THE SCOTTISH Mist dispeled: OR, A clear Reply to the prevaricating Answer of the Commissioners of the kingdom of Scotland, to both Houses of PARLIAMENT; Upon the new Propositions for Peace.  
And the four Bills sent to his Majesty, 1647.  
By an English COVENANTER.  
LONDON, Printed by M. S. for Henry Overton at the entering out of lombard-street into Popes-Head Alley. 1648.   

THE SCOTTISH MIST DISPELD.  
IT was a good saying of Solomon, 
P●ov. 10. 9  that he that walketh uprightly, walketh surely, but he that 
* ●● turneth them upside down.  perverteth his ways shall be known. Sincerity sits upon the lips of many; but her competitress keeps her out of the hearts of most: Pretence of Piety in keeping Covenant, was Absoloms' policy to raise a war what our Scotch brethren mean by their late papers entitled, 
2 Sam. 15, 7. 8.  The answer of the Commissioners of the kingdom of Scotland to both Houses of Parliament upon the new Propositions of Peace, and the four bills to be sent to his Majesty, is as much our wonder as the papers themselves: neither can we judge it any other than a design, to prepossess the people of England with scandalous prejudices against their Parliament, calculating their scribblings for the meridian of fools, which makes no observation of by-gone transactions, but are presently charmed into their Northern net, by the guilded language of their devout chantings, as if the kingdom of England (like some of the Indies) was a rich, pleasant, and golden Island, but the inhabitants thereof men in statute, but children in understanding, ignorant of the value of their own commodities, willing to sell their English treasures (and that upon trust) for Scottish toys, receiving nothing in hand, but two credulously presuming upon very fair and devout promises, and a solemn Covenant that their trading with them, will be all for their good in the latter end. Brethren though the naucious vapours of a SCOTCH MIST be summed up into the brains of some of our weak brethren of our own country, rendering them a little lightheaded, and making them speak like Englishmen on the otherside Tweed; yet are we not infected therewith: We have read your papers, and shall let you know that we ken the difference between plain juggling and plain dealing, and that others may see as well as ourselves▪ let impartial ingenuity examine your papers, and judge of the case.  
In the first place you tell the Parliament of England by your scratching pen, and the people in print, 
Pag. 3. by figure, but the first in order.  with what patience you have in pursuance of the solemn League & Covenant, and Treaties betwixt the kingdoms, used your best endeavours for the settling religion, and a happy peace.  
If you have used your best endeavours to these ends, 
Reply  it was in pursuance of the Covenant, and so you were bound to it, nevertheless we thank you for it being concerned in it: only remember Solomon's counsel, Let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth, a stranger and not thine own lips. Prov. 27. 2. But what you mean by settling Religion, is past our kenning: if by religion you mean discipline (for that's all the religion some men mind) than you know we have many Religions contended for amongst us: we have the King's religion, and that is Episcopacy: we have the Parliaments religion (we mean in the sense delivered, though we are confident they do not place their religion in discipline) and that is presbytery: we have the Scotch religion, and (to give its proper name) that is independency; for they call upon us like Oracles from heaven to hear them, though they themselves will be Independent as to us. Which of these religions have you used your endeavours to settle amongst us? If any of you (after Moses example) have been taken up into the mount of God, and have talked with our Lord and Master mouth to mouth, and immediately received the law of Church Government, from the hands of Christ written by his finger in Tables of stone, and have commission from him to charge the people to harken to you, upon pain of being cut off from the people; we shall acknowledge your peculiar favour with the most high God, and that you are the only independent people of God in the world, and that all Israel must harken to God, we repent of our former deafness, and shall henceforth submit to your judgements for conscience sake; but if it hath never been with you after this manner; we have no cause to fear the guilt of Rebellion, though we say to you as was said to Moses who made you rulers over us? it is not our ambition to subject ourselves to a rod of iron, a golden sceptre will better please us, your Scotch Independency is as distasteful to us, as that in England or Amsterdam. If you say it is the COVENANTED Religion, according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches: we wait with patience, and hearty prayers, and hands lifted up to the most high God, for the speedy-setling of that amongst us; but assure yourselves, except you will impose your Scottish sense upon our English words (Intolerable slavery) we resolve to be, according to our solemn League and Covenant, English Presbyterians, and not Scotish Independents. If your endeavours have been in truth for the settling not only of Religion, but a happy peace, you will take heed of wrangling with your peaceable brethren, we have no mind to fight, nor yet to be beaten, and therefore we obtest you (your own words in your several litanies) by the conjunction and parity (that word sticks, except with an English interpretation) of interests, by the treaty between the kingdoms by the solemn league and covenant, by all your promises, professions, and declarations, by the dreadful threatenings of God's judgements upon trucebreakers, by the anatomising of all your hearts at the great day, by the just retribution of the righteous judge to every man according to his ways, by the everlasting separation between the upright & the hypocrite in the day of the Lord, by the indeliable blot that will fall upon you and your posterity, by the scandal of religion, & the just vindication of the dishonour of God, by the prejudice of the Gospel, by the grief of the godly, by the intolerable consequences of the enemy's blasphemy, by the offence of the Jews, by the rejoicing of the Turks, by the animation and encouraging of Antichrist, by the cry of all the blood that hath been shed in the just defence of this kingdom's interest, by all the bonds of truth and righteousness, that you do not engage us in another war.  
You tell us in the front of your papers, that Propositions were agreed on, Anno. 1644 with advice and consent of the Parliaments of both kingdoms, presented to his Majesty at Oxford, by commissioners of both, and treated upon at Uxbridge, 1645. that you did earnestly and frequently press the sending of these Propositions again to his Majesty, wherein the Houses would not concur with you: but on the contrary, after very long delay, thought fit to make several alterations therein, which were principally in matters that did concern the near union of the kingdoms.  
Propositions were sent to the King long before the time you speak of, 
Reply.  so that surely the Parliament of England did endeavour the peace of the kingdom before our Scotch brethren put them upon it, you would make us believe that you alone mind the peace & safety of the kingdom of England, as if your own interest was forgotten, and ours remembered, pure love, unmixed friendship, if the Houses would not so suddenly concur with you to send the Propositions again, we do presume they had reason for it; neither do we conceive that the Scotch Commissioners have cause of offence, if the Houses did not presently act upon their first motion, being not Commissioners to direct the Parliament of England, if they thought fit, to make several alterations; we think fit to acquiesce in their judgements, having chosen them to judge for us, 
Vide, the Answer of the Commons in Parliament, to the Scotch Commissioners papers of the 2d of Octob 1646 pag. 1●.  neither can we presume their least neglect of those matters which do near concern the union of the kingdoms, though perhaps with reason enough their judgement and yours may not concur in those things; it is likely they were careful to maintain a distinction, and prevent a confusion of both kingdom's interest: they would avoid an occasion of your claming from the new Propositions something like a negative voice and right of joint consent with this kingdom in all things in relation between the King and the kingdoms of England and Ireland, which heretofore you have taken from the Covenant, and Treaty. Brethren, religion teacheth contentedness, and the doctrine of Community is reckoned in England among the novelties, for which we believe there will be no toleration. It may be the two kingdoms may not think fit that though we are all of one language under one King, in one Religion, yea in one Covenant, yet that we might be altogether one, 
The Marquis of A●giles speech to the grand Committee of both Houses, June 25. 164●.  as was once the wish of one of your honest and honourable Commissioners, would you not have the honour of the Kings of England preserved in their royal Title to two kingdoms of England and Scotland, and not that two should become one? although we heartily desire to be one with you, one in religion, one in affection, and one in assistance, yet let us remain two kingdoms, though we hold parity of interests in things spiritual and desire to be one with you in Christ, and one in the Spirit, yet like united Israel, Covenanted Israel of old, 
page 4.  (in their dividing of the Land of Canaan among their Tribes) let you and we rejoice in our distinct portion, love one another, cleave together, and be content: let Tweed divide, but nothing else. Brethren may be brethren without community in each others patrimony.  
Again, 
Page 3.  you urge, that it was agreed upon betwixt the kingdoms, that the same Propositions should be presented again to his majesty at his coming to Holdenby; the performance whereof being delayed by the Houses for divers months, you did wair patiently, yet upon a sudden they did appoint a peremptory day for sending the Propositions to his Majesty.  
First, you had notice of the day, and were earnestly pressed unto the thing, and the cause of your delay, 
Reply.  your own consciences can tell better than we, whether it was not by way of design; yet nevertheless before you charged the Parliament with delays, now you blame them for their haste: why should brethren be so froward? such relations inhebits wranglings.  
Secondly, 
☞  did not both Parliaments agree, that those very Propositions that were sent to Newcastle, should again be sent to the King. If so, what show of reason can be imagined, why you should not (though upon the sudden) concur with the sending them, since they could not be altered? Brethren let's have fair play above board.  
Again, 
Page 3.  in the same page you affirm thus, that finding no success in that way of sending Propositions to the King, and insisting upon his positive answer thereunto, without giving any reason for the justice of our desires, or hearing any Proposition from his Majesty, we did in November last propose to the Honourable Houses, and with much earnestness desire that their might be a personal Treaty with his Majesty here at Lond. it being in all probability the best means to obtain a peace.  
