GENERAL DEMANDS, Concerning the Late COVENANT; Propounded by the Ministers and Professors of DIVINITY in ABERDENE: To some Reverend Brethren, who came ●●ither to recommend the late Covenant to th●●, and to those who are committed to their charge: TOGETHER With the Answers of those reverend Brethren to the said Demands: As also The Replies of the foresaid Ministers & Professors to their Answers.  1. PET. 3. 15. 16. Sanctify the LORD GOD in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear: Having a good Conscience, that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in CHRIST. 
ABERDENE, Reprinted by JOHN FORBES, Anno Dom. 1662.   

  

GENERAL DEMANDS, Concerning the late Covenant: Together with Answers to them, and Replies to those Answers.  


THE FIRST DEMAND.  
BY what Power, or Warrant, these our Reverend Brethren can sure of us, or of our People, subscription to this late Covenant; not being sent by his MAJESTY, or by the Lords of Counsel, nor by any national Synod of this Kingdom, nor by any judicatory established in it? And, how they can enforce upon us, or upon our People, who are no ways subject unto them, their Interpretation of the Articles of the Negative Confession? In respect whereof, as also in respect of that Band of mutual Defence against all persons whatsoever, this late Covenant is substantially different, from that which was subscribed by the KING and his Subjects, Anno 1580, and 1581.   

ANSWER.  
WE are not come hither, to usurp the Authority of any Civil or Spiritual judicatory, or to enforce upon our Reverend Brethren, and the People committed to their Charge, the subscription of the late Covenant, or the Interpretation of the Articles of that Confession which is called Negative, or whatsoever else of that kind: But are sent, to represent unto them, in all humility, the present Case and Condition of this Kirke and Kingdom; crying for help at their hands also: and, in brotherly love, to exhort, and entreat, that they will be pleased, to contribute their best Endeavours, for extinguishing the common Combustion, which by joining with almost the whole Kirke and Kingdom, in the Late Covenant, we trust they may lawfully do, without prejudice to the King's Majesty, or to any lawful judicatory, or to that Confession of Faith above mentioned: Since the sound Interpretation and Application thereof, to the Errors of our Times, can make no substantial change, and the Band of Mutual Defence, wherein we obliedge ourselves, to defend the true Religion, and the King's Majesty's Person, and Authority, against all persons whatsoever, is joined, at first, with the Confession of Faith. Like as his Majesty's Commissioner objecting, That our Covenant was suspect, to be an unlawful Combination against Authority, and to be the main hindrance of obtaining our desires, hath accepted, and was well pleased with our Declaration; bearing, That we have solemnly sworn, To the uttermost of our power, with our Means and Lives, to stand to the defence of the King's Majesty, as of GOD'S Vicegerent, set over us, for the maintenance of Religion, and ministration of Justice.   

REPLY.  
WE have, Reverend Brethren, sufficiently considered and examined your Answers to our Demands, by which we expected full satisfaction to all our Scruples and doubts concerning the late Covenant: But truly, in Modesty and brotherly Love, we tell you, that your Answers (whatsoever you think of them yourselves) have not given us that satisfaction which we expected. We know that some who rashly condemn every thing which is said or written contrary to the cause which they maintain, will boldly say of us, that we have closed our eyes against a clear and ingyring Light: But first, we say with job, Our witness is in Heaven, and our record is on high. That LORD who only seeth the secrets of hearts, knoweth, that we love His Truth, and are ready so soon as it shall be shown unto us, to embrace and profess it before the World. Next, we appeal to the Consciences of all impartial Readers, who shall have occasion to weigh and consider maturely the weight of our Arguments, and of these Answers which it hath pleased you to give us: wishing them, yea, most humbly and earnestly entreating them, to judge both of your writings and ours, without prejudice, or any partial respect. Yea, we are confident, that ye also, o● whose love to the Truth of GOD we are persuaded, will after better advysement, and more mature consideration of the matters debated, acknowledge, that we are not against the Truth, but for it. The LORD open your eyes, that you may clearly see, that Truth for which we stand.  
WE objected to you, Reverend Brethren, that you had not a Calling to urge us to the subscription of the late Covenant, from any acknowledged Authority, or lawful Judica●●rie established in this Church or Kingdom: to which Objection ye answer no● here particularly, as we expected. And whereas you say, That you are come to exhort us, and our People, in all humility, to join with you; how is it, that without our consent, and against our will, not having lawful Authority, which you seem here not to acclaime to yourselves, you have publicly preached to our People, within our Congregation? which is a thing repugnant to those places of Scripture, in the which the Spirit of GOD recommendeth to Elders, or Pastors, the care of those Flocks, Over which the holy Ghost hath made them overseers, Acts 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2 as also telleth us, That the Pastors whom the Flock must know, and to whom they must submit themselves, do watch over the Souls of that Flock, and must give account for them, 1. Thessal. 5. 12 Hebr. 13. 17. It is also contrary to the laws of the Christian Church in all ages. For by the ancient Canons, Pastors are commanded, to contain themselves within the limits of their own Charge; and not to presume to exercise Pastoral Office in another Pastor's Diocese, or Parioch, without leave: As also, they forbid Pastors, to receive to Divine Service, any man of another Pariochin, that cometh in contempt of his own Pastor. Concil. Nicen. ●. Oecum. 1. Can. 16. Concil. 2. Oecum▪ Constantinop. Can. 2. Concil. Carthag. 2. Can. 11. Concil. Carthag. 3. Can. 20. Concil. Chalced. Oecum. 4. Can. 13. Concil. Nicen. 2. Can. 10. Concil. Tribur. Can. 28. Concil. Nannet. Cap. 1. & 2. † 2. We did not without reason say, That you, and others of your Confederation, enforce your Interpretation of the Negative Confession upon others; seeing we hear, that some Pastors and Prelates are forced to flee to forraygne Countries, for fear of their 〈◊〉 because they have refused the said Interpretation; and those 〈…〉 ave stayed in the Country, dare scarcely appear in the h 〈…〉, or streets, and are threatened, that their Stipends shall not 〈◊〉 unto them, until they subscrive your Covenant. † 3. Whereas you do in Brotherly love exhort, and entreat us, to contribute our best endeavours for extinguishing the common Combustion, we praising GOD, for your pious zeal, and for the lovingness and modesty of your speeches, (wherein, by GOD'S help, we shall labour to keep correspondence with you; that both we and you may show ●●● selves, to have learned of CHRIST, Meekness, and lowliness of heart) we most willingly promise to do so, by all means which our consciences will permit us to use, as also to join our most humble and hearty Prayers with yours, that it may please GOD in this dangerous exigent, to do good in His good pleasure, to our Zion, and to build up the walls of our jerusalem. † 4. We may justly say, that this new Covenant is substantially different from the Old, which was made Anno 1581. in respect it not only containeth that Old Covenant, or Confession, which was allowed by two General Assemblies, but also your interpretation of it, which, as yet, hath no such Authority, or Approbation. † 5. No Band of Mutual Defence, Against all persons whatsoever, is expressed in the Covenant made 1581. And although it were, yet the case is very unlike: For Subjects may make such a Covenant of Mutual Defence, by Arms, with the consent of the King, who only, under GOD, hath the power of Arms, or of the Sword, in this Kingdom. But they who made this late Covenant, had not his consent, as that former or old Covenant had: which is a thing so evident, that no man can call it in question. † 6. As for that which you affirm here, that my Lord Commissioner his Grace was well satisfied with your Declaration, it becometh not us, to pry narrowly into his Grace's doings: but truly we have more than reason, to pry most narrowly into the words of a Covenant, which is offered unto us, to be sworn, and subscribed, lest we abuse, and profane the Sacred Name of GOD, and tie ourselves to the doing of any thing which is displeasing unto him. Last of all; whereas ye desire us, to join ourselves to you, and to the rest of your Confederacy, who are (as you affirm) almost the whole Church and Kingdom, truly we cannot but reverence such a multitude of our Reverend Brethren, and dear Countrymen, and are ready to be followers of them, in so far as they are followers of CHRIST: But neither can we do any thing against the Truth, neither can we attribute so much Authority to their multitude, as otherwise we would, in respect there hath been so much dealing for Subscriptions, in all quarters of this Kingdom, and so many have been threatened, to give their consent, as we are most credibly informed.    


The Second Demand.  
Whether or no we ought to subscryve the foresaid Covenant, seeing all Covenants of mutual Defence, by force of Arms, made amongst Subjects of any degree, upon whatsoever colour or pretence, without the King's Majesty or his Successoures' privity and consent, are expressly forbidden by King JAMES of blessed Memory, and the three Estates of this Kingdom, in the Parliament holden at Linlithgow, Anno 1585.?   

ANSWER.  
The Act of Parliament forbiddeth in the first part, Leagues and Bands of maintenance privily made, such as are called Bands of Manrent, as the act in Queen MARY'S time, to which it hath relation, doth bear. And in the second part, only such, as tend to the public▪ disturbance of the peace of the Realm, by moving sedition. But no act of Parliament doth discharge, nor can any just Law forbid, Conventions or Covenants in the general; or such Covenants in special as are made with GOD, and amongst ourselves; not for any man's particular, but for the common benefit of all; not to move Sedition, but to preserve Peace, and to prevent trouble: which by all probability had been to many, before this time, too sensible, if this course had not been taken. Conventions and Covenants (in the judgement of Jurisconsults) are to be esteemed and judged of, according to their divers ends, good or bad: which made King JAMES of happy memory to take it for an undoubted maxim, That pro aris & focis, & pro patre patriae, the whole body of the Commonwealth should stir at once: not any more as divided members, but as one consolidate lump.   

Replye.  
In that second part of that Act of Parliament holden at Linlithgo, Anno 1585. are forbidden, All Leagues or Bands of Mutual Defence, which are made without the privity and consent of the KING, under the pain to be holden and execute as movers of sedition and unquietness, etc. Wherefore we can no ways think, that any Bands or Leagues of Mutual Defence, by force of Arms, are there permitted, (that is, not forbidden) seeing first the words of the Act are so general, for in it are discharged All Bands made among Subjects of any degree, upon any colour what soever, without his Highness, or his Successors, privity and consent had and obtained thereunto. Next; All such Bands are declared to be Seditious, and perturbative of the public Peace of the Realm: or, which is all one, are appointed to be esteemed so. And therefore, we can not see how any Bands of that kind can be excepted, as if they were not seditious. 2. We doubt not, but the late Covenant being considered, according to the main intention of those Pious and Generous Gentlemen, Barons and others our dear Country men, who made it, especially our Reverend Brethren of the holy Ministry, is a Covenant made with GOD, and proceeding from a zealous respect to GOD His Glory, and to the preservation of the purity of the Gospel in this Church and Kingdom: But we cannot find a Warrant in our Consciences, to grant, that such Covenants, in so far as they import mutual Defence, against all persons whatsoever, none being excepted, no, not the KING, (as it seemeth unto us, by the words of your Covenant, but far more by the words of your late Protestation, the 28 of june; wherein you promise, mutual Defence, against all external or internal Invasion, menaced in his Majesty's last Proclamation) are not forbidden by any Band, nor justly yet can be forbidden. For, first, we have already shown, that they are forbidden in the foresaid Act of Parliament, Anno 1585. 2. No warfare; and consequently, no Covenant, importing warfare, is lawful, without just Authority, which, we are persuaded, is only in the supreme Magistrate, and and in those who have power and employment from him, to take Arms: Yea, so far as we know, all moderate men, who duly respect Authority, will say, that it is so in all Kingdoms, and Monarchies, properly so called: (Of which nature is this his Majesty's most Ancient Kingdom,) And, that it is altogether unlawful to Subjects in such Kingdoms, to take Arms against their Prince. For which cause, that famous and most learned Doctor Rivetus, in a late Treatise called jesuita vapulans, speaking of the judgement of Buchannan, and others, who taught, that Subjects might take Arms against their Prince, in extraordinary Cases, and extreme dangers, of the Religion, and Commonwealth, professeth first, that he, and all other Protestants, condemn such doctrine. Secondly; That this Error did proceed from a mistaking of the Government of the Scotish Kingdom, ●s if it were not truly & properly monarchical. Thirdly That the rashness of those writers, is to be ascribed partly to the hard and perilous times of persecution, wherein they lived, and partly Sc●t●r●m praef●rv●do ingenio, et ad audendum prompto. Thus he wry●e●h in the 13. Chap. of the said Book, Pag. 274. and 275. answering to the recrimination of ● jesuit, who had affirmed, that B●c●a●na●, Knox, and Goodman, had written as boldly, for the Rebellion of Subjects against Princes, as any of their Order at any time load done. A thing much to be noted by us at this time, lest we any more give that advantage to Jesuits, to make Apology for their rebellious Doctrines and Practices. 3. Not only making of Covenants, but also all other actions, are to be esteemed and judged of, first, by the equity of the subject, and matter; then, by the end: For if the matter pactioned (that is, which the parties mutually do promise) be justly forbidden, by a lawful Authority; and consequently be unlawful in itself; then the goodness of the end, or project, can not make the paction, or Covenant, to be good, or lawful.    


The Third Demand.  
If it be alleged, that in extreme and most dangerous cases, such Acts of Parliament may be contraveened, Quaeritur, whether there be now such extreme case, seeing we have his Majesty, in his former Proclamations, avowing, protesting, declaring, and in this last Proclamation taking God to witness, that he never intended any Innovation of Religion; and also seeing He hath removed already all that which made men fear Novations, to wit, Service Book, Book of Canons, and the alleged exorbitancy of the new high Commission.   

ANSWER.  
If the removing of the Service Book, Book of Canons, and the limitation of the vast power of the high Commission, containing so much superstition, and tyranny of Prelates, be a benefit to this Kirke and Kingdom, we ought, under GOD, to ascribe the same to the peaceable Meetting, humble Supplications, and religious Covenanting of the Subjects; which have given information to his Majesty, and have procured from his justice and goodness, so great favour, as is thankfully acknowledged in the last Protestation: which doth also express the many particulars, wherein his Majesty's late Proclamation is not satisfactory. And therefore, the Lords of his Maesties' Privy Counsel, upon the Supplication and Complaint of his Liedges, were moved to rescind the Act of the Approbation, of the foresaid Proclamation, and to rend the subscribed Missive, which was to be sent therewith to his Majesty, We are confident, that the Declaration wherewith his Majesty's Commissioner was so well pleased, will also give satisfaction to our Reverend Brethren; and that they will not think it convenient for them to give further approbation to the Proclamation, than the Counsel hath done, although all of us aught, with thankfulness, to acknowledge his Majesty's benignity.   

Replye.  
We will not here dispute what hath been the main or principal cause moving his sacred Majesty to discharge the Service-Booke, and other things which occasioned the present perturbation of our Church; nor yet whether or not his Majesty's Proclamation may give full satisfaction to all the fears and doubts of his Subjects. For ourselves, we profess, that upon his Majesty's Declaration, and gracious Promise contained in his Majesty's last Proclamation, we believe, first, that his Majesty never intended Innovation in Religion: secondly, that he will maintain the true Protestant Religion, all the days of his life: which we pray GOD to continue long. Thirdly, that all Acts made in favours of the Service-Booke, etc. are discharged. Fourthly that he will never urge the receiving of the Service Book▪ Book of Cannons etc. or any other thing of that Nature, but by such a fair and legal way, as shall satisfy all his Subjects. And thence we do collect, that which we affirmed before, to wit, that there is no such extraordinary or extreme case, as might give occasion to Subjects to make such a Band, as is directly forbidden by the foresaid Act of Parliament, and to contraveane it in such a manner, as may seem to import a resisting of Authority by force of Arms.    


The Fourth Demand.  
Concerning that Interpretation of the Negative Confession, which is urged upon us, & wherein the Articles of Pearth, & Episcopacy are declared to be abjured, as well as all the points of Popery, which are therein expressly and distinctly mentioned; Quaeritur, Who are the Interpreters of that Confession? that is, Whether all the Subscrivers, or only those Ministers convened in EDINBURGH, in the end of February, who set it down? If all the Subscrivers; then what reason have we to receive an interpretation of that Confession from Laics, ignorant people, and children? If only those Ministers convened then in EDINBURGH; then, seeing no man should take an honour to himself, but he who is called of GOD, as AARON, Hebr. 5. 4. what power and authority had they over their Brethren, to give out a judicial Interpretation of these Articles of Faith, and to enforce their Interpretation of these Articles upon them.   

ANSWER.  
The subscrybers are here misinterpreted in two points, very material: One is, that they presume upon power, or Authority, which they have to give out a judicial interpretation of the Articles of the Confession, and to enforce the same upon others: whereas they only intended, to make known their own meaning, according to the mind of our Reformers; and in charity to propound and recommend the same to others, who might be made willing to embrace it: Although it be true also, that very great numbers of Ministers were convened, and testified their consent at that time: and although the private judgement of those who are called Laics, ought not to be mis-regarded: for it is confessed, that an Interpretation, which is private ratione personae, may be more than private ratione medii. The other, which being observed, will answer divers of the following Demands, that the Articles of Pearth, and of Episcopal Government, are declared to be abjured, as points of Popery, or as Popish Novations: whereas the words of the Covenant put a difference betwixt two sorts of Novations: one is of such, as are already introduced in the Worship of GOD and concerning those, whatsoever be the judgement of the Subscryvers, which to every one is left free, by the words of the Covenant they are only bound, to forbear the practice of them, by reason of the present exigence of the Kirke, till they be tried, and allowed, in a free General Assembly. The other sort is of such Novations, as are particularly supplicated against, and complained upon, as the Service-Booke, and Canons, etc. which are abjured, as containing points of Popery. And this we avouch, from our certain knowledge, to be the true meaning of the controverted words of the Covenant. And therefore, humbly entreat that no man any more, upon this scruple, withhold his Testimony▪   

Reply.  
As for the first of these two miss-taking: If you have not given out that interpretation of the Negative Confession judicially, but only have made known your own meaning, according to the mind of the Reformers, as you allege, then, first, your Interpretation hath no obligatory power over others; and consequently you ought not to obtrude your Interpretation upon us more than we do our Interpretation thereof upon you. Neither ought any man to be molested, or threatened, for not receiving your Interpretation; chiefly seeing all who are of your Confederation have so solemnly vowed, and promised, to be good examples to others of all Godliness, Soberness, & Righteousness, and of every duty which you owe to GOD and Man. Secondly, as for the mind or judgement of our Reformers, we know no evidency of it, having public Authority, to obliedge the Subjects of this Kingdom, except that which is expressed in our national confession of Faith, ratified in Parliament twenty years before the Negative Confession was penned: wherein we find no warrant or ground of such Interpretation as you bring. Thirdly, The Interpretation of the Negative Confession, set down in your Covenant, as it is not public ratione Personae, so also not ratione medii: for it hath no Warrant, for aught we could ever perceive, either from the Word of GOD, or from the Testimony of the Ancient Church, or from the consent of other reformed Churches, or from our national Confession, registrated in Parliament. As for the second Misstaking, o● Misinterpretation of the words of the late Covenant, first, We marvel, that a General Covenant appointed to be subscrived by all, learned and unlearned, should have been set down by you in such ambiguous terms. For, truly, all men here, even the most judicious, do so take your words, as if the Articles of PEARTH were in them abjured. 2. We have again more attentively examined the words of the late Covenant, and do evidently perceive by them, That in the said Covenant, the Articles of PEARTH, and Episcopacy, are condemned, and abjured, as erroneous, and damnable corruptions. For where you profess, and before GOD, and his Angels, and the World, solemnly declare, that you shall labour, by all means lawful, to recover the Liberty and purity, of the GOSPEL, as it was established and professed before the foresaid Novations: We ask you, what is that period of time, to which your words have reference, when you promise to labour, to recover the Purity and Liberty of the Gospel, as it was professed & established before the foresaid novations? If you mean that period of time, when the Service-Booke, and Book of Canons, were urged upon you; to wit, the last year bypast in Summer, than you acknowledge, that all that time you enjoined the Purity and Liberty of the GOSPEL; and consequently, that you yet enjoy it; for no new thing hath since that time been publicly received, and practised in this CHURCH. If you mean (as undoubtedlie we think you do) the time preceding the bringing in of Episcopacy, and the Acts of Pearth, than you comprehend both Episcopacy and the Acts of PEARTH, under these Novations; for the removing whereof, you promise, to labour, according to your power: and consequently do disallow and condemn them, even before they be tried in a Free Assembly, and before they be heard who maintain & approve them as lawful. 3. We may evidently demonstrate this, argumento ad hominem, as we say in the Schools: For those Rites and Ceremonies, which are abjured in the Negative Confession, are also abjured in your late Covenant; which, as you say, is all one with the Negative Confession, or with the Covenant made 1581. But the Rites and Ceremonies which were concluded in Pearth Assembly, are abjured, as you say, in the Covenant made 1581. and therefore they are also abjured in this your late Covenant. The first Proposition is evident: for in your late Covenant, speaking of the Oath contained in that old Covenant, which was made Anno 1581. you profess, That the present and succeeding Generations in this Land, are bound to keep the foresaid national Oath, as you call it, and Subscription, unviolable. The second Proposition also cannot be denied by you: For, these twenty years bybast, you have accused those who conformed themselves to the Ordinances of Pearth, of Perjury; and that because they had violated the Oath made Anno 1581. in the which those Articles (as you allege) were abjured. But perhaps you will say to us, that we think those things not to be abjured in that Oath made Anno 1581. and therefore we may swear, and subscrive your late Covenant; and, notwithstanding of our Oath and Subscription, be tied only to the Forbearance of the practice of Pearth Articles for a time. We answer, first: The words of an Oath should be clear, and plain: or, if they be any ways ambiguous, the true sense of them should be so declared, and manifested, that all may know it. 2. An Oath is to be given, according to the mind and judgement of him that requireth it. And therefore, seeing you who require this Oath of us, think the Rites or Ceremonies concluded at Pearth, to be abjured in that Oath made Anno 1581. how can we swear and sub●rive your Covenant, which reneweth the foresaid Oath, and bindeth us to it? 3. If we should swear, and subscrive the Negative Confession, as it is included in your Covenant; than ye, who think the Articles of Pearth to be abjured, and condemned in the Negative Confession, will think us tied, by our own Personal Oath, to condemn the Articles of Pearth. 4. Seeing this Covenant was penned by you, who have hitherto not conformed yourselves to Pearth Assembly, and have opposed Episcopacy, and seeing you all condemn Episcopacy, as if it were that Popish or wicked Hierarchy, mentioned in the Negative Confession; as also esteem the things concluded in Pearth Assembly, to be Idolatrous, or Superstitious, how can we think, that you in your solemn vow made to God, for reformation of this Church, and resisting, in times to come, the Novations & Corruptions of it, have passed by these things, which are the only Novations already introduced by Authority, and from which, as you affirm, the Church hath so great need to be purged: chiefly, seeing ye think them as Popish Superstitious & Idolatrous, as ye do these other Novations, which are not as yet introduced. 5. If in all your Supplications, Plaints, and Protestations, ye have only sought the removing and discharging of the Service Book, Book of Canons, and the new high Commission, not complaining of any other Novations; and seeing his Majesty hath discharged the first two, & hath promised to rectify the third, or last of them; Then, what reason have ye to think, that his Majesty hath not satisfied your Supplications? For, all the Novations, upon which you complained, are removed by his Majesty, and ye have his Princely Promise, that no further shall be urged upon us, but by such a fair and Legal way, as may satisfy all his Subjects. 6. As for that which your Covenant, by your own Confession, requireth of us, to wi●, The forbearance, and abstinence, for a time, from the practising the Articles of PEARTH; We profess sincerely, and in the sight of GOD, that our Conscience will not suffer us, to subscrive that part of your Covenant; and that because Laws being standing for them, and our lawful Superioures requiring Obedience from us, by practising them, to swear Forbearance of the practice of them, is to swear Disobedience, and, to wrong their Authority. 7. How can we, with a good Conscience, abstain presenly from private Baptism, and private Communion, being required thereunto by sick persons, and those Parents whose Children cannot be carried to the Church commodiously with their lives; seeing we think it a thing very unlawful, in such cases, to refuse to administrate those Sacraments in private houses. No● that we think, that GOD hath tied Himself, or His Grace, to the Sacraments; but because He hath tied us unto them, by His Precept: and, not to use the means apppointed by GOD, when our People, or their Children stand in need of them, is a contempt of the means, and a tempting of GOD.    


The Fifth Demand.  
Whether or no we can sincerely, and with a good Conscience, subscrive the Negative Confession, as it is expounded and interpreted by the Contryvers or Authors of the late Covenant, seeing it maketh a perpetual Law concerning the external Rites of the Church, which GOD hath not made, as if these Rites were unchangeable? And how they who both swear the positive Confession, and the negative, thus interpreted, can eschew contradiction, seeing the positive Confession, Chap. 21. evidently declareth, that these Rites are changeable, according to the exigency of time; and consequently, that no perpetual Law may or aught to be made concerning them? Likewise, we would know, how it can stand with truth, to abjure all these Rites, as Popish▪ which are used in the Church, without divyne institution, expressed in GOD'S Word; seeing even these who urge the Covenant, practise some Ceremonies which are not mentioned in GOD'S Word, as the Celebration of Marriage before the Church, in the beginning, or at the end of divyne Service, with all the particulars of it, and the stipulation of Fathers and Godfathers, for the Child in Baptism, which are not mere circumstances, as they use to distinguish, but also Ceremonies, properly so called?   

ANSWER.  
The late Covenant maketh not a perpetual Law concerning the external Rites of the Kirke, as if they were unchangeable: but, as we have said before, only bindeth us, for a time, to forbear the practice of Innovations already introduced, and doth not determine whether they ought to be changed, or not. 2. According to this true Interpretation, all appearance of contradiction betwixt the Confession of Faith insert in the Act of Parliament, and the latter Confession, is removed, beside that the Article 21 of the Confession of Faith, giveth power to the Kirke, in matters of external Policy, and order of the Worship of GOD, is expounded in the first Book of Discipline, distinguishing between things necessary to be observed in every Kirke, and things variable in particular Congregations. 3. We declare again, that the Covenant doth not abjure Pearth Articles, as Popish, and thinketh not time now to dispute of significant Ceremonies, or other holy Rites, and whether the two particulars named be Ceremonies, or not: since the Confession condescended upon on both sides, abjureth Rites, which are added without the Word of GOD.   

Replye.  
First, we have already told you, that we can not subscrive your Oath of Forbearance of the practice of the Articles already introduced, without violation of Authority, and of wronging our own Consciences, who think private Baptism and Communion, not to be indifferent, but also necessary, in some cases, not indeed, necessitate medii, as if GOD'S Grace were tied to the external means, but, as we say in the Schools, necessitate praecepti, because we are commanded to use these means. 2. This late Covenant leadeth and bindeth us to the old Covenant, made 1581.▪ and that old Covenant bindeth us perpetually to that Discipline which was then; that is, (as ye allege) to the whole Policy of the Church, comprehending all the external Rites of it: and so, à primo ad ultimum, this late Covenant bindeth us to the whole Policy of the Church, which was then; and consequently maketh a perpetual Law, concerning external Rites of the Church, as if they were unchangeable, All parts of this Argument are sure: for by your late Covenant, you profess yourselves bound, to keep the foresaid national Oath (as you call it) inviolable: and that Oath, or Covenant, bindeth us, to continue In the obedience not only of the Doctrine, but also of the Discipline of this Kirke. Where by the Discipline of the Kirke, ye understand (as ye have in all your write professed, especially of late, in your Book entitled, A dispute, against the English Popish Ceremonies. Part. 4. Cap. 8. Sect. 6.) the whole external Policy of the Church, as it was at that time; to wit, Anno 1581. Yea, you confess, that no other thing can be understood by The Discipline of the Kirke, but that which we have said already; and consequently we shall be tied by that Oath which you require of us, to admit and practise no other Rites and Ceremonies, but such as were then received in our Church. We can no ways pass by this, seeing ever since the Assembly of Pearth, in your public Sermons, and printed Books, ye have most vehemently accused us of Perjury, as violating the Oath, or Covenant, made Anno 1581. and that in respect we have admitted into the Church, some Rites, or Ceremonies, which were not in it the foresaid year of GOD. Is not this to make a perpetual Law, concerning the external Rites of the Church, as if they were unchangeable, and to abjure the practice of all Rites introduced in the Church since that time; and consequently the practice of the Articles of Pearth, and that not for a time only, but for ever? 3. Seeing the Negative Confession, according to your mind, and conception of it, maketh the whole external Policy of the Church, as it was Anno 1581. to be unchangeable and on the contrary, the Confession insert into the Acts of Parliament, declareth, that the Rites belonging to the external Policy of the Church, are changeable; how can you escape a Contradiction, if ye receive both these Confessions? 4. Whereas by that distinction mentioned in your Answer, of things necessary to be observed, and of things variable in particular Congregations, ye insinuate that by the Keeping of the Discipline of the Kirke as it was then, to which we are bound in the old Covenant, ye understand the observation of those things which are necessary to be observed in every Kirke, and not of things variable in particular Congregations: We ask, Into which of the Members of this distinction ye refer Episcopacy and the Articles of Pearth? that is, whether they most necessarily be omitted in all Churches, and at all times, or not? If ye say, that they must be necessarily omitted, and that the Negative Confession, confirmed with an Oath, doth tie us to the omission of them; then both ye would make us to swear, and subscrive against our Consciences, (for we are persuaded, that these things are lawful) as also ye would make us to abjure Episcopacy, and the Articles of Pearth, in perpetuum; which is flatly contrary to your▪ Declaration in your Answers, 1. 5. etc. If you say on the other part, that we are not tied by the negative Confession, to the omission of these things; then, why have ye, in all your write against us, exprobrate to us, Perjury, in violating of the Oath contained in the negative Confession? 5. We would gladly have known your mind, concerning the lawfulness of such Rites as are nor of divyne Institution, expressed in GOD'S Word. For we ingenuously profess, that none of your Answers (which hitherto we have seen) to the Instances, or Examples, brought by us, in our sift Demand, of Rites used by yourselves▪ in your Churches, as lawful, without divyne Institution, (to which we could add many more) do give us any satisfaction: nor yet, as we think, can give satisfaction to any indifferent man. As for example; is Blessing of Marriages, a mere circumstance? who can be so impudent, as to say ●o? or, if it be a Ceremony, what precept or practice have ye of it in GOD'S whole word? If it be alleged, that we have a warrant from that Blessing pronounced Gen. 1. 28. upon Man and Woman, after their creation; we ask, by what consequence can that Solemnity of blessing of Marriages used in our Churches, with all the Ceremonies of it, be drawn from that effectual and operative Blessing of our first Parents, or rather of whole Mankind? Is there here an institution of a perper●uall observance, or Rite, to be used in the Church, more than in the 22 verse of the same Chapter, when GOD blessed the Fowls, and Fishes, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the Seas? etc. If again it be answered, that Pastoral Benediction, is mentioned in Scripture, first, what is that to Blessing of Marriages? And secondly, why are not all other pactions, as well as Marriages, blessed in the Church, chiefly, seeing Matrimonial Blessing hath been, & is, abused in the Roman Church, which holdeth, that Marriage is a Sacrament; and consequently, Matrimonial benediction ought, as it would seem, to be secluded from the Church, rather than other Blessings?    


