Christ, no son of the Church, may plead a highness above admonitions and Church Censures: yet I know they never thought it expedient so much as to intend any Processe of C [...]u [...]h a [...]dversion against their Soveraign. To the worlds end I hope they shall not have again greater grievances and truer causes of [...]ritation from their Princes, th n they have had al­ready. It may be confidently believed, that they who upon so preg­nant occasio [...]s d [...]d never so much as intend the beginning of a Pro­cess against their King, can never be sup [...]osed in danger of any such proceeding for time to come.The Prelates flatter Princes to their ruine. However, we love not the abused ground of the Warners flattering of Princes to their own great hur; is it so indeed, that all the sins of the Princes are only against God, that all Kings are not only above all Laws 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 Doctrine spurs on Princes to these unhappy precipices, and oppressed people unto these out-rages that both fall into inextricable calamities.

The Scots Ministers Preaching for Justice, was just and neces­sary.THE sixth Chapter is spent on an other crime of Pres­bytery; it makes the Presbyters cry to the Magistrate for Justice upon capitall Offenders. Ans. What has Presbytery to doe with this matter, were it never so great an offence? will the Warner have all the faults of the Prelaticall Faction, flow from the fountain 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 Maker and to preach unto Magistrates, 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 25] deadly feuds, in time of peace a field of war and blood, was it not time for the faithful servants of God to exhort the King to exe­cute justice, and to declare the danger of most frequent pardons drawn from his hand, often against his heart, by the opportunity and deceitfull information of powerful solicitors, to the great of­fence of God against the whole Land, to the unexpressible grief 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 pity in sparing the wilfull shedders of innocent blood ordinarily proves a great cruelty, not only towards the disconsolate oppressed, who cry to the vicege­rents of God the avenger, for justice in vain, but also towards the soul 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,Huntleys notorious crymes. whether the Ministers had reason often to give Warning against that wick­ed man and his complices. Beside, his apostasie, and after-seeming repentance, his frequent relapses into avowed Popery, in Eighty eight he banded with the King of Spaine, to overthrow the reli­gion and government of the whole Island, and after pardon, from time to time did renew his treasonable plots for the ruine of Bri­tain: he did commit many murders, he did invade under the nose of the King, the house of his Cousin the Earl of Murray, and most cruelly murdered that gallant Nobleman, he 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 it 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 humor of flattery is this in our Prelates, not onely to lull a sleep a Prince in a most sinful neglect of his charge, but also to cry out upon others more faithful then themselves, for assaying to break off their slumber,Never any question in Scotland betwixt the King & the Church, for Tythes and Patronages. by their wholsom and seasonable admo­nitions from the Word of God?

The next challenge of the Scots Presbyters is, that they spoile the King of his Tythes, first Fruits, Patronage, and Dependence of his Subjects. Ans. The Warner understands not what he writes, The Kings Majesty in Scotland, never had, never craved any First fruits: The Church never spoiled the King of any Tithes, some [Page 26] other men indeed, by the wickedness most of Prelates and their followers, did cozen both the King, and the Church, of many Tythes: but his Majesty and the Church had never any controver­sie in Scotland about the Tythes: for the King, so far as concerned himsef, was ever willing, that the Church should enjoy that, which the very Act of Parliament acknowledgeth to be her patrimony. Nor for the patronages had the Church any plea with the King: the Church declared often their mind 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 peace sake, the Church was content to let patrona­ges alone, till God should make a Parliament lay to heart, what was incumbent for gracious men to do, for liberating Congrega­tions from their slavery of having Ministers intruded upon them, by the violence of Patrons. Which now at last (blessed be God) according to our mind is performed. As for the dependence of a­ny vassalls upon the King, it was never questioned by any Presby­terian in S otla d.

K. James avowes himself a hat [...] of E [...]stia­n [...]sm.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, and the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: such an usurpation upon the Church, King James declared under his hand (as at length may be se [...]n in the Historicall vindication) to be a sin against the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which puts in the hand of the Magistrate the power of Preaching, and celebrating the Sacraments: a power which since that time no Magistrate in Britaine did assume, and if any would have claimed it, none would have more opposed, then the most zealous Patrons of Episcopacy. The injurious invectives which the Warner builds upon this his Erastian assertion, we pass them as Castles in their ayr, 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 wise Prince King James, to testifie yet farther his mind against Erasti­anisme. His Majestie in the year 1617 having come in progress to visit his ancient Kingdom of Scotland, and being present in person at a publick disputation in Theologie in the University of St. Andrews, whereof also many, both Nobles, and Church-men of both Kingdoms were auditors; when one of those that acted a [Page 27] 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 flattery, cried out with a loud voice, Ego possum deponere Ministri caput, sed non possum deponere ejus officium.

IN the seventh Chapter,The Pres­bytery cog­nosceth only upon scan­dals, and that in few­er civill things then Bishops courts were wont to meddle with. the Warner would cause men believe many more of the Presbyteries usurpations upon the Civil Ma­gistrate. The first is, that all offences whatsoever, are cognoscible in the Consistory upon the case of scandal. Ans. First, the Pres­bytery makes no offence at all to come before the Consistory, but Scandall alone. Secondly, these civil offences (the scandall where­of comes before the Presbytery) are but very few, and a great deal fewer then the Bishops Official takes notice of in his Consi­storial Court. That capitall crimes past over by the Magistrate, should be censured by the Church, no society of Christians who have any discipline, did ever call in question. When the sword of the Magistrate hath spared a Murderer, an Adulterer, a Blasphemer; will any ingenuous, either Prelaticall, or Popish Divine, admit of such to the holy Table, without signs of Repentance?

The Warners second usurpation is but a branch of the first, that the Presbytery draws directly before it self the cognisance of fraud in bargaining, false measures, oppression, and in the case of Mini­sters, bribing, usury, fighting, perjury, &c. Ans. Is it then the Warners mind, that the notorious slander of such grosse sins does not deserve so much, as an Ecclesiasticall rebuke? Shall such per­sons without admonition be admitted to the holy Communion? Secondly, the named cases of fraud in bargaining, false measures, oppression, come so rarely before our Church-judicatories, that though this thirty years 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 person 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 [Page 28] sure) of all both Papists and Prelates, who themselves are free of such vices. And why did not the Warner put in among the cau­ses of Church-mens deprivation from Office and Benefice, Adul­tery, gluttony, and Drunkenness? 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 speak of the Magistrates duty in his Office, or dare offer to resolve from Scripture any doubt, which perplexeth the consci­ence of Magistrates or People, of Husband or Wife, of Master or Servant, in the discharge of their Christian duty one to another. What ever hath bin the negligence of the Bishop of Derry, yet I am sure, all the preaching Prelates and Doctors of England, pretended a great care to goe about these uncontroverted parts of their Mini­steriall Function, and yet without medling with the Mysteries of State, or the depths of any mans particular vocation; much less with the judgment of jurisdiction in Political or Aeconomical causes.

The Ch [...]r­c [...]es p [...]ocee­dings in t [...]e late engagement, [...]lee­red from mist [...]kes.As for the Churches declaration against the Late engagement; did it not well become them to signifie their judgment 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 clearly Malignant Party, contrary to solemn oathes and covenants, unto the evident hazard of Religion, and them who had been most eminent instruments of its preservation; was it not the Churches duty to give warning against that sin, 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 Jesuitisme, and a drawing of all the civill affaires to the Churches bar in ordine ad Spiritualia, for an Assembly to give their advice in a most eminent and important case of conscience, 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 Kingdom in seve­rall express messages for that end? It seems, its our Warners con­clusion, if the Magistrate would draw all the Churches in his juris­diction to a most unlawful war, for the advancement of the grea­test [Page 29] 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 Souldier should desire the Assemblies coun­sell for the state of his soul, 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 here for the servants of God to be altogether silent, because indeed war is so civill a busi­ness, that nothing in it concerns the soul, and nothing about it may be cleared by any light from the Word of God.

The truth is, the Ch [...]rch 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 do [...]e, not by the Kingdom of England, but by the Sectarian Party there, against God, the King, Cove­nant, and both Kingdoms: but to the great grief of their hearts, their hands were bound, and they forced to sit still, and by the o­ver great cunning of some, the erronious mis-perswasions of o­thers, and the rash precipitancy of it, that engagement was so spoyled in the stating and mannaging, that the most religious, with peace of conscience could not go along, nor encourage any other to take part therein. The Warner touches on three of their reasons: but who will look upon their publick declarations, shall find ma­ny more, which with all faithfulness were then propounded by the Church, for the rectifying of that action, which as it stood in the state and management, was cleerly foretold to be exceeding like to destroy the King, and his friends of all sorts, in all the three King­doms. The irrepairable losses and unutterable calamities which quickly did follow at the heels, the mis-belief and contempt of the Lords servants, and the great danger Religion is now brought un­to in all these Kingdoms, hath, I suppose, long agoe brought grief enough to the heart of them, whose unadvised rashness, & intem­perate fervor did contribute most for the spoiling of that designe.