First, 
Reply.  whereas you appropriate the successlessness of sending Propositions to the King, to your not giving reasons for the justice of yours desires, we demand, Did not one of yourselves rally a whole army of arguments and reasons against the King's refusal to sign the Propositions at Newcastle in a rhetorical speech before him to that purpose, 
See the Chancellor of Scotland's speech to the King's Majesty at Newcastle.  professing (among many other motives) that upon his majesty's refusing the Propositions, both kingdoms will be constrained (for their mutual safety) to agree and settle religion and peace without him. And moreover, there was added, If your Majesty reject our faithful advice, and lose England by your wilfulness, your Majesty will not be permitted to come and ruin Scotland. Further pressing him thus: We know no other remedy to save your Crown and kingdoms, than your majesty's assenting to the Propositions. Yet now you are pleased to say, that not any reason hath been given for the justice of your desires. If your desires were not just, why did you press him to grant them.  
But secondly, is the case thus indeed? you were not always of this opinion, as you confess, page 6. Brethren, let's make a little use of this: We see now what reason there is of a brotherly forbearance of varieties of judgement, yea and of the same persons, though changing their judgements over and over, yea even in things civil, much more religious, being more enigmatical than these by far: you were against the King's personal treaty with the Parliament at London now you are for it. Suppose the Parliament of England hath not yet attained to your new light, bear with them a while, till your reasons prevail.  
You tell us, that indeed heretofore his majesty's presence might have bred divisions, and continued our troubles; and when his majesty desired to come hither from Oxford, with freedom and safety, it was thought unfit, and denied by the Houses, and the Commissioners from Scotland: but that argument now hath no force at all; for the case of affairs, the King's condition and ours (which were given for reasons in that answer to his Maibsty) are quite altered from what they were, than the King had Armies in the fields, and Garrisons, and strong holds to return unto: now he hath none of these.  
Brethren, 
Reply.  were these all the reasons then given, why you could not admit of a personal Treaty with his Majesty at London? viz. because then the King had Armies in the field, and Garrisons and strong holds to return unto? had it been our assertion as it is yours, we should have feared that divine hand of Justice which met with Ananias and Saphira, 
Page 6.  Acts 5. And that all might see your dealings herein, we have here added your own words.  
Concerning the personal Treaty desired by your Majesty, there having been so much innocent blood of your good subjects shed in this war by your majesty's Commands and Commissions, Irish Rebels brought over into both kingdoms, as also forces from foreign parts, &c. There being also forces in Scotland against the Parliament and kingdom by your majesty's Commission; The war in Ireland fomented and prolonged by your Majesty, whereby the three kingdoms are brought near to utter ruin and destruction. We conceive that until SATISFACTION and security be first given to both your Kingdoms, your majesty's coming hither cannot be convenient, nor by us assented unto.  
Now let God, Angels, and men judge of your proceedings in the present case; Brethren, your lines do seem to carry a Christian Dialect, and you oftentimes seem to be serious with us, give us leave to be serious with you; is this suitable to your excellent strains and expressions of zeal for the glory of God, the blessed Reformation, the solemn League and Covenant, 
Page 9th.  your pathetic pretences, and devout exhortations to the Parliament of England, to give testimony, and bear witness to the truth, and not deny it, remembering that whosoever shall give testimony to Christ and his truth, by confessing him before men, he will also confess them before his Father which is in Heaven; and whosoever will deny him before men, them will he deny before his Father which is in Heaven. Is this your zeal against superstition, heresy, schism, and all such scandalous doctrines and practices, which are contrary to the known principles of Christianity, or the power of godliness, which you so devoutly desire should be suppressed by an act of Parliament, pag. 26. of your answer, what? one while to confess the name of Christ before his majesty, to deal plainly with him in telling him in so many words (to the affecting of the hearts of all your Brethren, Ministers and others which did see your zeal) that until his majesty had given satisfaction for the bloodshed, and security to both kingdoms in relation to peace, his majesty's coming to London, could not by you be assented unto; and now to tell the people that the reason why you could not formerly yield unto his majesty's coming to London, was because then his majesty had Armies in the Field, Garrisons and strong holds to return unto, now he hath none; yea & to say that this was the reason which you formerly gave, pretending to nothing else? Brethren, what do you make of Religion, a mere piece of state-policy, or somewhat else? Brethren, we would persuade you that integrity and uprightness are jure divino, and that Brethren ought to speak the truth from their hearts each to other. Shall we mind you of some other zealous passages concerning his majesty; see and review what is said by the general Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, approved by those that employ you and by you sent to the King.  
The troubles of our hearts are enlarged, and our fears increased, in your majesty's behalf, perceiving that your people's patience is above measure tempted, and is like a Cart pressed down with sheaves, and is ready to break, while as besides many former designs and endeavours to bring desolation and destruction upon us, &c. our country is now infested, the blood of divers of our Brethren spilled, and other acts of most barbarous and horrid cruelty exercised by the cursed crew of Irish Rebels, and their complices in this kingdom, under the conduct of such as have commission and warrant from your majesty; and unless we prove unfaithful both to God, and to your majesty, we cannot conceal another danger which is infinitely greater than that of your people's displeasure: therefore we the servants of the most high God, and your majesty's most loyal Subjects, in the humility and grief of our hearts fall down before your Throne, and in the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who shall judge the world in righteousness both great and small; and in the name of this whole national Kirk which we represent, we make bold to warn your majesty freely, that the guilt which cleaveth fast to your majesty, and to your Throne is such, as (whatsoever flattering Preachers, or unfaithful counsellors may say to the contrary) if not timely repented, cannot but involve yourself and your Posterity under the wrath of the everliving God, for your BEING guilty OF THE SHEDDING OF THE BLOOD OF MANY thousands OF your majesty's BEST subjects, &c.  
How did the glory and lustre of these plain, honest, and christian proceedings dazzle the eyes of your English Brethren, who did much rejoice therein? how did your zeal provoke many to plead your cause against those which did but whisper jealousies of you? Can we think that reverend Assembly did not speak the truth in Christ from their hearts and souls, and lied not (as the Apostle saith) in these their addresses to his Majesty? and can we suppose they will own with you this answer of yours, wherein you tickle the hearts of the malignant party, plead for their design a personal Treaty, and that at London, without any mention of Satisfaction for blood and Security to the kingdoms? we cannot conceive so irreverendly of them until we have better reasons than yet we perceive, neither will we indulge the least jealousy, that the Noble men, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses Ministers, and Commons of your own kingdom should ever so far decline from their first principles of zeal for God, righteousness, and justice, against all offenders, without respect of persons, and of love, friendship, and amity to this kingdom, whereof God, Angels, and men are witnesses, and will concur with you in these expresses; how will the fir-trees howl, 
2 Sam. 1. 20.  if such Cedars should fall, if this should be once told in Gath, and published in Askelon, how will the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, and the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph? and therefore to you we speak, and not unto your Nation. Brethren, was his majesty blameable in the spilling of so much innocent blood of his best Subjects in his three kingdoms yea or no? If no, why is it charged on his score, representing him in such horrid, black, and bloody colours, in the eyes of his Subjects? If he be guilty as the words have expressed, what Satisfaction for blood, what Security hath been given as yet (at least to the two kingdoms, for what you may call saisfaction, we know not.) Brethren, we say no more but this, 
Prov. 11. 3.  the integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them.  
Whereas you quote the Parliaments answer to his majesty's Message of the 11th of September, 
Page 6.  wherein they desired his majesty's coming to London, as being the only means of any treaty between his Majesty and them, with hope of success; thereby insinuating the mutability of the Parliament from their present averseness to a personal Treaty, compared with this answer.  
We give you to know that we have perused his majesty's Message, and the Parliaments Answer, 
Reply.  and stand amazed that such a profession of zeal for God should ever be found in conjunction with such unfaithfulness amongst Brethren, for thus stands the case; The King (having set up his Standard at Nottingham, set out several Proclamations and Declarations, whereby the Parliaments actions were declared treasonable, and their persons traitors) did send a Message to his Houses of Parliament, 25 August 1642. 
Vid. the book of declare. pag. 580.  for a personal Treaty, whereunto the two Houses of Parliament sent an answer, which because it is short and pertinent to the present case, is here set down verbatim.  

The answer of the Lords and Commons to his majesty's Message of the 25. of August, 1642.  
May it please your Majesty,  
THe Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, having received your majesty's Message of the 25. of August, do with much grief resent the dangerous and distracted state of this kingdom, which we have by all means endeavoured to prevent, both by our several advices and petitions to your Majesty, which have been not only without success, but there hath followed that, which no ill counsel in former time hath produced, or any Age hath seen, namely, Those several Proclamations and Declarations against both the Houses of Parliament, whereby their Actions were declared treasonable, and their Persons traitors; And thereupon your majesty hath set up your Standard against them, whereby you have put the two Houses of Parliament, and in them this whole kingdom out of your protections; so that until your majesty shall recall those proclamations and Declarations, whereby the Earl of Essex and both Houses of parliament, and their adherents and assistants, and such as have obeyed and executed their commands and directions according to their duties, are declared traitors, or otherwise Delinquents: And until the Standard, set up in pursuance of the said Proclamations, be taken down, your majesty hath put us into such a condition, that whilst we so remain, we cannot by the fundamental privileges of Parliament, the public trust reposed in us, or with the general good and safety of this kingdom, give your majesty any other answer to this Message.  
John Brown, Cler. Parliam. H. Elsing, Cler. Parl. D. Com.   