The Sixth Demand.  
Whether or no it be fit to subscrive such an Interpretation, as in matters of lawfulness, and unlawfulness; and consequently in matters of Faith, contradicteth the Judgement of so many Divines, most famous of the reformed Church, both Ancient and Modern, (who did, and do hold, that these Rites and Ordinances brought into this Church by the Assembly of Pearth, are in their own nature lawful, and such as ought not to make a stir in the Church of GOD) and also condemneth the venerable practice of the Ancient Church, and the most eminent Lights of it, even in those purest times, unto which we appeal against the Papists in our Disputes.   

ANSWER.  
We trust, that no sound Divyne, Ancient or Modern, would in this case deny the expediency of the forbearance of the practice of Pearth Articles. And further than this, nothing at this time is required.   

Replye.  
Your silence, in not answering that which we affirmed, concerning the judgement of Divynes, Ancient and Modern, of the reformed Church, anent the lawfulness of the Rites and Ordinances, which were received in our Church, by the ordinance of the Assembly of Pearth; as also concerning the judgement and practice of the ancient Church; doth make us think, that ye acknowledge the truth of that which we affirmed there. 2. We have already shown, that the Oath which ye require of us, importeth more than the forbearance of the practice of Pearth Articles, for a tyme. 3. The forbearance of some of them, seemeth to us, to be merely unlawful, and contrary to that Pastoral duty we owe to our Flock. 4. The forbearance of any of them, considered with a relation to the Authority enjoining them, in our judgement, is plain disobedience.    


The seaventh Demand.  
Whether it be agreeable to Charity or Piety, to require us to abjure these Rites as Popish; which in the sincerity of our hearts, following the light of our Conscience, (whereof we take GOD to witness) we have hitherto practised, as lawful, and laudably following the same light, do yet practise them? but suppose this might be required of us by any; Quaeritur, Whether or no it becometh them so peremptorily, and upon such a suddentie, to urge us to this, who these bygone twenty years, have desired earnestly to enjoy the freedom of their Consciences in their Ministry, even in denying obedience to these things, and standing Laws for them; and when they were urged to obedience, did so often protest, and earnestly request, that they might have a time, to be well informed, and maturely advised of the matter, which to the most part of them was most graciously granted? Let them, therefore, look to that natural Maxim, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris, and to our Saviour's Precept of the same sense, and almost of the same words, Matth. 7. verse 12.   

ANSWER.  
We hope, that such a Forbearance of the practice, will prejudge the liberty of no man's Conscience.   

Replye.  
It would much prejudge our Consciences, to swear and subscrive the negative Confession, taking it according to your conception and meaning, who require our Oath. 2. How can we swear, to labour, (by all means lawful, as ye require in your Covenant) to expel those things, whereof we hold some to be necessary, and all the rest, to be lawful, and laudable?    


The Eight Demand.  
Whether it be fitting to swear to defend the King's Person and Authority, with this Limitation, In the defence and preservation of the true Religion, Laws, and Liberties, of this Kingdom? As if their Persons ought not to be defended against all Enemies, although as yet they embraced not the Truth: or having before embraced it, yet have fallen from it; or as if their Royal Authority were not to be acknowledged, although commanding things unlawful; and as if we were not subject thereto, in yielding to suffer under them, when we give not active obedience to them?   

ANSWER.  
1. The Answer of the first Demand, may give satisfaction here. 2. The Specification of the defending the King's Person and Authority, in the defence of the true Religion, Laws, and Liberties of the Kingdom, is warranded by the Confession ratified in Parliament, by other Acts of Parliament, by the other Confession, and by the general Band joined with it. 3. No man will withhold his Subscription from the Covenant, because it doth not, as it intendeth not, to express ever●● duty we owe to the King's Majesty, as if the not naming, were a denying of the duty.   

Reply.  
What ye have replied in your Answer to our first Demand, we have examined, in our Confutation of your Answer. 2. If ye consider well all the Circumstances of the making of your Covenant, ye will find that it had not been amiss, at this time, to have expressed more fully the Loyalty of your Intentions, to maintain the KING'S Person and Honour. Next, it is necessary to express it yet more fully, for our cause, whom ye require, to swear & subscrive your Covenant; lest we do any thing, in this matter, with a doubting Conscience, (which is a grievous sin) that is, Doubting whether or no we are tied by our Oath, to maintain the KING'S Authority, only in so far, as it is employed in the Defence of the foresaid true Religion; or, at least, as it is not employed against it. For it seemeth to us unlawful, to swear the maintenance of the KING'S Authority with this limitation precisely. And if ye be of a contrary mind, we are most willing to confere with you of this point.    


The ninth Demand.  
Whethere or no we can sincerely swear to maintain the Authority, truly and properly Monarchical of the King; and withal swear also disobedience to these Articles, which are authorized by his standing Laws, and to maintain the meanest of his Subjects against him, in their disobedience of his Laws, as yet standing in vigour concerning these things?   

ANSWER.  
1. The Answer to the first Demand, is useful here also. 2. Forbearance of Practice, for a time, in such a case, is rather Obedience, than Disobedience: for example, Kneelling was thought convenient, because all memory of Superstition was past, should it not therefore be forborn, because Superstition is now revived, and flagrant? They who practice, keep the letter of the Law: but they who forbear, keep the life and reason thereof.   

Replye.  
Your Covenant requireth more of us, than the forbearance of the practice of Pearth Articles, as we have often times declared. 2. We have also shown, that the forbearance of Obedience, to standing Laws, without licience of Superiors, and contrary to their commandment, especially if it be done by deliberation, and if men tie themselves, by an Oath, to do so, is manifest Disobedience. 3. The Article of Pearth, anent Kneeling, was not grounded only, nor yet principally, upon that Narrative which ye mention; but rather upon the conveniency and decency of the gesture of Kneeling, in the receiving of the holy SACRAMENT: which reason doth yet continue; as also the other reason which ye mention, holdeth yet: for the body of the People of this Church, were never Papists; and, consequently, have no memory of Popish Superstition, as those who lived in time of Reformation. 4. We can not see, nor conceive, how a Vow and Band, of maintaining the meanest Subject of this Kingdom, against all persons whatsoever; and consequently, against the KING himself, as we have shown in our second Reply, in disobedience of his Laws, can consist with that love, reverence, and subjection, which we owe to our KING. Neither have ye brought any thing in your Answer, to satisfy us in this point. And because ye allege, as we hear, that ye are mistaken in this point, and do vindicate yourselves, by those words of the Covenant, wherein ye promise to maintain the KING'S Authority; we pray you to express your mind more fully, concerning it; and to show us, 1. What ye mean by maintaining the KING'S Authority, in that part of your Covenant, wherein ye express your loyal Intention, To maintain the KING'S Person and Authority; and in special, Whether or no the maintaining of the KING'S Authority, be taken by you, as it excludeth all resisting of his Authority, by force of Arms, even although he should command things unlawful, and contrary to the Truth? For so we think it should be taken: and that it should be so taken, we are ready to demonstrate. Neither can we swear it in any other sense. 2. Whether your promise, of mutual defence, In the same cause of maintaining the true Religion, and his Majesty's Authority, etc. aught to be understood, of the maintaining the King's Authority absolutely: that is, Whether he maintain the true Religion, or no? Or, on the contrary; if it ought to be understood, of the maintaining the King's Authority conditionally, in so far as he maintaineth the true Religion, and not any other ways? If you say, that it is to be understood the first way, we assent to that part of your Covenant, and have no more scruple anent it, except that one, which we mentioned in our Reply to your second Answer: to wit, that the words of your Protestation, seem to import more; and, that your Paction, or Covenant, is made without the King's privity, and consent. If ye say, that it is to be understood the second way, than we continue urging our foresaid Demand: to wit, how a man can maintain the King's Authority, and withal maintain the meanest of His Subjects, in resisting His Authority? And how we can be said, to stand for the King's Honour, when we vow and promise, to do that which he himself professeth to be against his Honour; and which, in the common judgement of men, is thought to be so? The determination of this point, is more than necessary, at this time: and, therefore, let us in sincerity, and Brotherly love, confer of it; that the Consciences of others who doubt of this, may receive satisfaction.    


The Tenth Demand.  
Whether or no we ought to swear to such a Covenant, which taketh away from us all hope of a free Assembly, or Parliament, to judge of the matteres presently debated? for how can these vote freely of any matter propounded to the decision and deliberation of the Church and Estate; who have already sworn to adheere to one part of the Question? and how can those who descent from them, submit themselves to their judgement, chiefly seeing they are Possessoures', and have Laws Civil and Ecclesiastic, standing as yet for them?   

ANSWER.  
We perceive, that this tenth Demand, is made of the Articles of Pearth; therefore we answer as before; That we promise only forbearance, which can prejudge no man's liberty in a General Assembly.   

Replye.  
We have shown, that your Covenant and Oath, importeth a manifest Abjuration of the Articles of Pearth: and therefore, the swearing of it doth manifestly prejudge the liberty of Voting in a national Assembly: For, how can they freely either reason in an Assembly, concerning Episcopacy, and the Articles of Pearth; or else, give their judgement, without prejudice, concerning them who have already promised, sworn, and vowed, first, To adheere to the Discipline of the Kirke: that is, (according to your Interpretation) to the whole external policy of the Church, as it was 1581. 2. To labour, by all means lawful, to remove, and expel, all those Rites, and Ordinances, which have come into the Church since the foresaid Year of GOD; that the Church may be restored, to the Liberty, and Purity, which it then had. Whereby ye declare, that the foresaid Articles and Episcopacy, are contrary to the Liberty, and Purity, of the Church; and consequently, ye are tied, by your Oath, to vote against them, if ye be called to the intended ASSEMBLY.    


The eleventh Demand.  
Whether our subscriving, together with our People, to the Confession of this Nation, which is ratified and registrated in Parliament, Ann. 1567. may give full satisfaction to all who doubt of the sincerity of our Profession, if so be they have no farther aim, but only to know and see our willingness, and constant resolution, to adheere to the Religion presently professed, and to oppose all Errors contrary to it, to our lives end? Now, seeing we are willing to do this, as we take GOD to witness, we are, how are we hated, maligned, and traduced as Enemies of the Truth, only because our Consciences do not suffer us to subscrive to that Interpretation of the Negative Confession insert in the Covenant, (concerning which we can see no warrant of the truth of it, nor lawful Authority binding us to it) and to the Politic, or rather Military part of that Covenant, which is a thing without the compass of our Calling, and not belonging to that contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints, of which S. jude speaketh in his Epistle.   

ANSWER.  
Since no other mean could be found so effectual, for holding out of Popery, and forbearing of dangerous Novations in Religion, such as the Service Book, and Canons, which as yet are only discharged, till in a fair and legal way they may be introduced; and are by no word of the late Proclamation disallowed although the Service Book, by the Proclamation, February 19 be highly praised, as serving to edification, and to beat out all Superstition: and nothing in this Application is abjured, but what was abjured in the former; why shall we forbear to use a mean so just, and so powerful, for the preservation of the purity of Religion?   

Replye.  
Here ye do not particularly answer to our Demand, and seem unwilling to give that Testimony of us, Your Brethren, concerning our sincerity in professing of the Truth; which, all who know and judge unpartially of us, do think to be due to us. It is sufficiently known, what pains we take, in disputing and writing against Papists, in confuting their Errors in our Pulpits, in leading process against them, according to the Order of the Church, and in doing all things against Romish errors, which can be expected from the most zealous Professoures' of the truth. If ye, or any other of our reverend Brethren, doubt of the sincerity of our Profession, then pose us concerning any Article controverted, and we shall be most ready to declare our mind concerning it before all men, and give a sufficient proof to the world, that we have pried as narrowly into the mysteries of Romish Errors, for refutation of them, as any of those who impiously, and uncharitably traduce us, as favourers of Popery. 2. We have other means, more effectual, and lawful, (whereas we think this your Mean to be unlawful) for holding out of Popery: and in which we ought to conside more, then in all the promises and vows of men; yea, also, more than in all the United Forces of all the Subjects of this Land: to wit, diligent preaching, and teaching of the Word, frequent Prayer to GOD, humbling of our selus before him, amendment of our lives, and conversations, and arming ourselves against our Adversaries, by diligent searching of the Scriptures, and using all other Means, whereby we may increase in the knowledge of the Truth, and in ability, to defend it against the enemies of it. 3. The Subjects of this Kingdom, at least a great part of them, either by their own inclination, or by the persuasion of others, have such an hard conceit of the Service Book, and Canons, that if his Majesty use a fair and legal way of bringing them into this Church, especially such a way, as may give satisfaction to all his Subjects, in all appearance, we need not to fear the in bringing of them.    


The Twelfth Demand.  
Whereas we hear of divers Disorders, and violent miscarriages, of those who have subscrived the Covenant, against our Brethren of the holy Ministry, who continue in their obedience to the Laws of the Church and Kingdom; which miscarriages being done without all form of Justice, or legal proceeding, are an exercising of Revenge, by private Authority, and consequently are forbidden in the sixth commandment; which is one of the reasons which moveth us, not to join ourselves unto their society: we would glad therefore know of our reverend Brethren, who have come hither, to recommend the late Covenant unto us; first, whether or no they do allow these disorders? 2. If they allow them, what reason have they so to do? and if they allow them not, how is it, that these Disorders and miscarriages, are not publicly by them, and other Pastors of their Confederacy, condemned, and sharply rebuked in their Pulpits? Why are the Actors of them not tried, and censured? And why do they delay to give out some public Declaration, either in Print or writ, to this effect, being long since exhorted to do so?   

ANSWER.  
1. Hardly can a zealous people assembled in a Kirke for the Worship of GOD, be kept from tumult, when Books, and a Worship which they either know, or conceive to be Popish, are suddenly, and imperiously obtruded upon them by the Leaders: and how far the keeping of the material Kirkes' from the pollution of Worship, belongeth to the People, and community of he Faithful, should be considered. 2. Violence done in other places, and upon other occasions, we no more allow, than we do approve the aspersions of Perjury, Rebellion, etc. which some men do put upon us.   

Replye.  
It belongeth not to the People, or community of the Faithful, to contemn Authority, and the LORDS Service, done in his own house, on his own Day, so far as to put violent hands in Praelates, and Pastors, in time of Divyne Worship, while they are practising those things which are enjoined by the King, and his Counsel. Such Disorders, and contemptuous carriages, do not beseem those whom CHRIST inviteth to come to him, and to learn of him, meekness, and lowliness of heart; chiefly, seeing there are many other ways, whereby People may testify their aversation of those Books, and Worship, which they conceive to be Popish. If it be a sin in Parents, to provoke their Children to wrath; much more is it a sin in Children, to provoke their Parents, especially Patrem Patriae, the common Father of the Country, so to wrath. 2. The keeping of GOD'S house, from the pollution of Worship, belongeth to those who are clothed with lawful Authority. 3. We not only asked of you, Whether or no ye did allow the Miscarriages towards our Brethren of the holy Ministry, mentioned in our Demand? but also, supposing that ye do not allow them, we asked, How is it, that those Disorders, and Miscarriages, are not publicly by you condemned; and rebuked? Why are the Actors of them not tried, and censured? And why do ye not give some public Document to the world, of your aversation of such Miscarriages? chiefly, seeing they are, as we have shown, a manifest transgression of the sixth Commandment. We can not sufficiently marvel, that ye have kept up your minds in this matter, and not answered to so important, and necessary a Demand. As for your Complaint, of Perjure and Rebellion, etc. if ye mean the Warning lately written to the Subjects in Scotland, ye shall know, that the Author thereof himself is much displeased with any offensive asperity, which hath been found in some written Copies thereof; and hath already done that, for removing of that offen●●: which, we hope, shall give full satisfaction to all men.    


The Thirteenth Demand.  
How can we subscrive that Covenant, without incurring many grievous Scandals; as first, the Scandal of Dissenting from other reformed Churches, and famous Divynes, the chief Instruments of the Reformation of the Church in EUROPE, who did hold these Rites which are abjured in this late Covenant, as merely unlawful, Popish, and Idolatrous, to be in their own nature, lawful. Secondly, the scandal of dissenting from Antiquity, and vilipending it altogether in matters of the external Policy of the Church; which we know, and have found by frequent experience, to be a thing that maketh many Papists more averse from our Profession, than otherwise they would be. Thirdly, the scandal of Perjury, which some of us can not escape, who did swear obedience to the Articles of Pearth, and to our ordinary, at our Admission to the Ministry.   

ANSWER.  
That threefold scandal ceaseth upon the right interpretation of the clause of the forbearance of the Novations already introduced.   

Replye.  
We have shown your interpretation of the clause of forbearance, not to be right, and have refuted it, we think, by the very words of your Covenant; so that none of these three scandals can be eschewed by us, if we subscrive to your foresaid Covenant. 2. Suppose the other two might be eschewed, by that interpretation of the clause of forbearance, yet the third can not be eschewed, seeing at our Admission we have sworn obedience to the Articles of Pearth, and to our ordinary: Wherefore, ye must either prove the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopacy, to be unlawful, or else, we can not, without violation of our Oath, made at our Admission, forbear the practice of the foresaid Articles, against the will of our ordinary, and other our lawful Superioures.    


The Fourteenth Demand.  
Last of all; We pray these Reverend and Worthy Brethren, to consider impartially, and charitably, seeing we have all these scruples in our minds concerning their Covenant, as also seeing we are yet most confident, and assured, of the lawfulness of the Articles of Pearth, together with the lawfulness and venerable Antiquity of Episcopal Government, how we can, with a safe Conscience, give our consent that they should preach in our Pulpits, who come professedly to withdraw our People from that which we in the inmost thoughts of our souls do embrace as lawful; and from that obedience which they do owe to their Gracious and Pious Sovereign therein; Whose last Proclamation hath given full satisfaction to us all, and much rejoiced our hearts, in respect he hath therein most solemnly, and by his Oath declared, not only his sincerity in professing the Truth, but also his pious Resolution, to continue therein, and maintain it constantly to his lives end, most graciously and wisely removing these things which have occasioned the late perturbation of our Church. We wish them likewise, to consider, how they can require this of us, seeing they would not (we appeal their own Consciences) be content that they should be so dealt with themselves; we mean, that any should go up to their Pulpits, and condemn their Doctrine, and practise, and withdraw their People from that which hath been before recommended unto them as Truth.  
We conclude: Exhorting earnestly, entreating lovingly, and charging modestly, these, and all others, our Reverend Brethren, before GOD, and the LORD JESUS CHRIST, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing in his Kingdom, if there be any consolation in CHRIST, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels of mercies, to look narrowly to their own Consciences, in these weighty matters; remembering that of JEREMIAH, The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it: To judge charitably of us their Brethren; remembering that of our Saviour, judge not, that ye be not judged: To deal with us in love and meekness, (if so be they think us to have gone astray from the Truth; which, GOD knoweth, we no ways do perceive) remembering that of S. PAUL, If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye that are spiritual, restore such a one with the spirit of meekness: as also that of S. JAMES, The wisdom that is from Above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated; full of mercy, and good fruits, etc. And last of all, To seek Peace, and so to follow after it; that this our dear native Country be not exposed to a dangerous warfare, and to all the woeful Consequents thereof; of which our hearts can not think, without trembling and horror.   

ANSWER.  
1. Nothing in the Interpretation of the Covenant, against the lawfulness of Pearth Articles, and of Episcopal Government. 2. We never intended to draw the meanest of the Subjects, from that Loyalty of Obedience, which they owe to their Sovereign, and ours. 3. The Counsel hath rescinded the Approbation of that Proclamation. 4. His Majesty's Religious and Righteous Disposition, hath been to us a Ground, and chief Argument, of our hope of the hearing of all our Petitions. 5. We have no desire to wrong our Reverend and worthy Brethren; but rather to pass, in silence, the wrongs which we have sustained by them: and would approve ourselves unto our GOD, and prove faithful in the employments put upon us: earnestly desiring, that every eye may perceive the wonderful work of GOD in this Land: lest any of us be found fight against GOD; and, that all of us may join Heart and Hand, for the Purity and Peace of the Kirke of ou● LORD JESUS CHRIST, Blessed for ever.  
JULIE 21. 1638. 

Mr. ALEXANDER HENDERSON, Minister at Levehars.  
Mr. DAVID DICKSON, Minister at Irwing.  
Mr. ANDREW CANT, Minister at Petslig●.     

Replye.  
There is too much, as we think, in your Covenant, against the lawfulness of Pearth Articles. 2. Your Band of Mutual Defence, against all persons whatsoever, may draw Subjects, perhaps, to take Arms against their King, (which GOD avert) and consequently from that Loyalty of Obedience, which they owe to their Sovereign, and ours; except ye declare, & explain yourselves better, than ye have hitherto done. 3. What the most honourable Lords of His Majesty's Privy Counsel, have done concerning the King's Majesties last Proclamation, is not sufficiently known to us, and far less upon what Grounds and Motives they have (as you say) rescinded their Approbation of the late Proclamation. 4. His Majesty's Religious and Righteous Disposition, hath been to us, and is, a main ground wherefore we rest and rely upon his gracious Proclamation, persuading ourselves, that he intendeth not, nor never intended, any Innovation in Religion. 5. We shall labour, by all means, to eschew every thing, which in the least degree may wrong you, our Reverend and worthy Brethren. As for the Wrongs already done by us to you, (as ye pretend) when-so-ever it shall please you to specify them, we hope to give you full satisfaction, and to clear ourselves of that Imputation. 6. The work of GOD towards any Nation, how strange and wonderful soever it seem to be, is never contrary to his Word: and, therefore, we fear not to be found fight against GOD'S Work, so long as we fight not against his Truth, revealed in his Word. That allseeing LORD knoweth, that we mentaine his Truth according to the light of our Consciences, and are ready to join Heart and Hand with you, for the Purity and Peace of this Church, in every lawful way, & course, as sincere lovers of Truth and Peace.  
And now, Brethren, before we conclude, again we entreat you, and all others our dear Countrymen, especially our reverend brethren of the holy Ministry, to judge charitably of us, and of our proceedings at this time; and in particular, of these our Demands, and Replies; which, GOD is our witness, neither hatred of any man's person, nor love of Contention, nor any worldly respect; but only the Conscience of our Calling hath drawn from us. And as for our Arguments for not Subscriving, which are taken from our due subjection and obedience to our Sovereign, and his Laws, we protest, and declare, that they ought not to be so interpreted, as if we intended to accuse you, or others, our dear Countrymen, of Disloyalty towards our most Gracious KING; or, as if our purpose were to lay any such Imputation upon you: for they are only used by us, to show what the words of the Covenant seem to us to import, and how we conceive of them; as also, what maketh us so to conceive of them. We doubt not, reverend Brethren, but ye know, that as we owe to you, and to your Proceedings, the favourable judgement of Charity; so we ought to judge of those things, which we are to swear, and subscrive, with the strict and inquisitive judgement of Verity; and consequently, we ought to ponder duly, and to propound particularly and fully to others, (especially to those who require our Oath and Subscription, and undertake to satisfy our Consciences there-anent) all the doubts and reasons which make us unwilling or afraid to give our Subscription thereunto,    
JOHN FORBES OF CORSE, Doctor and Professor of Divinity in ABERDENE. ALEXANDER SCROGIE, Minister at Old ABERDENE, D. D. WILLIAM LESLIE, D. D. and Principal of the KING'S College, in Old ABERDENE. ROBERT BARON, Doctor, and Professor of Divinity, and Minister at ABERDENE. JAMES SIBBALD, Doctor of Divinity, and Minister at ABERDENE. ALEXANDER ROSS, Doctor of Divinity, and Minister at ABERDENE.   

THE ANSWERES OF SOME BRETHREN OF THE MINISTRY, TO THE REPLIES Of the Ministers and Professoures' of DIVINITY in ABERDENE; CONCERNING THE LATE COVENANT  2. CHRON. 15. 15. And all Juda rejoiced at the Oath: For they had sworn with all their heart, and sought Him with their whole desire: and He was found of them.  

To the Christian READER.  
THat you may know our Proceedings, how we are brought upon the Stage, and contrary to our expectation, are put in Print. Coming to ABERDENE, on Friday, the afternoon, we received the Demands of our reverend Brethren, that night late; and, for the greater expedition; without delay, we returned our summary Answers on Saturnday at night. On the LORDS Day following, we desired to express ourselves to the People in presence of the Ministry, but the Pulpits and Kirks were altogether refused; and therefore in the most convenient place we could have, sub dio, and at such hours as were vacant from the ordinary exercises of public Worship, we delivered our Message in the audience of many. After our last Sermon, towards Evening, we found that our labour was not in vain in the LORD: for dyverse people, of special note, both for place and wisdom, with willing heart, and great readiness of mind, did publicly put their hands to the Covenant. Having the week following seen some parts of the Country, [where besides the Presbyteries Alforde and Deer, who had subscrived before, the Moderator, and dyverse of the Presbytery of ABERDENE, the Presbytery and People of Turreff, after they were satisfied in some scruples, did also subscrive] we returned the next Saturnday to ABERDENE: where finding that some others had subscrived that week, we resolved to preach upon the morn. That night we received a Reply, unto which before our return home, we have made an Answer. All these we desire may be unpartially considered: & if it shall please the LORD, that any light shall come from our Labour unto thy Mind, let it be as●ryved not unto us, (who neither had time nor helps for such a task) but to the brightness of the Truth, and Cause itself, and to the Father of Lights: to whom be all Glory.   

To our Reverend Brethren, The Doctors and Ministers of Aberdene.  
THat our Answers (reverend and beloved Brethren) have not given you full satisfaction, as it may be imputed to our weakness, in the defence of so good a cause, so it may proceed also from your own prejudice against what could be said by us which we have some reason to suspect for two causes, one is, that your Demands which we conceived to have been intended merely for us, and were sent unto us from you in write, were published before our coming, in Print, like as ye have now printed and published your Replies before ye had seen our Answers unto that which we received from you last in write; we having promised to the bearer, to return an Answer shortly ere we departed the Country. This may seem rather to be a seeking of victory from prejudice, than a search of verity for satisfaction. The other cause of our suspicion, is, that the grounds of our Answers to you, have proven satisfactory to others, who for Age and gifts of Learning and Understanding, are prime men in this Kirke and Kingdom, and to whom modestly will not suffer you to prefer yourselves. But whether our weakness or your prejudice be the cause, must be now judged by others, to whose view ye have brought us: whom therefore we with you heartily desire unpartially to consider our first and second Answers; wishing and hoping that partiality, prejudice, and all worldly respects and fears, laid aside, the naked Truth shall be seen of all her lovers. Concerning your confidence of us, as we in love judge, that ye think not yourselves ●o be stryving against the Truth; so may ye conceive, that we can no more be brought to your mind, than we can be drawn from the profession of our Religion, as it hath been reform, sworn, and confirmed by the late and preceding Covenants, and from following the example of our religious Reformers, and the many Worthies succeeding them in this Kirke, who would have been glad to have seen the days which we now do see: and for which we pray, that both ye and we may be thankful▪ so shall it not be imputed unto us, that we have not discerned and used the day of the LORDS visitation: so shall we all rejoice together in the Day of the LORD.  