The first desire about that engagement which the Warner gives to us, concerns the security of Religion. In all the debate of that matter, it was agreed (without question) upon all hands, that the Sectarian Party deserved punishment for their wicked attempts upon the Kings person, contrary to the directions of the Parlia­ments [Page 30] of both Kingdoms, 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 begun: but here was the question; Whether the Parliament and Army of Scotland ought to declare their resolutions to bring his Majesty to London with honor, freedome, and safety, before he did promise any se­curity for establishing Religion; The Parliaments of both King­doms in all their former Treaties, had ever pressed upon the King a number of Propositions to be signed by his Majesty, 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 & the Covenant, before the King were brought (by the new hazard of the lives and estates of all the Scotish Nati­on) to sit in his Parliament in that honor and freedom which him­self did desire? There was no complaint, when many of thirty pro­positions were pressed, to be signed by his Majesty, 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 demand, to the Warner is a crime, and may be so to all of his belief, who takes it for a high unjustice, to restraine in any King the absolute power by any condition: for they do main­tain, that the administration of al things, both of Church and State, doth reside so freely and absolutely in the meer wil of a Soveraign, that no case at any time can fall out, which ought to bound that absoluteness 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 voice in the Parliament of England, as one of the royall Prerogatives to be maintained by our engagement: it was said, that all discourse of that kind might be 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 Laws did not admit of a negative voice to the King in a Parliament of Scotland; and to press it now as a Prerogative of all Kings, (besides the re­flection it might have upon the rights of our Kingdom,) it might [Page 31] put in the hand of the King a power to deny all, and every one of these things, which the Parliaments of both Kingdoms had found necessary for the setling the peace in all the three Dominions. We marvel not, that the Warner here should tax us of a great error, see­ing it is the belief of his faction, that every King hath not only a ne­gative, but an absolute affirmative voice 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 Laws being in the Prince alone, & 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. Answ. The Church was far 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 go along in the ingagement? one and the last part of their answer was, that they conceived, if a War shall be found necessary, much of the peoples encourage­ment would depend upon the qualification of the Commanders, to whom the managing of that great trust should be committed: for after the right stating of the War, the next would be the cary­ing on of it by such men who had given constant proof of their in­tegrity. To put all the power of the Kingdom in their hand, whose by-past miscariages had given just occasion to suspect their de­signes and firmness to the interest of God before their own or a­ny other mans, would fill the hearts of the people with jealousies and fears, and how wholsome an advice this was, experience hath now too clearly demonstrated.

To make the world know our further resolutions to meddle with civill affaires, the Warner is pleased to bring out against us above 80 years old stories, and all the stuff which our malicious enemy, Spotswood can furnish to him: from this good Author he alledges that our Church discharged Merchants to traffique with Spaine, and commanded the Change of the market-dayes in Edenburgh. Ans. Both these calumnies are taken off at length in the Historical Vindication. After the Spanish Invasion in the year 88, many in Scotland kept correspondence with Spaine, for treacherous de­signs: the Inquisitors did seduce some, and persecute others of our [Page 32] Merchants in their traffique, the Church did deale with his Maje­sty to intercede with the Spanish King, for more liberty to our Countrey men in their trading: and in the mean time, while an answer was returned from Madril, they advertized the people to be wary, how they hazarded their souls for any worldly gaine which they could find about the Inquisitors feet.

The Church me [...]led not with the Munday Mar [...]et, bu [...] by way of supplication in Parlia­ment.As for the Market days, I grant, it was a great grief to the Church, to see the Sabbath day profaned by handy labor and journeying, by occasion of the Munday-markets, in the most of the great Towns: for remedy hereof, many supplications have been made by the As­sembly to the Parliament: but so long as our Bishops sate there, these petitions of the Church were alwaies eluded: for the Pre­lates labor in the whole Island 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 licentiousness and ignorance, by which the Epi­scopall Kingdom 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 soon 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 Markets in all the Land from the Munday, to o­ther days of the week.

The Church once for saf­ty of the in­fant Kings life, with the concur­rence of the cret Coun­sel, did call an extraor­dinary mee­ting.The Warners next challenge of our usurpation is, the Assembly at Edenburgh, 1567 their ratifying of Acts of Parliament, and summoning of all the Countrey to appeare at the next Assembly. Ans. If the Warner had known the History of that time, he would have chosen rathet to have omitted this challenge, then to have proclaimed to the world the great rottenness of his own heart; At that time the condition of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland was lamentable, the Queen was declared for Popery, King James his Father was cruelly, without any cause, murthered by the Earl of Bothwel; King James himself in his infancy was very neare to have been destroyed by the murtherer of his Father, there was no other way conceivable of safety for Religion, for the Infant King, for the Kingdom, but that the Protestants should joyn toge­ther for the defence of King James against these Popish murthe­rers. For this end, the general Assembly did crave conference of the secret Counsel: and they with mutual advice did call for a mee­ting [Page 33] of the whole Protestant Party: which did convene at the time appointed most frequently, in an extraordinary and mixed as­sembly of al the considerable persons of the Religion, Earls, Lords, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, and Ministers, and subscribed a bond for the revenge of King Henries death, and the defence of King James his life: This mixed and extraordinary Assembly made it one of the chiefe Articles in their bond to defend these Acts of the Parliament 1560. concerning Religion, and to endea­vour the ratification of them in the next ensuing Parliament. As for the Assemblies letter to their Brethren for so frequent a meet­ting at the next 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 dayly in visible danger, from the hands of them who had murthered his Father, and ravished his Mother. Lesse could not have been done in such a juncture of time by men of wisdom and courage, who had any love to their Religion, King, and Countrey: but the resolution of our Prelates is to the contrary, when a most wicked villain 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 and Church from the true Religion, e­stablished by Law, into Popery; and a free Kingdom to an illegal Tyranny; in this case there may be no meeting, either of Church, or State, to provide remedies against such extraordinary mischiefs. Beleeve it the Scots were never of this opinion.

What is subjoyned to the next Paragraph of our Churches pre­sumption to abolish Acts of Parliament;By the laws & customs of Scotland the assem­bly procedes the Parlia­ment in the [...]fo [...]mation of Ecclesia­stical abu­ses. is but a repetition of what is spoken before. Not only the laws of Scotland, but equi­ty and necessity refers the ordinary Reformation of errors and a­buses in Religion to the Ecclesiasticall Assemblies: what they find wrong in the Church, though ratified by acts of Parliament, they rectifie it from the word of God, and thereafter by Petition ob­taines their rectification to be ratified in a following Parliament, and all former Acts to the contrary to be annulled. This is the or­dinary Method of proceeding in Scotland, and (as I take it) in all other States and Kingdoms. Were Christians of old hindred to leave Paganisme and embrace the Gospel, till the Emperial Laws [Page 34] for Paganisme, and against Christianity were revoked? did the Oecumenical and Nationall Synods of the Ancients stay their re­formation of heresies and corruptions in Religion, till the laws of State (which did countenance these errors) were cancelled? Was not Popery in Germany, France, and Britaine, so firmly esta­blished, as Civill Laws could do it? It seems, the Warner here doth joyn with his brother Issachar, to proclaim all our Refor­mers in Britaine, France, and Germany, to be Rebels, for daring by their preachings and Assemblies to change these things, which by Acts of Parliaments had been approved, before new Parliaments had allowed of their reformation. Nevertheless, this plea is foolishly intended against us, for the Ministers prote­station against the Acts of Parliament 1584, establishing (in that houre of darkness) iniquity by a Law, and against the Acts of the Assembly of Glasgow, declaring the unlawfulness of Bishops and Ceremonies; which some Parliaments upon Episcopal mis-in­formation had approved: both these actions of the Church were according to former Laws, and were ratified afterward by Acts of Parliament yet standing in force, which for the Warner (a pri­vate man, and a stranger) to challenge, is to contemn much more grosly the Law, then they do, whom here he is accusing of that crime.