This Answer of the parliament occasioned several expresses mutually to pass between the King and the Parliament, and amongst the rest, this Answer to his majesty's Message of the 11th of Septemb. 1642. as appeared in the 586. and 587. pages of the book of Declarations printed by Authority: in which very Answer they do profess themselves in no capacity to treat with the King whilst his Standard was up, his Proclamations and Declarations unrecalled, whereby the Parliament is charged with Treason; and having humbly advised him what he should do upon the performance whereof they invite him to his great council, being the only means of a Treaty with hope of success; and in pursuance of that very resolution of theirs, not to treat with his Majesty until he had recalled his Proclamations and Declarations against his Parliament, they have made that one of the four Bills which were sent to be signed by his Majesty in order to a Treaty: Now let Heaven and earth, God and man judge of your unfaithfulness in the business in hand: You tell the people that the Parliament was once for a personal Treaty with the King, why should they now be against it, and hide from the people the terms upon which they were for it; have the Parliament forsook their primitive principles, or yourselves? hath the King recalled those Proclamations and Declarations, yea or no? hath he given satisfaction for blood and security to the peace of the kingdom, yea or no? If not, 
Hosea 4. 15.  would you have the Parliament betray their trust, break their Covenant, treat as traitors? 
At Vxbridg.  do the Parliament forsake their principales? no: Though Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend? We know your objection, the Parliament did admit of a Treaty since that time, it is true, but have you not read what David did in a case of necessity when he was a hungry? the showbread, which at other times was unlawful for him to ear, was lawful then? The life of the kingdom then in danger, provoked the love of the Parliament to forget themselves to save the Nation: but is the case now as it was then? piety & humanity will allow a man to treat; yea beg for his life at the hand of his enemy in power to destroy him; though the principles of either will not admit the like submission in another case. Again, though they did treat, yet did they not forsake the principles of humanity, or the rules of Justice, rather than they would betray their trust, break their Covenants, enslave our just liberty into the hands of tyranny; They broke up the Treaty, and resolving to sacrifice themselves in the kingdom's service, committed themselves to God's providence, who succeeded their desires accordingly for God's love, courage and constancy in a good cause.  
You tell us there are some things which properly concern the Kingdom of England, their rights, 
Page 4.  laws, and liberties.  
But why do you stop there? 
Reply.  why do you not proceed in declaring your resolutions not to intermeddle with such things? why do you notwithstanding this acknowledgement interpose in things concerning the kingdom of England, their rights, laws and liberties; as in the disposal of the King's person, while remaining in this kingdom, in the 7th page of your papers concerning the Covenant and Treaty, in the King's negative voice, page the 18th of this Answer, in the business of the Militia, page the 20. in the disbanding of our Armies, page 21. in conferring titles of honour, page 22. the revenues of the Crown, page 5, &c. Nay why have you cast such glosses, senses, and interpretations upon the Covenant and Treaty, which being granted, confounds the interest of England, with the kingdom of Scotland? for these are your words in the 5th and 6th pages of your papers concerning the Covenant and Treaty.  
Unless we lay aside the Covenant, Treaties, Declarations of both kingdoms, and three years' conjunction in this war, neither the one kingdom nor the other must now look back what they might have done SINGLY before-such a strict union: But look forwards what is fittest to be done by both jointly for the common good of both, &c. And again pag. the 7. of these papers; If the disposal of the King's Person mentioned in the vote of both Houses be intented for the good, peace and security of both Kinghomes, than it should not be done without the mutual advice and consent of both. By the first of these expressions do not your argument stand thus?  
If we must not lay aside the Covenant, Treaties, Declarations of both kingdoms, and three years' conjunction in this war; neither the one kingdom nor the other SINGLY, but both jointly, must hereafter act for the good of both.  
But we must not lay aside the Covenant, &c. Therefore neither the one kingdom nor, &c.  
Thus you would argue us into a confusion of interests.  
Again, by the other expression quoted from your papers, page 7. do you not argue thus?  
Whatsoever is intended for the good, peace, and security of both kingdoms; must be done by the mutual advice and consent of both kingdoms.  
But the disposing of the King's person, while in this kingdom, (and upon the same ground the disposing of all the Militia, Forts, Castles, towns, and Forces by Sea and Land, all offices and places of Trust, yea all our estates and interests,) are intended for the good, peace, and security of both kingdoms.  
Therefore these must be disposed of by the mutual advice and consent of both kingdoms.  
Brethren: confident we are, you will sooner beat out English men's brains, than force that argument into their heads; surely God hath given us a better stock of reason and humanity than thus to be charmed into bondage and slavery; we have read your own words declared by you, 1641. viz. that neither by your Treaty with the English, nor by seeking your peace to be established in PARLIAMENT nor any other action of yours, you do acknowledge ANY dependency upon them, or make them judges to you or your laws, or any thing that may import the smallest prejudice to your Liberties. Are you so tender of the Mint and Cummin of Scotland's Liberties, that you will not admit of the smallest prejudice thereof; and shall the Parliament of England, the grand trusties of the kingdom's Liberties, dispense with the Great things of England's interest? betraying their trust, and breaking their covenant; yea, and bringing upon them the guilt and cry of so much blood as hath been shed in the just defence of the kingdom's interest? Brethren, did you come to free us from slavery by others, that you might enslave us? to save us from rods, that you might whip us with Scorpions? to deliver us from the little finger of the King, that we might feel the loins of the Scot? doubtless, brethren, though we thankfully acknowledge, that your help was seasonable in the day of our trouble, which we hope we shall never forget; yet were we not so profane, as to contract the parting with our birthright for that Scottish pottage, and therefore remember your promise, page 4. That you would not stretch yourselves beyond your line, and that which is within the express condition of your solemn League and Covenant, the duty of your allegiance, the Treaty and Declaration between the two kingdoms. And before we leave this, we pray again remember the word express, and do not press us with an extorted sense, for we shall never abide it.  
In the next place you begin methodically to speak unto two heads:  
First, 
Page 5.  of the best and most probable means to procure a good agreement with the King for setting Religion, and a lasting Peace.  
And next, of the Propositions, which are to be the foundation of the peace and safety of both kingdoms.  
We shall not take upon us to speak unto every particular expression of yours, wherein you seem to reflect upon the Parliament, our daily employments, and business of our callings, not affording us those opportunities of knowing and understanding the several transactions which it is very likely have passed between the Parliament and you, and we doubt not but an answer to satisfaction will be given by that Honourable Assembly whom you have blemished by your writings, and the publication thereof; but such things which are of most plain and obvious observation (whereof there is plenty sufficient to take away those scandals which are cast upon the Parliament) are these that we shall insist upon:  
First then in your method you begin with that which you call, 
Page 5.  The best and most probable means to procure a good agreement with the King for the settling Religion and a lasting peace; and you say, It is still your opinion and judgement, that it must be by a personal Treaty with the King; and that his Majesty for that end be invited to come to London with honour, freedom and safety.  
If you are of that opinion, 
Reply.  we pray you tell us, what satisfaction for blood, and security as to peace, you have received from his Majesty, that this kingdom (if possibly) may be of your opinion: Have you concluded a peace with his Majesty, without the Parliament of England? Then have you broken your Treaty: If you have not, say so. You know they are not of your opinion for a personal treaty: but we would gladly weigh your reasons for it; we can better bear your reasons then blows: you tender us your reasons by the half dozen. Let us see your Position, and your reasons: your position is this:  
The best way to procure a well-grounded Peace, is, by a personal treaty with the King at LONDON.  
Here we are to consider first the thing, a personal Treaty, secondly the place, at London. We shall look upon your reasons with reference to both. First for the thing, your first reason is;  
The sending of Propositions without a Treaty, 
1 Reason  hath been oftentimes assayed without success, and the new Propositions are less advantageous to the Crown than the former were.  
1. 
Reply.  What if Propositions have been successeless heretofore? Doth it follow they will be so still? English spirits (to speak without vanity) are more noble and generous, then to despair because of repulse. So many Garrisons had not been taken by some, and so few by others, if this Argument had prevailed with all, as it hath with some.  
2. These four Bills were so modelled, as might have administered hopes of his majesty's concurrence, being in order to a Treaty, had you not anticipated by charging the new propositions to be less advantageous to the Crown than the former were; and which we have cause to suspect, hath made this last address to his Majesty, through your means, as successeless as the former hath been, contrary to the hopes and expectations of many. And the truth is, his majesty's answer and your lines do so consimilate, that a man would think that Sir John Cheisly was the Scribe to both.  
Your next reason is this, 
2 Reason.  The King's removal from the Parliament, was the cause of the war: therefore his return may be the means of peace.  
1. 
Rep●y.  That may not follow, especially as the case now stands, when pretended friends change principles for self-ends, and forgetting their solemn League and Covenant, decline the Parliament and the kingdom's interest, and turn Royalists.  
2. Was not this reason as valid when you did concur to send Propositions?  
Your third reason is this, 
3 Reason.  In a personal Treaty, the Commissioners of both kingdoms may give reasons of their desires; but Propositions without a Treaty, may be esteemed impositions.  
1. 
Reply.  We make no question but the Parliaments propositions carry their reasons in their foreheads, and may be easily discerned by an English eye. And do not you know, that the King of England is bound by his Oath to grant the just desires of his Parliament?  
2. Were they not impositions as well when you did concur to send propositions, as when you did dissent?  
The King may have some just desires to move for the crown, 
4 Reason.  and for himself; as that be may have his Revenues, &c.  
1. 
Reply.  It is true, the crown and Revenues go together in England, however it is in Scotland; neither do we presume any propositions shall be sent by the Parliament, in prejudice to the Crown or Crown-Revenues, both being for the kingdom's honour and safety.  
2. Was not this likewise as good a reason when you did concur?  
Your next reason A personal Treaty with the King, 
5 Reason.  is the best way to beget a mutual confidence, &c.  
1. 