To the First Reply.  
YOur experience in your Disputes against the common Adversary, wherein ye say ye are so frequent, hath (no doubt) taught you, how easy a matter it is to multiply Objections against the Truth, and Cause of GOD: and yourselves know, that your Objection against our Calling, and the Warrant of our coming to you, was framed, and published in Print, before it was propounded unto us, and ere our Answer could be had; but so soon as we did hear your Demands, we answered incontinent, in the humility and truth of our minds, that we were to obtrude nothing upon you, or your flock, by any particular Authority, Civil or Ecclesiastic; but that we did come, in all meekness, to represent unto you the present case of this Kirke, and in love to entreat you, to join with us, for the peace thereof; for which we trust, without wronging any lawful Authority, we may claim the warrant of the highest and greatest Authority, although we had not been sent from almost the whole Kirke and Kingdom, lawfully convened at this time, for the preservation of Religion, and of the Liberties and Laws of this Kingdom, so sore shaken, by the usurpation of the Prelates, and their Favourers. Let us consider one another, to provoke unto love, and to good works, etc. sayeth the Apostle, Hebr. 10. 24. And where ye object, that without your leave we preached within your congregation; which is aggravated by you, as a heinous fault, both against Scripture, and against the Canons of ancient Counsels, which ye have laboriously quoted against us; we entreat you, to be more sparing, lest the guiltiness, if there be any, reflex upon yourselves: For your Pulpits and Kirks being denied us (not from any injury done by us, but by your own determination, before our coming) a necessity was laid upon us, to deliver our message in such places, as your courtesy did permit; wherein no man will find, that we have failed, if he consider, first, That there is as wide difference betwixt Ecclesia turbata & pa●ata, the troubled and peaceable estate of a Kirk, as is betwixt Ecclesia constituenda, & constituta, and many things are necessary in the one, which perhaps are not expedient in the other. Ye speak of the Constitution of the Kirke this year, as if ye had been speaking thereof many years before this time. 2. That the Word of GOD, and the Canons of Counsels, will have Pastors so to care for their own flocks, that they forbid them not, to care for the whole Kirke, especially in the time of a common Combustion. When the house is on fire, every man ought to run to all rowms, where he may quench it: when a laik stricketh up in a Ship, every Mariner, yea, every Passenger, aught to labour to stop it. Even he who is not universal Pastor of the Kirke, is Pastor of the universal Kirke: & the Apostle hath taught us, That we are members one of another, Rom. 12. 4. As all the members of one body being many, are one body; so also is CHRIST, 1 Cor. 12. 12. That the members should have the same care, one for another, vers. 25. If some members of this Kirk had not cared more kindly, in this time of common danger, than other some have done, the whole body had been ere now dangerously, if not desperately diseased. 3. That we made choice of such hours, for delivering our Message, that the people might attend your ordinary times of public worship; which maketh your charge, of the people's contempt, or ours, of your Ministry, to be most unjust.  
In the second part of your Reply to our Answer to your first Demand, ye might have made choice of words witnessing more respect to the most part of the Kingdom now, ' and to the Kirke in former times, then of a Confederation, and negative Confession: we know no other Confederation at this time, but this same Laudable Covenant, which our Progenitors, and many yet living, made with GOD, and amongst themselves, at the Commandment of Authority, and according to the example of the people of GOD in former times. Neither is that short Confession merely Negative, since the beginning thereof is affirmative, and doth virtually contain the first large Confession ratisied in Parliament, 1567. 2. No Pastors, in our knowledge, have either been forced to flee to foreign countries, or have been threatened with the want of their Stipends, for the refusing their Subscription: but this we have heard, that some of them have of their own accord, gone to Court, for procuring of protections against their Creditors, and against the Laws, and duty of good Subjects, have made lies between the KING and his People. Others we know have wilfully refused, to abide with their flock; and being earnestly entreated by them, to attend their Charge, have left them, and have gone out of the Country, for no reason, but because the people had subscrived; and, as ye know, that Arguments have been taken from augmentation of Stipends, to hinder Subscription: so ye may know, That fear of worldly loss, rather hindereth men to subscrive, than scruple of Conscience. The Prelate's flight, seemeth rather to have proceeded from inward furies of accusing Consciences, or for fear of a storm, (which being procured by their own doing, may be easily prognosticated by them) then from the enforcing of subscription of the Covenant, which in our knowledge was never required of any of the Prelates, although they be grossly guilty of the breach of the Covenant, which they did swear & subscrive before. 3. Your help, by your prayers, and other means, for extinguishing of the present Combustion, we still desire, but with all entreat, that you would both join with the rest of the Kirkes' of the Kingdom, in public humiliation and fasting, which the LORD himself doth proclaim and call for at this time; so should your prayers be the more effectual, and also ye be good instruments, according to your power, with your own people, and the country about, to join in the Covenant, so should ye find the work of Pacification the more easy. 4. The reasons which we touched in our Answer, for proving, that ye might, without just offence to any, join with us, in subsc●iving, are not yet answered: for, first, a sound interpretation of the Covenant, although proceeding from a private person, and altogether void of external Authority, can not make a substantial difference: and if the interpretation be unsound, although it were confirmed by Authority, it maketh not a substantial coincidence. 2. Why is it denied, that the former Covenant containeth mutual defence, since all are obliedged thereby to de●end Religion, according to their vocation and power, and the KING'S person and Authority, which can not possibly be done, without mutual defence: and since that clause of the Covenant, is so expounded, and applied upon grounds of perpetual reason, in the general Band drawn up, & Printed by Authority, An. 1590. 3. Ye must either prove this Covenant to be substantially different from the former, which is impossible, or ye must acknowledge this to have the same Authority with the former, since we are really obliedged in the former Covenant, and virtually the same warrant of KING, Counsel, and assembly, remaineth, and was never yet discharged: by virtue whereof the Covenant might have been renewed yearly, by all the subjects of the Kingdom, no less than it hath been subscrived yearly by such as pass degrees in Colleges, and such as were suspect of Papistry, from time to time. 4. What was done by his Majesty's Commissioner, was no● done in a corner, that it needeth to be pried into, or doubted of, and what was allowed by his Grace, who had so great power from his Majesty, to declare his Majesty's will, and to receive Declarations from his subjects, and who was in every point so zealous and tender of his Majesty's service and honour: who are ye, that it should be dissallowed by you? Ye will have the Kingdom guilty of combination against Authority, and will not have the KING to be satisfied, when they have declared themselves to the contrary, and their Declaration is accepted by his Majesty's Commissioner. This manner of dealing, is more suitable to Papists, and such Incendaries, then for you, who desire to prove good Patriots, in using all means of Pacification. 5. We are sorry, that ye should be the first, who have accounted our Covenant to be a confederacy against the Truth, since some of yourselves, and all every where have been constrained, to acknowledge, that they aim ●t the same end with us, to maintain the Truth. And for that which displeaseth you in our way, that we deal after such a manner with people, to come in, we answer, that we have seen in this Land, the Day of the LORDS Power, wherein his people have most willingly offered themselves in multitudes, like the dew of the morning: that others of no small Note, have offered their subscriptions, and have been refused, till time should try, that they join in sincerity, from love to the cause, and not from the fear of men: and that no threatenings have been used, except of the deserved judgement of GOD; nor force, except the force of reason, from the high respects which we owe to Religion, to our KING, to our native Country, to ourselves, and to the Posterity; which hath been to some a greater constraint, than any external violence; and we wish, may prevail also with you.   

To the Second.  
WE perceive, that ye pass in silence, that which we answered concerning the preventing of trouble, which by all appearance had been too sensible to many before this time, if the Conventions censured by you, had not been kept; we desire, that ye would here declare yourselves, whether ye would have rather received the Service Book, Book of Canons, and other trash of that kind, tending to the subversion of Religion, and to the prejudice of the Liberties of the Kingdom, then to have convened in a peaceable manner, to present Supplications to his Majesty, for averting of so great evils. Neither do ye speak a word of the saying of K. james, which ought to be regarded, both for the witness sake, who is of so great authority, and for the testimony which containeth so great reason. For, shall not the whole body of a Kingdom stir pro aris & focis? or shall our Religion be ruined, and our Light be put out, and all men hold their peace? We told you also, that the first part of the Act of Parliament, 1585., is relative to another Act in Queen Mary's time, which specifieth, what sort of Leagues and Bands are forbidden, and setteth us free from the breach of the Act: but ye have answered nothing to this, and still dispute from the Act of Parliament, rather than from other grounds, better beseeming your Profession, and ours; and in this will so precisely adhere to the letter of the Law, that you will have no meetings, without the KING'S consent, even in the case of the preservation of Religion, of his Majesty's Authority, and of the liberties of the Kingdom, which we are sure must be contrary to the reason and life of the Law; since the safety of the People is, the Sovereign Law. Although it be true also that for our Covenant, we have the consent of Authority pressing upon all the subjects in the general Band, and confession of Faith, formerly subscrived for maintenance of the Religion, their subscription and Oath as a note of their soundness in Religion, and of their loyalty and fidelity to the KING, and his Crown, wherein jurisconsults, more skilled in this kind, than we need to be, have given their Responses and Verdicts, in favours of us, and of our cause.  
2. The point touching Authority, is so full of Thorns and Rocks, useth to be so vehemently urged, to procure envye against the Gospel of CHRIST, and can so hardly be disputed and discussed, except in a large Treatise, to the satisfaction of Kings and Kingdoms; and all having interest, that for the present we only wish you to hear the testimonies of two grave Divynes, the one is Whittaker, in his Answer to Master Reynolds preface, pag. 6. Stirs and Tumults for matter of Religion, Reynold rehearseth, that hath been in Germany, France, Bohemia, as though it were sufficient for their condemnation, that they once resisted, and did not by and by admit whatsoever violence was offered, either to GOD'S Truth, or to themselves, contrary to Promise, to Oath, to public Edicts, to Law, whereby they were warranded to do as they did: more of this matter, will I not answer, being of another nature, and cleared long since from the crime of Rebellion, not only by just defence of their doing, but also by the Proclamations and Edicts of Princes themselves. The other is Bilson, in his Book of Christian subjecton, in defence of the Protestants in other Country's, against the objection of the jesuit, Pag. 332. affirming, that subjects may defend their ancient and Christian liberties covenanted and agreed upon by those Princes to whom they first submitted themselves, and were ever since confirmed and allowed by the Kings that have succeeded, they may require their own right, save their own lives, beseech, that they be not used as slaves, but like subjects; like men, not like beasts; that they may be convented by Laws, before judges; not murdered in corners, by Inqusitors. This is also the judgement of Rivetus in his Commentary, Psal. 68 which being looked upon by you, will furnish a full answer to what ye have cited at length from his jesuita Vapulans. For betwixt Jesuitical treasonable and pernicious doctrine, and practices against Princes and Magistrates, refuted by him, and the loyal and sound doctrine of Protestants, yourselves know the difference and opposition, like as it is clear as the Sun, by that short Confession, by the Application thereof, to the times in this present Confession, by our public Protestation, and by the Declaration exhibited to his Majesty's Commissioner, that we mean not only mutual concurrence, and assistance in the cause of Religion, but also to the uttermost of our power, to defend the KING'S Majesty his Person and Authority. We would be glade, that ye and others were witnesses to our private Prayers, and the most secret of our thoughts and affections, concerning our loyalty to our dread Sovereign; so should ye either cease to write in this sort against us, or be forced to write against your own Consciences.  
3. When we justify our Conventions and Covenants, from their purposed ends, we mean not only the last and most remote ends, but the nearest and immediate, and if nothing in these can merit just censure, the Conventions and Covenants no more in that which ye call the Object, nor in their ends, can be culpable: what Aspersions have been put upon our Reformation, and Reformers, by the malice of our Adversaries, can not be unknown to you. But we wish, that your engynes and penns may be better employed, then to join with them in so bad a cause, which we expect also from your prudence, considering the people and place where ye live.   

To the Third.  
YE do well and wisely, that ye search not curiously into the minds of Princes, and Reasons of State: but whether all his Majesty's subjects be satisfied with the last Proclamation, needeth, no deep search. For although possibly some had been more pleased with a Proclamation, commanding the Service Book, such especially who neither will see no errors in it, or have publicly professed, that they have been groaning for it, yet the Protestation of the Supplicants against it, as it giveth most humble and hearty thanks to His gracious Majesty, for what is granted; so it testifieth upon undeniable evidences, that the Proclamation is not a satisfaction of our just desires: for, first, the Proclamation supposeth the Service Book to be no Innovation of Religion. 2. That it is not contrary to the Protestant Religion. 3. That the Proclamation giveth not order for discharging all the Acts made in favours of the Service Book, especially that of the 19 of February, which giveth unto it so high Approbation, as serving for maintaining the true Religion, and to beat out all Superstition, and no ways to be contrary to the Laws of this Kingdom; but to be compiled and approved for the universal use and edification of all His Majesty's Subjects. 4. It is so far from disallowing the said Book, that it putteth us in fear, that it shall be pressed in a fair and legal way, and therefore, notwithstanding the Proclamation, the necessity of Covenanting, which containeth nothing contrary to the Acts of Parliament, nor to the duty of good Subjects▪ but is the largest Testimony of our Fidelity to GOD, and loyalty to our KING, (whatsoever it may seem to you to import) doth yet continue, that His Majesty may be pleased, to grant the full satisfaction of our reasonable Petitions, and that our Religion, and Liberties, may be preserved for afterwards. Whosoever profess themselves, to be perfectly satisfied with the Proclamation, do proclaim in the ears of all the Kingdom, that they are better pleased with the Service Book and Canons, then with the Religion, as it hath been professed in this Land since the Reformation.   

To the Fourth.  
WE were assured, that your Demand proceeded from a Mistaking, and therefore, according to our knowledge, did ingenuously, for your satisfaction, expound unto you the mind of the Subscrivers; but find now, that we have laboured in vain, at your hands, from which we have received this Reply; unto which, concerning the first Misinterpretation, we answer: 1. That although we do neither use threatenings, nor obtrude our Interpretation upon you, as bearing any obligatory Power, yet pardon us, that we march you not, and put you not in the Balance with the greatest part of the Kingdom, both Ministers, and others, in whose name we recommend this Interpretation unto you, by all fair Means, and force of Reason: and in so doing, we are so far from the breach of our Solemn Vow, and Promise, that we esteem this to be no small proof of that godliness, and righteousness, wherein we are bound, by our Covenant, to walk. 2. The autori●ative judgement of our Reformers, and Predecessors, is evidenced, not only by the Confession of Faith, ratified in Parliament, but also by the Books of Discipline, Acts of General Assemblies, and their own Writs; wherein, if ye will, ye may find warrant for this Interpretation; and in respect whereof, it is public ratione medii, besides those midses of Scripture, of Antiquity, and of the Consent of the Reformed Kirks, which are named for midses by you.  
Concerning the 2 Missconstruction, it is no marvel that Prejudices, and Preconceived Opinions, possessing the mind, make men to fall upon Interpretations of their own; but in the South parts of the Kingdom, where many learned and judicious men, both Pastors, and Professors, were assembled, at the first subscriving thereof, we remember of none that did fall into that Mistake. And the two sorts of Novations, such as are already introduced, and such as are supplicated against, are so punctually distinguished, that there is no place left to Ambiguity: but on the contrary, the Novations which we promise to forbear for a time only, cannot be supposed in the following words, to be abjured for ever, as Popish Novations. 2. Upon a new examination of the words, ye perceive, that the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopacy, are condemned as erroneous Corruptions, because we promise, to labour, to recover the former purity & liberty of the Gospel: unto which our Answer is, that it appeareth, that you will have all the Covenanters against their intention, and whether they will or not, to disallow, and condemn, the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopal Government, lest they be tried in a General Assembly: but it is known to many hundreds, that the words were purposely conceived, for satisfaction of such as were of your judgement, that we might all join in one heart, and Covenant, for establishing Religion, and opposing Errors. And for your Argument, whether the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopacy, be against the purity and liberty of the Gospel, or not, which is not determined by these words of the Covenant: but it cannot be denied, first, That if in a Free Assembly, they be found to be against the purity and liberty of the Gospel, they ought to be abolished: in the mean time, it being left free, by the words of the Covenant, to all, who will, to stand to the defence of their lawfulness. Secondly, how can it be denied, that many corruptions, contrary to the purity and liberty of the Gospel, were they never so innocent in themselves, have accompanied these Novations, such as the superstitious observation of Days, feriation and cessation from work, on those days, Feasting, Guysing, etc. many gross abusses have entered in the Sacrament, upon Kneeling before the Elements, and upon the lawless usurpation of Prelates: in respect whereof, even they who allow of Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, may swear to recover the purity of the Gospel. And thirdly, who can be so great a stranger at home, as to deny, that many corruptions of Popery, and Arminianism, have entered in, in the Kirke, and have been vented, and defended, in schools, and Pulpits; by reason whereof, we are bound, every one of us, according to the measure of our light, to labour for recovery of our former Purity? And therefore, if you had cast your eyes upon the condition of this poor Kirke, as ye have pried narrowly, into the expressions of the Covenant, ye might have spared both your own labour, and ours, and not laboured to scar both yourselves and others, with this shadow.  
In your Argument, ad hominem, you should have considered, that whatsoever be our judgement, as we are particular persons, yet, at this time, we were to be taken, as Commissioners, from the whole company of Subscrivers, who, about this point, are of different judgements: and if some of your own judgement, had either come alone in our place, or had been joined in Commission with us, we had anticipate your Objection: and this ye have been forced to see; and so yourselves, in propounding your Objection, have answered your own Syllogism, in making us to say, that ye may swear and subscrive seeing ye think not these things to be abjured in that Oath made Anno 1581.: neither was it for you, to inquire in our private Opinion, nor necessary for us, to make it known, but to have conceived of our minds, according to our Commission, and the will of those who sent us. Your Arguments need to be no impediments unto your swearing of the Covenant. For upon your grounds, ye would not have sworn the short Confession, any time bypast: yea, ye can not swear the Confession of any Kirke; nay, not the Articles of the Creed, because of the divers Interpretations of the Article of Christ's descent into Hell; or swearing them in Scotland and England, ye behoved to swear them in divers senses. There be some words of the Lords Prayer, as Give us this day our daily bread; and of the ten Commands, as the words of the fourth Command, which are diversely understood; must Christians, therefore, forbear to join in saying the Prayer, or swearing Obedience to the Commandments? Neither for this do we admit any Ambiguity, or Equivocation: the words certainly have but one true sense, and signification, but divers persons conceive and understand them, according to the different measures of their light. Since than your Disputation is builded upon such a Supposition, it must either fall to the ground, or hardly can any Confession of Faith, or religious Covenant, be sworn. Offend not, therefore, if we in modesty, present unto you, a dish of your own dressing; we mean, the like Argument, ad hominem. The Rites and Ceremonies, which are not abjured in the negative Confession, are not abjured in this late Covenant. But the Rites and Ceremonies, which were concluded in Pearth Assembly, are not abjured, as ye say, in the negative Confession, made Anno 1581.: therefore, they are not abjured in this late Covenant. The first Proposition is evident, because in the late Covenant we are bound no further, concerning the negative Confession, but to keep it inviolable: and therefore, what Rites are not abjured there, are not abjured here. The second Proposition cannot be denied by you; for these twenty years bygone ye hav● thouhgt yourselves free of Perjury, notwithstanding of the Oath in 1581., and of your conforming yourselves, to the Ordinances of Pearth. And whereas ye allege, afterward, as before, that our Supplications are satisfied, the contrary is known, by our public Protestation, and by our last Supplication, and Complaint, presented to his Majesty's Commissioner. And urging of the Service Book, was a sufficient reason, for forbearance of Pearth Articles, till an Assembly; at which time it may be determined, whether it be expedient, that this Kirke be any more troubled with them. Neither needeth your Conscience to hinder you to subscrive the forbearance of these Novations, as if swearing of forbearance, were a swearing disobedience to Authority: first, Because the swearing of forbearance of a thing in your opinion, indifferent, in the case of Scandal, and of sensible fear in others, of Superstition, is the swearing of Obedience the Commandment of GOD, which forbiddeth us, to destroy him, for whom Christ died, although man should command the contrary. 2. Because the Articles of Pearth were concluded, for satisfying the KING, and not to press any man with the practice of them, as was openly professed unto the Opponents, before the face of the whole Assembly: and because the Act itself giveth warrant, to forbear the practice at this time, when the memory of superstition is revived which maketh us to think, that they who have forborn the practice of these Articles, since the superstitious service Book was complained upon, make most truly conscience of obedience of the Act of Pearth, and Parliament, ratifying the same, and are most conform unto the Confession of Faith, ratified in Parliament, declaring, that Ceremonies ought to be changed, when they rather foster superstition, then edify the Kirke, using the same. Last of all; Ye say, ye can not swear forbearance, because ye can not abstain from private Baptism, and private Communion; where we perceive, that in your judgement, private Baptism and Communion, are not any more things indifferent, but necessary, necessitate praecepti, in so far, that the not using of them, is a contempt of the means, and a tempting of GOD. By this your Doctrine, first, The state of the Question, anent Pearth Arricles, is quite altered▪ for ye, and your Associates, did ever, to this time, allege the Question, to be of things indifferent: but now ye find some of them so necessary, that although the general Assembly of the Kirk, should discharge them, yet ye behoved still, for conscience of the Commandment of GOD, to practise them. If ye have the same judgement of kneeling before the Elements, and of festival days, it cometh to pass amongst us, which hath been incident to the Kirke, informer Ages, that things have been first brought in, as indifferent, then urged as necessary. If confirmation also in your judgement, be not indifferent, but necessary, we desire to understand, with what conscience it hath been slighted, and utterly neglected by the Prelates, these 20 years past? and how it is, that ye have carried so small regard to the Canon of the Kirke, and Act of Parliament, and to the benefit of young Children, as not to require, urge, and press the practice thereof, both in your own charge, and throughout the whole Kirke? This would seem to be partial dealing, to press some Ceremonies, and neglect other some; while both by the same Canon of the Kirke, and Act of Parliament, are appointed. 2. Ye do hereby condemn the practice of the Kirke of Scotland, from the time of Reformation, till Pearth Assembly, and put no small guiltiness upon other reformed Kirkes', who use not that at all, but rather abstain from it, as dangerous, which ye now do profess, to be so necessary. 3. We wish you wisely to consider, whence it is, and what can be the true cause, that ye living in that part of the Kingdom, should be more pressed by the people, with the practice of private Baptism, and Communion, than all the Kirkes' in the Kingdom beside, where these twenty years past, rarely any such motion hath been made: is it not because that Popery prevaileth there, and the people have a superstitious conceit of Baptism and Communion, as absolutely necessary to Salvation; as if GOD had tied his grace to the Sacraments; and children dying without Baptism, and others without their last Viaticum, did perish? Thus ye minister the Sacraments in private, as necessary, Necessitate praecepti; and the people seem to desire, and receive them, as necessary, Necessitate medii: an Evil very curable, in that city where the Assemblies of the people, for public worship, are frequent, wherein the Sacraments might be ministered frequently enough, with great solemnity, and edification, 4. And though we do not deny, but Baptism privately ministered, by the Minister of CHRIST, according to the Institution, be true Baptism, and, that a child thus privately baptised, be not to be baptised again, (although it be true also, that private Baptism maketh way to this Error of Rebaptising:) yet we hold, that the necessity of the Commandment, standeth only for Baptism in public, since no precept requireth Baptism, but when the ministration thereof can be had orderly, with all the circumstances requisite; whereof this is one, that it be ministered in the presence of that visible kirk, whereof the children are to be members: for not only the minister of Baptism, and the parents of the children, but the Congregation also hath interest in the baptism of every member that entereth in their communion: which therefore, aught to be a public action, no less than the cutting off of a rotten member, by Excommunication, aught to be done publicly. 5. It is known, that private Baptism hath bred, and fostered the opinion of absolute necessity of Baptism, of Baptism by Women, and private persons, of Baptism by supposition, etc. and, that the ministration of the Sacraments, in private places, hath been, and is, the ready way to bring people to the contempt and neglect of the Sacraments in public, and to the profanation thereof in private. 6. When all the forms of ministration of Baptism, shall be compared, both that of the ancient Kirke, keeping Easter, and Pentecost, for the solemn times of Baptism, and the other of the Popish kirk, and other kirkes, not well purged of the dregs of Popery, ministering Baptism and Communion at all times, in private places, and before few persons; it shall be found, that no better course could be taken, then that which hath been wisely appointed and observed, in the Kirke of Scotland, since the Reformation; that the Sacraments be ministered in the ordinary meetings of GOD'S People; unto which they had regard, and not unto the places of material Kirkes': which we add, lest any should think, that we entertained any superstitious conceit of places.   

To the Fifth.  
TO the first Exception, we have even now answered, and need to add no farther, concerning private Baptism and Communion. 2. We looked, that your Argument, ad hominem, had been closed in the fourth Reply, and wish, what ye had to say, against the Dispute, of Popish English Ceremonies, or any other Treatise of that kind, or any of us in particular, had been kept to another time: for, would any of us, refuse to swear the short Confession, because ye have expounded some Articles thereof, contrary to our mind? Our desire is, that ye keep your own meaning of the negative Confession, and we keep ours, according to our divers measures of light; and, that both sides promise, Forbearance, as is required in the Covenant, which may very well stand both with your meaning, and ours: of ours, there is no question; and of yours, there needeth none to be moved by you, since ye think them indifferent: and therefore, in such a case, may promise, to forbear them. From this ground, and from the different use of the word Discipline, and Policy, it is easy to answer, both your Sorites, and Dilemma: for the late Covenant bindeth you to keep the former, according to the common meaning of the Subscrivers; and not according to your Interpretation or ours, in particular: and the horns of your Dilemma, may be turned about against yourselves: for we ask of you, Unto which of the members of the Distinction do ye refer Episcopacy, and the Articles of Pearth? if they were abjured for ever, before Pearth▪ Assembly, how is it that ye have admitted and practised them, since that time; for this were Perjury? And if they were not abjured, but by the short Confession were left indifferent, why may ye not, for any impediment ye have from that Confession, forbear now the practice of them? We looked not for Velitations of this sort, which the change of Commissioners sent unto you, might have prevented, but for some solid and grave reasons, why ye could not subscrive the Covenant, whether presented from our hands, or the hands of others, our Learned and reverend Brethren, of your practice and judgement, who might have been sent unto you in our place. In the mean time, because many are entangled with the word of Discipline, and Policy, we desire the Reader to remember, that sometime the word is taken for the Rule of Government of the Kirke, and censure of Manners, by Office bearers appointed by Christ; and thus it is unchangeable: sometimes for the constitutions of Counsels, and Acts of Parliament, about matters of Religion; and thus it is alterable, or constant, according to the nature of particular Objects: and thirdly, it is taken for the ordering of the circumstances, to be observed in all actions Divine, and Humane; and thus it is variable. We appeal with you, to the indifferent Reader, who is judicious, whether it be necessary for your Subscription, to know our Opinion of such Rites and Ceremonies, as are not of Divine institution. We have reason, [for any thing that ever we heard to the contrary, these twenty years passed] to cleave unto the words of the Covenant, concerning such Rites as are brought into the Kirke without, or against the word of GOD. The Blessing of Marriage (now the second time instanced) we conceive, neither to be circumstance, it being neither time, place, order of doing, nor any such thing, nor a Ceremony properly so called, more than the Blessing of the People, commanded in the Law, and practised before the Law, or praying for a Blessing upon the Ordinance of GOD, that it may be sanctified unto His People: we neither exalt Marriage so high, as with the Papists, to think it a Sacrament; nor do we abase it so low, as to think it a paction or contract, merely Civil, it being the Covenant of GOD, which cannot be dissolved by consent of the parties, as other civil Contracts may be: and therefore, as we will not use it superstitiously, according to the prescript of the Service Book; so will we not for the abuse of Popery, although it were a Paction merely civil, it being so important, withhold Ecclesiastic Benediction from it.   

To the Sixth.  
SIlence carrieth sometimes the appearance of consent, sometime it is from weakness; and since ye know also, that it may at sometimes come from wisdom, and moderation; why do ye not rather keep silence yourselves, then make such an interpretation of ours? We deny not, but Divines, both ancient and modern, are against us, concerning the lawfulness of the things controverted: but we withal affirm, first, that Divines, both ancient and modern, are against you also; and both may be true, for both are but propositions indefinite, in a matter contingent. 2. That almost all Divines universally are for us, and for the forbearance of things indifferent, in such a case, which is the point urged by us, and cleared before. Secondly, we deny not, but the Oath containeth many other Articles but concerning that of the Novations already introduced, if ye could have believed us, and so many thousands as have subscrived, it containeth no more, but the forbearance of them, for a time; neither can any farther be extorted from the tenor of the Covenant itself, according to your grounds. If ye will interpret it according to the meaning which ye thought it had the last year, and which we urge you not to change. and to promise forbearance, can neither be contrary to that duty which ye owe to your flock, nor be disobedience to Authority, but a mean to edify GOD'S people, and obedience to GOD.   

To the Seventh.  
FIrst, The reason propounded in the seventh Demand, for refuseing your subscription, because ye supposed Pearth Articles to have been abjured, as Popish, is answered to the full, and impediment put out of your way. This other that ye propound, concerning our conception and meaning of the short Confession, may be as easily removed, if ye will once believe, that we urge not upon you our meaning but leave you to your own, till the matter be examined in an Assembly. 2. Ye call some of those Novarions, necessary; but without warrant of that Assembly which concluded then, as indifferent, and all the rest you will have to be laud●ble: thus by progress of time, things formerly indifferent, become necessary; and what was but lawful before, and had much ado to gain that reputation, is now become laudable; where ye plainly discover the cause of your unwillingness to subscrive, not so much to be the commandment of Authority, as the necessity and excellency of the things commanded. Till ye, therefore, change this opinion, ye cannot promise forbearance, neither upon our dealing, nor at the commandment of Authority, although forbearance should serve for the peace of the Kirke, and Kingdom.   