The Church part in the road of Ruthven cle [...]red.By the next Story the Warner wil gain nothing, when the true case of it is known. In K. Jame's minority, one Capt. James Stuart did so far prevail upon the tender and unexperienced years of the Prince, as to steal his countenance unto Acts of the greatest op­pression; so far that James Hamelton, Earl of Arran (the next 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 sickness, when he was not capable to commit any crime against the State, was notwithstanding spoyled of all his livelihood and liberty: his Lands and honor, with the dignity of high Chancelor of Scotland, were conferred on that very wicked Tyrant Captain James, a number of the best affected and prime nobility impatient of such unheard-of oppressions, with meer boasts and no violence at the road of Ruthven, chased away that unhappy Chancelor from the Kings person, this his Majesty for the time, professed to take in so good part, that under his hand he did allow it for good service, in his letters to the most of the Neighbor Princes: he dealt also with the [Page 35] secret Counsel, and the chief Judicatories of the Land, and obtain­ed from them the approbation of that act of the Lord as conveni­ent and laudable, pormising likewise to ratifie it in the next ensu­ing Parliament. When the Lords for their more aboundant cleering required the Assembles declaration thereupon, the Ministers decli­ned to meddle at all with the case; but the Kings Majesty sent his Commissioners to the Assembly, entreating them withall earnest­ness to declare their good liking of that action, which he assured them was for his good, and the good both of Church and King­dom: for their obedience to the Kings importunity, they are here railed upon by the wise Warner. It is true, Cap. James shortly af­ter crept in again into Court, and obtained a severe revenge against the authors of that action, before a Parliament could sit to approve it, but within a few months the same Lords, with some more did at Striveling, chase again that evill man from the Court: whither he never more returned, and this their action was ratified in the next 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 general as­sembly of Scotland, in the re­formation of Eng­land. at the next leap he jumps from the 1584 to the 1648, skipping over in a moment 64 years. The Articles of Stiveling mentions that the promoving of the work of Reformation in England and Ireland, be referred to the general Assembly, upon this our friend doth dis­charge a flood of his choller: all the matter of his impatience here, is, That Scotland when by fraude they had been long allured, and at last by open violence invaded by the English Prelates, that they might take on the yoke of all their corruptiones, they were 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 Engish & Irish Churches; with the mannaging of this so great and good an Ecclesiastique work, the Parliament of Scotland did intrust the general assembly. No marvail that Dr. Bramble a zealous lover of all the Arminia­nisme, Popery, and Tyranny, of which his great Patron Dr. Lade stands convicted yet without an answer to have been bringing in upon the three nations, should be angry at the discoverers and dis­appointers of that most pious work, as they wont to style it.

What here the Warner repeats, it is answered before, as for [Page 36] the 2 Stories in his conclusion,The violent apprehen [...] of Masse-Priests in their act of Idolatry r [...] ­proved by the War­ner. which he takes out of his false Au­thor Spots-wood, adding his own large amplifications; I conceive, there needs no more to be said to the first, but that some of John Knocks zealous hearers, understanding of a Masse-Priest at their very side, committing Idolatry contrary to the Laws, did with vi­olence break in upon him, and sease upon his person and Masse-cloathes, that they might present him to the ordinary Magistrate to receive 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 arms 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 herein upon his bare word, with­out the relief of some witness, and that a more faithfull one, then his Brother in evill, Mr. Spots-wood, whom yet here he doth not profess to cite. Against these Popish Lords after their many trea­sons and bloody murders of the Lieges, the King himself at last was forced to arme the people; but that the generall Assembly did call any unto Arms, we require the Warners proof, that we may give it an answer.

THe Warners challenge in this Chapter is, That we maintaine our discipline by a Iure divino, and for this he spews out up­on us a Sea of such Rhetorick, as much better beseemed Mercu­rius Aulicus, then either a Warner, or a Prelate. In this chal­lenge he is as unhappy as in the rest, it is for a matter wherein the most of his own Brethren (though our Adversaries) yet fully agree with us, that the discipline of the Church is truly by divine right, and that Jesus Christ holds out in Scripture the substantials of that Government, 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 general rules, which are clear also in the word for matters of that nature. In this, neither Papists, nor the learned'st of the Prelates find any fault with us; yet our Warner must spend a whole Chapter upon it.

It is true as we observed before the elder Prelates of England in Edwards & Elizabeths days, as the Erastians now, did maintain,The Warner and his pre­latical E­rastian bre­thren are obliged by their own principles to advise the King to lay aside Episcopacy and set up the Presby­tery in all his domini­ons. that no particular Government of the Church was jure divino, and if this be the Warners mind, it were ingenuity in him to speak i [...] out loud, and to endeavor 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 kept 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 concerns conscience, since no Command of God nor Warrant from Scripture ties him to keep it up. This truly seems to be the main ground whereupon the whole discourse of this Chapter is builded. Is it tolerable that such truths 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 Kingdoms; however we with all the reform­ed Churches do beleeve in our heart the divine Right of Synods and Presbyteries, and for no possible inconvenient can be forced to deny or pass from this part of truth, yet the Warner here joyns with the elder Prelates, who, till Dr Banckrofts advancement to the sea of Canterbury, did unanimously deny Episcopacy to be of divine Right, and by consequent affirmed it to be moveable, and so lawful to be laid aside by Princes, when so ever they found it expedient for their affairs to be quite off it; why doth not the Warner and his Brethren speak plainly their thoughts in his Maje­sties ears? Why do they longer dissemble their conscience, only for the satisfaction of their ambition, greed and revenge? Sundry of the Prelatical Divines come yet further to joyn fully with Erastus, in denying not only Episcopacy, and all other particular forms of Church-Government to be of Divine Institution, but in avowing that no Government in the Church at all is to be ima­gined, but such as is a part of the civil power of the Magistrate. The Warner in the Chapter, and in divers other parts of his Book, seems to agree with this judgment; and upon this ground, if he had ingenuity, he would offer his helping hand to unty the bonds of the Kings conscience, if here it were straitened, by demonstra­ting from this his principle, that very safely without any offence to God, and nothing doubting for conscience sake, his Majesty [Page 38] 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 royal Right, which the Warner here and elsewhere avouches.

What the Warner puts here again upon the Presbytery, the usurpation of the temporal Sword in what indirect relation so­ever,The prela­tical party were lately bent for Po­pery. its probation in the former Chapter was found so weak and naughty, that the repetition of it is for no use; only we mark that the Warner will have the Presbytery 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 Prelates, espe­cially the late Canterburians, among whom Doctor Bramble was one of some note, to which none of them have returned to this hour an Answer; that their principles unavoidably did bring back the Pope. For a Patriarch over all the Western Churches, and among all the Patriarchs of the whole Catholick Church a primacy in the Roman, flows clearly out of the fountain of Episco­pacy, according to the avowed Doctrine of the English Prelates, who yet are more liberal to the Pope in granting him, beside his spiritual super-inspection of the whole Catholick Church, all his temporal Jurisdictions also in the patrimony of St. Peter, and all his other fair 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 the Warners friends without any Recantation we have heard of, avow them all, even an Adoration of and to the Altar it self. As for the Doctrines of Rome, what points are worse then these which that party have avowed in express terms, a corporal pre­sence of Christs Body upon the Altar, the Tridentine Justification, Free-will, final 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 Presbytery is as absolute Papacy as ever was in Rome.

The Presbyterian Position which the Warner here offers, not to dispute, but to laugh at, That Christ, as King of his Church, ac­cording to his royal Office and Scepter, hath appointed the Office-bearers and Laws of his House, is accorded to by the most and sharpest of our Adversaries, whether English or Romish, as their [Page 39] own tenet: howbeit such foolish consequences, that all acts of Synods must be Christs Laws, &c. neither they nor we do ac­knowledg.

His declamations against the novelty of the Presbytery in the ordinary stile of the Jesuits against Protestants,The Prelats profess now a willing­ness to abo­lish at least three parts of the former Epis­copacy. and of the pagan Philosophers against the Christians of old, who will regard? our plea for the Presbytery is, that it is Scriptural; if so, it is ancient enough; if not, let it be abolished. But it were good, that here also the Warner and his friends would be ingenuous, to speak out their minds of Episcopacy. Why have they all so long deceived the King, in assuring him that English Episcopacy was well 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 affirm, that an English Bishop in his very flesh and blood, in his substantial limbs, was ever known 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 exercising the place of a high Trea­surer, of a Chancelor, or whatever civil charge the favor of a Prince did put upon him; a Bishop with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, without any Presbytery; a Bishop exercising no ju­risdiction himself in any part of his diocess, but devolving the ex­cise of that power wholy upon his Officials and Commissaries: a Bishop ordaining Presbyters himself alone, or with the fashional assistance of any two Presbyters, who chance to be neer; a Bishop the only pastor of the whole diocess, and yet not bound to feed any flock, either by Word, or Sacrament, or Government, but having a free liberty to devolve all that service upon others, and himself to wait at Court so many years as he shall think fit. This is our English Bishop not only in practice but in Law, and so was he defended by the great disputants for Prelacy in England. The portion of Episcopa [...]y, whi [...] yet is stu to, cannot be kept upon any principle either of honor or conscience.