Reply:  That is as the Treaty may be managed, and so may propositions as instructions be given.  
2. And was not this likewise as good a reason when you did concur?  
Your last reason is this, 
6 Reason.  we cannot expect his Majesty will grant in terminis, whatsoever propositions shall be sent unto, &c. neither will the Houses of Parliament give full power to commissioners to make altrrations as they shall see cause.  
He is to pass Bills in terminis, why not propositions, being matter for bills? Confident we are, had he wrested the sword out of the Parliaments hands, as it is wrested out of his hands, they should have had such propositions as he would have judged fit for traitors, it may be the axe in stead of the halter, heading in stead of hanging: for traitors hath he proclaimed them without recalling it to this day.  
2. Was not this also as valid when you did concur, as now it is?  
Thus your weighty reasons for the thing, A personal Treaty, vanish into the air. Let us now examine your reasons for the place, at London; for there lies the emphasis of your motion, and perhaps design.  
1. 
1 Reason  Propositions have been often essayed without success, and therefore the personal Treaty must be at London.  
2. 
2 Reason.  The King's removal from London was the cause of the war, and his return, or presence may be a remedy: Ergo, the Treaty must be at London.  
Thirdly, in a personal Treaty things may be mutually debated; for that is the sum of your reason: Ergo, the Treaty must be at London.  
Fourthly, the King may have some desires to move for the crown: Ergo, the Treaty must be at London.  
Fifthly, a personal Treaty is the best way for giving and receiving satisfaction: Ergo, the Treaty must be at London.  
Sixthly, it cannot be expected his Majesty will grant all the propositions, neither will the Houses give full power to their Commissioners to make alterations, as they see cause, upon debate: Ergo, the Treaty must be at London.  
Brethren, we shall not so much prejudge the weakness of our countrymen, as to show them the deficiency of these starved suggestions. Englishmen eyes are in their heads, and they need no spectacles to see mountains, only we would gladly know your meaning by the advantage of the Crown, and motions of the Crown, which ever and anon you hint out to us (if our judgements fail us not) as possibly they may; (for we are no Statesmen, but as the late times have made us all inquire into State-cases,) we say, if our judgements be right, both the King and the Crown, and all things belonging unto them, as such, are for the kingdom's advantage, and for no personal interest whatsoever in prejudice of that, we have had many things which they call aphorisms, divulged amongst us, as that THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE IS THE CHIEFEST LAW, THE KING IS ABOVE EVERY PARTICULAR MAM, BUT less THAN THE WHOLE kingdom, that THE KING IS THE kingdoms, BUT THE kingdom IS NONE OF THE KINGS, (except with a distinction) and twenty more such sayings, which are our ordinary discourse, and we think there is a great deal of equity, justice, and reason in them, and a light to instruct us to give unto the Magistrates their due, and to preserve ourselves from tyranny, and by these things were we rallied by the Parliament together, to maintain the truth of these sayings, and we have paid for our learning, it hath cost us dear, and we would not quickly forget all like dunces, until we are knocked into our former lessons: your talking so much of the advantage of the Crown, and motions for the Crown, seems to us to interfier with these sayings.  
Having exhibited your reasons, 
Page 6.  (such as they are) for a personal Treaty, you fall into invectives with the Parliament of England, thus, If they were esteemed enemies to the Parliament, and peace of the kingdom, who advised the King to withdraw from his Parliament, what estimation will the world have of them who will not suffer him to return to his Parliament, when he offers to cast himself into their arms?  
The plain English whereof is this, 
Reply.  to insinuate into the people, that the Parliament of England being against the Kings treating at London, are the kingdom's enemies, and so to stir up the people against their Parliament: Is this like Commissioners of State? Would you suffer such things in your own kingdom? Is this according to your solemn League and Covenant? Is this your brotherly love? your zeal for the parliament of England, and the interest thereof? We say no more but better is a neighbour that is near, 
Prov. 27. 10.  than a brother that is far off.  
But secondly, if the Parliament be the King's enemy, because they will not admit of a personal Treaty at London; what were you when you refused the same things? Do not you give a just occasion for the Cavaliers to call you Enemies all-a-row?  
Having dispatched the first particular in your method, 
Page 6.  viz. The readiest means for a lasting peace, which you say is, a personal Treaty with the King at London; you fall to the second, viz. The consideration of the propositions which are to be the foundation of peace: and therein,  
First, to consider and remove the differences, which you divide into three heads, which are,  
1. Matters of Religion. 2. The interest of the Crown. 3. The union and joint concernment of the kingdoms.  
First, you begin with that of Religion, and hint it in one of your biting parenthesis, as a most flagitious neglect, that it is put by the Parliament amongst the last of these new propositions.  
1. 
Reply.  You know Brethren, that that may be primum in extentione, which is ultimum in executione, we use to make our hedge, before we plant our garden.  
2. Religion was not the first of those propositions which were sent to Newcastle with your consent, as appears in print, but now you are more zealous than before.  
3. The best sort of Englishmen loves Religion in the bottom, to have it in design, as well as pretence, to make Religion the end and not the means unto their intentions.  
4. We have generally observed that the emptiest zealots are the greatest advocates for the circumstances of Religion, time, and order, mighty matters in some men's eyes.  
You commend the King for mentioning Religion in the first place in his address to the Parliament, 
Page 7.  and to charge the Parliament with profaneness for postponing Religion.  
But wherein doth the piety of the King so much consist? 
Reply.  is it in asserting the Episcopacy, or the toleration of all sorts of Religions, only prohibiting the mass, and the publishing of atheism and blasphemy, 
Page 14.  or wherein else?  
Is it true that the King (whom your general Assembly so deeply charged with guilt of the shedding the blood of many thousands of his best Subjects) hath passed through the valley of Bacha, 
See the Remonstrance of the general Assembly of the kirk of Scotland, sent by the commission of both kingdoms, June 12. 1645. to Oxford.  weeping and lamenting with ashes upon his head, and sackcloth on his loins for his former ways, exhibiting his repentance as a door of hope, that his three kingdoms will be happy in him, notwithstanding all that is past? have you heard that his heart is tender, that it hath melted before the Lord for all his abominations, that he hath cut down the groves, broken the Altars, destroyed the Images which were a provocation to the eye of jealousy? hath he given satisfaction for blood, and security for peace; 
See the Parl. answer to his majesty's message to two Letters, the 26 and 29. of Decemb. 1646, Page 5.  until which, you once professed you would never assent unto his coming to London to treat; hath he recalled his Declarations and Proclamations against his Subjects English and Scotch as Traitors and Rebels, & c? is it thus indeed, or 
* See the Letter from the Commissioners of the Parl. of Scotl. to the Commissioners of the Parl. of Engl. concerning his majesty's coming to the Scotch Army May 5. 1646. Ibid.  are you like men that dream, as once you were, that you applaud the King for his zeal for Religion, putting the Reformation of that in the first of his proposals to the Parliament, at the best and chiefest foundation of peace. If the cause be thus; defer not our joy: your very feet would be beautiful to us, would you bring us these glad tidings? it would be unto us as the resurrection from the dead? but if you have no such news to cheer us with all; no such fruit from the tree of life to revive our hearts sick through our hopes deferred; what's your meaning of this royal applause? do you think your conscientious Brethren, Presbyterian or Independent, will commend you for this?  
Having done with the Order, you now come to the material differences and alterations concerning Religion, which you branch out into the Parliaments error of omission and difficiency, and into that of commission and excess.  
The first thing you complain of under the head of omission, is no less than the solemn League and Covenant; and here you abound with your pathetic interogations, to affect the hearts of those whose eyes are in their bowels, whose understandings are drowned & swallowed up in their passions, after this manner. And shall the Covenant which is as solemn a vow as creatures on earth can make to God in Heaven, & c? And again, shall the Covenant for the preservation of &c. And again (like the Papists, which holds up their Idolatrous Eucharist in the eyes of the people, that they may fall down and worship it) shall the Covenant which both Houses recommended to the Assembly of, & c? Yet again, (as if here lay all your bait to catch gudgeons) shall our mutual and solemn League and Covenant subscribed by the Parliaments of both kingdoms, & c? Once more yet (for if this spring fails, all our sport will be lost) shall the Covenant even with those that took it to be already out of date, &c. To all which we reply.  
First, 
Reply.  What if the Parliament think it ●●● fit to trouble His majesty with pressing the Covenant in the Propositions for Peace? was it not your own reason 
* Page 3.  for the altering your judgements about sending Propositions? will you not give the same allowance to others which you assume to yourselves? are you all for having? will you give nothing?  
Secondly, If the Covenant be laid aside, out of date, deleted, as your words are, your perverting it hath been the occasion of it▪ did we promise to take the Covenant; and after to submit to what sense thereof our Brethren of Scotland would please to impose upon us? hath not the Covenant been so perverted, that many Covenanters are ready to enter into a new Covenant against the sense that is put upon the old? Brethren, we have taken the Covenant in a true, proper, plain English sense as well as yourselves, and stand unto 〈…〉.  
Thirdly, Whereas you 〈…〉 that the Covenant is brought in by the Parliament in the 7th▪ qualification of the 14. P●●position, only as a hook to catch some into the notion of Delinquency: we reply, that if any 〈◊〉 on this side Tweed should have said the Covenant was made a hook to catch men into Delinquency, you would have marked him with an M. or an S. for a Malignant or Sectary; we will not say the Covenant was first intended as a book to catch men into the notion of Delinquency; though you are so bold and peremptory to charge this upon our Parliament to their very teeth, and that in the face of the kingdom, tempting their civility and patience above measure, the like affronts we presume were never offered to any Nation by Commissioners of another State: 
See the Parl. answer to the Scotch papers of the 20. of Octob, 1646.  yet we wish it had not been used as a hook to catch not a few, but even the Parliament and kingdom of England into a new design, by introducing another Nation to be one of the Estates of this kingdom, and to have a negative voice in all things concerning their welfare.  