To the Eight.  
FIrst, we remit the reader to our Answer, and your Reply, which we hope, shall be found no confutation. 2. We observe, that ye have not answered our Argument, for our swearing the defence of the KING, and his Authority, with a specification, which ye call a limitation; wherein we have followed the Confession of Faith, ratified in Parliament, the KING'S Confession, and act of Parliament; upon which ye will not do well, to fasten so foul Imputations, and put so hard constructions, as ye do, upon us, for inserting in our Covenant, what they have said before us. If our specification be right, why censure you it? If it be wrong, why fasten ye not your censures upon the fountain from which it is derived? the loyalty of our intentions, to maintain the KING'S Person, and Honour, is so fully expressed, that it hath given content to those who are nearest his Majesty: and we should wrong, not only them, but also the Covenant, and the subscrivers thereof, if we should make new Declarations to others, of greater distance, who wrong both the KING, and themselves, in craving them. 3. To do with a doubting Conscience, is a grievous sin; but to make and multiply doubts, for hindering a good work, and to oppose against a shining light, is no less grievous. Ye spoke before of a limitation, and now ye have added precisly; as if the naming of one duty, were the excluding of all other duties. We all, by our Oath of Alleadgeance, by his Majesty's laws, and by other obligations, acknowledge, that we owe many other duties to the KING, which were very impertinent to express in this Covenant. 4 What kind of conference ye mean, whether by word or write, we know not; but (while we were among you) ye know what notice you were pleased to take of us; and we have no delight, to resent it▪   

To the Ninth.  
FIrst, We are ashamed, to draw this Rug-saw of contention, to and fro, in a continual Reciprocation, concerning the forbearance of Pearth Articles: and therefore, forbearing to do so any more, we refer the Reader to our former Answers. 2. We do not affirm, that the only reason, why kneeling was appointed, was because all memory of superstition was passed. There be indeed other reasons expressed in the Act, but such as the Authors thereof may be ashamed of, as both perverting the Text, Psal. 95. as making kneeling to be necessary, in every part of GOD'S Worship, and as giving matter to many Treatises, proving kneeling before the Elements, to be Idolatry, according to the Act, unto which we now refer you: but this we say, (which is manifest by the Act itself) that in the case of present superstition, or fear thereof, all other reasons had not been forcible, to enforce kneeling then, nor can have force to continue kneeling now. This fear hath been great, this year by past, throughout the Kingdom, by reason of the many superstitions of the Service Book, which, it may be, ye no more acknowledge, than ye do the superstitious disposition of the people, because they are not that which they were at the time of Reformation. 3. We would hear what malice itself can say against the words of the Protestation, That it shall be lawful unto us, to defend Religion, and the KING'S Authority, in defence thereof, and every one of us of another, in that cause of maintaining Religion, and the KING'S foresaid Authority, and to appoint, and hold meetings, to that end; like as our Proceedings have been in themselves most necessary and orderly means, agreeable to the laws and practice of this Kirke and Kingdom, to be commended, as real duties of faithful Christians, loyal subjects, and sensible members of the body of the Kirke and Kingdom, and tend to no other end, but to the preservation of Religion, and maintenance of the KING'S Authority. To your interrogatoures, (which ye seem to propone, rather to be snares to us, then for satisfaction to yourselves) we answer once for all in general, that if this were the opportunity of that disputation, we shall be found to deny nothing unto Authority of that which the word of GOD, the law of Nature, and Nations, the Acts of Parliament, these Royalists, sound Divines, and loyal Subjects, give unto Kings and Princes GOD'S Vice-Gerents on Earth; and that not from respect to ourselves, but to the Ordinance of GOD, by whom King's reign. But seeing so oft and so instantly, you press us in this point, ye force us mutually to propone to you such Questions, as, it may be, ye will have no great delight to answer. 1. We desire to understand of you, whether ye allow, or disallow, the Service Book, and book of Canons? if ye disallow them, as an innovation of Religion, why have ye not either joined in supplication with the rest of the Kingdom, or made a supplication of your own, against them, or some other way testified your Dislike? Next; whether it be pertinent for men of your place and Quality, to move Questions of State, touching the Power of Princes, and Liberties of Subjects, after His Majesty's Commissioner, and wise Statesmen, have received Satisfaction of the Subjects, for suppressing such motions as yours? 3. Whether do the Subscrivers more tender His Majesty's honour, by supposing his constancy, in profession of Religion, and equitable Disposition, in ministration of Justice; or ye, who suppose he shall fall upon his Religious and Loyal Subjects, with force of Arms, contrary to both? 4. Whether the joining of the whole Kingdom, in the Subscription of the Covenant, or the entertaining of Division, by your writing, preaching, and threatening of your People, otherwise willing to join, be a more ready mean to settle the present Commotions of the Kirke, and Kingdom? 5. If the Prelates, and their Followers, labouring to introduce Popery in the Land, make a Faction by themselves, or as the Guisians in France, did abuse His Majesty's name, in execution of the bloody Decrees of Trent, (which GOD forbid) we ask, Whether in such a Case, the lawful defence of the body of the Kingdom, against such a Faction, be a resisting of the Magistrate, and a taking Arms against the KING? If ye affirm it to be, is not this to take part with a Faction, seeking their own ends, against the commonwealth of the Kirke, and Kingdom, and honour of the KING? If ye say not, Why then finde ye fault with our Protestation, of defending the Religion, Liberties, and Laws of the Kingdom, of the King's Authority, in defence thereof, and every one of us of another, and in that cause, as if it were an unlawful Combination against Authority? 6. Whether do ye think Christian Magistrates to be of so absolute & unbounded power, notwithstanding of any promise or paction made with the Subjects at their Coronation, or of any Law made for establishing their Religion and Liberties, that there is nothing left, but suffering of Martyrdom, in the case of public Invasion, of their Religion and Liberties? If ye think, that any defence, is lawful, why misconstrue ye the Subscrivers of the Covenant? If not, how can ye be free of Flattery, and of stirring up Princes against their loyal Subjects, for such ends as yourselves know best? We verily believe, that ye shall report small thanks, either of so good and just a KING, or of so dutiful Subjects, for entering within these Lists. It is enough, that such Questions be agitated in the Schools, and that with as great prudency, and as circumspectly as may be.   

To the Tenth.  
FIrst, ye take us in our fourth Reply to be the penners of the Covenant, and yet will rather wrest the words of it, to your own meaning, then receive the Interpretation thereof from us: for we prejudge not your liberty of conception of that short Confession, but permit it to yourselves, whatsoever may be the private meaning of some who have sub●crived; yet there is nothing in the late Interpretation that condemneth the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopacy, as Popish Novations. Ye may voice and reason in an Assembly as freely concerning them, and give your judgement of them, without prejudice, notwithstanding of your Oath, according to your own grounds, as you would have done at the Assembly of Pearth. 2. We hop● ye be not so ignorant of the estate of the Kirke, neither will we judge so uncharitably, as to think you so corrupt, that in your opinion there is nothing hath entered in the Kirke, since that time, designed by you, beside Episcopacy, and the Articles of Pearth, which can be thought prejudicial to the Liberty and Purity of the Gospel.   

To the Eleventh.  
FIrst, ye find fault with us, that we have not upon this occasion, given you that testimony which we owe to you, of your sincerity, in professing the truth; and therefore, to supply our defects, have taken an ample Testimony to yourselves, of pains in disputing, in wrytting, and preaching against Popery, in processing of Papists, and in doing all things which can be expected from the most zealous, of frequent prayer to GOD, of humbling yourselves before him, of your holiness of Life, and Conversation, etc. which have made us who were desirous to hear that Testimony, rather at the mouths of others, that we might be no more challenged as deficient in that kind, but give unto you your deserved praise, to inquire in matters; whereupon, if we would believe the report of others, we hear, that for all your pains, Papists, and Persons Popishly affected, are multiplied, and Papistry increased in your town, more than in any other town of the Kingdom, & no less under your Ministry, than any time before, since the Reformation; that there be in private houses Messes, Crucisixes, and other monuments of Idolatry; that ye have not many converts from Popery; that Jesuits, and Priests; are countenanced there; that your People at home, and your Magistrates abroad, complain, that ye are but too sparing of your pains in preaching, and often fill your places with Novices: but this we are sparing to believe, and wish, that the not employing of your Tongues, and Pens, in the defence of the Service Book and Canons, which are so pestered with Popery, [if the seeds of Romish Heresy, Superstition, Idolatry, and Papal tyranny, come under that censure] and your willingness to join with the Kirke and Kingdom, in Fasting and Humiliation, had been also Testimonies of your sincerity against Popery. 2. The laudable means of Preaching, Praying, etc. which we wish may be still in all faithfulness used by you, may very well agree with the renewing of our Covenant with GOD; and both being joined, have, in a short time past, produced more powerful effects, to the comfort of many thousands, than all our Prayers and Preaching hath done for a long time before: which testify, That, as it is warranded by the Word of GOD; so the motion hath proceeded from GOD. All the Arguments and Subtleties that can be devised, will never make a People, (who at this time have found GOD dwelling, and working in their hearts) to think the contrary. 3. The natural inclination of people to Popery, and the persuasion of others, of their disposition, may make▪ the people to conceive other ways of the Service Book, and Canons, that ere it be long, they may be brought in, in a fair and legal way: and therefore, it is necessary, for preventing of those, and other Evils of that kind, that the Subjects join in a Covenant, both for themselves, and their Posterity.   

To the Twelfth.  
FIrst; we have ever preached according to our measure, and have given example of reverence to Authority, and the LORDS Service: but we neither acknowledge the usurped Authority of prelate's, for lawful Authority, nor the Service Book, for the Lords Service. And therefore, it was so much the more intolerable for the Prelates, without Authority from the Kirke, or Parliament, to bring in the Service Book into GOD'S own house, upon the LORDS own Day. Which maketh it nothing strange, that people zealous of the Truth, and of the Service of GOD, were stirred up, to oppose: and we are very confident, that these who have opposed, do bear as loyal respect to the KING'S Majesty, and will be as loath to provoke him to just wrath, as their opposites are. In the mean time, why do ye not acknowledge, that the children were higher provoked to wrath, by the Prelates, whom ye account reverend and holy Fathers? 2. As the preservation of our own private Possession, from Invasion of others, belongeth to ourselves, under the KING'S Protection; so the keeping of GOD'S House, from Pollution, and Superstition, belongeth to Authority, to the community of the Faithful, and to every one in his own place, and order. 3. We told you before, that we did no more allow violences of that kind, nor we did allow the ●oule aspersions of Rebellion, Heresy, Schism and Perjury, put upon the Noblemen, (and remnant Covenanters.) And where ye ask of us, Why these tumults are not publicly by us condemned, and rebuked? we ask again of you, why ye did not condemn and rebuke such dealing, since that is no less transgression, both against the sixth and nynth Command, than the other is against the sixth? And whereas ye are now so peremptory, in drawing a Declaration from us, answerable to that which ye have given concerning the foresaid Aspersions and Calumnies, we having no commission, to declare the minds of others in this point, or to give Documents, for our own private judgement, do heartily disallow every wrong of that kind. As for the Apology of D. JOHN FORBES of Corse, seeing the wrong hath been done not unto some few particular persons, such as ye say have been wronged by some of the people; but unto the body of the Kingdom, consisting of Noblemen, Barons▪ etc. who are highly offended thereby, it were in us Presumption, and without the bounds of our Calling, to take upon us, to receive any Declaration of that kind, especially wherein so many things are reprovable; as first, That his bitter speeches were occasioned by some printed Books, affirming, that Episcopacy, and Pearth Articles, were Antichristian, and abominable. Supposing it were true, did he think the Noblemen, and whole Covenanters, to be the Authors of those Books? And was this dealing agreeable to that Christian meekness so much required of us before? The Writers of those printed Books, are not the first who have spoken so: For Master KNOX spared not, (in a Letter of his) to call this kneeling, A Diabolical Invention. Secondly; The swearing of Forbearance of the practice of Pearth Articles, and the Confirmation of the said Doctrine, which we neither deny, nor affirm, to be imported in the old Covenant, but only in the Interpretation thereof, we declare, That Promise is only made, to forbear for a time, doth not deserve so bitter a Censure as this apology beareth upon us. 3. If the KING'S Majesty, Counsel, or the Subjects of Scotland, had asked his opinion, and advice, he might have used the greater liberty. 4. It is ill apologized, to call it a holy indignation, and worse defended, since it is such a wrath, as worketh not the righteousness of GOD. 5. Whereas he desireth to be accounted in the number of these, qui proficiendo scribunt, & scribendo proficiunt, we could wish, that he had profited better by writing, than he hath done by writing his Irenicum first, and now this his Warning, after his Irenicum: for which if he make no better Apology, then confessing Asperity of words, proceeding from an holy indignation, it will come to pass of his Apology, as it fared with his Irenicum, unto which was applied fitly, what was spoken in the like case,  Aut fabrum forceps, aut ars ignara fefellit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluit cudere cudit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
6. Whereas ye desire us, to do the like, if ye mean of us personally, we have declared our judgement, and shall be careful to approve ourselves to GOD, and the consciences of all men, in every such duty: and if ye mean us, and those that sent us, we shall not fail to report unto them, what ye desire, although our Commission from you had been the more acceptable, if ye had spoken more reverently of our Confession and Covenant, than ye have been pleased to do, in the words of your desire, and had put your hand unto the Covenant; which would presently have joined us in a greater Affection, and made way for union in judgement, and perfect peace, which is the desire of our Souls.   

To the Thirteenth.  
YE pretended a threefold Scandal, which should follow upon your Subscription: 1. The Scandal of Dissenting from other Reformed Kirks, and famous Divynes. 2. The Scandal of Dissenting from Authority. 3. The Scandal of Perjury. We answered, That the controverted words of the Covenant being rightly conceived, and interpreted according to their true meaning, and not after the gloss which ye have put upon them, do put you out of danger of all the three Scandals, which ye seem to acknowledge of the first two, and may by the like reason acknowledge of the third, of Perjury. We dispute not of the lawfulness of the Oath given at your Admission, by what Authority it was exacted, with what conscience it was given, nor how ye can answer for the Scandal risen thereupon: but conceiving it according to your own grounds, none of you will say, that ye have sworn the perpetual approbation and practice of these things which ye esteem to be indifferent, whatsoever bade consequent of Popery, and Idolatry, Superstition, or Scandal should follow thereupon: we speak here only of things indifferent, in your own judgement; for ye have declared before, that ye think the Ministration of the Sacraments in private places, no more indifferent: & therefore, can not forbear the practice of these, although your Ordinary, and other lawful Superiors, should will you to do so; wherein Pearth Assembly, for which you stand, is wronged by you two ways: 1. That ye differ in judgement from them, about the indifferency of the five Articles: and next, that at the will of your Ordinary, and we know not what other lawful Superiors, ye are ready to forbear the practice of these things which the Assembly hath appointed to be observed. What Oaths ye have given at your admission, we know not, because there is no Ordinance made, Civil, or Ecclesiastic, appointing any such Oath, and because the Prelates, who arrogated that power, presented to the intrants divers models of Articles, to be subscrived, dealing with some more hardly, and with others more favourably, according to their own divers motius, & considerations. For some immediately after Pearth Assembly, without any warrant from the Kirke or Parliament, were made to swear at their Admission, that they should both in private and public maintain Episcopal Jurisdiction, and in their private and public Prayers, commend the Prelates to GOD'S merciful Protection; that they should subject themselves to the Orders that presently were in the Kirke, or by the consent of the said Kirke, should be lawfully established. The word lawfully, was not in the Principal first subscrived, [as we have learned] and if it had been expressed, it is all one, for the Superiors were judges to this lawfulness and unlawfulness. We will not labour to reconcile every Oath given by Ministers, at their entry with the present Covenant; but wish, and exhort rather, that they may be recalled, and repent of, as things for which they can not answer before a general Assembly.   

To the Fourteenth.  
IF the words of the Covenant be plain, concerning the mere forbearance, and speak nothing of the unlawfulness, no man's thoughts can make a change. 2. By this Reply ye wrong yourselves, in forging from the words of the Covenant, impediments, and drawing stumbling blocks in your own way, to hinder your subscription: ye wrong the subscryvers, in changing the state of the question, and in making a divorce betwixt Religion and the KING'S Authority, which the Covenant joineth together, hand in hand: and, most of all, ye wrong the KING'S Majesty, in bringing him upon the stage, before his Subjects, in whose minds ye would beget, and breed, suspicions of opposing the truth, of making innovation of Religion, and of dealing with his Subjects, contrary to his Laws and Proclamations, and contrary to the Oath at his Coronation. We are not here seeking inscitiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or starting hole of ignorance, or of the smallest disloyalty of affection; but would willingly decline that for the present, which neither his Majesty's wisdom, nor the prudence of Statesmen, nor the modesty of good subjects, will allow you or us to dispute. The Crowns and Sceptres of Kings, would be more tenderly touched, than the ordinary subjects of School disputes. The naked naming, and bare proposal of certain suppositions, such (as some are made by you) can not but reflex upon Authority, and sound harsh in the ears of all his Majesty's good subjects, who wish, that he may long and prosperously reign over us. 3. His Majesty's most honourable privy Counsel, hath proven more favourable to this cause of maintaining the reformed Religion, than many Pastors, whom by reason of their place and Calling, it beseemed to go before others; and although according to their wont custom, they gave warrant, to make his Majesty's Proclamation, yet on good grounds, remonstrated unto them by the Supplicants, they willingly refused their approbation thereof; hoping that his Majesty should be moved to give greater satisfaction thereafter: and this is not our saying, but a public doing, before many honourable witnesses; of which number some were directed unto you; whose report ye have no reason to call in question. 4. It becometh us, to judge charitably of the intentions of our Superiors; and most of all, of the intentions of our dread Sovereign. Yet, if that hold good which the supplicants have offered to prove, that the Service Book, and Canons, contain a real innovation of Religion, we must judge otherwise, the conditione operis, of the matters contained in the Book, than the intention operantis, of his Majesty's intention; although the intention of the Prelates, & their Associates, the Authors & contrivers of the Books, be most justly suspected by us. 5. It is no delight to us, and can be but small comfort to you, to mention the wrongs, which by you are done to us all who have joined in this Covenant, and do adhere to the Religion as it was reform in this land; in your estimation & writings, we are Rebellious, perjured, heretics, schismatics, blind guides, seducers, miserable interpreters, ignorants: shall such men as these be your reverend Brethren. Is this your meekness and charity? Is this the duty ye expect from us? But setting these aside, ye have wronged us, in withholding your hand and help from so good a Cause, of purging Religion, and reforming the Kirke, from so many gross abuses, and opposing all those who have modestly laboured for Reformation. Your speeches in private, in your chambers, beds of sickness, and in your missives, and in public, at tables, and in Synods, which are come to our knowledge; we wish rather should be remembered, and repent of, by yourselves, then be recited by us, who desire not to work you any trouble. 6. Although there be a perpetual harmony betwixt the Word and Works of GOD, far contrary to that which we find to be amongst the Children of men; yet often it cometh to pass, that the Word and Warnings of GOD, which we hear with our ears, are not believed, till we behold with our eyes, the plain Commentaries thereof, in His Works. Many Proofs, and notable Documents, have been observed of the Finger of GOD, in the Work in hand, the Characters of the great Works of GOD'S, more than ordinary Providence, since the beginning, are legible here. Then did the LORD begin this work, when the Adversary was raised to a great height, and become intolerably insolent. The beginnings were small, and in the eyes of the World, contemptible; such as use to be the beginnings not of the works of men, but of the Magnific works of GOD: the power of GOD sensible in the hearts of many, and manifested by the joy; the tears and cries of many thousands, at the solemn renewing of this Covenant, hath been a matter of admiration, and amazement, never to be forgotten, to many wise and ancient Pastors, and Professors, who did also find an unwonted flame, warming their own breasts; the plots, and workings of the Adversary, have wrought against their own Projects, and have served for our ends, more than all that have been thought, or done by ourselves; that we may justly say, what they devised, for evil, the LORD hath turned to good; many thousands convened, divers times, in one place, have been kept in such order, and quietness, without the smallest trouble, in such soberness, and temperance without excess or riot, that hardly can History furnish a Parallel: and what effects there be already throughout the Land, of Piety in Domestic worship, in observing the exercises of Religion, in public, of soberness in diet and apparel, and of Righteousness and Concord, we trust shall be sensible by the Blessings of GOD upon us, and shall be exemplary to the Posterity. These we present unto you, and unto all, as a Commentary, written by the LORDS own Hand; wishing again, that neither ye nor others, be found fight against GOD. Who so is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the loving kindness of the LORD, Psal. 107. 43. LORD, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see; but they shall see, and be ashamed, for their envy at the People, Isai. 26. 11.   


Master ALEXANDER HENDERSON, Minister at Leuchars.  
Master DAVID DICKSON Minister at Irwin.     

DUPLYES Of the MINISTERS and PROFESSORS of ABERDENE, TO The second Answers of some Reverend Brethren, CONCERNING THE LATE COVENANT.  If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. JEREM. 15. 19 Honour all men: love the Brotherhood: fear GOD: Honour the KING. 1. Pet. 2. 17. 
  

  

To the Unpartial READER.  
IT may be you have not, as yet, heard the true relation of our proceedings, and carriage, towards those two reverend Brethren, who came lately hither, to recommend to us, and our People, the late Covenant: We declare therefore to you, that we hearing of their coming, and intention, and being of a contrary mind, resolved, that before we should give consent, that they should preach to our people, we would propone to them, by way of certain Demands, the chief reasons which made us to be averse from their proceedings; promising to admit them to our pulpits, if they should give us satisfaction, concerning the late Covenant. We intended not to print these Demands at the first; but afterwards considering how much our people might be confirmed by them, in that pious resolution which they have, to continue in the obedience of the Laws of this Church and Kingdom, concerning Episcopacy, and those things which were concluded in Pearth Assembly; we thought good to put them to the Press, but determined not to make use of them, by divulgating them, except we saw that our people stood in present need of them; which indeed came to pass: for upon Friday, the twenty of jullie last, these reverend Brethren came to this Town, and having that same night received our Demands in writ, they returned their Answers unto them on Saturday following, late in the evening: but they came no● to our hands, who replied unto them, until Sunday in the morning. Neither had we leisure to read, or consider, until both the Sermons were ended in our Churches. Wherefore we did meet together that day, at four hours' afternoon, that we might peruse them. And at that same time, hearing that these reverend Brethren had preached in audience of dyverse of our people, convened in the court of a Nobleman his lodging, not having obtained our consent thereto, and in their Sermons had used a form of answering to our Demands, which they did publicly read, affirming, that they had given full satisfaction to us, in a written copy of their Answers, which they had sent to us: and by that means, had laboured to dissuade and draw our People from their obedience unto the Articles of Pearth, and the Laws of this Kingdom ratifying them: we knowing how insufficient their Answers were, to give satisfaction to any, who would duly ponder our Demands, gave licence to the Printer to devulgate them, and the next day did write our Replies to their Answers, intending to put them to the Press on tuesday. But we were earnestly entreated by a noble Man, to send back to them the copy of their Answers, that they might revise and perfect them, and also to delay the printing of our Replies until Friday following. Which we willingly granted. But wherefore this was desired of us, you may conjecture; seeing they neither added, nor diminished, nor altered any thing in their Answers. Upon the next Friday at night, we gave our Replies to the Printer: and to these reverend Brethren, who returned not to this City, until Saturday following, we sent a copy of our Replies in write, on the LORDS Day: unto which we received not their Answers, until they came from the Press, to wit, on Tuesday the fourteenth of August: that is, eighteen days after they had received our Replies. What success these Brethren had in their Sermons, which they preached here, upon two several LORDS Days, it is sufficiently known: neither have they reason to talk so much of it as they do, in their Preface to the Reader. The first of these days, some few who were thought to be that way inclined before, subscryved their Covenant: But the next LORDS Day, they scarce prevailed with any at all. And a great many, who heard them both these days, professed, that they returned from their Sermons, more averse from the Covenant, than they were before. Now good Reader, we present to thee our Replies, to their second Answers; which for shortness cause, we have called Duplyes: we pray you consider them unpartially. And if you reap any benefit by perusing them, let it no● be ascrived unto us, but to the invincible force of divine Truth. We conclude with Zer●babell, saying, Blessed be the GOD of Truth: And let all the People shout, and say, Great is Truth, and mighty above all things.   

To our Reverend Brethren Mr. ALEXANDER HENDERSON▪ And Mr. DAVID DICKSON.  
THat your Answers, Reverend and Dear Brethren; have not in any degree satisfied us, we impute it not to your weakness, whom we know to be able Men, and much exercised in the matters debated betwixt us: but we impute it to the weakness of your cause, and to that inability which is in all men, as well as in you, to bear out against the Truth. We are sorry that ye are not so respective, and favourable, in your judgement of us: for ye plainly declare in your Preface, that ye suspect us of prejudice: and that for two reasons. The first is, that our Demands, which ye conceived had been merely intended for you, were published before your coming in Print: as also, that our REPLIES were Printed before we received your last Answers to them. When●e ye conclude, that we were rather aiming at victory, moved thereto by prejudice, then at satisfaction by searching of the Truth. This reason is grounded upon a mistaking: for although our Demands at the first, were intended for you only, yet afterwards we resolved to Print them, as also our REPLIES, (the Printing whereof did nowayes depend upon your second Answers.) not for love of contention, nor desire of victory (GOD knoweth) but for such reasons, as we have expressed in our Preface to the unpartial Reader, whom we hope we have satisfied in this point. Your other reason is, that the grounds of your Answers to us, have proven satisfactory to others; who for Age and Learning, are prime men of this Kingdom: and to whom our modesty will not suffer us, to prefer ourselves. far be it from us to be so presumptuous, as to prefer ourselves to so many Learned and worthy Divines: and as far be it from us, to measure the solidity, and sufficiency of your Answers, by the Habilities or Induments of these, who have acquiesced in them. If this your reason were good, the Papists might more probably accuse us of prejudice, (as indeed they unjustly do) because their Answers to our Arguments, have proven satisfactory to many thousands of those, who for profundity, and subtility of wit, are inferior to none of the World: but we regard not this slender motive, remembering these words of our Saviour, I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the Wise and Prudent, and hast revealed them unto Babes: even so, O Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight. Besides, if ye compare the Divines, Ancient and Modern, who are of our judgement, with these who favour your opinion, either in number, or in the excellency of their gifts, ye shall find that in this, the advantage is greatly ours. In the mean time ye shall know, that we can bring far better reasons to free ourselves of prejudice, than these which ye have brought against us, to wit, the solidity of our Arguments, which have put you to such straits, (pardon us to say that, which every one who have eyes may see) that oft times ye do not so much, as attempt to answer them, being glad to pass them by, with the show of an Argument in contrarium, or some other like shift: our humble & earnest attestations, in calling GOD, the only competent judge; as witness of our sincerity, in the inmost thoughts of our soul; our seriously professed Resolution, to concur with you, if we should get satisfaction from you, the modesty, ingenuity, and peaceableness of our writings to you, and on the contrary, your too great disdainfulness and asperity in your second Answers; bewraying not only the weakness of your minds, far by our expectation, but also the weakness of your cause to unpartial Readers, who ascrive this to the pungent force of our Arguments; judging, that they have made you somewhat more choleric than you were before. To this we will add the great reluctance, which some of the most judicious Subscribents did find in their Consciences, before they subscrived your Covenant; together with the Limitations, and Reservations, wherewith they subscrived it; evidently arguing their▪ strong apprehension, of the dangerous ambiguity and haske sounding of the words of the late Covenant: so that even these who are now joined with you, have been much affrighted with those things which terrify us. As for your Protestation in the end of your Epistle, that ye can no more be brought to our mind, than ye can be drawn from the profession of our Religion, as it hath been reform, sworn, etc. Although this importeth no small prejudice, possessing and overruling your minds; yet looking to the invincible force of that Truth which we maintain, we even yet hope that at last it shall prevail with you; especially considering that our controversy is not concerning the Reformed Religion; whereunto we as sincerely adhere as any whatsoever, but concerning the equity of that form of Covenant which ye lately made. Wishing you and all others, to adhere truly and sincerely, to the same true Religion; and to all the duties which in it are recommended to you: we most humbly, and earnestly pray the Almighty GOD, to pity his Church in this Kingdom, and to unite all our hearts in Truth and Peace, in these most dangerous days: which although they be to you days of gladness, as ye profess, yet to those who love the peace of Zion, and the tranquillity of this Kingdom, they are sad and melancholious days, in respect of the black clouds of GOD'S wrath, hanging over our heads, and threatening us with storms of fearful Calamities: which we pray the Almighty GOD▪ to avert.   