But now let the Warner speak out, if any such Bishop can more be defehded, or was ever known in Scripture, or seen in any Chri­stian Church for 800 years 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 civil employ­ment in Parliament, Court, or Kingdom, in denying his solitari­ness in ordination, in removing his official and Commissary courts, in taking away all his arches, Arch-Bishop [...], Arch-Deacons, Dean [Page 40] and Chapter, &c. in erecting Presbyteries for all ordinations and spiritual jurisdiction. It is good that conscience moves our adver­saries at last to come thus far towards us; But why will they not yet come neerer, to acknowledg that by these their too lately re­canted errors they did too long trouble the world; and that the little which yet they desire to keep of a Bishop, is nothing less then that English Bishop, but a new creature of their own devising ne­ver known in England, which his Majesty in no honor is obliged to maintain for any respect either to the Laws or Customs of Eng­land, and least of all, for Conscience?

The smal­lest portion of the most moderate Episcopacy is contrary to ScriptureWhile the Warner with such confidence avows, that no text of Scripture can be alledged 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 do reason from Ephes. 4.11. all the officers that Christ hath appointed in his Church, for the Ministry of the Word, are either Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, pastors or Doctors: but Bishops are none of these five: Ergo, they are none of the officers appointed by Christ for the Ministry of the Word. The major is not wont 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 you) are ordinary and perpetual: our adversaries pitch upon the fourth, alledging the Episcopal office to be pastoral; but I prove the Bishop no Pastor thus; no Pastor is superior to other Pastors in any spiritual power: but according to our adversary, a Bishop is superior to all the Pastors of his Diocess in the power of ordination and jurisdiction. Ergo, The doubt here is onely of the major, which I prove Argumento à paribus: no Apostle is superior to an Apostle, nor an Evangelist to an Evangelist, nor Prophet to a Prophet, nor a Doctor to a Doctor, in any spiritual power according to Scripture. Ergo, no pastor to a pastor. Again, I reason from 1 Tim. 4.14. Mat. 18.15. 1 Cor. 5.4, 12, 13. What takes the power of ordination and jurisdiction from Bishops, destroys Bishops: as the removal of the soul kills the man, and the denyal of the form takes away the subject; so the power of ordination and jurisdiction, the essential form, whereby the Bishop is consti­tute and distinguished from the Presbyter and every other Church [Page 41] officer, being removed from him, he must perish: but the quoted places take away clearly 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 person.

When the Doctors learning hath satified us in these two, he shall receive more Scriptural arguments against Episcopacy. The Prelats unable to answer their oppo­sites. But why do we expect answers from these men, when after so long time (for all their boasts of learning and their visible leasure) none of their party has had 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 miracle 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 adds of our trouble at King James his fifty and five questions, [...]96. 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 proclaims his great and certain knowledg 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 there was no more speech of them thereafter by the propounders: but the manner and time of these questions did in­deed perplex good men, to see Erastian and Prelatical counsellors so far to prevail with our King, as to make him by captious questi­ons carp at these parts of Church-discipline, which by Statutes of Parliament and Acts of Assemblies 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 persons of the most able and faithful 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 years thereafter, it was in Ann. 1606. that the English Prelates 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 An. 1610. that a kind of Episcopacy was set up in the corrupt As­sembly of Glasgow; under which the Church of Scotlād did heavi­ly [Page 42] groan, till the year 1637. when their burthens was so much in­creased by the English Prelatical Tax-masters, that all was shaken off together, and divine Justice did so closely follow at the heels, that oppressing Prelacy of England, as to the great joy of the long oppressed Scots, that evil root and all its branches was cast out of Britain, where we trust, no shadow of it shall ever a­gain be seen.

HAving cleared the vanity of these calumnious challenges, wherewith 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. He would make the world beleeve that the Presbyterians are great transubstantiators of whole Commonwealths into beasts, and Metamorphosers of whole Kingdoms of men into Serpents with two heads; how great and monstrous a [...]erpent must the Presbytery be, when she is the mother of a Dragon with two heads? But it is good, that she has nothing to do with the procreation of the Dragon with seven heads, the great Antichrist, the Pope of Rome: this honor must be left to Episcopacy; the Presbytery must not pretend to any share in it.

There is no Lordship, but a meer service and ministry in the Pastors of the Church.The Warners ground for his pretty similitude is, that the Pres­byterians make two Soveraignties in every Christian state, whose commands are contrary. Ans. All the evil lieth in the contrariety of the commands: as for the double Soveraignty, there is no shew of truth in it: for the Presbyterians cannot be gui [...]ty of co-ordi­nating two Soveraignties in one State, though the Prelates may well be guilty of that fault; since they with their Masters of Romae maintain a true Hierarchy, a Spiritual Lordship, a domination and principality in their Bishops above all the Members of the Church, but the Presbyterians know no [...], no domini­on, no Soveraignty 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 Soveraign Lord, whereunto no command of any temporal Prince needs or ought to be contrary; but if it fall out to be so, it is not [Page 43] the Presbytery; but the holy Scriptures which command rather to obey God then man. Dare the Warner here oppose the Presbyte­rians? dare he maintain a subordination of the Church to the State in such a fashion, that the clear 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 his ruling of this case, let him go on to preach doctrin pointblank con­trary to the Apostles, that it is better to obey men then God. It falls out as rarely in Scotland, as any where in the world, that the Church and State run contrary ways; but if it so happen, the common rules of humane direction towards right and wrong judgment must be followed: if a man find either the Church▪ or the State, or both, command what he knows to be wrong (for neither the one nor the other hath any infallibility) there 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 cannot fall under the smallest temporal inconvenience 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 doth inflict, without any relief 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 French Ambassadors, but the Church comman­ded Edenburgh to fast that day when the King desired them to feast. Ans. Here were no so contrary commands, but both were obeyed, the people did keep the humiliation, and some of the Ma­gistrates that same day did give the banquet to the French Ambas­sadors as the King commanded; that for this any Church censure was intended against them, it is a malicious calumny, according to the author of this fable his own confession, as at length may be seen in the unloading of Issachars burden.

As for his second instance,The War­ner is full 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 managed) did portend to Religion, the Kings person and whole Kingdom, when contrary to their wholesom advices the ingagement went on, they medled not to oppose the act of State, further then to declare their judgment of its unlawfulness, according to the duty of faithful [Page 44] watchmen, Ezek. 33. It is very false that the Church have chased any man out of the Countrey, or excommunicated any for follow­ing that engagement, or have put any man to sackcloath for it, unto this 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 heaps up so many untruths in a few lines, in things done but yesterday before the eyes of thousand, we shal not wonder of his venturing to lye confidently in things past long be­fore any now living were born: but there are a generation of men who are bold to speak what makes for their end, upon the hope that few will be at the pains, to bring back what hath flown from their teeth to the touchstone of any solid triall.

IN the 10 Chapter the Warner undertakes to shew the antipa­thy of Presbyteries to Parliaments; albeit there be no greater harmony possible betwixt any two bodies, then betwixt a gene­ral Assembly and Parliament, a Presbytery and an inferiour Civil Court, if either the constitution, or end, or dayly practise of these judicatories be looked upon: but the Prelatical learning is of so high a flight, that it dares undertake to prove any conclusion, yet these men are not the first, that have offered to force men to be­leeve upon unanswerable arguments, though contrary to common sence & reason, that snow is black, the fire cold, and the light dark.