You tell the Parliament from their omission of the solemn League and Covenant to your very much wonder, 
Page 9  that they are so liberal in the matters of God, and so tenacious in what concerns themselves.  
Your zeal for the Covenant is your zeal for God, 
Reply▪  that is, your zeal to introduce your Nation to be one of the Estates of this kingdom, and to have a negative voice in all things concerning our welfare. Your zeal to intermeddle with the Militia of England, with disbanding our Armies, with conferring titles of honour, with the revenue of the crown; with all our goods by virtue of the solemn League and Covenant: Is your zeal for the matters of God, and the Parliaments care in their preservation of the pure and unmixed interests of this kingdom according to their solemn League and Covenant, 
2 Kin. 10. 16.  without suffering you to intermeddle therewith? is their profane tenaciousness in that which concerns themselves? See my zeal for the Lord, was Jehu's tone, when the tune of his heart played another game. 
Page 10.   
As for the King you are pleased to tell us; Though His majesty shall not come up to the full length of your desires, yet WE must never depart from our Covenant.  
It seems you have a royal sense to bestow upon His majesty, but vae pauperibus, woe to the poor, they must abide the fire of this purgatory; is it true here also, no penny, no paternoster? Is there no allowance for tender consciences except it be of Kings and Princes? 
Ibid.   
You say your zeal for the Covenant doth not abate or diminish your loyalty and duty to the King, though he cannot come up to the full length of your desires, &c. That is, take the Covenant.  
Your zeal for the Covenant and His majesty runs together, 
Reply.  though His majesty and the Covenant are a great way asunder, your loyalty and allegiance will suffer you to indulge the King in His refusing to subject to the matters of God: the solemn League and Covenant; and yet your brotherly affection and honesty will admit of quarrelling with the Parliament of England, for not haling, urging, and pressing Him to come to the full length of their desires, viz. to take the Covenant.  
The Commissioners of Scotland can give a dispensation, but the Parliament of England must not so much as appear to favour him upon pain of dispensing with the matters of God, ashamed of Christ, denying him before men; and his denial of them at the great day of the Lord. It seems you would make us younger brethren, not only in the matters of the world, but in matters of God too.  
Thus far for the business of the Covenant, the primum mobile of all other motions, and therefore ever and anon you refer unto that.  
The next thing omitted by the Parliament is, the Proposition for confirming the Ordinance concerning the calling and sitting of the Assembly of Divines. 
Page 17.   
The calling and sitting of the Assembly of Divines, 
Reply.  was not intended in sempiternum: neither do we believe but an authoritative dismission of that revered Assembly, especially for a season, would be as acceptable to thems●… as serviceable to the respective places whereto they belong, for the weeding up of those tares of error and profaneness, which the enemy hath sown in their absence; and it is no parradoxe to affirm that the sitting so long of so many learned and godly Ministers together for the suppression of error. Heresy, and wickedness, and advancing the affairs of Jesus Christ, hath been an occasion through their absence from their people of more error, heresy profaneness and prejudice to the affairs of Christ than did appear before; men err, not knowing the Scriptures; and how can men but err, when their Teachers are long removed into corners. 
Ibid.   
The next thing omitted was the Proposition for Reformation of Religion in England and Ireland according to the Covenant.  
According to the Covenant; 
Reply.  That implies that the Covenant must first be taken, and then the Reformation must be settled according to the Covenant; you have said enough to the Parliament for their profane neglect to press the King to the Covenant, that they should omit no less than the solemn League and Covenant: though you can dispense with him, but will you have the King to settle Religion in England and Ireland according to the Covenant, and not take the Covenant? then would you have Him settle a Religion against His Conscience, and is that reasonable? a blind Sacrifice is not acceptable. 
Lev. 22. 22.   
The next thing omitted, was, the Proposition for settling unity and uniformity in matters of Religion between the Churches of both kingdoms, 
Ibid.  according to the Covenant.  
The reply to the last might well serve for a reply to this also, according to the Covenant is the burden of your song, 
Reply.  and it seems the life of your game; by the Churches of God in both kingdoms, do you not mean the two national Churches, that is, the two Nations themselves? (for it concerns us now to know your meaning) if you interpret that which you call matters of Religion, as you have done the solemn League and Covenant (for you have an excellent faculty of interpretation.) You may call community and parity of interests matters of Religion? and if so, it may be the Parliament may think fit to omit the Proposition for settling unity and uniformity in matters of Religion between the Churches of God in both kingdoms, according to the Covenant: and one kingdom at least is engaged to them for it.  
But secondly, why do you make the solemn League and Covenant the unicum necessarium, the balance of your Sanctuary, and the golden reed to measure your Temple, you have not a tittle of the word of God; but all your cry is the solemn League and Covenant instead of the Word of God; the Jew hath his Talmud, the Turk his Alkeron, the Papist his mass-book, the Prelate his service-book, and must we have the solemn League and Covenant instead of the Oracles of heaven, the Word of God? Better it is that this brazen Serpent should be broken to pieces, and ground to powder, than that men should fall down and worship it, though formerly a healing benefit was received from it; It was the hypocritical Pharise's pretending to heaven, though minding the earth, who making void the Law of God, did teach for doctrine the traditions of the Elders. Let us not put up man's posts the Covenant, by God's posts the holy Scripture?  
Having done with the Parliaments omissions in matters of Religion, 
Page 11.  you fall upon their Commissions and excess; the first thing you complain of under that head, is, that instead of the Propositions which they have omitted, so far as concerns Religion, You find nothing but a mere shadow of Presbytery Government: and instead of uniformity of Religion, a vast deformity, or multiformity of Heresies and Sects. A liberty granted for all sorts of service and worship of God, an opening a doer to atheism, to all Religions, to liberty of conscience, being indeed liberty of error, scandal, schism, heresy, dishonouring God, opposing truth, hindering Reformation, and seducing others.  
First, 
Page 18.  do you find no more in the Propositions as concerning Discipline and Religion, but a mere shadow of Presbyterian government? we have no reason to think but the Parliament supposeth it such a presbyterian government in the very substance thereof, as they can imagine, to be most agreeable to the Word of God, and according to our solemn League and Covenant; If you can inform them better, confident we are their ears are open? shall they receive the pattern of the house of God from their Scotch Brethren, for the Word of God? If they see but the shadow, they are not far from the substance? If they honour the shadow, which is all they see, what will they do to the substance when their eyes are open? Is it not better that they should do as they see, and see what they do; than to drive a great trade of confidence about the will of God in Discipline, with a small stock of Scripture to maintain the same? did all men truly see what they act, and act what they see, we should have more love, and less wrangling, more truth, and less show, men would not be so forward in pretence of zeal for government in the house of God, with the neglect of the government of their own tongues and pens, in reproaching and slandering whole States and kingdoms: you see little but the mere shadow of GOVERNMENT in the Parliament; we see little but the mere shadow of RELIGION in some others.  
Secondly, Perhaps the kingdom sees little as yet, but the mere-shadow of presbyterian Government, and so are fit for nothing more; let them be first instructed, and then commanded. The Parliament are English men themselves, who know the disposition of their own countrymen to be such, that they will freely run when they are drawn with the cords of men, viz. reason and love: but are extreme headstrong in case of compulsion, they could never endure the bramble should reign over them; when the kingdom is taught in the substance of Presbytery, its likely the mere shadow Will fly away.  
Thirdly, It may be the Parliaments design may be first to feed the kingdom with substantials of Religion, the finest of the flower, the milk and honey of the Land of Canaan, viz, the great Doctrines of faith towards God, and repentance from dead works; and until the time of some proficiency therein, the shadow of Discipline may be sufficient, the substance whereof is but a mere shadow in comparison of these, our late Prelates, whilst they so hotly contended for Discipline and government in pretence of suppressing a deformity, and multiformity of Heresies and Sects, error, scandal, &c. Did destroy and crucify RELIGION and her children; when they bowed the knee to DISCIPLINE, crying hail Master, and kissed it, we hope the Parliament will not permit such a Faction again.  
Whereas you say, The Parliament hath granted in their Propositions a liberty to all sorts of Service and Worship of God, an opening a door to atheism, to all Religions, to Error, scandal, schism, heresy, &c. we reply.  
Brethren, 
Reply.  your language reflects upon your descent, and your expressions do disparage your honourable employment as Commissioners of State; your pens seem to be rather steered by the hands of some of the late scandalous Pamphlet writers, then of the Scotch Commissioners. You callumniate boldly, but will any thing stick? let's observe your charge; The Parliament you say desires the settlement of a vast deformity or multiformity of Heresies, and Sects, and grants a liberty for all sorts of Service, and Worship of God, yea and the opening a door to liberty of error, scandal, schism, dishonouring God, opposing the Truth, hindering Reformation, and seducing others: and all this is aggravated; in so much as it is done, after a most sacred and solemn League and Covenant, to suppress all these according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches. Brethren, two things you should have done before you can make this good; you know that Religion and the Covenant requires the suppression of these things, according to the Word of ●od, and the example of the best reformed Churches. First than you should have showed by the Word of God what are these Errors, Heresies, Scandals &c. which you say the Parliament desires a settlement of.  