THE FIRST DUPLY.  
IN our Disputes against the Papists, (which have been frequent, and by GOD'S grace not unfruitful,) as we have learned, that to multiply objections against the Truth, is a thing easy, as ye say, but fruitless and vain: so also we have learned, that to multiply Evasions, against solid Arguments brought for the Truth, is a thing no less easy, but altogether unprofitable: which we pray you take heed to. How forcible are right words? but what doth your arguing reprove? JOB 6. 25.  
2. Ye say, that our objection, against your calling, and the warrant of your coming to us, was framed and published in Print, before it was proponed unto you, and ere your Answer could be had. Indeed our Demands were at the Press at your coming, that they might be in readiness; but were not published, before yourselves in your Sermons did publicly read them, and dispute against them, in audience of such of our People as were there present for the time; albeit that written copy of them was delivered to you only, and not at that time communicated by us to any other.  
3. Your Authority which ye acclaim, is neither from his Majesty, nor warranded by Act of Parliament, nor by the Lords of his Majesty's Counsel, nor by any national Synod of this Kingdom, nor by any Judicatory established in it. And both in your first Answer, as also now again ye profess, that ye came not hither to usurp the Authority, of any Civil or Spiritual judicatory. As for your multitude, (which ye call almost the whole Kirke and Kingdom) it being destitute of Authority foresaid, maketh no warrant of ordinary calling. Therefore, ye seem to pretend an extraordinary calling from GOD, alleging an extraordinary necessity at this time, which truly we see not in any such degree, as may deserve and warrant so great a change from the received order, which is publicly by Laws established in this Kirke and Kingdom. That saying of the Apostle▪ Let us consider one another, to provoke unto love, and to good works, which ye allege for your extraordinary employment, importeth not an extraordinary calling, but an ordinary duty, to be performed by all Christians, according to their Callings.  
4. The Word of GOD, and the Canons of Counsels, do so permit to Pastors, the care of the whole Kirke, as they must remember to do all things, decently and in order, and not to interpone themselves in their brethren's charges, and against their will. And praised be GOD, there was not any Combustion, Error or Confusion, in these places of our charges, as ye do allege: Neither did our People stand in need, of such help from you. And if ye mean the Combustion of our national Kirke, we do think your remeed not convenient; as being, in our judgement, not agreeable to the right way of Truth and Peace.  
5. Whereas ye allege, that if some members of this Kirke, had not cared more kindly, in this time of common danger, than others have done, the whole body had been ere now dangerously, if not desperately, diseased; we answer, that we most heartily wish, any disease of this Church, to be rymously prevented and cured. But with all we wish this to be done without a rupture, and such a dangerous division: chiefly seeing our Church is not infected with any such Errors, nor is in such dangers, as may give just occasion, of so fearful a division: which in itself is a sore disease, and from which in holy Scripture, we are often, and very earnestly dehorted. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Novatian, recorded by Eusebius, Lib. 6. Historiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cap 37. worthily sayeth, You ought rather to have suffered any thing whatsoever, for avoiding of cutting as under the Kirke of GOD: and martyrdom for keeping the Kirke from Schism, is no less glorious, the● which is suffered, for not committing Idolatry. And in my opinion also it is greater; for in suffering Martyrdom for not committing Idolatry, a man suffereth for one, even for his own soul; but here a man suffereth martyrdom for the whole Kirke.  
6. Ye affirm, that we have no reason to complain of your carriage, here towards us, in respect ye for your Sermons preached to our People, made choice of vacant hours, that they might attend the ordinary times of Worship. But indeed this satisfieth not our complaint: for we justly complained of your preaching to our People, without our consent, at any hour; and of your labouring, to make them subscrive the late Covenant, before ye had given satisfaction to us, concerning the equity of it.  
7. Ye reprove us for these harmless words of a confederation, & negative Confession. That little Confession, was long ago called negative, à parte majore. And as for that other word, it is well known to all those who are expert in our Mother tongue, & in the Latin, that covenanting, and confederation, do signify one, and the same thing: and therefore, both these words are alike respectful, in our judgement. Whereas ye say, that your Covenant is made with GOD, and do call it his Covenant: and likewise for justifying your swearing, and subscriving thereof, do bring some places of Scripture, wherein mention is made of a Covenant, and Oath, betwixt GOD and his People; we shall then allow the same name, and respect unto your Covenant, when ye shall make it manifest, that your Covenant in all points therein contained, hath no less warrant from the written word of GOD, than that Covenant which the Israelites did swear in the days of JOSHUA, joshua 24. verse 25. and in the days of JEHOIADA the Priest, 2. Kings 11. v. 17. and in the days of King ASA, 2. Chron. 15. v. 15. and that which is mentioned by Isaiah, 44. v. 5.  
8. As we are still informed, that some have fled the Country, and some have subscrived for fear; so no Pastors in our knowledge have gone to Court, for the causes alleged by you. We do not presume to judge of the Consciences of men, and we wish you to judge more charitably, of these reverend Prelates, than ye do. The occasion of this present storm was pretended to be the introduction of the Books of Service, and Canons, and the high Commission. These causes are now removed; and yet the storm continueth so vehement, (as ye seem to grant) that the Bishops have just fears warranding their flight, to save their persons; which we judge to be too great violence, for any such cause, against persons in so sacred a calling.  
9 We shall assuredly, (by the grace of GOD) still contribute, as ye desire, our prayers, and all other means agreeable to our consciences, for extinguishing of the present combustion. And for that effect, every one of us shall secretly, and humbly, mourn before the LORD, and shall search and try our ways, and turn unto the Lord. And as we have already humbled ourselves publicly, with Fasting and Mourning for that effect, so are we ready in time to come, to do the like, when it shall be indicted or allowed by Authority, according to the established order in this Kirke and Kingdom. Yea, also we are ready to join with you in the late Covenant, so soon as we shall receive satisfaction to our consciences, concerning the lawfulness thereof; which as we have protested before, so do we yet protest, and profess.  
10. The Reasons which ye touch in your first Answer, for proving that we might without just offence to any, join with you in subscriving the Covenant, are sufficiently answered in our first Reply. For, First, It is not yet discerned in a national Assembly, whether your Interpretation added to the old Covenant, be in all points sound or unsound; and therefore we have reason to think, that this new Covenant, is not substantially one with the old: chiefly seeing it addeth to the old Covenant, not only your Interpretation of it, but also a promise of forbearance of the practice of Pearth Articles, until they be tried in an Assembly; and likewise a Band of Mutual Defence, by force of Arms, made without the KING'S privity and consent. Secondly, Your inference of Mutual Defence, against all people whatsoever, drawn from the words of the old Covenant, is merely invalide. For nothing was pactioned or promised in the old Covenant, without the KING'S Majesty his privity; but the Band of Mutual Defence, against all persons whatsoever, in this your new Covenant, is without the command or consent of the KING, to whom only the Sword is given in this Kingdom, immediately by GOD. See to this purpose the words of KING james the sixth of blessed Memory, in his Book entitled, The Law of free Monarchies, in the English edition of his royal works, at London, Anno 1616. Pag. 206. That which ye add concerning the General Band, is also little to the purpose, for that Band had the KING'S warrant, whereas his Majesty doth now forbid your Covenant. Thirdly, Although the former Oath subscrived, did appertain only to the persons of the subscrivers, all the days of their lives; yet you have in your Interpretation, extended the Obligation thereof, to the present and succeeding Generations in this land, without any warrant either from public Laws, or from the words of the Oath itself: which also is a substantial Difference betwixt that Oath, & your late Covenant. Whereas ye allege, that the warrant which the old Covenant had from KING, Counsel, and Assembly, remaineth virtually, and was never yet discharged; we answer, it remaineth not, and that because KING james of blessed Memory, disallowed that little Confession, in respect of the inconveniency of the multitude of Negatives, as is clear by his Majesty's words, published in the printed sum of the conference holden at Hampton Court, Anno 1603. And no former Act of Counsel, made in the time of any former King, doth sufficiently warrant our Consciences to subscrive any Oath now, which seemeth to us to be disagreeable to the Act of Parliament; and which our present Dread Sovereign LORD, the KING'S Majesty, by his public Proclamations; and other Intimations of his Royal pleasure, forbiddeth us to subscrive. And as for the Acts of these two Assemblies, which did enjoin subscription to the said little Confession, they were relative to the KING'S Mandate, which is now expired by his own Declaration, and with his Royal breath, according to that common Maxim: Morte mandatoris expirat mandatum. Extra. D● officio & potestate judicis delegati, Cap. 19 relatum est in glossa. For the injunction was given for that time only, as we conceive▪ being warranded by the words of these Assemblies.  
11. These that were suspect of Papistry amongst us, have not been urged by us to subscrive that negative Confession; but only some Articles relative to the national Confession. And as ●or such as receive degrees, in Philosophy, in our Colleges, they do swear only to the true reformed Religion, as it is publicly professed and preached, according to GOD'S word, in this Kirke of Scotland, and established by public Authority, with a general abjuration of all, both Popish, and other Heresies contrary thereto. And those who receive degrees of Divinity, do more expressly swear to the Orthodox determinations of the ancient Catholic Kirke, as is evident by the words of the Oath, whereof the tenor followeth.  

E God A. B. sancte & ex animo coram omniscio & omnipotente Deo consiteor & profiteo sidem eam quae de sancta Trinitate, & Mediatore Emmanuele à sanctis Patribus in sex primis OEcumenicis conciliis, contra Pauli Samosateni, Sabellii, Arii, Macedonii, Apollinaris, Nestori●, Eu●●chetis, & Mon thelitarum haereses proposita explicata & defensa est, esse vere Christianam, orthodoxam, Catholicam, ex sacris Canonicis scripturis ha●stam; Symbolum quoque sancti A▪ hanasii ut similiter orthodoxum me recipere. Item me ex animo de●estari haeresin Pelaginam, ejusque reliquias Semipelagianas, & eas haereses quae Imaginibus aut ulli merae creaturae religiosam concedunt ad●rationem. Item, me monarchiam Papae Romani in universam Ecclesiam, & ejus cum in spiritualibus tùm in temporalibus primatum, & judicii Papalis in religionis controversiis infallibilitatem, tanquam antichristiana deliramenta rejice●e. Omnes etiam alias haereses tum ol●m invectas, tum recens sub Romani Pontificis tyranmde natas anathematizo. Agnosco Spiritum sanctum in Canonicis V. & N. Testamenti scripturis per Prophetas, Evangelistas, & Apostolos loquentem, esse nobis unicum, supremu●, infallibilem, & ordinarium omnium de fide vitaque Christiana contraversiarum judicem. Et S. scripturam Canonicis V. a● N. Testamenti libris comprehensam esse unicam, certam, stabilem, perfectam, totalem regulam fidei vitaeque Christianae, tum quoad textum, tum quoad interpretationem authenticam seu divinae authoritatis; & hanc quae hodie in Ecclesia Scoticana palam & publica authoritate ex sacro D E I verbo proponitur decredendis, sperandis, amandis, doctrinam esse orthodoxam, Catholicam. Et ipsam hanc Ecclesiae Scoticanae doctrinam, ●e ad extremum usque vitae meae hali●um constanter per D E I gratiam professurum & pro ●●● vocatione defensurum sancte promitto, juro. Insuper almae h●i● Universitati c●i hunc scholasticum (docturae Theologicae) honore●● d●●ebo, me nunquam ingratum futurum, sed semper ei ex animo fa●turum, ejusque commoda, pie serio, sedulo, fideliter promoturum sanct● etiam ●oram eodem omniscio & omnipo●ente D E O promitto, juro.   
We, who were graduated here, did swear this Oath, and now, for satisfaction of others, we all do sincerely attest GOD, that we do, and shall adhere to it, constantly, all the days of our life.  
12. Ye do again object to us, that we have presumed to disallow your explanation of the late Covenant, which hath been publicly allowed by his Majesty's Commissioner: adding thereto, that we will have the Kingdom guilty of combination against Authority, & that we will not have the KING to be satisfied; whence ye infer, that our dealing is more suitable to Papists, and such incendiaries, then for us; who desire to prove good Patriots, in using all means of pacification. But certainly ye wrong us: ●or what was done by his Majesty's Commissioner, anent your Declaration and explanation of your Covenant, is evident by his Grace own letter, lately written to us of that matter; whereby his Grace hath declared, that he was no ways contented therewith, and that his Majesty hath not received any satisfaction thereby. The same is evident also, by his Grace own Manifesto, prefixed to our Demands, your first Answers, and our first Replies; reprinted at Edinburgh, by his Gr. special command. To the which Manifesto, or Declaration of his Majesty's high Commissioner, we remit the Reader, for his full satisfaction, in this, and some other points of your Answers.  
13. We intent not to bear upon you, and your associates, (who take to yourselves the name of the Kingdom, here in this your Answer) guiltiness of combination against Authority, as we have protested and declared, in the end of our ●romer Replies: but in the tenderness of our Consciences, we do uprightly signify to you our scruples, which hinder us from approving or subsc●iving your Covenant. And we are so free of that odious imputation, of taking part with any Incendiaries, or imitating any proceedings of that kind; as we heartily wish, and shall endeavour, to prove good Patriots, a●d Christians, in such evident love of truth and peace, as it shall be manifest, that we neither have been, nor shall be Authors, or Fomen●ers, o● this miserable combustion.  
14. Ye are sorry, ye say, that we should account your Covenant, to be a Confederacy against the truth; and ye affirm, that ye labour with men, to join with you in sincerity, and not through humane fears. Now, reverend Brethren, in the fear of GOD, laying aside all humane fear, we do sincerely declare, that if we thought your Covenant, in all points agreeable to the ●rue●h, we should make no opposition thereto. And we do heartily wish, that according as ye do here profess, ●o indeed no man be threatened wi●h worldly terroures, to go your way. We aims indeed, at the same end which ye profess, to wit, at the Truth and purity of Religion, and peace of Church and Kingdom: But we are not as yet persuaded, that your way is lawful and convenient, for attaining to this end.   

The II. DUPLY.  

WE desire all troubles to be prevented by allowable means, but are not persuaded to reckon in that number, this your covenanting, and conventions, which we esteem to have been the occasion of much trouble. As concerning your question, whereunto ye so earnestly require our Answer, to wit, whether we would have received the Books of Service and Canons, or used such means, as ye have used for avoiding them? ye shall know, that if we had been of your judgement, concerning those Books, we would neither have received them, nor yet used any means unlawful for opposing of them, (such we think your Covenant and conventions, prohibited by Authority to be, until we be better informed) but would have used humble supplication to his majesty, for removing those evils: and if we had found no remeed thereby▪ would have resolved, according to the practice of ancient Christians, either to ●●ee his Majesty's dominions, or else patiently to suffer whatsoever punishment it should have pleased him to ins●ict. In the mean time, concerning those Books of Service and Canons, we rest content with his Majesty's gracious Proclamation: and if hereafter our opinion of them shall be asked by Authority, we shall sincerely and unpartially deciare it.  
2. Your urging of us again, with the saying of KING james, for●eth us to manifest his meaning by his own words, perhaps contrary to your wish or expectation. That most wise and religious KING, near the beginning of his Book, concerning the Powder Treason, writeth expressly, that such a rising up of the body, pro aris, & focis, & pro patre patriae, aught to be according to every one's calling and faculty. Which words at least do import, that the moving of the Politic body, in whole, or in par●, ought not to be against the will & direction of the head. This is clear by that which the same KING hath written in his Book entitled, The true Law of free Monarchies, whereby many strong Arguments, he doth a● length demonstrate, that in a free Monarchy, (such he proveth this his ancient Kingdom of Scotland to be) the Subjects for no occasion or pretext whatsoever, may take Arms, without power from the KING; and much less against him, whether he be a good KING, or an oppressor; whether godly, or ungodly; although the People have might and strength humane. And comprehendeth the sum of all his discourse concerning this matter, in these words following. Shortly, then, to 
Lond. edit. ann. 1616 pag. 200. 201.  take up in two or three sentences, grounded upon all these Arguments, out of the Law of GOD, the duty and alleadge●nce of the People to their lawful KING: their obedience, I say, aught to be to him, as to GOD'S Lieutenant in Earth, obeying his commands in all things, except directly against GOD, as the commands of GOD'S Minister; acknowledging him a judge set by GOD over them, having power to judge them, but to be judged only by GOD, whom to only he must give count of his judgement. Fearing him, as their judge; loving him as their Father; praying for him, as their Protector; for his continuance, if he be good; for his amendment, if he be wicked; following and obeying his lawful commands, eschewing and fleeing his fury in his unlawful, without resistance, but by sobs and tears to GOD, according to that sentence used in the primitive Church in the time of the persecution,  Preces & lachrymae, sunt arma Ecclesia: that is, Prayers and Tears, are the arms of the Church. 
3. Ye told us before, and now again do repeat it, that the first par● of the Act of Parliament 1585., is relative to another Act in Queen Mary's time, forbidding Bands of Manrent. We knew that sufficiently before ye told it, and passed by that part of your Answer, as not percinent for our Argument: so that ye needed not now again, to put us in mind of it. But we may justly challenge you, for not answering that which we objected, concerning the second part of that Act; for it reacheth farther, than that Act made in Queen Mary's time, and of new statuteth and ordaineth, That in time coming, no Leagues or Bands be made amongst his Majesty's Subjects of any degree, upon whatsoever colour or pre●ence, without his Highness or his successoures' privity and consent, had and obtained thereto; under the pai●e to be holden and execute as movers of sedition and unquyetnesse, etc. Whereunto also is consonant the 131. Act made in the 8 Parliament of King JAMES the sixth, Anno 1584.; where it is ●●atuted and ordained by the KING and his three estates, that none of his Highness' Subjects of whatsoever quality, estate, or function they be of, spiritual or temporal, presume or take upon hand to convocate, conveane, or assemble themselves together for holding of Counsels, Conventions, or Assemblies, to treat, consult, and determinate in any matter of estate, Civil or Ecclesiastical (except in the ordinary judgements) without his Majesty's special commandment, or express licence had and obtained to that effect, under the pai●es ordained by the Laws and Acts of Parliament, against such as unlawfully convocate the KING'S Liedges. And whereas ye find fault, that we dispute from the Act of Parliament, and that we do precisely adhere to the letter of the Law, we pray you to consider, that the nature of this question leadeth us to the Act of Parliament. Beside, it seemeth strange, that ye should challenge us in this kind, since for justifying of your union (as ye call it) ye have amassed a great number of Acts o● Parliament, and inserted them in the book of your Covenant. We omit the misapplying of these Acts, which were made against Popery, and not against all these things, which ye do now resist as Popish. Neither can we perceive, how these Acts of Parliament adduced by you, to justify your union, prove that point. Moreover, some of these Acts cited by you, as namely, the 114 Act made in Parliament Anno 1592., in so far as it is against Episcopal Government, and all other of that sort, are expressly rescinded by a posterior Act made in Parliament Anno 1612. How could ye in a legal dispute, for justifying your union, produce rescinded Acts, as if they were standing Laws, and pass by the posterior Acts, which are yet Laws standing in vigour, whereby these other Acts are rescinded? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. Constitutiones tempore posteriores, po●●ores sunt his qu● ipsas praecesserunt. ●●▪ de constitutionibus Principum, L. 4.  
4. We do adhere in our former Reply, not only to the Letter, but also (according to our conception, without prejudice of better information) to the very reason and life of the Law. The sentence cited by you, to wit, Salus Reipub. suprema lex esto, or the 
XII. Tabularum fragmenta de officio consulis. Regio imperio duo sunto: iique praeeundo, indicando, consulendo praetores, judices, consuls apple lantor: militiae summum jus habento, ne mini paren to. Salus populi suprema lex esto.  safety of the Commonwealth should be the chief Law, serveth for a good direction to Rulers, in making or changing of Laws, or in judging according to them: whence in the Laws of the 12 Tables, these words are applied to this purpose. This is observed by KING james of blessed memory, in his often mentioned Book of the true Law of free Monarchies: For albeit, sayeth he, that I have at length proved, that the KING is above the Law, as both the author and giver of strength thereto; yet a good King will not only delight to rule his Subjects by the Law but even will conform himself in his own actions thereunto, always keeping that ground, that the health of the commonwealth be his chief Law. And where he seeth the Law doubtsome, or rigorous, he may interpret or mitigate the same, lest otherwise summum jus be summa injuria: But this sentence doth nowayes warrant Subjects to refuse obedience to standing Laws, against the will of the Supreme Lawgiver, who is a speaking Law. For this were to open a door to all confusion, which would not prove the safety, but the ruin of the Commonwealth. As for that which ye said before of the General Band, and Confession of Faith, and which here again ye do allege for your Covenant, we have signified our opinion thereof, in our preceding Duply. The responses and verdicts of Jurisconsults concerning your Covenant, are not known to ●s, nor yet the reasons and inducements, which moved them to give out their declaration in your favoures, as ye allege.   

Of Obedience, due by Subjects, to Authority.  
5. The point touching Royal Authority, is not so full of thorns and rocks as ye give out, if men would be pleased unpartially to hold the plain and patent way, laid before us by holy Scripture, and by Orthodox Antiquity, and by many Eminent Divines in the reformed Church, and learned Politics; which we shall here make manifest, after the vindication of those three famous Theologues, (Whitaker, Bilson, and Rivet) whom ye would have the Reader to esteem favourers of your opinion.  
6. Doctor Whitakers words against William Raynold, translated into English, out of the Latin Edition at Oppenheme, Anno 1612. Pag. 51. are these, He relateth the timults and troubles, which were raised for Religion, in Germany, France, and Boheme: as if that one thing were sufficient to condemn them, because once they did oppose themselves, and resisted the violence offered to GOD'S Truth, and to themselves: Whereas notwithstanding, Faith, Oath, and public Edicts, & finally the Laws themselves gave them warrant to do the same. I will not say more of this matter, which is nowise pertinent to the present purpose, especially seeing not only their just Apology, but also the Edicts of the Princes themselves have liberated them from the crime of Rebellion. By these words of Doctor Whitaker, which ye have cited, the Reader may easily perceive, that he doth nowayes mantain or allow taking of Arms by Subjects, without warrant of the public Laws, and approbation of the Prince; but excuseth what was done in those wars, by the allowance of the Laws and Edicts of Princes.  
7. So also Doctor Bilson, in his Book entitled, The true difference betwixt Christian subjection, and unchristian Rebellion, Printed at Oxford Anno 1585., Pag. 382. in the words cited by you, declareth evidently, that he speaketh of such Republickes and States, as have defences warranded by fundamental Covenant, in that Government. But what is that Doctor's mind, concerning the duty of Subjects, in a free and absolute Monarchy, is evident by his own words in that same book, Pag. 380, where disputing against a Jesuit, he sayeth; War for the Catholic Religion, is both lawful and honourable, you say: you must add, of the Subjects against their Prince, or else you range clean besides our question. We strive not what causes may lead Christian Princes to make War on their Neighbours, but whether it be lawful or tollorable for the Subject, to bear Arms against his natural and absolute Prince. You prove, which is nothing to our purpose. But, Sir, in this enterprise, the person must b● respected as well as the cause: Be the cause never so just, if the person be not authorized by GOD to draw the Sword, they be no just nor lawful Wars. Private men may not venture on Wars, unless they be directly warranded by him that hath the Sword from GOD. And again in that same Book, Pag. 502, Our Saviour for teaching his, that they should be brought before Kings and Rulers, and put to death, and hated of all men for His Name sake: addeth not, as you would have it, and he that first rebelleth, but, he that endureth to the end, shall be saved; and again, Not with violence restrain them, but in patience prossesse your own souls. This is the way for all Christian subjects to conquer tyrants▪ & this is the remedy provided in the new Testament against all persecutions, not to ●esist powers, which GOD hath ordained, lest we be damned: but with all meekness to suffer that we may be crowned. And Pag. 513. he showeth, that manifold forms of commonwealth, make divers men speak diversely of the Magistrates sword. And Pag. 518 he pleadeth, that the Subjects in England, have not that lawful warrant, to draw the sword without consent of their Prince, as the Germans have without consent of the Emperor; and this discourse he prosecuteth in ●ome following pages.  
8. The same is the meaning of Doctor R●vet, (as we take it) in his commentary upon the Psalm. 68 where he distinguisheth between an absolute principality, and such a principality as is only conditional, pactional, conventionall. Of this second sort are to be understood, his words of just and necessary defence. But of the absolute principality speaking in that same place, he recommendeth to Subjects, rather suffering of martyrdom. And this to be his meaning, appeareth more clearly by his last declaration concerning this question, in his late treatise entitled, jesuita Vapula●s: where being pressed by an advesary, he handleth this question of purpose. In the mean time, we wonder very much, that ye have not directly answered to these remarkable words of Doctor Rivet, alleged by us in our Reply, wherein he plainly averreth, that the doctrine of Bu●han●●●, Knox, and Goodman, concerning Subjects resisting their lawful Princes, is not approved by any sound Protestant. We expected from you, a full and particular Answer, and now again we would gladly hear, whether ye approve the judgement of Rivet, concerning that doctrine of these writers, or not.  
9 Thus having vindicated these three divynes, which ye allege for you, we come now to those testimonies which we promised, for clearing of the plainness of the way touching Authority. First, it is evident by holy Scripture, that it is unlawful for Subjects in a Monarchical estate, (such as is this Kingdom of Scotland) to take Arms for Religion, or for any other pretence, without warrant and power from the Prince, and Supreme Migistrate. For the Scripture teacheth us, that the Sword belongeth only to the KING, and to them who are sent by him, Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. 13. 14. That we ought to keep the KING'S commandment, and that in regard of the Oath of GOD, Eccles. 8. 2. And, that we should be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake; because the powers that be, are ordained of GOD: whosoever therefore, sayeth S. Paul, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of GOD, And they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation, Rom. 13. In the words of the Apostle S. Paul, there is a remarkable opposition betwixt subjection and resistance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; implying, that all military 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether defensive, or offensive, if it be against the superior Power, which GOD hath set over us, is forbidden. In like manner we read Matth. 26. 52. that all they that take the Sword, shall perish with the Sword. Now certain it is, that in a free Monarchy, Subjects have not the Sword from GOD, except by the hand of the KING, to whom only GOD hath immediately given it. And therefore whosoever taketh the Sword without his warrant, hath just reason to fear the foresaid warning of our SAVIOUR. Many other places of Scripture might be adduced to this purpose, which for brevity we omit, and do proceed in the next room to some testimonies of ancient Fathers, and other writers.  
10. T●rtullian, in his Apologeticke, chap. 30. and 33. and 37. telleth us, that the ancient Christians in his time, although having a● heathen and persecuting Emperor, did honour him, as chosen of God, and second from GOD, and first after GOD, and did choose rather to suffer, then to make resistance by force of Arms, although they lacked not number, and strength to do it.  
11. The like example have we in that renowned Thebean Legion of 6666 Christian Soldiers, called Agaunenses, from the place of their suffering, who without making resistance, as they had strength of hand to have done, suffered themselves rather to be slain, for their Christian profession, by the Officers of Maximian the Emperor, executors of his cruel commandment against them. This fell out in the 18 year of Diocletian, as Ado Viennensis writeth in his Chronicle, which was the year of GOD 297, as Cardinal Baronius reckoneth in his Annals. And of that their Christian courage, and pious resolution, Venantius Fortunatus, an ancient Bishop of Poitiers, hath left unto us these Encomiasticke lines, in the second book of his Poems▪ Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8. Edit. 4. Pag. 781.  

Queis, positis gladiis, sunt armaè dogmate Pauli,  
Nomine pro CHRISTI dulcius esse mori.  
Pectore belligero poterant qui vincere ferro,  
Invitant jugulis vulnera chara suis.   
12. Gregory Nazianzen, in his first Oration, speaking of the persecution by julian the Apostate, when the Christians were moe in number, and stronger in might of hand, to have made open resistance, if they had in their consciences found it agreeable to their Christian profession, declareth plainly, that they had no other remedy against that persecution, but patient suffering for Christ, with gloriation in Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
13. S. Ambrose, having received imperial commandment, to deliver the sacred Houses, or Churches, to be possessed by the Arians, declareth what he thought convenient to be done in such a case; to w●t, neither to obey in that which he could not perform with a good conscience, no● yet to resist by force of Arms. His words to the people, (Con●ione 1. contra Auxentium) are these; 
a Quid ergo turbamini? volens nunquam vos deseram, coactus repugnare non novi. Dolere potero potero slere, potero gemere; adversus arma, milites, Gothos quoque, La●rhymae mea arma sunt. Talia enim munimenta sunt sacerdotis. Aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere.  Why, then, are ye troubled? I shall never willingly leave you. If I be compelled, I can not gain-stand. I may be sorry, I may weep, I may sigh. Against Arms, Soldiers, the Goths also, my Tears are Arms: For such are the Guards of a Priest. Otherwise I neither ought nor may resist. And in the second book of his Epistles, and 14 Epistle, to his Sister Marcellina, speaking of that same purpose, he sayeth; 
b Non ego mi vallabo circumfusione populorum.— Rogamus, Auguste, non pugnamus.— Tradere Basilicam non possum, sed repugnare non debeo.  I shall not fortify myself with a multitude of people about me.— We beseech, O Emperor, we fight not.— I may not deliver the Church; but I ought not make resistance.  
14. Such also was them doctrine and practice of many other great Lights, which shined in the days of julian the Apostate, and in the days of the Arrian Emperors, and Gothicke Arrian Kings.  
15. S. Augustine, writing of a lawful War, acknowledgeth that only to be lawful, which hath authority from the Prince. For it is 
Interest enim quibque causis▪ quibusque authoribꝰ homines gerenda bella suscipiant: ordo tamen ille naturalis, mortalium pa●i accomodatus hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli authoritas, atqu●, consilium penes Principem sit. Aug. Lib. 22. contra Faustum, Cap. 75.  much to be regarded, (sayeth he▪) for what causes, and by whose authority, men undertake Wars: But that natural order, which is accommodated to the peace of mortal men, requireth this, that the authority and counsel of undertaking war, be in the power of the Prince.  
16. The imperial Laws do say the same, ff. Ad legem juliam majestatis. Leg. 3. Eadem lege tenetur, & qui injussu Principis bellum gesserit, delectumv● habuerit, ex●rcitum comparaverit. Et Cod. ut armorum usus inscio Principe interdictus sit. Nulli prorsus nobis insciis, atque inconsultis quorum libet armorum movendorum copia tribuatur. These are the words of the Emperors Valentinian and Valens. Et Cod. de ●e militari, Leg. 13. Nemo miles. Nemo miles vel sibi vacet, vel aliena obsequia ●e nutu principali peragere audeat, etc.  
17. Bodin, in his first Book de Republica, Cap. 10. Num. 155 and 156. (Pag. 244. Edit. Latin. 4. Ursell. Anno 1601.) reckoneth among the proper rights of Majesty, the right and power to make War: and this he showeth to appertain, in a free Monarchy, to the Prince only.  
18. To this meaning sayeth Peter Martyr; As concerning the efficient cause, it is certain that War may not be made without the authority of the Prince. For Paul sayeth, that he beareth the Sword: therefore he may give it to whom he willeth, and may take it from whom he willeth. Loc. Com. Class. 4. Cap. 16. § 2. And a little after, to wit, § 7. he reciteth and commendeth a saying of Hostiensis to the same purpose.  
19 Calvin, in the four●h Book of his Institutions, in the last Chapter of that Book, disputeth the Question at length, and by many strong Arguments evinceth, and concludeth, that it is nowise lawful for Subjects, to resist their Prince by force of Arms; whether the Prince be godly, and just; or ungodly, and unjust in his conversation, and commandments: and, that nothing remaineth to Subjects in such a case, but to obey or suffer. Where understand, that Fleing is a sort of Suffering. Neither are his words subjoined in the 31 Sect. to wit, I speak alwise of private men, etc. contrary to this. For first Calvin in this Dispute, indifferently useth the names of private men, and Subjects: And therefore, in the 22 Sect. at the beginning of it, he termeth those of whose duty he disputeth, Subjects. 
Hugo Grorius, de jure belli & pacis, l●b. 1 cap. 4. num. 6.  And indeed, whosoever is a Subject, is also, in respect of the supreme Ruler, a private man. Although Magistrates, who are under the KING, be public persons, in respect of their Inferiors; yet being considered, with relation to him that is Supreme, 1. Pet. 2. 13. they are but private. As in dialectic, an intermediate genus, although in respect of the inferior species, it be a genus; yet in relation to the superior genus, it is but a species. All Power of Governing, is so subjected to the Supreme Power, that whatsoever is done against the will of the supreme Ruler, is destitute of that Power; and consequently, is to be esteemed for a private act. For, as we are taught by the Philosophers, Order can not be, but with a reference to that which is first. Hence King JAMES, in his Book of The true 
Averroe● 5. Metaphys. comment. 6.  Law of free Monarchies, Pag. 206. affirmeth, that all the People are but private men, the authority being alwise with the Magistrate. Secondly, this is manifest from the very words of Calvin, in that same 31 Sect. for there he excepteth none from the necessity of obeying, or suffering, when Kings command things unjust; but only popular Magistrates, appointed for restraining the licentiousness of Kings. Now, where such Magistrates are erected, it is certain, that a King, in such a Commonwealth, hath not the supreme power: For if he had the supreme power, none could force him, since an Inferior can not force his Superior. This can not be done, but only by him, who is Superior, or at least equal. Thirdly, this is clear also by the examples adduced by Calvin; namely, the Lacedamonian Ephori, the Roman Tribunes, and the Athenian Demarchi. When the Ephori were set up in Lacedaemon, the Kings of Lacedaemon, were but Kings 
See Hugo Grotius, de jure belli & pacis, Pag. 66. where he citeth sundry ancient Authors.  in name, and had not the Supreme power, as it is confessed by the Learned. So when the Tribunes had their full power in Rome, the Supreme power was in the People: and in like manner it was in Athens, when the Demarchi had power. Therefore, from this nothing can be inferred for the lawful resistance of Subjects, to a Monarch, or King, properly so called. Fourthly, Calvin applying this to the Kingdoms that now are, sayeth no more, but that peradventure the three Estates assembled in Parliament, have that same power, which the forementioned Ephori, etc. had. Here it is to be marked, that he sayeth only, peradventure it is so; which can be no warrant to a man's conscience, in a matter of so great importance. For he that resisteth his Superior by force of Arms, should not only think, that peradventure he hath power, but should be assuredly persuaded, that he hath power so to do. When there is no more said, but that peradventure such a thing is, it may be as reasonably said, Peradventure such a thing is not. Neither doth he give this power even peradventure, but to the three Estates assembled in Parliament. Hence the learned Rivet, speaking of Calvin his mind in this place, sayeth, that he giveth no power to people over Monarches, properly so called▪ 
Rivet, in his jesuita vapulans, Cap. 13.  The same also is observed, concerning Calvin his mind, by Albericus Gentilis, in his third Royal Dispute.  
20. The same doctrine also is delivered by King james of blessed Memory, in his Book entitled The true Law of free Monarchies, by Hugo Grotius in his first Book de jure belli & pacis, Cap. 4. by Leonhartus Hutterus, in his common places, Loc. 32. Cap. 3. johannes Gerhardus in the 6 Tom. of his common places, in his Treatise de mastistratu politico, Num. 483. where he discourseth accuratly of this matter: Zepperus in his 3. Book de Politia Ecclesiastica, in the last Section of the 13 Chapter, Pag 573. Edit. Herborn. 1595. Alberious Gentilis, in his regal disputations, disput. 3. de vi civium in Regem semper in●usta. john Bishop of Rochester, in his work written against Bellarmine, de potestate Papae in rebus temporalibus, Lib. 1. Cap. 8. Class. 2. Where he adduceth a cloud of many more Authors. M. Antonius de Dominis, in his Book called Ostensio errorum Prancisci Suarez, Cap. 6. § 27. johannes Angelius Werdenhagen, I. C. in his Politica generalis, Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Quest. 14.  
21. By these Testimonies we intent not to lay upon you, or any of our Country men, any imputation, or to take upon us to give sentence concerning their proceedings: but only being invited hereto by your last Answers, we thought it our duty, to signify to the Reader, that many ancient and late famous Writters are not of that opinion, either to think the question touching Authority, so full of Rocks and Thorns, as you call it, or yet to favour such a defensive taking of Arms, as you think to be allowed by Whitaker, Bilson, and Rivet.  
22. Now to prosecute what remaineth of your Answer: whereas ye say, that when ye justify your Covenants and Conventions, from their purposed ends, ye mean not only the last and most remo●e ●nds, but the nearest and immediate; we pray you tell us what ye mean by the nearest and immediate end: if ye mean the object it itself, (which the Schoolmen call finem intrinsecum & proximum) then the lawfulness and equity of the matter, vowed and promised in the Covenant, is all one with the goodness of the end of it. Whence we infer, that seeing the matter promised by you in this your Covenant, to wit, your mutual defence against all persons, none excepted, is in our judgement unlawful, and forbidden by a lawful Authority; the end, of your Covenant is merely evil: but if by the nearest end ye mean any thing which is divers from the object, than we still affirm against the last part of your first Answer, to our second Demand, that Conventions, and Covenants, and all other actions, are to be esteemed and judged of, first or principally by the equity of the object, and then by the goodness of the ends of it, whether they be fines proximi, or fines remoti.  
23. We do not join with the Papists, blamers of our Reformation, (as ye seem to bear upon us) because they hate and oppugn our reformed Religion, which we love and defend. Neither do we take upon us to censure the proceedings of our Reformers: but we stryve, by the Grace of GOD, so to carry in our own time, and to walk wisely in a perfect way, as our adversaries the Papists, may get no advantage to plead for their unwarrantable doctrine and practices, by any pretence of our example.    