The eight desires of th [...] Church about the ingagement were just and neces­sa [...]y.For the proof of his conclusion, he brings back yet again the late engagement: how often shall this insipide Colwort be set upon our table? Will the Warner never be filled with this unsavoury 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 vapoureth out all his good pleasure, not willing to know that all [...]hese desires were drawn from the Church by the Parliaments own messages, and that wel-neer 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 seal: here the questi­on among us was not for the thing it self, but only about the time, [Page 45] the order, and some part of the matter of that security. And for the second, the quallification of the persons to be imployed, that all should be such who had given no just cause of Jealousie; no man did question, but all who were to have the managing of that war should be free of all just causes of Jealousie, which could be made appear not to half a dozen of Ministers, but to any competent judi­catory according to the laws of the Kingdom. The Warner hath not been careful to inform himself, where the knot of the difference lay, and so gives out his own groundless conjectures, for true Hi­storical 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 proclaim in print their dis-satisfaction with that ingagement,It is one of the liber­ties of the Church of Scotland to publish declarati­ons. as favourable to the malignant Party, &c. Ans. The Warner knows not that it is one of the liberties of the Church of Scotland, established by law and long custom, to keep the people by publick Declarations in their duty to God, 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 wisdom 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 peremptory to follow their own ways: and the lamentable event since hath opened the eyes of ma­ny, who before would not see, to acknowledge their former er­ors: but if God should speak never so loud from heaven, the War­ner and his Party will stop their ears: for they are men of such gal­lant Spirits, as scorn to submit either to God or men, but in a Ro­man constancy they will be ever the same, though their counsels and ways be found never so palpably pernicious.

The third thing the Warner lays to the charge of our Church is,The leavy was never off red to be stopped by the Church. that they retarded the leavies. Ans. In this also the Warner shews his ignorance or malice: for how sore soever the leavy (as then stated and mannaged) was against the hearts of the Church, yet their opposition to it, was so cold-rife and smal, that no complaint needs be made of any retardment from them. So soon as the Com­manders thought it expedient, there was an Army gotten up so numerous and strong, that with the ordinary blessing of God was abundantly 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, what marvell, that the strong­est arm of flesh be quickly broken in pieces?

The Church was not the cause of the gathering at Mauchlin-Moor.The fourth Charge is most calumnious, That the Church ga­thered the Country together in Arms at Mauchlin-Moor to ex­pose the Expedition, Ans. No Church-man was the cause of that meeting, a number of Yeomen being frighted from their hou­ses, did fly away to that corner of the Land, that they might not be forced against their conscience to go 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 near (by occasion of the Communion at Mauchlin the day before) were good Instru­ments with the people to go 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 ways the cause of the peoples convening or fighting at Mauchlin.

The Assem­bly is help­ful and not hurtful to the Parlia­ment.The paralel that the Warner makes betwixt the general Assem­bly and Parliament is malicious in all its parts. For the first, though the one Court be Civil, and the other Spiritual, yet the Presbyterians lay the Authority of both upon a divine Founda­tion, that for conscience sake the Courts Civil must be obeyed in all their lawful Commands, as well as the Assemblies 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 as well as the other. But what doth the Warner mean, to mock at Ministers for carrying themselves as the Embassadors of Christ, for judging according to the rule of Scripture, for caring for life eternal? Is he become so shamefully impious, as to perswade Mi­nisters to give over the care of life eternal, to lay aside the holy Scripture, and deny their embassage from Jesus Christ? Behold, what Spirit leads our Prelates, while they jeer the World out of all Rel [...]gion, and chase away Ministers from Christ, from Scrip­ture, from eternal Life.

Of the second part of the Paralel, That people are more ready to obey their Ministers then their Magistrates, what shall be made? All the power which Ministers have with the people is builded on their love to God and Religion: how much soever it is, a good Statesman will not envy it; for he knows that God and Con­science constrain Ministers to employ all the power they have with the people to the good of the Magistrate, as the Deputy and Servant of God for the peoples true good. The Warner here un­derstands [Page 47] best his own meaning, while he scoffs at Ministers for their threatning of men with hells fire. Are our Prelates come to such open Proclamations of their Atheism, as to print their de­sires to banish out of the hearts of people all fear, not only of Church-Censures, but even of hell it self? Whither may not Satan drive at last the Instruments of his Kingdom?

The third part of the Paralel consists of a number of unjust and false Imputations before particularly refuted.

What he subjoyns of the power of the general Assembly to name Committees to sit in the Intervals of Assemblies,The ap­pointment of Commit­tees is a right of e­very Court, as well Ec­clesiastick as Civil. it is but a poor Charge: Is it not the dayly practise of the Parliaments of Scotland to nominate their Committees of State for the Intervals of Parliament? Is it not one inherent right to every Court to name some of their number to cognosce upon things within their own sphere at what ever times the Court it self finds expedient? however the Judicatories of the Church by the Laws of the King­dom being authorized to meet when themselves think fit both or­dinarily and pro renata, their power of appointing Committees for their own Affairs was never questioned: and truly these Com­mittees in the times of our late troubles, when many were lying in wait to disturb 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 be glad to decline it, if fear of detriment to the Church made not these meetings very necessary.

THe bounds and compass of the Warners rage against the Presbytery is very large;There is no rig [...]ur at all in the Pres­bytery. not being content to have incensed the King and Parliament against it, he comes down to the body of the people, and will have them beleeve the special enmity 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 an occasion of a private advice in the ear, but that any of them did ever procure the smallest censure of the Church, it is a great untruth: no man who knows us, will complain of our rigour; here we wish we were able to refute upon as good reason the charge of our laxness in the mouth of Sectaries, as we are that of our strictness in the mouth [Page 48] of Erastians. We would know of the Warner, what are these Sabbath Recreations, which he saith are void of scandal, and con­sistent with the duties of the day; are they not the stage plays, and the other honest pastimes, wherewith his friends were wont to sanctifie the Lords Day, as no more a Sabbath, then any other day in the year, and much less then diverse Popish Festivals? An Apo­steme in the lowest gut will shew it self by the unsavory vapors, which now and then are eructate from it. That ever in Scotland there was one word of debate about Starch and Cuffs, is more then the Warner can prove.

Crimes till repented of ought to keep from the holy table.The second oppression whereby the Presbytery treads 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 own friends for no appearance of a fault? Will either the Eng­lish or Popish Prelates admit Murderers, Whores or Theeves to the holy Table without any signs 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 Warner here may know his own meaning, but others will confess their ignorance of his mind.

Excommu­n [...]cation in Scotland is not inju­rious to any.The third grievance he would have the people conceive against the Presbytery, is, The rigour of their excommunication; in this also the Warner seems to know little of the Scots way; let ex­communication be so severe 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 all their life never see that Censure executed; I have lived in one of the greatest Cities of that Land, and for forty seven years even from my birth to this day, that Censure to my know­ledg or hearing was never executed there in my days but twice; first upon one obstinate and very prophane Papist, and next on some horrible scandalous Prelates. Again, when any is excom­municated by the Church, we go no further with them then Pauls command, 2 Thes. 3.14. only they who are not tyed to them by natural bonds, abstain from familiar and unnecessary con­versation, to bring them by the sence of this shame to repentance for their sins. Thirdly, The civil inconveniences which follow that Censure, come along from the State, and the Acts of Parlia­ment, for which the Church ought not to be challenged, especial­ly by Prelates, who wont to allow their Officials to excommuni­cat [Page 49] whole incorporations of people for a small debt of mony, and to presse the contemners of that frivolous and profane sentence, with all the civill inconveniences they could. Fourth­ly, what ever be the lawes in Scotland, against them who con­tinue long in the contempt of Excommunication, (which is not inflicted but for great sins, and after a long processe) yet certainly their executon is very farre from all cruelty, as they who know the proceedings of that land, will beare witnesse.

What he objects about fugitives; it is true, when a processe 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 calumni­ate the Presbytery to Kings, Princes and Soveraignes, to Par­liamen [...]s and all Courts of Justice, to people and all particu­lar persons? but yet a new chapter must be made to shew in it the hurtfulnesse of Presbytery to all orders of men: we must have patience to stand a little in the unsavoury aire of this vo­mit also.

Unto the nobility and gentry the Presbytery must be hurtfull,The Praelates were constant oppressors of the Nobility and gentry. 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 of the Nobility and gentry: its not long since the praelati­cal clergy were accustomed to set their foule feet on the necks of the greatest peeres of the three Kingdomes, with so high a pride and pressure; that to shake of their yoks, no suffering, no hazard has beene refused by the best of the Nobility, and [Page 50] gentry of Britaine: but natures and principles are so easy to be changed, that no man now needs feare any more oppression from the praelates, though they were set downe againe and well warmed in their repaired thrones.