Secondly, You should have proved the methods and ways, the rules and directions of the Word of God for the suppression of these, and the Parliaments practice in opposition to that, and then put it unto the judgement of ingenious men to determine the case; have you done this in the eye of the kingdom, before whom you have slandered the Houses of Parliament, if not, were you not Commissioners of State, we would tell you more plainly your deserts: 
Iam. 1. 21.  but for the present we say no more but this; If any man among you seem to be Religious, and bridleth not his tongue (much more his pen) but deceiveth his own soul, this man's Religion is in vain. Be it known unto you that we verily believe that the things you speak of, much more the toleration of them, and most of all the settling the same, are the firstborn of abominations unto our present Parliament: and in the mean while we clearly discern, that while you pretend to plead with such imparalleld zeal against errors, heresy, &c. you stick not to abuse the repute, and blemish the good name of a whole representative kingdom at once; violating the most plain, evident, and obvious rules, shall we say of Christianity? yea, of common justice and honesty: and therefore we tell you as you tell the Parliament, and take notice of it: Certainly 〈…〉 mocked.  
You tell us page 7th, that it is far fr 〈…〉ions that pious and peaceable men should be troubled, because in every thing 〈◊〉 cannot conform themselves to Presbyterian Government: for you say you did never oppose such an indulgen●e to their Persons as is agreeable to the Word of God, may stand with the public peace, and is not destructive to the Order and Government of the Church; yet you do from your soul's a●hor such a general and vast toleration as is expressed in the Proposition, &c.  
Who shall judge of pious and peaceable men in England, 
Reply.  the Parliament of England, or the Scotch Commissioners? Again, who shall determine what kind of iudulgence is agreeable to the Word of God, may stand with the public peace, and is not destructive to the Order and Government of the Church established in England? the Parliament of England, or the Scotch Commissioners? what mean you by indulgence to their Persons; such a kind of indulgence of their persons, as pious and peaceable men may have in Spain, Rome, Turkey, among even Infidels themselves, or of a better consideration? If we may plough with your own heifer, we may quickly expound your riddle; you would not have a toleration of any Sectaries, and we see who they are by your large Schedule, page 12 Anabaptists, Antinomians, Arminians, Familists, erastian's, Brownists, Separatists, Libertines, Independents, Nullifidians, Seekers, and the new Sect of Shakers: can any man in the least degree withstand your Presbytery, and not be ranked among these Sectaries, except the Episcopalians, for which it seems we shall have a toleration, Cum privilegio Scotico. Brethren, we are not yet baptised into the spirit of Scotch Presbytery: there we are Anabaptists, we cannot submit unto the laws thereof; there we are Antinomians holding that we have power and liberty of will therein; here we are Arminians, neither do we judge it sinful, though we should act contrary to your Presbytery, there we are Familists, perhaps we judge that there is not so plain and clear a form of Church-government, and Rule of Discipline to be found out in the word of God, as some do suppose; and therefore do hold that Christian Magistrates may establish such a discipline, (it being not contrary to the word of God) as they shall judge meet, and that we ought to submit unto it; here we are erastian's: and yet we judge that we ought to come out of Babylon, and decline corrupt and superstitious worshipping of God, there we are Brownists and Separatists: judging ourselves free from receiving the law of Church government from the Scotch Oracle; here we are Libertines: neither will we depend upon your judgements as infallible, here we are Independents: extremely doubting your judgements therein, not questioning our salvation, though we have no faith therein; here we are Nullifidians: being extremely in the dark, not understanding your ways, here we are Seekers. And if the Lord in mercy do not afford us more liberty and indulgence in the quiet enjoyments of our privileges and interests in things civil and Religious, then, for aught we see you would afford us, we may be quickly reckoned amongst the new Sect of Shakers: you would make us tremble under your hands; from which condition Libera nos Domine. Brethren, such Sectaries in the sense delivered, the Parliament may well desire to tolerate: but your assertion of the Parliaments sinful toleration of the Sectaries of your Catalogue, is a scandalous, false, & an unbrotherly aspersion. For have they not in terminis declared against the tollerating of Popery, mass, Service book, it is not the property of a brother to be the accuser of brethren.  
That next Religion, 
Pag. 17, 18  wherein you differ in judgement from the Propositions, is, concerning the interest and power of the crown, being obliged by our solemn League and Covenant, allegiance and duty of Subjects, not to diminish, but to support the King's just power and greatness.  
You should have added, 
Reply.  In our several places and callings, a passage in the Covenant which ever and anon doth fly in your faces.  
Next, you come to the question, Wherein the Kings regal authority, and just power doth consist: and you answer it in the first place, that it is chiefly in making & enacting laws; and upon this principle you document the Parliament of England about the King's power in making laws, &c. What have you to do to busy yourselves in such things which merely concerns another kingdom? but since you thus take upon you (confident we are) beyond your commission, we desire you in your next, to declare faithfully the power of the King in making laws in the kingdom of Scotland, & how valid his negative voice is there. But in the mean while, why do you profess Ignorantium & facti & juris alieni, and yet interpose in the power of making laws in the kingdom of England? Brethren, remember that golden passage in the covenant, Our places and callings, and do not stretch yourselves beyond your line. It is not the property of wise men to be meddling. Again, if the King hath a negative voice in making laws, hath he not the same in repealing laws? And if so, farewell Presbytery and Directory.  
In the next place you intermeddle with the Militia of the kingdom, 
Pag. 19, 20 Reply.  to that we pray you, hands of, would we suffer you to feeze upon that, for aught we know, the honour of Englishmen would be quickly contained in the Court compliment, Your humble servants; and the Catholic titles and terms of Dominus dominantium, and servus servorum, would soon be divided between the Scot and the Englishman: Englishmen are better soldiers than to part with their weapons, and Militia of their kingdom, and suffer another nation to intermeddle with that. We have not the patience to admit of a word of discourse of your meddling with the Militia of England.  
The next thing you complain of under the head of Commission, 
Page 21.  and excess, is the standing of our Armies: to that you tell us, You think fit that neither King nor Parliament ought to keep up an Army in the field when the war is ended.  
You give your judgement before it is demanded: 
Reply.  we think fit you should forbear intermeddling, until it appears within your vocation and calling, according to the solemn League & Covenant. Brethren, we do not interpose nor busy ourselves about Your Army in Scotland, or affairs particularly belonging unto that kingdom, neither do we envy your mountains, but are contented with our own valleys. As for Our Army, they are only England's charge, why should they be the Commissioners of Scotland's trouble? 
Page 22.  It is very true, the charge of the Army is great, but whether needless, as you tell us, the judgement of our P●rliament, and not the Scotch Commissioners, must determine for us; a hand of mercy to our distressed kingdom, did at first gather them, a hand of power hath hitherto been with them, and a hand of providence hath kept them together to preserve the interest of their native country entire & whole from the violence of those that would be fingering therewith. And though it be true, 
Page 21.  that the sea is our Bulwark by God's mercy from foreign enemies, which are beyond it; yet you know very well, that our late wars have been fomented by our own natives; for sometimes brethren prove unnatural, and Paul joins his perils among false brethren, 
2 Cor. 11. 26.  with his perils at sea. If you do indeed condole the griefs of the people from the charges of our Army, you will take heed that we be not troubled with any from foreign parts: for confident we are, the whole kingdom will never abide it, no, though they should enter into a solemn League and Covenant, that they would only help us to disband our Armies, and ease the people of the oppressions thereof. You tell us, If the Houses had according to your earnest desires of the 3 of March, 1644. when they modelled their Army, made choice of such officers as were known to be zealous of the reformation of Religion, and of that uniformity with both kingdoms, are obliged to promote and maintain, &c. and put in execution their several declarations, as that of the 20. of Sept. 1643. as also the 15. of Feb. 1644 ordering all Officers under Sir Thomas Fairfax, to take the Covenant, &c. it would have prevented a world of inconveniencies and evils which have ensued upon the neglect thereof.  
We judge ourselves to have cause to bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the Altar, 
Reply.  and praise the name of the Lord for his wisdom and goodness in modelling the Army even as he did, though contrary to the advice of the Scotch Commissioners; (yet we plead not at all for any error or evil of judgement or practice either of the Army, or any therein.) 'Tis true, we hear of all religions in this Army, and of no religion in another; of error of judgement here, of error of practice elsewhere; of quartering upon the country by this Army, of quartering the country by another: of officers and soldiers, that through scruple of conscience cannot t●ke the Covenant in this Army, and of officers and soldiers that can both take the Covenant with hands lifted up to the most high God, and yet strike hands with death and hell by cursing and swearing, plundering and stealing in another Army. It is no pleasure to us to dabble in the mire of another Army: neither can we endure that the Scotch Commissioners should bespatter our Army. If the Houses had according to your earnest desire the 3. of March 1644 when they modelled their Army, made choice of such officers as were known to be ze●lous of the reformation of religion, and of that uniformity which both kingdoms are obliged to promote and maintain: that is, if they had made choice of such Officers as you would have preferred, viz. zealous hardy men out of the north, whose judgement about the Covenant and Treaty had concurred so, as to introduce your nation to be one of the Estates of this kingdom, to have a negative voice in all things concerning our welfare, who would have pleaded your cointrest with the Parliament of England in the Militia of the kingdom, disposal of places and offices of t●ust, in all our particular and proper goods, we are confident with you, that it would have prevented a world of inconveniences upon the King and his party his Armies in the fields, strong Holds and Garrisons, which have ensued upon the neglect thereof.  