The III. DUPLY.  
IN your third Answer, passing lightly from our Reply, ye fall into some unexpected digressions, concerning the Service Book and our thoughts thereof: we esteem it a matter beyond the compass of humane judicatory, to sit upon the thoughts of other men. As for those outward expressions, which ye allege upon some of us, of not seeing errors in that Book, or groaning for it; ye shall understand, that such multiplicity of Popish errors, as was alleged by some of you, to be in that Book, was invisible to some of us. Although to enter in a particular examination or consideration, of every point and sentence in that Book, is not now time nor place. Neither did any of us profess groaning for that Book in particular, but for an uniformity of divyne service throughout this national Kirk, and a more perfect form than we yet have, that the public Service were not permitted to the several judgements, and private choice of every Minister and Reader. Which also was thought convenient by the national Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, holden at ABERDENE, Anno 1616.  
2. Whether that Service Book (now discharged) containeth any Innovation of Religion, or any thing contrary to the Protestant Religion, (as ye allege) we do not dispute now. But we do assuredly believe, the piety and sincerity of His Majesty's intention, ever to have been, and still constantly to be, as it is graciously declared by His Majesty's late Proclamation. And we are certainly persuaded▪ that His Majesty hath given order, to discharge all the Acts of Counsel, made anent the Canons and Service Book; and are credibly informed, that they are discharged by Act of Counsel, [at Holy-Rood-House, the fifth of jullie last] according to the order given by His Majesty. Also, we see no such just cause of Fear, as may import your alleged necessity of Covenanting; seeing His Majesty will not press any thing of that nature, but in such a fair and legal way, as shall satisfy all his loving Subjects: that he neither intendeth innovations in Religion nor Laws; as we declare in our former Reply, to which ye have not sufficiently answered. Neither was it necessary, for removing of any just Fears, that his sacred Majesty should disallow that Service Book, as ye require; but it was sufficient, to discharge it, in manner foresaid.  
3. Ye do conclude your Answer unto our third Reply, with an uncouth and incredible Position, whereof ye bring no proof at all, but only this bare Assertion; Whosoever profess themselves, to be perfectly satisfied with the Proclamation, do proclaim in the ears of all the Kingdom, that they are better pleased with the Service Book, and Canons, then with the Religion, as it hath been professed in this Land since the Reformation. This your Thesis, is so evidently weak, that we need no more for the overthrow thereof, but to oppose thereunto this our plain and undeniable Antithesis; Who profess themselves to be perfectly satisfied with that Proclamation, whereby the Service Book, and Canons are discharged, and the Religion professed in this Land since the Reformation, is established, do proclaim in the ears of all the Kingdom, that they are better pleased with the Religion professed in this Land since the Reformation, then with the Service Book, and Canons.   

The IV. DUPLY.  

YE● alleged before, and now again do affirm, that we have mistaken your Interpretation of the old Covenant, as if it had been given out judicially by you, and, as if ye had intended to enforce it upon others. To free yourselves of this imputation, ye said in your first Answer, that ye intended only To make known your own meaning according to the mind our Reformers, and in charity to recommend it to others. Hence we inferred in our Reply, that ye ought nor to obtrude your Interpretation upon us, nor molest any man for not receiving the same. To this now ye say in your second Answer; Although you neither use threatenings, nor obtrude your Interpretation upon us, yet we must pardon you, if ye match us not with the greatest part of this Kingdom, in whose name, by all fair means ye recommend it to us. Truly, Brethren, we are not offended with you, for preferring the judgement of so many, to our judgement, who are but few in number: neither need ye to crave pardon of us for this. But concerning these fair means, and that force of reason whereby, ye say, ye recommend your Interpretation of the old Covenant to us, pardon us, if the experience we have, both of your writings and proceedings, make us to oppose this your assertion. For in your writings we expected indeed, but have not found that force of reason, whereof ye speak: and as for the proceedings of those who have subscrived your Covenant, we of all men have least reason to believe that they use no threatenings, seeing we hear daily so much their threatenings against ourselves.  
2. Whereas for clearing of that which ye said before, concerning the mind of our reformers, ye affirm, that The authoritative judgement of our reformers is evident, not only by the confession of Faith ratified in Parliament, but also by the books of Discipline, Acts of General Assemblies, and by their own writes: First, we marvel, how ye can say, that the private writings of Master Knox, and others, who with him were instruments of that great work of Reformation, have public Authority to obliedge the Subjects of this Kingdom. The legislative, and obligatory power of the Church, is only in Synods or conventions of Bishops and Presbyters, and not in particular persons expressing their minds apart. Next, this Church in the former age, by abrogating the office of Superintendants, established in the first book of Discipline, hath declared, that the statutes and ordinances contained in those books, are not of an authority perpetually obligatory, but may be altered or abrogated by the Church, according to the exigency of tyme. The same likewise is manifest by the abrogation of summary excommunication, which this Church did abolish, although it was established in General Assemblies, wherein Master Knox, and other Reformers were present. We need not to insist much in this, seeing so many of you, who are Subscribents, misregard the ordinances of our Reformers, prefixed to the Psalm Book, concerning the office of Superintendants, or Bishops, Funeral Sermons, and set forms of Prayer, which they appointed, to be publicly read in the Church. Hence the Reader may perceive, that ye have no warrant for your Interpretation of the old Covenant, from the authoritative, and obligatory judgement, of the Reformers; seeing ye can not ground it upon the Confession of Faith ratified in Parliament. As for those other means mentioned by us, to wit, Scripture, Antiquity, and consent of the reform Churches, that they truly make for us, and against you, the unpartial Reader may perceive by these our Disputs.   

Whether or not Episcopacy and Pearth Articles, be abjured in the late Covenant.  
3. As for the second mistaking mentioned by you in your Answer, we did show in our Reply, that in your Covenant, Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, are abjured. And for proving of this, we asked of you, what ye meaned by the recovery and liberty of the Gospel, as it was established and professed before the foresaid Novations? and what is that period of time, to which your words there have reference? that is, Whether it be that period of time, when the Service Book, and Book of Canons, were urged upon you? or if it be the time, when Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, were received in this Church? But, truly, your Answer to this, is nowise satisfactory, nor hath so much as a show of satisfaction. For ye are afraid to express that period of time, lest ye beforced to grant, that which we before objected. And yet your speech bewrayeth you: For seeing ye answer only to that which we said concerning the last of these two periods, we collect, that by the recovery of the liberty and purity of the Gospel, as it was established before the foresaid Novations, ye mean the reducing of the Policy of this Church, unto that estate in which it was, before Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, were established. And hence we infer, as we did before, that in that part of your Covenant, ye condemn and abjure Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, as contrary to the Purity and Liberty of the Gospel.  
4. Ye seem to answer, that in that part of your Covenant, ye condemn not, Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, but those abuses & corruptions, which have accompanied them; such as the Superstitious observing of days, cessation from work on those days, Feasting, Guysing, and the gross abuses, which have entered in the Sacrament, upon kneeling before the Elements: and, that in respect of these abuses, we who allow Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, may swear without prejudice of our cause, to recover the Purity and Liberty of the Gospel, as it was established, and professed, before these Novations.  
5. But, first, let any indifferent, or unpartial man, who knoweth the state of our Church, judge, whether or not it be likely, that your Vow, of the recovering the Liberty and Purity of the Gospel, as it was before Episcopacy, and Pearth Articles, were introduced, importeth only an intention of removing of the consequents of Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, and not of the removing of those things themselves? Truly we are persuaded, that they who know the state of this Church, and your mind, concerning these things, will think this your Gloss of your own words, to be violent, and excogitated for eluding our Argument.  
6. Secondly: Who can think, that ye, and others, contryvers of the late Covenant, who condemn P●arth Articles, and Episcopacy, as much as ye do the consequents of them, have only vowed, to remove their consequents, and not remove themselves?  
7. Thirdly, is it possible, that any can promise and vow, to labour for the curing of so many, and so great pretended diseases of this Church, (we mean these abuses which ye say, have accompanied Pearth Articles and Episcopacy,) and in the mean time promise, and intent nothing concerning the removing of the causes of them?  
8. Fourthly, how can we, without great prejudice of our cause, acknowledge, that these gross abuses mentioned by you, have entered in the Sacrament, by kneeling before the Elements (ye should have said at the receiving of the Elements) for seeing kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament, is confessed by us to be a matter indifferent; if in our Oath, we acknowledge these gross abuses to have entered in upon kneeling, it will probably follow in the judgement of some, and in our judgement, who recommend this Oath unto us, it will follow infallibly, that kneeling for the evil consequences thereof, aught to be removed. Do ye not here cunningly deal with us? For although ye urge us not, as ye say, to swear and promise the removing of kneeling, yet ye urge us, by your own confession, to promise the removing of these abuses occasioned by kneeling: which being acknowledged by us, ye will then take upon you to demonstrate, that kneeling itself aught to be removed: for ye hold it for a Maxim, that things indifferent, being abused and polluted with Superstition, should be abolished. We cannot sufficiently marvel, how ye who are of this mind, can say to us, that we who allow Pearth Articles and Episcopacy, may swear to recover the liberty and purity of the Gospel, as it was before, etc. For ye mean, that we may do so, without prejudice of our cause. But we have already shown, that according to your judgement and doctrine, if we swear that which ye would have us to swear, our cause shall be much prejudged, yea, utterly lost.  
9 Fiftly: How can we swear, to remove those gross abuses entered in upon kneeling, as ye allege; seeing we think, that no such abuses have entered in upon it? Yea, our People, try them who please, will show, that they are as free from all erroneous conceits, concerning that holy Sacrament, as any living in these Congregations where kneeling is daily cried down.  
10. sixthly, as for these abuses and corruptions, reckoned up by you, as the consequents of the observation of Festival days▪ to pass by that which before we marked concerning Kneeling, to wit, that the granting of this were a great prejudice to our cause, some of these are not abuses at all, as, cessation from work. Again, some of them have not come in upon the observation of the Articles of Pearth, as Guysing, and Feasting, (ye mean excessive Feasting, for otherwise it is not an abuse) which only fall forth on Christmas festivity. For sure we are, that these abuses have not come by the anniversary commemoration of CHRIST'S Nativity, in the which by the ordinance of Pearth Assembly, all Superstitions observation, and Profanation of that day, or any other day, is prohibited, and apppointed to be rebuked. This the reverend and learned Bishop of Edinburgh, in his defence of the Act of Pearth Assembly, concerning Festivities, Pag. 63. proveth, because (sayeth he) we have lacked preaching upon Christmasday, these fifty seven years bygone, in our Church, yet Riot, profaneness, Surfeit, and Drunkenness, have not been wanting.  
11. Seventhly, as for Superstitious observation of days, (whereof hitherto we have had no experience) we marvel, that ye can reckon it, amongst the consequents of the observation of days: seeing in your judgement, it is all one with the observation of days. For ye think the observation of any day, except the LORDS Day, to be, in the own nature of it, Superstitious, and Will-worship.  
12. As for the last part of your Answer to our Argument, concerning the foresaid period of time; where ye allege, that many corruptions of Popish and Arminian doctrine, have entered in the Kirke, etc. we ask you, Whether ye design here another period of time, than ye did before? or if ye design only this self same period of time, in the which both the foresaid practical abuses, and these Doctrinal corruptions, have entered into this Church, accompanying, as ye allege, Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy?) Or, last of all, If ye design no period of time at all? If ye take you to this last, professing, that ye have here designed no period of time; than ye answer not our Argument, wherein we particularly, and expressly posed you, concerning that period of time, unto which your words cited oft before, have reference. If ye design the same period of time, then look how ye can escape our preceding Arguments, concerning that period of time.  
13. But if ye design an other period of time, than we ask you, Whether it be prior or posterior, to the period of time already mentioned; to wit, the time preceding the bringing in of the Articles of Pearth? Ye can not say, that it is posterior to it: for ye complained of Arminian corruptions, even before Pearth Assembly; branding some of the most learned of our Church, with that Aspersion. And of Popish corruptions of Doctrine, ye complained, when Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy were established. For the Doctrines, of the lawfulness and expediency of these things, are, in your judgement, merely Popish, and Antichristian. Neither can ye say, that it is prior to the foresaid period of time: for the time preceding the inbringing of Pearth Articles, comprehendeth all that tract of time which interveened betwixt the Reformation, and Pearth Assembly.  
14. But we will yet more evidently convince you, by two other Arguments, drawn from that part of your Covenant, of which we are now speaking, and from the words of this your Answer to our fourth Reply; for first in your Covenant ye promise, and also will have us to promise with you, To forbear for a time, the practice of Pearth Articles, until they be tried, as ye say, in a free Assembly. But this forbearance importeth a manifest prejudice, and wronging of our cause: for this is a fore-acknowledgement, either of the unlawfulness, or else of the inexpediency of the matters, concluded in Pearth Assembly. For wherefore ought we in this exigence of the Church, to forbear the practice of Pearth Articles, rather than of other Rites of the Church, except for some greater evil comprehended in them? This will appear more evident, if we shall consider the reason alleged by you, Pag. 17, wherefore we ought now to forbear the practice of these Articles: to wit, because in the case of Scandal, and sensible fear of Superstition, we ought to do so. Now this case of Scandal is not in your judgement, a temporary, but a perpetual consequent of Pearth Articles. For ye think it will ever Scandalise the Papists, as if we were approaching to them: Likewise ye think every one of them, and especially Kneeling, to be inductive to sin, ex conditione operis, by the very nature and quality of the work itself. Whence it followeth, that they are necessarily and immutably scandalous; for whatsoever agreeth to any thing, in respect of the nature of it, it agreeth necessarily and immutably. If therefore we in this respect, swear the forbearance of Pearth Articles, we shall be holden to forbear Pearth Articles, not for a time, but for ever.  
15. Next, we pray you consider, what is meaned by the foresaid Novations, in that part of your Covenant, wherein ye promise to labour to recover the liberty and purity of the Gospel, as it was before the foresaid Novations. Certainly these words cannot be understood of Novations to be introduced, and which have not as yet entered unto our Church. For the liberty and purity of the Church is not as yet lost, yea, not impaired by them, and so needeth not to be recovered by the removing of them. They must then be understood of the Novations mentioned in the Parenthesis of your Covenant; that, is of all innovations already introduced by Authority, and their alleged consequents, which ye promise to forbear, until they be allowed, and tried by a free Assembly. Hence any man may conclude, that although in your Parenthesis, ye promise only to forbear these Novations for a time, yet in the words immediately following, ye condemn and abjure them. For the recovering of the liberty and purity of the Gospel, as it was established before the foresaid Novations, importeth manifestly a removing of all these Novations, which either in themselves, or in respect of their consequents, are contrary to the purity and liberty of the Gospel. But all Novations already introduced, are in your judgement of this kind, and therefore your vow, of the recovering the liberty and purity of the Gospel, importeth a removing of all the foresaid Novations.  
16. To conclude this Argument: Ye may see, that we have pried no more narrowly into the expressions of your Covenant, than we had reason; and have laboured, not to scare ourselves, and others, with mere shadows, as ye affirm.   

Of our Argument, Ad hominem, and the weak Retorsion of it, by the Answers.  
17. Now we come to our Argument, or Syllogism, Ad hominem, which hath so pinched you, that ye have not attempted to answers to any of the propositions of it. Our intention in that Argument, was to prove, that whether Pearth Articles be abjured in the late Covenant, or not; yet ye [who came hither, to give us satisfaction concerning the Covenant] can not, with a safe conscience, aver, or declare to us, that they are not abjured in it. This we did evidently prove, reasoning thus: Whatsoever Rites are abjured in the old Covenant, they are also, in your judgement, abjured in the late Covenant. But Pearth Articles, and Episcopocie, are, in your judgement, abjured in the old Covenant: Ergo, they are, in your judgement, abjured in the late Covenant: and, consequently, if ye deal sincerely with us, ye must aver, that they are also abjured in the late Covenant.  
18. To this ye say, first, that whatsoever be your judgement, as ye are particular persons, yet, at this time, ye were to be taken, as Commissioners from the whole company of Subscrivers. Truly we did take you so; and did think, that ye who were Commissioners from such a multitude of good Christians, would have told us your mind sincerely, concerning the full extent of the late Covenant; and, that ye would neither have affirmed any thing as Commissioners, which ye do not think to be true, as ye are particular persons; nor yet would have laboured, so to ensnare us, as to have bidden us subscrive a Covenant, really, and indeed, in your judgement, abjuring those things, which we, with a safe conscience, can not abjure. For, in your judgement, Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, are most really abjured in the late Covenant, although ye plainly affirm the contrary, in your Answers to our fourth, fifth, and sixth Demand. And (which is much to be noted) in your Answers to our tenth Demand, ye affirm, concerning yourselves, that ye, in this late Covenant, have promised only forbearance of Pearth Articles. We wonder much, how ye can say so. For whosoever by their Oath have tied themselves to a Confession, in the which they firmly believe Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, to be abjured, those have indeed abjured Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy. But ye in the late Covenant, have tied yourselves by your Oath, to the little Confession, or old Covenant, in the which ye firmly believe, Episcopacy, and Pearth Articles, to be abjured: Ergo, in your late Covenant ye have abjured Pearth Articles, & Episcopacy: And not only ye, but all those who are of that same mind with you. Whence we inferred, in that tenth Demand, that none of you can vote freely in the intended Assembly, concerning Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy.  
19 Secondly, ye say, that if others of the subscribents, who are of our judgement, (that is, who are not persuaded that Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, are abjured in the old Covenant,) had come as Commissioners at this time to us, our Argument ad hominem, had been anticipated, because it would not have been pertinent for them. But ye are deceived, for we have ever looked principally to these, who were the first contryvers of the late Covenant, or had special hand in it, that is, to yourselves, and to others, who these many years bygone, have opposed Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, as Popish corruptions, abjured in the old Covenant; and consequently have, in this late Covenant, [in the which that former Covenant is renewed] by your own personal Oath, abjured Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy. If then that other sort of Commissioners had come unto us, we would have said to them, that we can not swear the late Covenant, because Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy are in it abjured. And this we would have proved by the like Argument ad hominem, that is, by an Argument grounded upon the judgement of the contrivers of the late Covenant: as ye may easily perceive.  
20. Thirdly, ye say, that we have perceived the insufficiency of our Argument, because we objected this to ourselves: that seeing we think Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, not to be abjured in the old Covenant, we may subscrive the new Covenant, in the which that old Covenant is revewed. Truly ye might have alleged this, if we had propounded that objection, and had left it unanswered. But we answered it, and brought some reasons [which ye wisely did pass by, perceiving the force of them] to show, that we can not conveniently subscrive your late Covenant, notwithstanding of our judgement, of rather opinion of the meaning of the old Covenant. We say opinion: for to speak truly what we think, we doubt, and so do others with us, concerning the meaning of some parts of the old Covenant, touching matters of Ecclesiastical policy, and have not so full a persuasion in our minds concerning those parts, as may be to us a warrant of our Oath.  
21. Fourthly, whereas ye say, that it was not for us to inquire in your private opinion, concerning the meaning of the late Covenant, in that part of it, where it tieth us to the inviolable observation of the old Covenant, no● was it necessary for you, to make it known to us; We answer, that we inquired not your private opinion, but the common judgement of all those, who with you these twenty years bypast, have accused us of Perjury, for the alleged violation of the old Covenant, sworn by our Predecessors. And truly we had more than reason to do so; because we most justly feared, that ye, who have so oft accused us of Perjury, for practising Rites and Ceremonies abjured as ye allege, in the old Covenant, sworn by our Predecessors, would much more vehemently; yea, also with a greater show of probability, accuse us of Perjury, for violation of the old Covenant, sworn and ratified by ourselves in this late Covenant, if we should stand to the defence of Pearth Articles in time to come. It became us therefore, for eschewing of this inconvenient, to inquire of you, and you also sincerely and plainly to declare to us, whether or not we may subscrive and swear the new Covenant, as it includeth and ratifieth the old, and yet be really free from all abjuration, or condemning of Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy? And likewise whether or not ye, and all others who are of your mind, will hold and esteem us free from abjuration of them, notwithstanding of our subscriving of your Covenant. These Questions require a punctual Answer. For if our subscriving of your Covenant, may either import a real abjuration of Pearth Articles, or if it may make you to think, that by virtue of our subscription, we are really, and indeed, bound to reject them for ever; neither can we, with a good conscience, subscrive your Covenant; neither can ye, with a good conscience, require it of us.  
22. Fiftly, from our refusing to subscrive the late Covenant, in so far as it reneweth the old Covenant, or little Confession; because that Confessi● according to your Interpretation, or conception of it, importeth an abjuration of Pearth Articles, ye collect, first, that upon this ground we would not have subscrived the late Confession any time bypast. Secondly, that we can not sweat the Confession of any Church, no, not the Articles of the CREED, Petitions of the LORDS PRAYER, nor Precepts of the ten COMMANDMENTS, in respect of the divers Interpretations, which men give of them. We answer, first, that since the little Confession, is not of Divine Authority, and since the Humane Authority which it had, hath these many years bygone ceased, (as The Peaceable Warning, lately given to the Subjects in Scotland, proveth) we would have refused our Subscription unto it, ever since we heard, that it importeth an Abjuration of all Rites, and Ceremonies, which were not received in our Church in the year 1681; except we had gotten some evidence to the contrary, sufficiently satisfying our minds. Secondly: As for the Creed, LORDS Prayer, and ten Commandments, your Argument taken from the variety of men's Expositions of them, is far from the purpose. For, since we are persuaded, that the Author, or Penmen of them, neither intended, nor yet delivered any thing in them, but Truth: and that their expression is authentic, we are bound to embrace, and receive them, notwithstanding of the variety of Interpretations, which men give of them: neither is it lawful to us, to refuse our Subscription, or assent, to them, whatsoever be the judgement or assent of those who require it of us: being alwise bound to acknowledge the infallible Authority of them, even when we doubt of the true meaning of them. Thirdly: As for any of these later Confessions of Churches, if the case be such, as now it is in this particular of this late Covenant, that is, if we be not bound by any standing Law, to subscrive it, and if it be so liable to the variety of Interpretations, that it may probably import that which we think to be contrary to the Truth, and if these who require our Subscription, be, in our judgement, Opposers of the Truth, in any point contained in that Confession, and may make advantage of our Subscription, alleadgeing, that we are tied by it, to consent to their Doctrines, or Practices: we may justly, in such a case, deny our subscription to that Confession, for the ambiguity of it; and much more may desire those who urge us to subscrive it, to declare unto us, before we give our Subscription, Whether or not, that Confession, in their judgement, will tie us to their Doctrines and Practices.  
23. Last of all: In modesty, as ye say, but with a jesting compliment, ye present unto us, a Dish of our own dressing: ye mean, the like Argument, Ad hominem; which is this: The Rites and Ceremonies which are not abjured in the negative Confession, are not abjured in this late Covenant: But the Rites and Ceremonies, which were concluded in Pearth Assembly, are not abjured, as ye say, in the negative Confession, made Ann 1581.; therefore they are not abjured in this late Covenant. The first Proposition, as ye say, is evident, because in the late Covenant we are bound no farther, concerning the negative Confession, but to keep it inviolable: And therefore, what Rites are not abjured there, are not abjured here. Likewise ye say, that the second Proposition, can no be denied by us, in respect these twenty years bygone, we have thought ourselves free of Perjury, notwithstanding the of Oath made 1581., and of our conforming ourselves to the Ordinance of Pearth. Good Brethren, ye have retorted this Argument very weakly upon us. For, first, we flatly deny the Major of your Syllogism; and withal do repel the confirmation of it. For although Pearth Articles, were not abjured in the late Covenant, in so far as it reneweth the negative Confession; yet they may be, and, as it is already proven, they are abjured in that other part of your late Covenant, where ye vow and promise, To recover the Liberty and Purity of the Gospel, as it was established and professed before the foresaid Novations. Next, as for your Minor, or Second Proposition, we suspend our Judgement of it, until we be better informed and advised: doubting, as we said before concerning the meaning of those parts of the old Covenant, which concern matters of Rite or Ceremony. Neither doth the confirmation of your minor trouble us; for we have thought ourselves free of Perjury these twenty years bygone, not for any certain persuasion which we had, that Pearth Articles are not abjured in the old Covenant; but because we did not personally swear that Covenant, and are not tied to it, by the Oath of those who did subscrive it: which we are ready to demonstrate by irrefragable Arguments. Ye see then your Argument retorted upon us, pierceth us not at all: and the Reader, may perceive that our argument hath been so forcibly thrown upon you, that ye have not taken upon you to answer any part of it. If ye had had evidence of the truth for you, ye would not only have retorted our Argument, but also by answering it punctually, shown, that it straiteth not you: and if ye had been exact resolver's, ye would not have gone about to have satisfied us with a naked Argument in contrarium.  
24. Before we leave this point, that it may be known to all, what reason we have to insist in this our Argument, ad hominem, and that we have proponed it, not to catch advantage of you, but to get satisfaction to our own minds, concerning the Covenant, and your sincerity in urging us to subscrive it, we will collect out of that which hath been already said, some interrogatories, which we pray you to answer punctually, if ye intent to give us satisfaction. The first is, whether or not your declaration of the extent of the late Covenant, to wit, that it extendeth not itself to the abjuration of Pearth Articles, be not only vera, true in itself, but also verax, that is, consonant to your mind, and to the mind of the chief contrivers of it? The reason wherefore we propone this question, ye will perceive by these that follow. Secondly, seeing ye and others the chief recommenders of the old Covenant, have been ever of this mind, that Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, are abjured in it; we ask, whether ye all tying yourselves by this late Covenant, to the inviolable observation of the old Covenant; have tied yourselves to it in all the particular points, which ye conceived to be contained in it, or only in some of them? did ye by mental reservation, except any part of that old Covenant, or in particular did ye except that part of it, in the which perpetual continuance in the doctrine and discipline of this Church is promised? Or if that part was not excepted, did ye put any new gloss upon it which it had not before? And if ye did not, whether or not ye renewing the Oath of perpetual observation, of the doctrine and discipline of this Church, as it was Anno 1581., have not only really, but also according to your own conception of that part of the old Covenant, abjured all Rites and Ceremonies, added to the discipline of this Church, since the foresaid year; and consequently, the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopacy? Thirdly, seeing ye so confidently aver, that Pearth Articles are abjured in the old Covenant, how can ye deny them to be abjured in the new Covenant, except ye acknowledge a substantial difference, betwixt the old and new Covenant? Fourthly, if ye grant that they are really and indeed abjured in the late Covenant, how can ye faithfully and sincerely say to us, or to any other, that they are not abjured in it? Fiftly, how can ye, and all others, (who with you have really, and also according to your own conception of the old Covenant, abjured Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, by renewing of it) voice freely, in the intended Assembly, concerning these▪ things; seeing ye are tied by your Oath, to condemn and abrogate them? Sixtly, How can we concur with you in an Oath, wherein we are infallibly persuaded that ye have abjured Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy? Seventhly, If we concur with you in that Oath, will ye not (as we objected in our Reply, but ye have not answered it) think us bound by our Oath, to condemn Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy? and will not ye think yourselves bound in conscience to tell us, and all others, that which ye think to be truth, and may make much for your cause, to wit, that the words of the Covenant have but one sense, and that in that one sense Pearth Articles are abjured?  
25. Ye, and all others, may now see, how injustly ye said, that we would have the Covenanters, against their intention, and whether they will or not, to disallow, and condemn Pearth Articles, and Episcopal Government, lest they be tried in a free Assembly. GOD knoweth, how far we detest all such dealing, and this vindication of our two Arguments [we added also a third, but ye have swallowed it] brought by us, to prove, that Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, are abjured in your late Covenant, will sufficiently clear us of this imputation, to all unpartial Readers.  
26. We did not only allege, as ye say, that your supplications to his Majesty were fully satisfied by the last Proclamation; but grounding an Argument upon your Answer, to our fourth Demand, we reasoned thus: If in all your supplications, ye have only sought the removing of the Service Book, book of Canons, and new high Commission; not complaining of any other Novations, already introduced: and, seeing his Majesty hath granted this unto you, what reason have ye to say, that his Majesty hath not satisfied your supplications? this our Argument, ye have turned to a mere alleadgeance, lest ye should have troubled yourselves, with answering it.   