The way of the Scotes Presby­tery is incom­parably better then that of the English E­piscopacy.But to the challenge we answer, 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 here 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 concern the persons of the meanest of the people, this Presbytery does consist ordinarily of fifeteene Ministers (at least) and fifeteen of the most qualified noblemen, gen [...] ­lemen and Burgesses, which the circuit of fifteen parishes can afford; 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 p [...]tty mercenary lawyer, to whose care alone the whole Ecclesiastick jurisdiction over all the Nobility and gentry of divers shires is committed, and that without ap­peale as the Warner has told us, except it be to a Court of delegates; a miserable reliefe that all the Nobility, Gentry, and Commons of a Kingdome, who are oppressed by Episco­pall officials, have no other remedy but to goe attend 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 weeke, 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 ordi­narily are of diverse whole shires, as that of Glasgow, of the upper and nearer ward of Clidsedaile, Baerranfrow, Lennox, Kile, Carrick and Cunninghame; also beside Ministers, the constant Members who have decisive voyce in Synodes, are [Page 51] the chiefe Noblemen, Gentlemen and Burgesses of all these shires, among whom their be such parts for judgement as are not to be found nor expected in any inferiour civill Court of the Kingdome; 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 to a Generall assembly, which consist of as ma­ny Burgesses and more Gentlemen from every shire of the Kingdome, then come to any Parliament: Besides the prime Nobility and choisest Ministry of the land; having the Kings Majestie in person, or in his absence, his high Commissioner to be their praesident. This meeting yeerly (or oftner; if need be) sits ordinarily a month; and if they thinke 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 different capacity: the num­ber and qualification of Knights and Burgesses is ever large, as great in the assembly, as in Parliament: onely the differ­ence is, that in Parliament all the Nobility in the Kingdome sit without any election, and by vertue of their birth, but in the Assembly onely who for age, wisedome and pie [...]y are cho­sen by the Presbyteries as fittest to judge in Ecclesiastick af­faires, but to make up this odds of the absence of some No­blemen, the assembly is alwaies adorned with above an hun­dred of the choisest Pastors of the whole land, none whereof may sit in Parliament: nothing that can conciliate authority to a Court, which 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 alleadged hurt,All questions about pattro­nages in Scot­land are now ended. which the Nobility have from the Presbytery, is the losse of their partonages by congrega­tions electing their Pastors. Answ. However the judgement of our Church about pat [...]onages, is no other then that of the Reformed divines abroad, yet have our Presbyteries alw [...]ies with patience, endured patrons to present unto vacant Chur­ches, till the Parliament now at last hath taken away that grievance.

The possessors of Church-l [...]nds were e­ver feared for Bishops, but never for the Presby [...]ery.The Nobilities next hurt by the Presbytery, is their losse of all their impropriations and Abey-lands, Ans. How Sy­cophant [...]ck 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 N [...]bility or Gentry from their possessions of the Chu ch-lands, but very lately the threats and vigorous activi­ty of the p aelats, 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 again, though they obtained the abolition of patronages, yet were the pos­sessors of the Church-lands and tythes so little harmed, that their rights thereto were more cleerly and strongly confor­med, then by any praeceding Parliament.

The fourth hurt is that every ordinary Presbyter will make himselfe a Noblemans fellow. Ans. No where in the World doe 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 speech 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 has ever (at least these 800 yeares) beene their nature to trample under foot, the h [...]ghest of the Nobility. As the Pope must be above the Emperour, so a little Cardinal Bellarmin can tell to King James, that he may well he 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 Dukes? was it not Episcopacy, that did advance poore and capricious Pe­dants to strive for the white staves and great Seales of both Kingdomes, with the prime Nobility; and often overcome [Page 53] them in that strife? In Scotland I know, and the Warner will assure for England and Ireland, that the basest borne of his Brethren has ruffled it in the secret councell, 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, since a Bishop of Galloway had the modesty to give unto a Marquesse o [...] A [...]gile, tantum non a broad lye in his face at the Councell table. The Warner shall do well to reckon no more with Presbyters for braving of Noble­men.

The nixt hee will have to be wronged by the Presbytery are the Orthodox Clergy.The Prelat [...] continue to annull the being of all the Reformed Churches for their want of Episcopacy. Ans. All the Presbyterians to him (it seemes) are heterodoxe; Episcopacy is so necessary 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 minde, they l [...]se (saith hee) the comfortable assurance of undoubted succession by Episcopall ordi­nation: what sence can be made of these words, but that all Ministers who are not ordained by Bishop [...], must lie un­der the comfortlesse 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 onely the power of mission and ordination to the Ministry were committed by Christ? because of this defect the Presbyterian Ministers must not onely want the comfort of an assured and undoubted calling to the Ministery, but may very well know and bee assured that their calling and Mi­nistery is null. The words immediatly following are scrap­ed out after their Printing: for what cause the Author best knoweth: but the purpose in hand makes it probable, that the deletted words did expresse more of his minde, 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 ot onely annull the calling of all the Ministers of France, Holland, Zwit-zerland, and Ger­many, but also did hinder all these Societies to bee true Churches: for that popular Sophisme of the Jesuits our Pre­lats [Page 54] did greedily swallow; where are no true Sacrament, 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 in 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 annull the Ministry, yea the very being of all the Reformed Churches at one strock, is it any marvell, that all of them do concurre together for their own preserva­tion, to abolish this insolent abaddon and destroyer? and not­withstanding all its ruine have yet no discomfort at all, nor any the least doubt of their most lawfull ordination by the hands of the Presbytery.

The Prelats are so basely injurious to all the Reformed Churches that their selfes are ashamed of itAfter all this was written, as here it stands, another copy of the Warners book was brought to my hand, wherin I found the deleted line stand Printed in these distinct termes, and put it to a dangerous question whether 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 do 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 d [...]ngerous question: for it stricks at the root of all. If the Warner out of remorse of conscience had blotted out of his booke that errour, the Repentance had beene commendable: But hee has 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 here at this unseasonable time, seemes to have been the cause of deleting these too cleare expressions of the pre­laticall tenent against the very being and subsistence of all the Protestant Churches which want Episcopacy, where these men doe still stand upon the extreme pinacle of impudency and arrogance, denying the Reformed to be true Churches, and without scruple averring Rome as shee stands this day, under the councell of Trent, to be a Church most true, wher­in [Page 55] there is an easy way of salvation, from which all separa­ion is needlesse, and with which a re-union were much to be desired? That gracious faction this day 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 sa [...] a full liberty of Religion to the bloudy 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 next Parliament of England, these men can heare with all moderation and patience: but behold their fu ious 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 mischiefes of the World doe lurke in that miserable Covenant, that de [...]th and any misfortune, that the ruine of all the Kingdomes ought much rather to be imbraced by His Majesty, then that pro­digious Monster, that very hell of the Covenant, because for sooth it doth oblige in plaine termes the taker to endeavour (in his station) the abolition of their great Goddesse, Pre­lacy.

The next hurt of Ministers from the Presbytry, is,The generality of Episcopall Clergy have ever been co­vered with ignorance, beggery, and contempt. that by it they are brought to ignorance, contempt and beggery. Ans. Whither Episcopacy or Presbytry is the fittest instru­men to avert these evills, let reason or experience teach men to judge. The P [...]esbyteriall 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 Presbytery exacts of every Minister after his ordination all the dayes of his life: for experience, let the French, Dutch and Scots divines who have beene or yet are, be compared with the ordinary Generation of the English Clergy, and it will be found, that the Prelates have not great [Page 56] reason so superciliously to looke 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 have not wanted good store of learning, but the most of them (I believe) will be content to leave of boasting in this subject; what does the Warner speak to us of ignorance, contempt and Beggery? does not all the World know, that albeit some few, scarce one of twenty, did brooke good benefices, yea plurality of them whereby to live in splen­dor at Court, or where they listed in their non-residency, ne­verthelesse it hath bin much complained, that the greatest part of the Priests, who have the cure of the soules thorow all the Kingdome of England, were incomparably the most ignorant, beggerly and contemptible Clergy, that ever have bin seen in any of the reformed Churches? neither did we ever heare of any great study in the Prelats to remedy these evills, albeit some of them be provider t enough for their owne Families. Doctor Bramble knowes who had the skill before they had sit­ten seven yeare in their chaire to purchase above fifteen hun­dred pounds a year for themselves and their heirs what some­ever.