The last thing you speak unto under this head, is, viz, the interest of the crown, that is, touching the conferring titles of honour, which you call the Flower of the Crown, and wherewith Kings do use to recompense the virtue and merits of their good subjects, 
Reply.  &c.  
Did you not formerly consent to the making void of the Titles of honour conferred by the great seal, after it was carried away from the Parliament? have you better considered of the matter, and changed your thoughts touching the virtues and merits of those who have assisted the King against the Parliament? Is this your zeal against the common enemy of both Kingdoms, according to the solemn league and Covenant? Is this that just and condign pnnishment whereunto you engaged yourselves to bring them? what that might be rewarded for their helping the King against the Parliament (as we hear your Secretary was, (as is supposed) for his care and pains in this your writings against the Houses) with titles of honour. 
Page 2●.   
Having finished the particulars of the second head, viz the interest of the Crown, you fall upon the third, the union and joint interest of the kingdoms, where you complain.  
First, 
Reply.  That the Houses have omitted the Covenant in these Propositions.  
We have given you an answer to that once and again▪ you do so toss the covenant, that it's thought you will quickly bring it out of date; the word Covenant is your Shiboleth: but we can both pronounce, and nnderstand it as well as yourselves.  
Secondly you add, that the Houses have rejected all that concerns-unity and uniformity in matters of Religion.  
It is but a temporary Suspension, 
Reply.  because of their former successesnes (your own answer for your rejecting propositions, & pressing for a treaty contrary to your promise) and not a rejection of those things: Did they presume the religion of Scotland in the principles thereof to justify your practices in abusing our Parliament as your Papers have done, they would have reason enough to reject all that concerns unity and uniformity with you in matters of religion. But confident we are, as they have no reason, so the least jealousy thereof is not within the confines of their thoughts.  
Next you complain of the omission of several things even in heaps, all which you summon up in this, That generally throughout the Propositions all expressions of joint interest are left out. 
Page 23.   
If by joint interest you mean such a joint interest as is according to the express letter of the solemn League and Covenant, 
Reply.  and treaties between the Kingdoms, we cannot presume such an omission; though there may be a prudential suspension at present of some particulars thereof, though we know no such thing.  
Secondly, 
See the Answer of the Commons to the Scotch Commissioners papers of the 20. and their letter of the 24. of Octob. 1646. page 11.  if by joint Interest, you mean such a joint Interest as you would extort from the solemn League and Covenant, and treaties between the kingdoms, as the sense thereof, which was never intended; nay, abhorred, As that the Militia by sea and land in the Kingdoms of England & Ireland, the power of making peace and war with foreign States, the King's consent in the enacting of any law, the conferring of great places of honour and trust, making of Peers of Parliament, conferring of titles of honour, what revenue the King is to have in England & Ireland, and how to be disposed, &c. cannot be transacted and concluded upon, without the joint advice and confent of the kingdom of Scotland. If such a kind of sense & meaning only of the solemn League & Covenant, and treaties between the kingdoms, will serve your turn, and the express letter of these, is too short for your satisfaction, the Parliament of England have reason upon reason, that generally throughout the propositions, all expressions of joint interest should be left out. Yea, if we may be understood in the observation of our due distance from, and obliged duty to them, we obtest them by all their vows, covenants & promises, by all their votes, orders & ordinances, by all their declarations, proclamations & protestations, by all our blood, blows & battles, by all our vexations, contributions and taxations, by all our moneys, horse and plate, by all our servants, apprentizes and journeymen, by all our wounds, sores and scares, by all the rents, rapes and ruins, by all the plunderings, burnings and sackings, by all our widows, fatherless and friendless, by all our sayings, doings and sufferings for our kingdom's interests, by the sad effects of tyranny and slavery, by the great trust committed to their charge, by our confidence of their faithfulness therein, by the honour of English men, by the stain of their posterity, kindred and progeny, by their principles of humanity, justice and integrity, by their great account at the last day, that they do preserve our rights, laws & interest, our privileges, liberties and immunities entire, distinct and whole, and that they neither sell them, give them, nor grant them, nor yet suffer them to be sold, given, or granted by any compact Covenant or Treaty (as we are most assured hitherto they have not) to any Nation, kingdom, or people; and more particularly, that in all their transactions between themselves and our Scotch brethren, they maintain the distinct interest of England, without confounding it with the interest of Scotland? and that in all their neighbourly, friendly and brotherly Associations for the jojnt benefit of both kingdoms, they never associate in that which is their several distinct and particular rights.  
Whereas you complain that formerly Propositions of both kingdoms were drawn up together in one body; now for separating the interests of the kingdoms, the Propositions for England are drawn, up apart, upon the observation whereof, with other things you desired a conference and it would not be granted. We reply.  
First, what mean you by one body? mean you the Commissioners of both Kingdoms, making that up one body? or secondly the Parliament of England in conjunction with the Scotch Commissioners? doubtless we cannot think that the Parliament of England and Scotch Commissioners were ever known yet to be one body? we hope that never such a monster shall be seen in England; neither can we imagine that the Commissioners of both kingdoms in one body were to draw up propositions for peace; therefore mean you thirdly, that this one body was not made up of men, but of propositions; and though they were Propositions of both kingdoms, yet they were sent together in one body; this doth not argue but that care was had by the Parliament that though the Propositions were sent in one body or paper; yet there was a distinction, and no confusion of interests: we perfectly know, that as it would be contrary to the Parliaments trust, so is it against their jugdements and consciences to confound the interest of England with the interest of Scotland; we trust they will never be soured with the leven of Levelling; but in the promotion of unity, they will beware of the Doctrine of Community.  
Secondly, what if Propositions for peace were formerly drawn up together in one body, must all other Propositions whatsoever, which the Parliament of England will please to tender to the King, be drawn up together in one body with Scotland's Propositions? No, it is time now to separate all colour of interest of the kingdoms, and not to suffer the least appearance, or occasion of scruple, that the Parliament of England did ever intend participation of interests with the kingdom of Scotland, though Propositions of both kingdoms were formerly sent in one body of writing; yet now their wisdoms may think fit not to administer so much as a paper advantage, or the smallest ground of jealousy and mistake about their intentions concerning the entire preservation of the kingdoms distinct interests, and therefore our obligations are the greater unto our Parliament, for that they would not so much as grant a conference with you about this business, that the confusion of interests between England & Scotland, should never procure so much advantage as the grant of a Conference would administer unto it.  
And had the principles of an unlimited prerogative power, been as timously obviated and declared as your present principles of confounding interests are now by our Parliament, it had as probably prevented the sad calamities and miserable consequences of our late wars, as their present care we hope will do; if the fault be not your own, which if it happen (as God forbid) we make no question but all English men of honour and interest, and common ingenuity, will join together as on man, and so preserve the interest of their native country distinct and whole, as that all the guilded species, and devout pretences of piety and love which shall be used by the deceitful enemies of the kingdom's interest, will never delude us, nor i'th' least divide us.  
Your grand objection is the express letter of the eight Article, 
Pag. 23.  wherein it is provided that no cessation, nor any pacification or agreement for peace whatsoever shall be made by either kingdom, or the Army of either kingdom without the mutual advice and consent of both kingdoms, or their Committees in that behalf appointed, &c.  
First, 
Reply.  this eight Article you flourish about like the sword of Saul, presuming it will not return empty, though it proves to you like the sword of Goliath serving only for your own overthrow; for who was the enemy with which no cessation, nor any pacification or agreement for peace whatsoever should be made by either kingdom, or the Armies of either kingdom, without the mutual advice and consent of both kingdoms, or their Committees on that behalf appointed? was it not the King and his party? if his party is suppressed by conquest, and no peace is made with them by compact, than the only enemy that stands out can be no other but the King? was not the Dutch ambassador (as you say) sent hither to mediate between the King and Parliament as the chief parties at variance; do not all the expresses, Proclamations and Declarations both from the King and from the Parl. relate to the differences between the King, the Parl. the King and his People, &c. Did not the King proclaim the Parliament, and the Army under them, Rebels, traitors, enemies, & c? Did not the Parl. declare that the King had set up his Standard against his people, and thereby put his Parl. and kingdom out of his protection? what can imaginably▪ then be the meaning of this Article; but that no cessation, nor any pacification, or agreement for peace whatsoever can be made with the King by either kingdom, or the Armies of either's kingdom, without the mutual advice and consent of both kingdoms, or their Committees in that behalf appointed; hath the Parliament ever secretly or openly, made any cessation, pacification, or agreement for peace whatsoever; or in the least degree closely tampered with the King without the mutual advice and consent of both kingdoms? did they ever directly or indirectly by themselves or others invite him to their Army, and upon his coming pretend to admire the wonderful providence, professing astonishment and amazement, and that they were like men in a dream? Did they ever accept of titles of honour, either at Newcastle or Isle of Wight, exhibiting so much as the least jealousy unto our brethren of Scotland, of any compliance, much less agreement or pacification with the King without their mutual advice and consent? Have they broken their Articles of Treaty, or yourselves? No, let not such a stain and blot be found upon any English men of honour or interest, much less upon the High Court of Parliament of England, the representative body of the whole kingdom; and we once more obtest you, brethren, Commissioners of Scotland, by the jealousy and wrath of the most high God▪ by all your professions and declarations, by your solemn League and Covenant which you have made with God, the Parl. and kingdom of England; by the eight Article of the Treaty betwixt the Kingdoms, by the dreadful demerits of Covenant-breakers, Treaty-breakers, false brethren, deceitfulness of friendship, dissimulation with God and men, that you neither directly or indirectly, secretly or openly make any cessation, pacification or agreement for peace whatsoever with the King without the mutual advice and consent of both Kingdoms. And we desire Almighty God to bless and prosper the Parliaments and Commissioners of both Kingdoms according to their faithfulness in keeping Covenant on Treaties, that it may please him to bless them, or either of them in their faithful endeavours to execute judgement and justice upon great and small, fulfilling the whole mind and will of God without respect of persons among men; that it would please him to keep up the spirit of the honourable Lords, Commons, and Army of England, without declining from their late resolutions, in a steady, constant, and faithful intention and purpose, without fear or favour, and that they may not start aside like a broken bow from their present righteous and just intentions, and that it may please him to incline the hearts of all the people of the land to join with them to promote righteousness, judgement and justice, and to keep the interests of both kingdoms in their proper distinctions without confusion, to hear the cries, and hasten the remedies of the many oppressions, sorrows and grievances of the kingdom; and that it might please him to incline the hearts of the honourable City of London, and all the Inhabitants thereof, to throw by all unhappy differences and jealousies whatsoever, and to join together in the ways of God, and to give them light from his word, and power from his spirit, in a due and Gospel way, to suppress error, heresy, blasphemy, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine, and to maintain in their several places and callings the undoubted interest of their native kingdom; for all which with simplicity and integrity of heart, quaesumus audias nos Domine: But to return to answer our brethren.  