Whether, or not, we may forbear the practice of Pearth Articles, until they be tried in a free Assembly.  
27. We come now to the consideration of that, which your Covenant, by your own confession, tieth us to; to wit, The forbearance of Pearth Articles, until they be tried in a free Assembly. And first, whereas ye say, That the urging of the Service Book, is a sufficient reason for forbearance of Pearth Articles, till an Assembly; we profess, that we can not see the equity, and force of this reason. For the Service Book may be holden out, albeit Pearth Articles were not forborn at this time; yea, although they should never be removed. And the more obedient, Subjects were at this time, to his Majesty's laws already established, the greater hope might they have of obtaining their desires.  
28. Ye bring two Arguments, to prove the lawfulness of the forbearance of Novations already introduced. One is, that the Articles of Pearth establishing them, were concluded only for satisfying the KING, and not to press any man with the practice of them: And because the Act itself (ye mean the Act concerning Kneeling) giveth warrant, to forbear the practice of them at this time, when the memory of Superstition is revived. But this reason doth nowise satisfy our consciences. For, to begin with the last part of your Answer; The Memory of Superstitious Celebration of the LORDS Supper, is not renewed in this Kingdom, for aught we know. And, if ye mean, that it is renewed by the Service Book; suppone that were true, yet, ye know, the Service Book is discharged, by the Act of Counsel, at his Majesty's commandment. Secondly, the Act of Pearth, giveth no warrant to forbear Kneeling▪ upon every suspicion or apprehension of Superstition, re-entering unto this Church. Your Argument, which ye brought to prove this, from the narrative of that Act, in your Answer to our ninth Demand, is confuted most plainly by us in our Reply to your Answer: and we shall again speak of it in our Duplye, to your second Answer concerning that Demand.  
29. As for the other two parts of your reason, they are contrary to the very words of the Acts of Pearth Assembly. The first part is contrary to the Narrative of all these Acts, wherein no mention is made of satisfying the KING, but of other motives taken from the expediency, or utility of the matters themselves. The second part is contrary to the tenor of the Decision, or Determination of these Acts: in the which by these formal words, The Assembly thinketh good: the Assembly ordaineth: Kneeling in the celebration of the Sacrament, Festival days, etc. are enjoined.  
30. We hear of a childish, and ridiculous concept of some, who think that these words, The Assembly thinketh good, import not an Ecclesiastic constitution, but a mere advice or Counsel. This apprehension proceedeth from ignorance: for that phrase is most frequently used by Counsels, in their decrees. In that Apostolic Counsel, mentioned Acts 15, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are expressly used, verse 22. 25. 28. In the Counsel of Ancyra, Can. 1. & 2. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used. In that great and first OEcumenick Counsel of Nice, Can. 5. ye have these words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Can. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the third Counsel of Carthage, Can. 1. 2. and 3. the word placuit is used, & in codice Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae Gr●co Latino, passim habetur vox Placuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Decrees of the Apostolic Counsel were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 16. 4. Yea, also the civil Decree of Caesar Augustus, Luke 2. verse 1. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, edictum, placitum. And in the Civil Law, the Constitutions of Emperors, are called Principum placita, Instit. de jure naturali, §. 6. & 9 Quod Principi placuit, Legis habet vigorem, sayeth Ulpianus, ff. de Constit. Principum, Lege 1: Where Quod Principi placuit, signifieth as much, as Quod Princeps constituit.  
31. Your other reason, [which ye bring to prove the lawfulness of the forbearance of Pearth Articles] is, that it is lawful to swear the forbearance of a thing indifferent, in the case of scandal, and sensible fear of superstition, in others. Yea, ye think, that by doing so, ye have sworn obedience to the commandment of GOD, which forbiddeth the doing of that whereby others may be scandalised. This reason moveth us no more than the first: for, as for your fear of farther superstition, it is now groundless, and causeless, in respect of the gracious promises contained in his Majesty's Proclamation. But although it were a fear justly conceived, and although the eschewing of an Evil justly feared, be a thing good and desirable; yet we ought not▪ for the eschewing of it, disobey the lawful commandments of our Superioures. For this were to do Evil, that good might come of it; which the Apostle condemneth, Rom. 3. verse 8.   

Of Scandal; and whether or not we may deny obedience to the Laws of our Superiors, for fear of scandal causelessly taken?  
32. As for that other motive of scandal, for which ye allege, that we who think the matters concluded in Pearth Assembly, to be indifferent, and lawful, may swear the forbearance of them; we pray you, tell us, what kind of scandal it is, which, as ye allege, is taken at the practice of Pearth Articles? Ye know, that passive scandal, is either procured by the enormity or irregularity of the fact itself, [to wit, when either it is a sin, or else hath a manifest show of sin] or else it is not procured, but causelessly taken by some, either through malice, or else through weakness. Now, which of these two sorts of scandal would ye have us to acknowledge, in the practice of Pearth Articles? If the first, than ye would have us to condemn Pearth Articles, before they be tried in a free Assembly: which is contrary to your protestation, and no less contrary to our resolution. For, if we acknowledge any enormity in the practice of Pearth Articles, ex ipsa conditione operis, we shall be holden to condemn them, and abstain from them for ever.  
33. If ye will have us to acknowledge, that the scandal following upon the practice of Pearth Articles, is of the second sort, that is, is causelessly taken; and▪ that for such a scandal, whether it be taken through weakness, or malice, we ought to abstain from the doing of a thing indifferent, although it be enjoined by a lawful Authority▪ (for ye generally affirm, that all things, which are not necessary, and directly commanded by GOD himself, aught to be omitted, for any scandal whatsoever, although it be causelessly, yea, and most maliciously taken, and that notwithstanding of any humane precept, or law, enjoining them. See the Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies, Part. 2. Cap. 8. Sect. 5. & 6. Item Cap 9 Sect. 10.) then we protest, that we differ so far from you in this point, that we think, that for no scandal, causelessly taken, can we swear such a forbearance of Pearth Articles, as ye would have us. And we marvel from whence ye have learned this strange, and most haske doctrine, that for scandal, causelessly, yea, maliciously taken, a man may totally, and absolutely, deny obedience, to the laws of Superioures.  
34. The Author of the dispute even now cited, allegeth for his opinion, some Schoolmen, acknowledging the truth of it: and he nameth Cajetane, and Bennez, who (sayeth he) affirm, that we should abstain, even à spiritualibus non necessariis, when scandal ariseth out of them. He might have cited for this tenet, Thomas, and all his interpreters, [even although he had been but slenderly acquaint with them] as well as these two: for they all do say so. But truly he much mistaketh them, when he allegeth them for his opinion. For, first, none of them▪ ever taught, that we ought to abstain totally and altogether, from any spiritual duty for the scandal, either of the weak, or malicious. Secondly, when Thomas and others following him, say, That bona spiritualia non necessaria sunt dimittenda propter scandalum, they speak directly the eyes quae sunt sub concilio non vero sub praecepto, of matters of Council, and not commanded by any Authority, divine or humane: and the most which they say of them, is, that such things sunt interdum occultanda, vel ad tempus differenda, that is, may at some times, and in some places, be omitted, for eschewing the scandal of the weak. Thirdly, the most accurate Casuists, and interpreters of Thomas, differ much about this question, Whether or not, things that are commanded by positive Laws, Civil, and Ecclesiastical, may be omitted at any time, for eschewing Scandalum pusillorum, the scandal of the weak. Dyverse of them deny this, to wit, Navarrus, in Manual. Cap. 14. § 44. Vasquez, Tom. 5. Tract. de scandalo, dubio primo, §. 5. Becanus in summa Theologiae, Part. 2. Tom. posteriori, Tract. 1. Cap. 27. Quaest 5. Ferdin. de Castro Palao in opere morali, Tract. 6. Disp. 6. Punct. 16. Duvallius, in 2am. 2ae. D. Thomae, Tract. de Charitate, Quaest 19 Art. 5. And for their judgement they cite Thomas, Durandus, Almainus, Anton. Florent. and many others. Fourthly: Those of them who think, that things commanded by humane Laws, may be omitted in the case of scandal, admit not as ye do, such an omission of the thing commanded in the case of scandal, as is conjoined with a flat disclaiming of the Authority of the Law. For they tell us, that we ought not, for any scandal of the weak, deny obedience to the Precepts, or Laws, of our superioures, whensoever all other circumstances being considered, we are tied, or obliedged, to the obedience of them. The omission, then, of the thing commanded, which they allow, is only a partial and occasional forbearance, and not a total abstinence from obedience, or disclaiming the Authority of the Law. See Valentia, Tom. 3. Disp. 3. Quaest 18. Punct. 4. & Suarez. de triplici Virtute, Tract. 3. Disp. 10. Sect. 3. §. 9  
35. But the forbearance of Pearth Articles, which ye require of us, is conjoined with a flat disclaiming of the Authority of all the Laws which established them. And ye will have us to forbear these Articles, at this time, when all the particular circumstances, which we ought to regard, being considered, we are tied to obedience of them, especially, if we look to the will and mind of the Lawgivers, and of our present Superioures. We justly say, that you will have us to disclaim, altogether, the Authority of these Laws. For whosoever resolve and determine, not to practise Pearth Articles, until they be tried in a new Assembly, & established by a new Parliament; these are purposed, never to obey them, except they be tied by new Laws and Acts, concluded in a new Assembly, and Parliament: And, consequently, are resolved, never to regard and obey the laws or Acts of Pearth Assembly, and the Parliament 1621., which established these things. But so it is, ye would have us to resolve, yea, to promise, and swear, not to practise Pearth Articles, until they be tried in a new assembly, and established by a new Parliament: Ergo, ye would have us to promise, not to practise Pearth Articles, except we be tied, or obliedged, by new Laws, to practise them: and, consequently, would have us, never to regard, or obey, the Acts of Pearth Assembly, and Parliament 1621.  
36. This kind of forbearance, to wit, which is conjoined with a plain disclaiming of the authority of the Laws made by our Superiors, can not be excused with your pretence of scandal causelessly taken. This we prove: First, by a position granted by yourselves, and so evidently true, that no man can deny it. The Author of the Dispute, against English Popish Ceremonies, Part. 1. Cap. 4. Sect. 4. sayeth, That it were Scandal, not to obey the Laws of the Church, when they prescrive things necessary, or expedient for the eschewing of Scandal: And, that it were contempt, to refuse obedience to the Laws of the Church, when we are not certainly persuaded, of the unlawfulness or inexpediency of things commanded. Now, if such a refusing of obedience, be both a Contempt, and a Scandal, it followeth manifestly, that no man for eschewing of Scandal causelessly taken, ought in such a case to refuse obedience. Hence we reason thus: whosoever are not persuaded of the unlawfulness or inexpediency, of the things commanded by their Superiors; and on the contrare think them to be expedient ad vitandum Scandalum; these ought not for eschewing of Scandal, refuse obedience to the Laws and ordinances of their Superiors. But so it is, we are neither persuaded of the unlawfulness, nor of the inexpediency of Pearth Articles: yea, on the contrary, we think that the Acts of Pearth Assembly, enjoineth things very expedient for eschewing of Scandal: Ergo, we ought not for eschewing of Scandal causelessly taken, to refuse obedience to them. The Major of this our first Argument, is already proven. The Minor is conform to the light of our own consciences, as GOD knoweth: and therefore so long as we are of this mind, we can not deny obedience to the ordinances of our Superiors, for any fear of Scandal causelessly taken.  
37. Secondly, that which may be removed by information or instruction, can not be warrant to us, of a total abstinence from the obedience of Laws, or, which is all one, of an avowed disclaiming of the Authority of them. But the Scandal of the weak, taken by the practice of Pearth Articles, may be removed by information, or instruction: Ergo, it can not be a warrant to us, of a total disclaiming of the Authority of the Laws, whereby these Articles were established.  
38. Thirdly: If for scandals taken, especially by the malicious, we may disclaim the Authority of a Law, than we may ever disclaim the Authority of all Laws, of the Church or Estate. For there is nothing commanded by Laws, but some either through weakness, or through malice, may take offence at it.  
39 Fourthly, we ought not for eschewing scandal causelessly taken, to injure or offend any man, by denying to him, that which is due to him, and therefore we ought not, for eschewing scandal causelessly taken, to offend and injure our superioures, in Church and Policy, by denying to them that obedience which is due to them. The antecedent is clear by many examples. For if a man be excommunicated, shall his Wife, Children, and servants slay his company, and so deny to him these duties which they owe to him, for fear that others be scandalised, by their keeping of company with an excommunicate Person? And if they may not for eschewing of scandal, abstain from these duties, which they owe to a private person, much less may we abstain from that obedience, which we owe to our superioures, having public charges in Church and Policy, for eschewing of scandals causelessly taken by others.  
40. Fiftly, what if the thing commanded, be enjoined by the civil Magistrate, under pain of death, and by Ecclesiastical Authority, under pain of excommunication, shall we for fear of a scandal causelessly taken, which may be removed by information, or for the scandal of the malicious, who will not be informed at all, abstain from the doing of a thing lawful and expedient, enjoined by Authority, and by so doing, incur these most grievous punishments of Death temporal, and spiritual? We believe, that yourselves, who speak most of scandal, would be loath to take such a yoke upon you.  
41. Sixtly, The denying of obedience, to the lawful commandments of our superioures, is forbidden in the fifth Commandment, and consequently it is a sin. Shall we then for a scandal causelessly taken, deny obedience to our superioures, and so incur the guiltiness of sin? Ye commonly answer to this, that the negative part of the fifth Commandment, which forbiddeth the resisting of the power, Rom. 13. verse 2. and in general the denying of obedience to superioures, is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandal taken by others. For if we see, (say ye) that any may, or will take offence, at the doing of that which is commanded by our superioures, we are not holden to obey them: and our denying of obedience to them in such a case, is not forbidden in that Commandment.  
42. But, first, we ask, what warrant ye have to say, that the negative part of the fifth Commandment, is to be understood with the exception of the case of scandal, more than other negative precepts of the second Table? Secondly: As men may take offence, either through weakness, or malice, at our doing of the thing commanded; so they are most ready to stumble at our denying of obedience to the lawful commandments of our superioures: for they will take occasion, by our carriage, to do that, unto which by nature, they are most inclined; to wit, to vilipend Laws, and the Authority of their superioures. Shall we, then, for the eschewing of a scandal causelessly taken, not only refuse to our superioures, the duty of obedience, which they crave of us; but also incur an other scandal, and that a far more perilous one. Thirdly: we have already shown, that the negative part of the fifth Commandment, is not all ways to be understood with the exception of the case of scandal causelessly taken. For, Wives, Children, and Servants, must not deny obedience, and familiar conversation to their Husbands, Parents, and Masters, which are excommunicated, for fear that others, through weakness, or malice, be scandalised thereat. Fourthly: As ye say, that the precept concerning obedience to superioures, is to be understood with the exception of the case of scandal causelessly taken; so we, with far better reason, say, that the precept, of eschewing scandal causelessly taken, is to be understood with the exception of the case of obedience peremptorly required, by our lawful superioures, as we shall show in our next Argument.   

Whether the Precept of Obedience to Superioures, or the Precept of eschewing scandal, be more obligatory?  
43. Last of all: when a man is peremptorly urged by his superioures, to obey their lawful Commandments, and in the mean time feareth, that if he do the thing commanded by them, some, through weakness, shall be scandalised, by his carriage; in this case, he is not only in a difficulty, or straight, betwixt the commandment of Man, and the Commandment of GOD, who forbiddeth us to do that whereby our weak Brother may be offended; but also he seemeth to be in a straight betwixt two of GOD'S Commandments; to wit, betwixt that precept which forbiddeth the doing of any thing, whereby the weak may be scandalised, and that other precept which forbiddeth the resisting of Authority; and telleth us, that whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of GOD. Now, seeing GOD'S Precepts are not repugnant one to another, neither doth GOD by his Laws lay upon us a necessity of sinning, out of all question, in this case, we are fred from the obligation of one of these precepts: and that which doth not so strictly tie us, or is less obligatory, must needs give place to the other, which is of greater obligation. Ye commonly say, that the precept of obedience to humane Authority, must give place to the precept of eschewing scandal, although it be causelessly taken: And, to confirm your Assertion, ye say, that the ordinance of a superior, can not make that fact to be free of scandal, which otherwise would be scandalous; and, that a fact, upon which any scandal followeth, ought not to be done for the commandment of Man. Whence ye collect, that, in such a case, we ought not to regard, or obey the Commandment of our Superiors.  
44. This your Reason can not be good, because we can easily retort the Argument, and say to you, that in such a case we ought not to regard the scandal causelessly taken by our weak Brethren, so far, as to deny simply, and absolutely, Obedience to our Superiors for it: and that because the sin of Disobedience ought to be eschewed and no Scandal of weak brethren causelessly taken, can make that fact, not to be the sin of disobedience, which otherwise, that is, extra casum scandali, would be the sin of disobedience. For it is certain, that (laying aside the case of scandal) to deny obedience to the ordinance of our Superiors, enjoining, and peremptorly requiring of us, things lawful, and expedient, is really the sin of disobedience. Ye will say, that the scandal of weak brethren, may make that Fact, or Omission, not to be disobedience, which otherwise would be disobedience; because we ought not for the Commandment of man, do that whereby our weak brother may be offended: and so the precept of obedience bindeth not, when offence of a weak brother may be feared. On the contrary we say, that the lawful commandment of Superiors, may make that scandal of our weak brethren, not to be imputed unto us, which otherwise would be imputed unto us, as a matter of our guiltiness; because we ought not, for fear of scandal causelessly taken, deny obedience to the lawful Commandments of our Superiors.  
45. Again, ye say, that when scandal of weak brethren may be feared, the precept of Obedience is not obligatory, in respect the thing commanded by our Superiors, although it be in itself lawful, yet it becometh unexpedient, in respect of the Scandal which may follow upon it. Now, (say ye) the ordinances of our Superiors are not obligatory, when the things commanded by them are unexpedient. We, on the contrary, say, that when our Superiors require of us obedience to their lawful commandments, the precept of eschewing scandal, is not obligatory; in respect we ought not, for Scandal causelessly taken, omit necessary duties, which GOD in His Law requireth of us: In which number, we most justly do reckon, The duty of Obedience. which we owe to the lawful Commandments of our Superiors.  
46. As for that which ye say, that when Scandal may be taken at the doing of the thing commanded, than the thing commanded becometh inexpedient, and so ought not to be obeyed; that ye be not more deceived by this error, we pray you mark, that a thing comcomanded by our Superiors, in Church, or Policy, may be two ways inexpedient, to wit, either in respect of some particular Persons, who through weakness or malice do stumble at it, or else in respect of the body in general, because it is contrary to Order, Decency, and Edification. If the thing commanded be inexpedient the first way only, we may indeed, in such a case, for eschewing the scandal of the weak, forbear the practice of the thing commanded hîc, & nunc, in some particular places, and times: providing alwise we do this▪ Without offence of our Superiors, and without the scandal of others▪ who by our forbearance may be made to vilipend the Authority of Laws. But we can not in such a case totally and absolutely, deny obedience to a Law, as we have already proven. Neither is your Argument brought to the contrary valide, in respect we aught more to look to the utility and benefit, which the body of the Church may receive by the thing commanded, and by our obedience to our Superioures, then to the harm which some particular Persons may receive thereby.  
47. If the thing commanded, be in our private judgement inexpedient the second way, we ought not for that to deny obedience to the Laws of the Church; for when the inexpediency of a thing is questionable, and probable Arguments may be brought pro and contrae, concerning the expediency of it, we have sufficient warrant to practise it, if the Church by her public decree hath declared, that she thinketh it expedient. Your error, who are of the contrary mind, is very dangerous, and may prove most pernicious to the Church, for it maketh the Church obnoxious to perpetual Schism, and disconformity in matters of external Policy: in respect men ordinarily are divided in judgement, concerning the expediency of these things Suppon, then, that in a Synod consisting of an hundreth Pastors, threescore of them think this, or that particular Ceremony to be expedient for the good of the Church; and in respect of the plurality of their voices, make an Act to be concluded for the establishing of it, shall the remnant four●y, who are of the contrary judgement, deny obedience to the Act of the Synod, because they are persuaded, that the thing concluded is inexpedient, and shall they by doing so, rend the body of the Church? Truly, if we were all of your mind, we should never have Peace nor Unity in this Church. Ye will say, perhaps, that this our Argument, is Popish, and leadeth men to acquiesce, without trial, or examination, in the decrees of the Church. We answer, that in matters of faith, the truth whereof may be infallibly concluded out of GOD'S word, we ought not, without trial, to acquiesce into the decrees of the Church. And in this respect we descent from the Papists, who ascrive too much to the Authority of counsels, as if their decrees were infallible. But in matters of Policy, if we be certain, that in their own nature they are indifferent, and if the expediency of them only be called in question, seeing no certain conclusion, concerning their expediency, can be infallibly drawn out of GOD'S word, which hath not determined, whether this or that particular Rite be agreeable to order, decency, and edification; we ought to acquiesoe into the decree or constitution of the Church, although it be not of infallible Authority: and that partly because it is impossible, that otherwise we can agree in one conclusion, concerning matters of this nature, and partly, because if we deny obedience to the decrees of the Church in such matters, our disobedience shall prove far more unexpedient, and hurtful to the Church, than our obedience can be.  
48. Seeing, then, whatsoever ye have hitherto said, concerning the question proponed by us, may be easily answered, with a retortion of the Argument, upon yourselves; that we may eschew all such logomachy, we must take some other course, and try which of these two precepts is in itself of greater moment, and obligation: for thence we may collect, which of these two precepts doth obliedge us in the case foresaid; the other giving place to it, and not obliedging us at all, in that case. If ye say, that the precept which forbiddeth us to do that whereby our weak Brother may be scandalised, is in itself more obligatory, or doth more strictly tie us to the obedience of it, as being of greater moment, ye must bring a solid reason for you, which we think ye will hardly find. We know ye say, that the precept concerning Scandal, is more obligatory, and of greater moment; because it concerneth the loss of the soul of a Brother: But this reason is not valide; first, in respect our Brother, if he be scandalised, by our obedience to our superioures, sinneth not by our default, who do obey: for our carriage in giving obedience, is such, as may rather edify our Brother. Secondly: the precept which forbiddeth disobedience, concerneth the loss both of our own souls, and of the souls of others, who may be enticed to that sin, by our denying obedience, to the lawful commandments of our superioures. Thirdly, if that precept of eschewing scandal, causelessly taken, do so strictly obliedge us, when our superioures require obedience of us, it may happen, that a man shall be in an inextricable perplexity, not knowing whether he shall obey, or deny obedience to the commandments of his superioures: in respect he may fear the scandal of the weak, whether he obey, or deny obedience. For, as we said before, many are most ready to be scandalised by our denying obedience to our superioures, in things lawful, and otherwise expedient: and that because we by nature are most unwilling to be kerbed, and to have our liberty restrained, by the laws of our superioures. For this cause (as Calvin judiciously noteth, Instit. Lib. 2. Cap. 8. §. 35.) GOD to allure us to the duty of obedience to our superioures, called all superioures, Parents, in the fifth Commandment.  
49. But we, with good warrant, do aver, that the precept which forbiddeth resisting of the Civil power, and in general the denying of obedience to the lawful commandments of our Superiors, is of greater obligation and moment. And, first, we prove this by an Argument taken from the divers degrees of that care, which we ought to have of the Salvation of others: for this care tieth us to three things; to wit, first, to the doing of that which may be edificative, and may give a good example to all. Secondly, to the eschewing of that which may be scandalous, or an evil example to all; that is, to the eschewing of every thing, which is either sin, or hath a manifest show of sin. Thirdly: to abstain even from that, which although it be lawful, yet it may be, to some particular persons, an occasion of sin. Of these, the first two are most to be regarded, in respect they concern the good of all, which is to be preferred to the good of particular persons. Hence we infer that the precept of obedience to Superiors, which prescriveth an Act edificative to all, because it is an exercise of a most eminent and necessary virtue, is more obligatory, and of greater moment, than the precept of eschewing scandal, causelessly taken, by some particular persons.  
50. Secondly: That the precept of obedience to our superiors, is of greater moment, & consequently more obligatory, than the precept of eschewing scandal, is evident by these reasons which are brought by our Divines, to show wherefore the fifth Commandment, hath the first place in the second Table: to wit, first, because it cometh nearest to the nature of Religion or Piety, commanded in the first Table, whence (as your own Amesius noteth in his Medulla, Lib. 2. Cap. 17. §. 13.) the honouring and obeying of Parents, is called by profane Author's Religion and Piety. Secondly: This precept, is the ground and sinew, (sayeth Pareus, in his Catechetick explication of the fifth precept,) of the obedience which is to be given to all the rest of the precepts, of the second Table. Two reasons are commonly brought of this: one is, that all Societies, oeconomick, Civil and Ecclesiastical, do consist and are conserved, by the submission or subjection of Inferiors to Superiors, which being removed, confusion necessarily followeth. The other is, that the obedience of this precept, maketh way to the obedience of all the rest. For our superiors are set over us, to the end, that they may make us to do our duty to all others. And consequently our obedience to them, is a mean instituted by GOD, to procure our obedience to all the rest of the Precepts of the second Table. Now, would ye know what followeth out of this, let your own Amesius, whose words are more gracious unto you, than ours, tell you it: Seeing (sayeth he, Cap. citato, §. 6.) humane society hath the place of a foundation or ground, in respect of other duties, of justice and Charity, which are commanded in the second Table of the Law: therefore these crimes which directly procure the perturbation, confusion, and eversion of it, are more grievous than the violation of the singular Precepts. Now we subsume: the denying of obedience to Superiors, enjoining such things as in themselves are lawful and expedient, directly procureth the perturbation and confusion of humane society. And therefore it is a crime greater than the violation of other particular precepts of the second Table. For this cause, Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistle ad Novatum, cited before, declaring how much the unity of the Church (which is most frequently marred by the disobedience of Inferiors to their Superiors,) ought to be regarded, sayeth, that Martyrdom suffered for es●hewing of Schism●, is more glorious, than Martyrdom suffered for ●sch●wing▪ Idolatry.  
51. Thirdly: These offices, or duties, which we owe to others by way of Justice, are more strictly obligatory, than these which we owe to them, only by way of charity. And consequently, these precepts which prescrive duties of justice, are of greater obligation, than these which prescrive duties of charity only. But we owe the duty of obedience to our Superiors, by way of Justice, and therefore it is more obligatory, than the duty of eschewing Scandal causelessly taken, which is a duty only of charity. The Major, or first proposition of this Argument, is clear of itself, as being a Maxim not only received by the Scholasticks and Popish Casuists, but also by our Divines. See your own Amesius, in his Medulla, Lib. 2. Cap. 16. §. 58. 59 60. 61. 62. 63. where he not only proponeth this Maxim, but also proveth it by two most evident examples. The Minor is likewise clear: For, first, the duty of obedience, which we owe to the public Laws of the Church and Kingdom, belongeth to that General Justice, which is called justitia legalis. For the legal Justice, as it is in Inferiors, or subjects, it is a virtue inclining them to the obedience of all Laws, made for the benefit of the Commonwealth, as Aristotle declareth in his fifth book of the Ethics, Cap. 1. Secondly: Debitum obedientiae, the debt of obedience, which we owe to our superioures, is not only debitum morale; a debt or duty, unto which we are tied by moral honesty, and GOD'S Commandment, but also debitum legale, or debitum justitiae, (quod viz. fundatur in propriojure alterius) a debt grounded upon the true and proper right, which our superioures have to exact this duty of us; so that they may accuse us of injury, and censure us, if we perform it not. There is a great difference betwixt these two sorts of debt; and the last is far more obligatory, than the first: As for example, a man oweth moneys to the poor, by a moral debt, but to his creditor he oweth them by a legal debt, or debt of justice: and therefore, he is more strictly obliedged to pay his creditor, then to give alms. Suchlike, by moral honesty, and GOD'S precept also, a man oweth to his neighbour, a pious carefulness, to impede sin in him, by admonition, instruction, good example, and by ommission even of things lawful, when he forseeth that his neighbour in respect of his weakness, will be scandalised by them. But his neighbour hath not such a right to exact these things of him, neither can he have action against him, for not performing of them, as our lawful superioures have for our due obedience.   