The Prelats continue to hate preaching and prayer but to idolize a popish service.The third evill which the Presbytery brings upon Minis­ters, is, that it makes them prate, and pray nonsence everlast­ingly. Ans. It is indeed a great heartbreake 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 th [...]t all indifferently ingenu­ous men had long agoe bin put from such impudence. It was the late labour of the Prelats by all their skill to disgrace Preaching and Praying without booke, to cry up the Litur­gy at 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 years advisement Mr Bailie his para­rell of the Service Booke with the Missall and Breviary, be­fore he present the world with new paralells of the English [Page 57] liturgy, with the directories of the Rerormed Churches. It is so indeed, that all Preaching and Praying without Booke 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 affi mations 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 D [...]vine ordinances; for we may see here their tenet to remaine what it w [...]s, and themselves ready enough, when their sea [...]on 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, that Sermons on week dayes and Sundayes afternoon must all be laid aside,Vide laden­sium. cap. 7. that on the Sabbath before noone Sermon is needlesse, and from the mouths of the most Preachers very noxious; that when so [...]e lea [...]ned Schollars are pleased on so [...]e festivall dayes to have an Oration, it wo [...]ld be short and according to the Court paterne, without all Sp [...]rit and life for edification; but by all meanes it must be 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 desi es of his heart to God in privat or publick in any words of his o [...]n framing, he is a grosse Puritan, who is bold to offe to God his own nonsence rather then the ancient, and well advised prayers of the holy Church.

The Wa [...]ner is here also mistaken in his beliefe, that ever the Church of Scotland had any Liturgy; they had and have still some formes for helpe and direction, but notice e [...]er in any of them by Law or practise: they do not condemne the use of set formes for Rules, ye [...] n [...]t for use in [...]ee n [...]e [...]s, who are thereby endeavouring to attaine a readinesse to pray in their family our of their own heart in the words which Gods Spirit dytes to them; but for Ministers to suppresse their most [Page 58] comfortable and usefull gift of prayer by tying their mouth unto such formes which themselves or others have composed we count it a wrong to the giver, and to him who has received the gift, and to the Church for whose use that was be­stowed.

Episcopall Warrants for clandestin marriages, rob Parents of their child­dren.In the next place the Warner makes the Presbytry injuri­ous to parents, by marying their children contrary to their consent, and forcing them to give to the d sobedient as large a portion as to any other of their obedient children, and than it is no marvail 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 Presbyte [...]y lodges must be charged on the back of the Pres­bytery. 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 prelaticall faction to courses de­structive to himselfe and all his people; after their shedding of much bloud, before the exercise of all parts of his Royall go­vernment, they onely required for all satisfaction and secu­rity to Religion and Liberties, the grant of some few most e­quitable demands. The unhappy Prelats from the begin­ning of our troubles to this day finding our great demande to runne upon the abolition of their Office, did ever presse His Majesty 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 Scots contin [...]e to supplicate and to offer not onely their Kingdome, but their lives and estates and all they have for His M [...]je [...]es se [...]vice upon the grant of their few and easy demands, but no misery e [...]ther of King or people can overcome the desperate obstinacy of Prelaticall hearts.

As for parents co [...]se [...]t to the mariage of their childre [...], how tenderly it is provided for in England, 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 spoyled many parents of their deare children: with such abhominations the Pres­bytery [Page 59] 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 Magistrates and Ministers may be intreated by the grieved childe to deale with the unjust parent or tutor, that by their meditation 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 hear of any childe 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 hath any such cannon or practise, its an impudent lye; 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 Magistrate 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 furio [...]sly against the Authors and lovers of so se­vere a discipline.

The Presbyteries next injury is done to the Lawyers; Sy­nods, and other Ecclesiastick Courts revoke their Sentences. Ans. No such matter ever was attempted in Scotland; fre­quent prohibitions have beene obtained by curtisan Bishops against the highest civill judicatories in England; but that e­ver a Presbytery or Synode in Scotland did so much as assay to impede or repeale the proceedings of any the meanest ci­vill Court, I did never heare it so much as alledged by our adversaries.Serious cate­chising is no Episcpall crime [...]

The next injurie is against all Masters, and [...]istresses of fa­milies, whom the Presbytery will have to be personally exa­mined in their knowledge once a yeare, and to be excom­municate, if grosly and willfully ignorant. Answ. If it be a crime for a Minister to call together parcels of his congrega­tion [Page 60] 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 be 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 im­put [...]tion: for they had somewhat else to doe, then to be at the paines of instructing or trying the Spirituall State of every sheep in their flocks: we confesse likewise, that it is both our order and practise to keepe off from the holy table, whom we finde grosly and wilfully ignorant: but that ever any for sim­ple ignorance was excommunicate in Scotland,Church sessions are not high commissiones none who knowes us will affirme it.

The last whom he will have to be wronged by the Presby­te y are the common people, who must groane under a high commission in every parish, where ignorant governors rule all without Law, medling even in domesticall jarres betwixt man and wife, Master and Servant. Answ. 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 King­domes, and would never give over that their insolent domi­neering court, till the King and Parliaments of both King­domes did agree to throw it downe about their eares. The thing he je [...]es at, is the congregationall Eldership, a j [...]di­catory which all the Reformed doen joy to their great comfort as much as S [...]otland. They are farre from all arbitrary ju­dications; their Lawes are the holy Scripture and acts of su­perior Church j [...]dicatories, which rule so clearely the ca­ses of their c [...]gnisance, that rarely any difficulty remaines therein: or if it doe, immediately by ref [...]rence or appeale it is transmitted to the Classes or Synode. The judges in the lowest Elders [...] (as we have said before) are a dozen at least, of the most able and pious who can be had in a whole congregation to joyne with the Pastors one or more as they fall to be: but the Episcopall way is to have no discipline at [Page 61] all in any congregation: only where there is hope of a fine, the Bishops officiall will summon before his own learned and conscientious wisedome, who ever within the whole dioces have fallen into such a fault as he pleaseth to take notice of: as for domistick infirmities, Presbyterians are most tender to meddle therein; they come never before 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 iniuries 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 Angell 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 Ch [...]pters the Warner has spewed out more venome and gall then the bagge of any one mans stomack could have beene supposed capable of, yet as if he were but beginning to vomite, in this last Chapter of the covenant a new flood of blackes poyson rusheth out of his penne. His undertaking is great, to demonstrate cleer [...]y that the covenant is meerly void wicked and impious. His fi [...]st 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 tooke it with their lips, never consented with their hearts. Ans. This cleer demonstration is but a poore and evill argu­ment: the Major, if it were put in forme, would hardly be granted, but I stand on the minor as weake and false; for the [Page 62] Covenant was not devised by strangers;The Covenant was not disho­nourable to u­nion. the Commissioners of the Parliament of England, together with the Commissio­ers of the Parliament and generall assembly of Scotland were the first and onely framers thereof, but they who gave the life and being to it in England were the Lords and Com­mons assembled in Parliament at Westminster by the Kings call, and at that time acknowledged by his Majestie without any question about the lawfulnesse 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 Parliament 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 [...]aine 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 dishonourable indeed to the English Nation, if it were true it was no dishonour to England to joyne with their brethren of Sc [...]tland in a Cove­nant for maintainance 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 cleer demonstration, this is such a dishonour and dishonesty, that a greater can­not fall upon a man of reputed integrity; especically when the ground of the lye and pe ju y is n evident falshood: for the Covenant was not extorted from any flesh in England by feare of any unjust suffering; so far w [...]s 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 penal­ty 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 sware. [...]hat 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 here it is, before it can st [...]nd 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. Answ. 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 i [...], he 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 Scots Presbytery, nor of any thing in any Church even the best reformed, unlesse it be found accor­cording to the paterne of Gods holy word.

The second ground of his demonstration is also an evi­dent errour,The Warner unwittingly commends the Covenant. that the covenant in hand is one and the same with that of King James. Answ. 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 James in Scotla [...]d 1580, should be one and the same with the Cove­nant of all the three Kingdomes 1643, whatsoever iden­tit es 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 here the War­ner understands not how hee is cutting his owne veines; his friends in Scotland will give him small thanks for at­tributing unto the nationall Covenant of Scotland (that Covenant of King James) these three properties, that it 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: time brings adversa­ries to confesse of their own accord long denyed truthes. But the Characters; which the Warner in prints upon the solemne [Page 64] league and Covenant of the three Kingdomes, wee must b [...] pardoned to controvert, till he have taken some leasure to prove 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 fo [...] the overthrow of Religion. The man cannot think, th [...]t any should beleeve his dictats of this kinde without p oofe, since the expresse words of that league doe 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 here have beene spared; 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 agreeable to the word of God, were wee not in all reason obliged to encourage and assist them in so pious a worke?