If the King be not the only man with whom the peace is to be made; what other adversary doth appear at all? and indeed you often tell us that now the war is ended, pag. 10. Again, the war is ended, p●g. 21. There is no enemy to sight with, Ibid. again, the war is at an end, and no visible enemy in the kingdom. Again, now Armies are no more useful, Ibid. Then it will follow. First, that the Parliament hath not broken their Treaty in any Pacification or agreement with the enemy without you, the peace being got by the sword, and not by a Treaty; therefore you ought to recant your charging them in this particular. 2. If the war be ended, we have no more to do with the Scotch Commissioners; for we know no Covenant, Treaty, or Compact with them, that they should intermeddle with us in the government of our kingdom, nor we with them in the government of theirs. We thank you for your help (for we shall remember our own duty to acknowledge you, and leave it to your ingenuity to remember both our ancient and late respects unto you) we have given you 200000. l. (besides all other things, we need not name them) in part of payment: 200000 pounds more we are to give you; we pray your Christian and brotherly forbearance with us, you shall find us honest, and without guile in our dealings with you.  
The next thing you complain of is the omitting the proposition concerning the City of London, 
Page 25.  &c.  
The City of London (to speak without vanity) hath not come far short of the kingdom of Scotl. 
Reply.  in their deserts from the Parl. of England, And we make no question, but upon the faith●ul continuance of their due respects to the Parl. of Engl. and the interest thereof, whereof we have hopes (if but from this time, God bless their ears from the guilded rhetoric of devotiō and deceitful tongues, that they do not neglect their own interest) the Parl. of Engl. will not forget their labour of love, and their perseverance therein, 
Ibid  nor yet remember every character of human frailty that hath been upon them; the best Parliament hath had its spots, as well as the best City.  
Next, 
Reply.  you complain of the proposition for taking away the Court of Wards, &c. Hath not the King consented to that? and is not this beyond your line?  
Touching the Proposition for the sale and disposal of the lands of Deans & Chapters. 
Ibid.  You have some what to say, which is only this; That you have always heard that those lands were reserved by the Houses for the maintenance of Ministers; and the disposal of it otherwais would discourage faithful Pastors, and give occasion to the people (where ministers are wanting for lack of maintenance) to follow after Sectaries, and Tub preachers.  
It seems you are very inquisitive about the disposal of lands in England: 
Reply.  we are not so dim sighted but we see and observe how quick you are of hearing, and diligent in harkening after matters of that nature. The disposal of the lands of Deans & Chapters otherwise then for the maintenance of Ministers, would discourage faithful Ministers, Perhaps no more than the disposal of b●shopss lands have done, which are security for moneys for our brethren of Scotland: and if the Dean and Chapters lands had been so disposed of, we believe you would have given us no occasion to have spoken to this point, it is the desire and longing of our very souls, that some effectual course might be speedily thought upon by the Parliament for the comfortable encouragement and maintenance of faithful Pastors, yea and their widows and children, that they may be delivered from that snare of dependence upon the benevolence and charity of their dull hearers, and sometimes vicious patrons and benefactors. But we refer the matter wholly to the Parliament, and heartily desire their most possible expedition in that good work. But before we leave this, we desire you tell us the original and meaning of that profound word Tub Preachers; we have formerly presumed if it had its rice in England, it was from some of those learned Ballad singers in dishonour of Pulpit preaching, who were bred up in the University of Newgate. Should English Commissioners in Scotland have made any mention in their addresses to their Parliament, of the opprobrious terms of Red-shanks, or blue-caps, it had reflected no small disparagement upon those that employed them. Such light expressions (to say no more) we did never observe to proceed from Commissioners of State before, neither do we believe that Commissioners of the Indies, bred up in Wigwams, did ever use such scurrilous terms in all their motions to the Magistrates at Bostonbay in New-England.  
For the conclusion of all, 
Page 25.  you see down most of your desires, and tender them unto the Parliament.  
If you have any desires concerning your own kingdom, 
Reply.  wherein the Parliament of England may gratify you without prejudice to the proper interest of England, you may do well to tender them; but we sh●ll not trouble you to mediate for us with our own Parliament; we desire you brethren, once more before we leave you, that you would remember that peace preserving passage in the Covenant, Our several places and callings: you are ex●ream apt to forget it, therefore are we so bold to put you in mind so often of it: you have set down most of your desires, but not all, keep the rest within you, perhaps it is better (at least for us) that your desires should be in your Hearts, then in your Hands.  
As for your intermeddling with the four bills sent by the Houses unto the King; we say no more, but had you been mindful of the bounds and limits of our solemn league and covenant, viz. our several places and callings, you had spared your pains in that business, and your fig. leaves to cover that nakedness, 
See Indepency of England, &c. lately set forth, pa. 18, 19  hath been totn from you by a better hand. Here we had thought to have taken our leaves, but before we part, we have three or four Queries to propound unto you, and one request to make, wherein if you will satisfy us in your next, it will be an addition to our former engagements.  
First, whether that your publishing to the people the transactions between the Parliament and yourselves, without the Parliaments consent, nay contrary to their express commands concerning printing and publishing; yea, with malign reflection upon them, be not contrary to the practice of all public Ministers, yea and directly repugnant to all principles of common justice, and infinitely unworthy that profession of love, friendship, and brotherly respects which you have so solemnly made in the face of heaven and earth unto them?  
Secondly, tell us, bona fide, whether you think in your consciences (for you pretend to be very religiously conscientious) that the Parliament of England, & people thereof, did ever intend any such sense of the solemn League and Covenant, either concerning the interest of the kingdom, or government of the Church, as you have endeavoured to extort from it in your several papers, or that they did intend (when they took it) any otherwise by it, than the promotion of holiness in the general (though with difference of judgement about discipline) and the uniting us together in our mutual assistance against, and the discovery of the common enemies of both kingdoms?  
Thirdly, tell us, bona fide, whether you desire, or rather would permit that the King should have the same power in Scotland, the same negative voice, the same absolute command and authority every way, as you would he should have in England, especially if he should refuse to take away Episcopacy to establish Presbytery, to recall those proclamations and declarations whereby you are declared traitors and rebels, to give satisfaction and security to your kingdom, yea, or whether upon the performance of these things, you would let him have such a power yea or no?  
Fourthly, whether you think in the secrets of your hearts, it be agreeable to the principles of religion, rules of equity, justice and policy, an acceptable sacrifice in the sight of Almighty God, and comfortable for his people, to advance the King, in statu quo prius, until he hath according to the pious advice, and Christian exhortation of the general Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, viz. Fallen down at the footstool of the King of glory, acknowledging his sins, repented of them, and made his peace with God in Jesus Christ, whose blood is able to wash away his great sins. And whether you think in your consciences he is a changed man, yea or no?  
Fifthly and lastly, whether it would not be most agreeable to the will of God, the declarations, protestations, promises and professions of love betwixt the two kingdoms, the true intent of the solemn League and Covenant, and most conducing to the glory of God, and the mutual support, security, safety and benefit of the two nations united together, that you and we be true, faithful, constant, and single hearted each to other, assisting each other according to Our several places and callings, in the preservation of each others Peculiar, proper, and distinct interest: And whether it would not be as great a dishonour to God, scandal to the gospel, scorn to Religion, rejoicing of the wicked, grieving of the godly, gratifying the devil, and the affairs of his kingdom among Jews, Turks, Infidels, Papists, prelates, and all sorts of profane men, that You and We should be at variance? Should we not make ourselves thereby an abomination to the Lord, a hissing to all nations, a prey unto our enemies, obnoxious to the wrath and curse of God and men, and bring upon ourselves swift destruction: for the prevention whereof, let us both bow our knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ night & day, that we being rooted and grounded in love, may grow up together in Christ, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord; and by all Christian forbearance and wisdom, may keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  
OUr request is only this, that you would either give a Reply unto the Answer of the Commons assembled in Parliament to the Scotch Commissioners papers of the 20. and their letter of the 24. of October, 1646. or else to cease any further to trouble England's ears with what you call the sense and meaning of the solemn League and Covenant, Treaties, &c. for if you do, you will but sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind for your pains.  
Valete.  
FINIS.