The King did not clame the sole and abso­lve possession of the militia.In the next words the Warner for all his great boasts fin­ding the weaknes of all the former grounds of his second demonstration, he offers three new ones: which doubtles will doe the deed: for he avowes positively that his follow­ing grounds are demonstrative, yet whosoever shall be plea­sed to gripe them with never so soft an hand shall finde them all to be but vanity and winde. 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 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 unto him. Answ. The Warner will have much adoe to prove the 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 Parli [...]ment 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 my party [Page 29] countenanced by the Kings presence against his lawes must [...]e a together unlawfull; if his demonstration be no clearer, hen the ground whereupon he builds it, I am sure, it will not be visible to any of his opposits 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 neede to assay its reliefe with some colour of an argu­ment; for none of his owne friends will now take it of his hand for an indemonstrable principle, since the King for a long time was willing to acknowledge the Parliaments joynt 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 part of the Militia, in the time of evi­dent dangers, should be so certainly and clearely 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 supream Legislator; that it is unlawfull for the subjects of England to change any thing established by Law, especially to the prejudice of the Praelates without their own consent, they be­ing a third order of the Kingdome; otherwise it would be a harder measure then the Friers and Abbots received from Henry the eight.The change of lawes in Eng­land ordinarily begin by the two houses w [...]thout the King. Ans. May the Warner be pleased to con­sider how farre his dictates here 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 complaint 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 [Page 64] [...] [Page 29] [...] [Page 47] 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 O [...]dinance to a standing Law, the Kings consent is required, but with what qualifications and exceptions wee need not here to debate, since his Majesties consent to the present case of abolishing Bishops was obtained well neere to as farre as was desired; and what it 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, hee was willing also in England and Ireland to put them out of the Parliament, and all civil Courts, and to divest them of all civill power, and to joyne with them Presbyteries for Ordi­nation and spirituall jurisdiction; yea, to abolish them to­tally name and thing, not onely 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 pertuall aboliti­on? for all and every one in both houses, having abjured E­pisopacy by solemne Oath and Covenant, the Parliament was in no hazard of agreeing 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 agreeing with them, yet really to agree with them in the perpetuall abolition of Episcopacy, since the confession was for the laying Bishops aside for 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 praelats, his Majestie, who now is, easily may and readily would sup­ply all such defects: if some of the faction did not continu­ally, for their owne evil interests, whisper in his eares per­nicious counsell, as our Warner in this place also doeth by frighting the King in conscience from any such consent;The praelats would fl [...]tter the King into a Tyranny. for this end he casts out a discourse, the sinews whereof are in these three Episcopall maximes First, that the legislative power is soly in the King, that is according to his Brethrens Commentary, that the Parliament is but the Kings great coun­cel of free choyce, without or against whose votes hee may [Page 50] make or unmake what Lawes he thinkes expedient; but for them to make any Ordinance for changing without his con­sent of any thing that has been, instituting any new thing, or for them to defend this their legall right and custome (time out of minde) against the armes of the Malignant party, no man may deny it to be plaine rebellion.

II.The praelates take to them­selves a nega­tive voice in Parliament. That the King and Parliament both together cannot make a Law, to the prejudice of Bishops without their owne consent, they being the third order of the Kindome: for albeit it be sacriledge in the Lords and Commons, to claime 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 be the third order of the Kingdome, yea the first and most high of the three, farre 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 void and null.

Wee must grant that the King and Parliament in divesting Bishops of their temporall honour and estates,The praelats grieve that Monks and Friers, the Pope and Car­dinals were ca­sten out of England by H. in abolishing their places in the Church, doe sin more against conscience then did Henry the eight and his Paliament, when they put down the Abbots and the Friers. We must beleeve that Henry the eight his abolishing the order of Monks was one of the acts of his greatest Tyranny and greed: we 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 downe, 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 [Page 52] this be here glaunced at by the Warner, and elsewhere wee prove it to be the declared mind of his Brethren, yet we must be pardoned not to accept them, as undenyable princ [...]ples of cleare demonstrations.

The just supremacy of Kings is not prejud­ged by the Covenant.The last ground of the Doctors demonstration, is, that the Covenant is an Oath to set up the Presbyterian govern­ment in England, as it is in Scotland, & that this is contrary to the Oath of Supremacy; for the Oath of Supremacy makes the [...]ing the onely supreame head and Governour of the Church of England, that is, the civill 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 governour 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 civill 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 granted upon his bare word. IV. That In Scot­land no other governors are acknowledged then Presbyters, himselfe contradicts in the very next words, where hee tells that the Scots Presbytery ascribs 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,The Warner [...] insolent Vani­ty. it is a senselesse untruth.

The Warners arguments are not more idle and weake, then his triumphing upon them is insolent: for he concludes from these wife and strong demonstrations, that the poore covenant is apparently deceitfull, unvalide, impious, re­bellious, and what not? yea, that all the learned divines in Europe will conclude it so, & that all the Covenanters them­selves who have any ingenuity, must grant thus much; and [Page 49] that no knowing English man can deny it, but his own con­science will give him the lie. Answ. If the Warner with any seriousnesse hath weighed this part of his own write, and if his minde go along with his pen, I may without great presump­tion pronounce his judgement 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 alwaies 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 formed de­signe to bring Tyranny 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 Jealously and feare to have Religion and lawes still overturned by that faction.

But the Wa ner commands us, to speake to his Dilemma, The covenant is not for pro­pagating of Religion by armes. whither we thinke it lawfull or unlawfull for subjects to take armes against their prince meerely 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 selves, because our covenant testi­fies to the world, that we have taken up armes meerly to alter Religion, and that we beare no alleagiance to our King but in order to Religion, which in plaine terms is to our own hu­mours and conceits. Ans. There be many untruths 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 own heart knownes; but it can be no great cha­rity in him to make the Religion of all covenanters to be no­thing but their own humours and conceits. Secondly it is not true that Covenanters beare no alleagiance to the King but only in order to Religion. III. The Parliament of England denied that they took u [...] armes against their King, though to [Page 61] defend themselves against the popish pralaticall 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 corruption of Bishops and ceremonies that too long had beene noxious unto them. V. They have oft professed that their rames 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 justifie 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 Magistrates, who are in a contrary opinion to them; that it is a ridiculous partiality for any to priviledge their owne Religion as truth and Gospell.The Warners black Athe­isme. Answ. Whether will these men go at last? the strength of this reason is black atheisme, that there 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 preferre 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 onely turnes the most certaine truths, even these divine ones of Religion, into meer uncertaine concep­tions: but which is worse, it will have the most orthodoxe beleever so to think, speake and act, as if the opinions of Independents, Anabaptists, Turks, Jewes, Pagans or grosse Atheists were as good, true and solide as the beleefe of Moses or Paul were of the truths revealed to them from heaven. Secondly we say that subiects defence of their Religion and liberties established by Law, against the violent usurpation of Papists, Prelats or Malignants, is not the planting of Reli­gion by armes; much lesse is it the cutting of the throats of all Magistrates, who differ in any point of Religion.The Praelats condemne the defensive armes of the Dutch and French Prote­stants. III. In the Iudgement of the prelaticall party, the defensive armes of the Protestants in France, Holland, and Germany, must be [Page 64] as 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 hande so brutish and Atheisticall maximes.

The Praelats decline the judgement of counsels. The Praelats overthrow of the foundation of Protestant Religion.He concludes with a wish of a generall councell, at least of all protestant Churches for to condemne all breachers of sedi­tious principles. Ans. All true covenanters goe before him in that desire, being confident that he and his fellowes as they have declined already the most solemne assemblies of their own countries, upon assurance of their condemnation, so their tergiversation would be as great if they were to answer to an oecumenick Synod. What (I pray) would the Warner say in a councell of protestant▪ 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 still pe­remptory to destroy the King and all his Kingdomes if they may not be resto­red. Also what could they an­swer in a Christian councel 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 wickednesse (most) has brought on the former King and all his Kingdomes these eleven yeares, that rather then they had not the Covenant and generall assembly in Scotland destroyed as an Idol and Anti­christ, they will chuse yet still to imbroyle all in new cala­mities? This King also and his whole Family, the remain­der of the blood and Estates in all the three Kingdoms, must be hazarded for the sowing together of the torne mytres, and the rejecting of the fallen chayres of Praelats. If Bishops must lie stil, in their deserved ruines, they persevere in their perem­tory resolution, to have their burials sprinckled with the a­shes of the royall Family and all the three Kingdomes,