In what sense the administration of the Sacraments, in private places, was thought indifferent▪ in Pearth Assembly.  
52. In our Reply we professed, that we can not abstain presently from private Baptism, and private communion, being required t● administrate these Sacraments to such persons, as can not come, or be brought to the Church. Hence, first, ye take occasion to object to us, that the state of the question concerning Pearth Articles, is quite altered, in respect we and our associates, did ever before allege the question to be of things indifferent, but now we think them to be so necessary, that although the general Assembly of the Church should discharge them, we behoved still to practise them: We answer, first, that the Assembly of Pearth hath determined nothing, of the indifferency or necessity of these things. Secondly: If any who allowed these Articles, did at that time in their discourses and speeches call them indifferent, they meaned only, that in the celebration of these Sacraments, the circumstances of place and time are things indifferent of their own nature: or, which is all one, that we are not so tied to the administration of them in the Church, and at times appointed for Sermon, but we may celebrate them in private houses, and at other times. But judicious and learned men, even than thought the denying of these Sacraments to persons, who can not come, or be brought to the Church, to be a restraining of the means of grace, altogether unwarrandable by GOD'S word. Whence ye may collect, whether or not they thought it to be unlawful. Thirdly: Ye have no warrant from our Reply, to say, that we would not abstain from private Baptism, and Communion, although our national Assembly should discharge them. For as we are very unwilling to omit any necessary duty of our Calling: so we carry a singular respect to lawful Authority, and to the Peace, and Unity of the Church, abhorring Schism, as the very Pest of the Church. But of this we shall speak hereafter in the thirteenth Duply.  
53, Next, ye say, if we have the same judgement of kneeling, in the receiving of the Communion, and of Festival days, it cometh to pass among us which hath been incident to the Church in former ages, that things have been first brought in as indifferent, then urged as necessary. Certainly, Brethren, none are so guilty of this, as yourselves, and your associates: for ye have now made some things to be esteemed necessary by your followers, which have been accounted indifferent, not only since the Reformation, but these fifteen hundreth years bygone. And in some other things, which the ancient Church did wisely forbid, ye do now make the Liberty of the Gospel to consist. As for us, we stand as we stood before, and do yet think kneeling in the receiving of the Sacrament, and the five Festival days, to be Rites indifferent in their own nature; but indeed very profitable, and edificative, if Pastors would do their duty in making their people sensible, of the lawfulness & expediency of them.  
54. We are of the same judgement concerning Confirmation, which Calvin, writing upon Hebr. 6. 2. acknowledgeth, To have been undoubtedly delivered to the Church by the Apostles: and with the same Author, in the fourth book of his Institut. Cap. 19, §. 14. we wish, that the use of it were again restored: so far are we from that partial dealing with the Articles of Pearth, which ye object unto us. What hath moved our most reverend Prelates, to abstain hitherto from the practising of it, we know not: they can themselves best satisfy you in this point. And we modestly judge, that this omission hath proceeded from weighty and regardable causes. It was sufficient for us, to have a care of our own duties, in our particular stations. But the urging and pressing of that practice upon the Bishops, requireth higher Authority, then ours. In the mean time, ye know the Bishops never disclaimed the Authority of the act of Pearth, concerning Confirmation, or of any other of these Acts, as ye have done, who have been hitherto professed and avowed disobeyers of them all. Wherefore we wish you, hereafter not to bring this omission of the Bishops, in the matter of Confirmation, as an Argument for that forbearance of Pearth Articles, which ye require of us: for there is a great difference betwixt the omission of a duty commanded by a Law, and an avowed, or professed, yea, sworn disobedience of the Law.  
55. Last of all, whereas ye say, that we, by maintaining the necessity of private Baptism and Communion, do condemn the practice of this our Church, from the Reformation, till Pearth Assembly, and put no small guiltiness upon other reformed Churches, who use not private Baptism and Communion at all, but abstain from them as dangerous: we answer, that we have, in all modesty, proponed our own judgement, concerning private Baptism, and private Communion, nominem judica●tes (as Cyprian said of old, in consilio Carthag. in praefat.) nor taking upon us, to censure or condemn the practice either of this Church, in times preceding Pearth Assembly, or of other reformed Churches. We can not indeed deny, but we descent from them: and if this be a condemning of them, we may no less justly say to you, that you condemn the practice and doctrine not only of our Reformers, in the particulars mentioned before in this same Duply, but also of divers reformed Churches, and of the ancient Church, as we declared in our sixth Demand, and shall again speak of it in our sixth Duply.   

A Defence of our Doctrine and Practice, concerning the Celebration of Baptism and the LORDS Supper in private places.  
56. Ye desire us, wisely to consider, whether the desire which our people have of Baptism and Communion, in time of sickness, be not occasioned by prevailing of Popery, and through a superstitious conceit that people have of these Sacraments, as necessary to Salvation. We are loath to come short of you in duties of charity, especially in good wishes; and therefore, we likewise wish you, wisely to consider, whether the neglect of these Sacraments in the time of sickness, which is in many parts of the Kingdom, proceed not from some want of a sufficient knowledge, and due esteem of the fruits of these high and Heavenly Mysteries.  
57 It is well that ye acknowledge, that we minister these Sacraments in private, as necessary only by the necessity of the Commandment of GOD; but withal ye conceive, that our people imagine, or seem to imagine them to be so necessary means, as that God hath tied his grace to them. We desire you to judge charitably of those who are unknown to you; and withal we declare, that neither we do teach our People, nor do they think, for aught we did ever know, that Baptism is so necessary a mean unto Salvation, that without it GOD can not, or will not say any: yea, on the contrary, we are confident, that when Baptism is earnestly sought for, or unfeignedly desired, and yet can not be had, the Prayers of the Parents, and of the Church, are accepted by GOD, in stead of the ordinary mean, the use whereof is hindered, by unavoidable necessity: and so in this we depart from the 
Ambrose in obitum Val●tiniani. See Doctor Field in his 3. book of the Church. Cap. 32.  rigid tenet of Papists. On the other part, we likewise teach, and accordingly our People learn, that Baptism is the ordinary mean of our entrance into the Church, and of our Regeneration; to the use whereof, GOD, by his Commandment, hath tied us.  
58. If the commandment of our Saviour, Matth. 28. 19 Go ye, therefore, and teach all Nations, baptising them, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, tie not Parents to seek Baptism to their Children, and Pastors to administer, when it is sought, then have we no commandment at all, for baptising of Infants, which is an anabaptistical absurdity: But if Parents and Pastors, are tied by this Commandment, than Parents ought to seek Baptism, to their dying Children, not baptised before (for then, or never) and Pastors must accordingly perform that duty then, which is incumbent upon them. This is that which KING james of blessed memory, in a conference at Hampton-court, Pag. 17, reporteth himself, to have answered to a Scotish Minister, while he was in Scotland: The Minister asked, If he thought Baptism so necessary, that if it be omitted, the child should be damned? No, said the KING; but if you being called to baptise the child, though privately, should refuse to come, I think you should be damned.  
59 Ye say, (to avoid the strength of this Argument) that the necessity of the commandment, standeth only for Baptism in public; and, that no precept requireth Baptism, but when it can be had orderly, with all the circumstances thereof: whereof ye say this is one, that it be administered in the presence of that visible Kirk, whereof the Children are to be members. Thus, first, ye condemn as unlawful the administration of Baptism even in the Church, Godfathers, and Godmothers, being present, if the whole Congregation 
Altar Dam mascen, p. 828. and 853. Re-examination of the Assembly of Pearth, pag. 227.  be not present there; and the like doctrine we find in others, also cited on the Margin, which soundeth so harshly in the ears of some of your own adherents, that they can not be persuaded that this is your doctrine. Secondly: the Commandment of CHRIST tying us to Baptism, hath no such addition either of the presence of the Congregation, or yet of the material Kirk. This belongeth but to the solemnity, and not to the necessary lawful use of Baptism. Where GOD hath tied this solemnity to Baptism, ye can not show by holy Scripture: but where GOD hath tied us to Baptism, we have already shown. It is true, solemnities should not be lightly omitted: but the Law sayeth, When evident equity requireth, they may be dispensed with 
In regulis juris in sexto Reg. 42.  for according to that same Law, That which is chief and principal, should not be ruled by that which is accessary, but chose. As for the place of Baptism, we may say of it, as Tertullian sayeth of the time thereof, in the 19 chapter of his Book of Baptism, Every day is the LORDS, every hour, day, and time, is fit for Baptism: it may want of the solemnity, but nothing of the grace. Neither is such a number, as ye require to be present, necessary in this case. Our Saviour hath taught us, Matth. 18. 19 That if two shall agree on Earth, as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them, of his Father which is in Heaven: For sayeth he, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. We beseech you, therefore, Brethren, to take heed, that ye prescribe not to men's consciences, Rites of necessity, without clear warrant from GOD'S word, by which ye will never be able to prove the necessity of this circumstance required by you in Baptism.  
60. The practice of the primitive Church, both in the Apostles times, and thereafter, agreeth with this doctrine and practice of ours. Saint Philip baptised the Eunuch on the way, Acts 8. Anantas' baptised Saul in a private house, Acts 9 Saint Paul baptised the Jailor in his house, Acts 16. If ye answer as others do, that the necessity of the infancy of▪ the Church, excused the want of the presence of a Congregation: we reply, that the same necessity is found in the cases whereof we speak: for as impossible it is for a dying insant, who about midnight is at the last gasp, to enjoy the presence of the congregation, as it was impossible for any of the afore mentioned, the Eunuch, Saul, or the jailer, to have had a Congregation present at their Baptism, yea, more impossible; and why should there not be the same effect, where there is the same reason?  
61. The practice of the ancient Church, in this, is also clear for us. This is manifest from the 76▪ Epistle of S. Cyprian, from the Oration 
Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 40.  of Gregory Nyssen, against them who delayed their Baptism, from S. Basill, in his 13 Homily, which is an exhortation to Baptism, Tom. 1. from Gregory Nazianzen, in his 40. Oration, whose words 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Upon these words, Nicetas his Interpreter, speaketh, thus; Baptismum suscipe quamd●u minime circum te pugnant is qui te baptismi aqua tingere parat, & qui poecuniarum tuarum haeres futurus est. Ille videlicet studiose age●s atque contendens ut ea quae ad vitae exitum necessaria sunt, suppeditet, hoc est, ut te salutari aqua tingat & dominicum corpus impertiat, hic contra ut testamento haeres scribatur.  we have cited upon the margin. Hence although two fet times were appointed, for solemn Baptism, yet the case of necessity was ever excepted. This is clear by the foresaid Testimonies, as also by these following, Sir c●us Epist. 1. cap. 2. Tom. 1. Concil. Gelas. Epist. 9 ad Episcopos Lucani●, Tom. 2. Concil. Conc. Antisiodor. cap. 18. Tom. 2. Conc. Matiscon. 2. cap. 3. Tom. 2. Concil. Conc. Meldens. cap. 48. Conc. Triburiens. cap. 12. Concil. in Palatio Vernis cap. 7. Conc. Wormatiens. cap. 1. Tom. 3. Concil. The learned Causabon, in his 16 exercitation, considering all this, sayeth, Woe to them, that in the administration of this Sacrament, deny their duty to dying Infants, under pretence of I know not what Discipline. To this same purpose the learned Martin Bucer, in the 15 Chapter of his censure of the English Liturgy, considering Baptism of sick Infants privately, sayeth, In this Constitution, all things are hol●ly set down. This same practice also is allowed by Doctor Whitaker, in his Book against Reynolds, Pag. 48.  
62. The Congregation, say ye, whereof the child is to be a member, hath interest in this, and therefore aught to be present, no less then at excommunication, whereby a rotten member is cut off. In this case of necessity, there is no prejudice either to the child, or to the congregation, thorough the want of the congregations presence: for there is no neglect, nor contempt of the congregation in this case, or of any of the members thereof: and the child by Baptism, though privately administered, is engrafted into CHRIST, and so being joined to the head of the Church, becometh also united unto the Church, which is his body. If excommunication require the presence of the whole congregation, because the power of binding and losing, is delivered by CHRIST to every particular Church, or congregation, collectively taken as it is affirmed in the Dispute against the English Popish▪ Ceremonies, Part. 3. Cap. 8. Pag. 182. than it is not alike with Baptism, the power whereof is committed to the Pastors of the Church, Matth. 28. But although that ground be not true, as we think it is not, yet excommunication is done in presence of the People. For this censure may not be inflicted, but only for public offences; and therefore must be public, as the offence is, That others also may fear, 1 Tim. 5. 20. and have no company with the delinquent, that he may be ashamed, 2. Thess. 3. 14. and so your similitude holdeth no●.  
63. As for the administering of the Sacrament of the LORDS Supper, we say it is most profitable, for comforting of the Souls of men, sighting with the terrous of death; and that the case may fall out, wherein they most ardently desire it, and consequently, that Pastors who are the Stewards of GOD'S House, ought not to deny to his Children, so hungering and thirsting in this conflict, that heavenly refreshment: which we are not ashamed, with the ancient Fathers, to call, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Viaticum, though ye seem to condemn this. It is manifest by the writings of the ancient Fathers: justine Martyr, in his 2. Apology: Eusebius, in the 6 Book of his Story, 36. Chapter, and others, that the Sacrament was administered to sick persons privately. The famous OEcumenick Counsel of Nice, in the 13 Canon, and second 
Consilium Nicenum, Can. 13.  part thereof, appointeth the same, or rather confirmeth the ancient Laws thereanent. The like we may see in the 76 Canon, of the fourth Counsel of Carthage. See Balsamon also, upon the 20. Canon of the Counsel of Carthage, where speaking of dying persons, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he sayeth, That the LORDS Supper should be carefully administered unto them; and Baptism, if they be not baptised. Hence Bishop jewel in his Dispute against Hardings, Pag. 32. sayeth, That certain godly persons, both men and women, in time of persecution, or of sickness, or of other necessity, received the Sacrament in their houses, it is not denied. The ancient Fathers also call this Sacrament viaticum, or a provision for our journey. So the Fathers, in the fourth counsel of Carthage, speak, Canon 78. So Gaudentius in his second Treatise on Exodus. So in S. Basill his Liturgy, we find this Prayer, that the participation of these sacred things, may be the viaticum of eternal life. So Concil. Vas. 1. Can. 2. So Paulinus in vita Ambrosii. Whence Causabon, in his answer to the Epistle of Cardinal Perron, Pag. 49. sayeth, The Church of England not only distributeth, the 
Balsamon his words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  mystical bread to the faithful in the public Congregation, but also administrateth to dying persons this viaticum, as the Fathers of the Counsel of Nice, and all Antiquity, call it.  
64. Learned Calvin was of this mind: Many and weighty reasons, sayeth he, Epist. 361. move me to think, that the Communion should not be denied to sick persons. Zepperus, in his first Book of Ecclesiastical policy, and 12. Chapter, hath these words of this matter, One thing remains yet to be resolved, to wit, concerning the communion of sick persons. Albeit some think otherwise, yet it seemeth, that the holy Supper may not, nor ought not, to be denied to them that seek it. For if it was appointed for the confirming of our faith, and increase of our Comunion with Christ; if we ought by the use of it to testify our faith & study of repentance; why should they be deprived of so great a good, who fight with long diseases, or are in danger of their life? When doth Satan labour more strongly to ●hake ●●d brangle our faith, then when we are exercised with bodily diseases? When dó our consciences tremble more, and stand in need, of the most ample corroboration of faith, then when we find that death is knocking at the door, and that we are called to compear before the Tribunal of GOD? Hieronymus Zanchius, is of the same mind. Thus he writeth in an Epistle of his to john Crato, Physician to the Emperor, I have nothing to say of the question proponed by you, but that I subscrive to your judgement, providing this be done when necessity requireth, and it be administered to them, who through sickness, cannot come forth with others in public. For since CHRIST denyeth this to none of his Disciples, how can we refuse it to sick persons, who desire it before they depart hence, and that not out of any superstition, but that their minds may be the more comforted, and raised up? Martin Bucer, in the 22. Chapter of his forementioned censure, considering that part of the Liturgy, wherein the administrating of the Communion to sick persons is sir down, sayeth, Things here commanded, are agreeable enough to holy Scripture: for it availeth not a little, to the comforting of troubled Souls, to receive the Communion of the LORD. Yea, he hath written a particular and most devote Treatise, directing Pastors how to administer the Communion to sick persons: and yet we trust, ye will not call him a Papist, since he was ●o hateful to Papists, that after he was dead, they raised up his bones and burned them. Peter Martyr, writing upon the 10. Chapter of the 1. Epistle to the Corinth. speaking of the LORDS Supper, hath these words, They say it most be given to sick persons: I confess sayeth he, but the mystery may be celebrated before the sick persons. It is to be remarked also, that often times it falleth out, that some persons are affixed to their beds by sickness, for the space of five or six, yea, ten years, or more: And how can we deny the comfort of this holy Sacrament to those all that space, especially when they earnestly long for it?  
65. This doctrine and practice of ours, tendeth not to the contempt of the Sacraments, (as ye would bear upon it) it is plain contrary: for by this practice, we show, how much we reverence the Commandment of GOD, and how highly we esteem of his ordinances, which we so earnestly seek after; whereas on the other parr, the practice of others, leadeth people to the contempt of the Sacraments, because they are moved the reby, to think, that there is no such necessity and efficacy in them, as Scripture, and the consent of Christians, hath ascribed thereunto. As for other abuses, rehearsed by you, as fruits of private Baptism, since you bring no proof for what ye say in this, we oppone our just denial, to your bare and unjust assertion.  
66. Lastly, ye advertise the Reader, that ye think not the material Churches, but the ordinary meetings, necessary to the lawful administration of the Sacraments, lest any should conceive that ye entertain a superstitious conceit of places. We think, ye might have spared this advertisement: for we find, that they who oppugn our doctrine and practice in this point, are so far from being in danger of the extremity mentioned by you, that on the contrary they ●each, 
Altar Dam ma●cen. p. 341. disp. against the English Popish Ceremonies, Part. 3. Cap. 1.  that the Church is a place no more holy, than any other, and that it may be indifferently used to sacred or civil uses: which in our judgement is not agreeable, either to holy Scripture, or to sound Antiquity. See Eusebius in his ecclesiastic History, Lib. 10. cap. 3. Ch●ysost. homil. 36. on the first Epistle to the Corinth. S. Augustine, in his first Book of the city of GOD, cap. 1. Codex Theodasianus, Lib. 9 Titul. 45. the his qui ad Ecclesias confugerunt. Conc. Gangrenes. Can. 21. Sect. 2. Re-examination of the Articles of Pearth. pag. 143.    

The V. DUPLY.  

THe indifferent Reader may perceive, by our former Duply, that your Answer to our first exception, taken from the obedience, due to Authority, and from our judgement, concerning the administration of Baptism, and the LORDS Supper, to dying persons in private places, hath not given satisfaction.  
2. We asked of you, in our fifth Demand, how we can subscrive the negative Confession, as it is propounded by you, without contradicting the positive Confession, approved by Parliament▪ holden A●no 1567., since the positive Confession, chap. 21. declareth, that Rites are changeable, according to the exigency of time, and consequently that no perpetual Law, may or aught to be made of them, and the negative Confession maketh a perpetual Law, concerning the external R●●es of the Church; at least according to your judgement, who urge the subs●riving of this Covenant and Confession upon us? we urged f●r●her in our Reply, that the late Covenant bindeth us to the old Covenant made Anno 1581.; for by your late Covenant, ye profess yourselves bound to keep the fore●aid national Oath (as ye call it) inviolable: and that old Covenant, or Oath, bindeth us to the discipline which was then; and that discipline comprehendeth all the external Rites of it, (as ye have in all your writings professed, especially in that late Book entitled, The dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies: whence in your Sermons, and printed Books, since the Assembly of Pearth, ye have been still accusing us of Perjury.) So from the first, to the last, the la●e Covenant bindeth us to the policy which was then; and consequently, maketh a perpetual Law, concerning the Rites of the Church, as if they were unchangeable.  
3. Your Answer to this Argument, is not sufficient, nor to the purpose. 1. Ye put off, without any Answer, that which we allege out of a Dispute, against the English Popish Ceremonies; and, in stead of answering, wish, that what we have thence, or from any other Treatise of that kind, were keeped to another time. Pardon us, that we wish greater ingenuity, and a more direct Answer. Consider the words of that Treatise before cited, Part. 4. Cap. 8. Sect. 8. No man amongst us can certainly know, that the Discipline meaned and spoken of in the Oath, by those that swear it, comprehendeth not under it those points of Discipline, for which we now contend, and which this Church had in use at the swearing of the Oath. Shall we, then, put the breach of the Oath in a fair hazard? GOD forbid. The same we find to be the judgement of others also, who have opposed the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopal Government. Since, therefore, we desire to be resolved, concerning the right meaning of the negative Confession, lest by it we condradict the positive Confession, approved in Parliament: Had we not reason to propone this difficulty to you, who require our subscription, and came hither, to resolve our Scruples? If ye condemn the judgement of these your Brethren, who were Authors of these Treatises, why do ye not openly profess, that ye, and the rest of the Authors of the late Covenant, disallow it? If ye do approve it, as we have great reason to think ye do, since ye have still opposed the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopacy, and do expressly refer us to those Treatises in your ninth Answer: How do ye not see, that, with a good conscience, ye can not require us, to swear, and subscrive, that which ye know to be contrary to our mind? Remember, we pray you, the words of the former Treatise, in the place before cited, put the case, it were doubtful and questionable, what is meaned by the word Discipline in the Oath; yet pars tutior, the safer way were to be chosen; which is affirmed there to be this: that the points practised by us, are abjured in the negative Confession.  
4. Secondly: whereas ye say, That none of you would refuse to swear the short Confession, because we have expounded some Articles of it contrary to your mind: we reply, that this answer satisfieth not: for you swearing the negative Confession, notwithstanding of the contrary Interpretation of them who differ in judgement from you, showeth not, how the apparent contradiction betwixt it, and the positive Confession, objected by us, is reconciled by you the propounders and urgers of it. Moreover, if we did urge you to subscrive the negative Confession, when in the mean time we were persuaded, that our interpretation of the Articles thereof, were contrary to your judgement; we were bound to labour to inform your judgement, before we did exact your Oath: and, consequently, by the law of Charity and Equity, ye are obliedged, not to require our Oath, till first ye do that, which is sufficient, to make our judgement conform to yours: which as yet ye have not done.  
5. Thirdly: ye say, your desire is, that both of us keep our meaning of the negative Confession, according to our divers measures of light, and only promise forbearance: which, ye say, we may do, because that we think the points controverted, to be indifferent: we answer, that ye still flee the point in question: for it is another thing for us, to keep our meanings, and another thing for us, to swear a Covenant, when we are not persuaded of the truth thereof. Ye might, and may still enjoy your meaning for us: but how we can keep our meaning, and subscrive your Covenant, we see not; since we think the one repugnant to the other. Neither is it forbearance only that is required, as we have shown before; nor yet can we swear forbearance, the Law standing still in vigour, and Authority requiring obedience. Last: we think not all the points controverted, to be indifferent, as was before declared.  
6. Thus it may appear, how ye have dealt with our Sorites, as ye call it. The like dealing we find anent our Dilemma; the horns whereof, (as ye speak) ye labour to turn against ourselves, by ask. To which of the members of the distinction, we refer Pearth Articles and Episcopacy? If say ye, they were abjured in the negative Confession, we are perjured for the practising of them: and if left indifferent▪ by that Confession, we may, notwithstanding of that Confession, forbear the practice of them. First, Your Question is not pertinent: For the distinction is not ours, but yours. And to what purpose is it to you, to know, to what member of your distinction, we refer the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopacy? Secondly: There is no strength in either of the Horns of your Dilemma: For, by turning it wrong, you have made it your own. The one horn is, That if the Articles of Pearth, and Episcopacy, be left indifferent, by the short Confession, we may forbear the practice of them. First, This meeteth not the horn of our Dilemma, which was, if we be not tied, by the negative Confession, to the ommission of these things; then why have ye, in all your writings against us, exprobrated to us, Perjury, for violating of the Oath contained in that Confession? To this no word by you is answered here. Secondly: Suppone these things were left indifferent by the negative Confession; yet may we not forbear the practice of them: because, since that Confession, Laws have passed on them; which remaining in vigour, require our Obedience as we said before.  
7. The other horn of your Dilemma, is, that if these points were abjured for ever, before Pearth Assembly, than we, who practise them, are perjured. To which we answer, That it followeth not: for we never did swear to that negative Confession. And therefore, though these points were abjured therein, yet are we free from all guiltiness of Perjury. And in the mean time, ye have not resolved, how he who is persuaded, of the lawfulness of those points, can swear the negative Confession, if by it the Swearer be tied, to the abjuring of those points, which was the other part of our Dilemma. Thus if ye will consider rightly, ye may perceive, that, our Dilemma standeth unmoved, with the horns of it still towards you. Ye farther insinuate, that our Reasons, are not solid and grave, but velitations of such a sort as ye looked not for. Let the judicious Reader, pronounce his sentence of this; only we wish, that ye had chosen rather to satisfy, then to contemn our reasons. That which ye here again add, concerning the change of Commissioners▪ is answered in our fourth Duply.  
8. To give light to your former discourse, ye subjoine a distinction of discipline, into three members: First, ye say, it is taken for the rule of Government of the Church, and censure of manners, by office bearers appointed by CHRIST: and thus, ye say, it is unchangeable. Secondly, for constitutions of counsels, and Acts of Parliament, about matters of Religion: And thus, ye say, it is alterable, or constant, according to the nature of particular objects. Thirdly: for the ordering of circumstances, to be observed in all actions, divyne, and humane: and so ye say it is variable. First, by these distinctions, the matter seemeth rather to be obscured, then cleared. For ye do not express, in which of these senses the discipline mentioned in the negative Confession, is to be taken, which was the point required of you.  
9 Secondly: ye seem by this distinction, to entangle yourselves yet more. For, first, if ye take the name of discipline, in any one, or any two of these senses, what say ye to these following words of your dispute against the English Popish ceremmies, Parte 4. cap. 8. Sect. 8. The Bishop doth but needlessly question, what is meaned by the discipline whereof the Oath speaketh. For howsoever in Ecclesiastical use, it signifieth often times, that Policy, which standeth in the censuring of manners; yet in the Oath it must be taken in the largest sense; namely, for the whole Policy of the Church. For, 1. The whole Policy of this Church, did, at that time▪ go under the name of discipline: and those two Books wherein this Policy is contained, were called the Books of discipline. And without all doubt, they who swore the Oath, meaned by discipline, that whole Policy of the Church which is contained in those Books.  
10. Secondly, when that little Confession was framed, the government of the Church was only by Presbyters, and not by Bishops: and, therefore, if ye think, that the name of discipline, in that Confession, comprehendeth under it the first part of your distinction, (which, as we conceive, ye will no● deny) ye may easily perceive, that we are urged by you, to swear, and subscrive against our Consciences; since we think the rule of the government of the Church, which then was to be changeable; and, that the Government was lawfully changed, by following Assemblies, and Parliaments, from Presbyters, to Bishops.  
11. Thirdly: If these Constitutions of Counsels, concerning objects alterable, mentioned in the second member of your distinction, be one, & the same, with ordering of variable circumstances▪ mentioned in the third member; why have ye distinguished the one from the other? But, if they be different, than ye grant, that Ecclesiastic constitutions, may 
See them Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies, part. 3. cap 7. sect. 5.  be made concerning some alterable matters of Religion, which are not bare circumstances; which is repugnant to your ordinary doctrine; whereby ye mantain, that nothing changeable, is left to the determination of the Church, in matters of Religion; but only circumstances of Actions. We can not see, how ye can mantain this doctrine, and yet oppose the determinations of the Church, concerning Ceremonies, which are indifferent.  
12. We had reason to inquire your judgement, concerning Rites or Ceremonies, which are not of divine Institution, whether they be lawful, or not, though ye still shun the declaring of it. Since by your Covenant, ye intent a reformation of Religion, and a recovering of the Liberty and Purity of the Gospel, as ye speak; if ye in your judgement, condemn such Ceremonies, (as ye insinuate) we can not expect, but that, if ye obtain your desires, all such Rites shall be expelled and condemned, especially since by this your late Covenant, ye tie yourselves to that old Covenant, wherein ye disclaim and detest all Rites brought into the Church, without the word of GOD. 
The late Confession of Helvetia, cap. 27 Confession of Bohem. cap. 15. English Confession, art. 15. Confession of Auspurg. art. 15. art. 7. Confession of Wirtemberg. art 35. Confession of Sweveland, cap. 14. Calvin. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 10. §. 30. Oecolampadius Epist. Lib. 4. pag. 818. Zepperus Polit. Eccles. pag. 138. 142. 143. Zanchius, in quartum praeceptum. Melanchton, in many places. etc.  Now, we can not concur with you, for promoving this end, because such a judgement, is plain contrary to ours, yea, contrary to the universal judgement and practice, of the Ancient Kirke, repugnant also to the judgement of the Protestant Churches, and most famous Divines therein, as may appear by the quotations on the margin. But if ye be of the same mind with us, and think, that there are some Rites of that kind lawful, why do you hide your mind from us, and others, since the acknowledgement and manifesting of this Truth, would be no small advancement to your cause, by removing this great offence?   

Of Matrimonial Benediction, and Godfathers in Baptism.  
13. As for solemn blessing of Marriage, we asked, what warrant ye had for it, by precept or practice, set down in GOD'S Word. In your Answer ye insinuate, that it is a blessing of the people commanded in the Law, and more plainly we find this set down in the Dispute, against the English Popish Ceremonies, Part. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. Yet plain it is from Scripture itself, that Matrimonial Benediction, aught to be given by a Pastor, for GOD hath commanded his Ministers to bless his People, (Numb. 6.) First, who ever before you, did ground the necessity of solemn blessing of Marriage upon these words, Numb. 6. 23. Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, saying, on this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them: the LORD bless thee, and keep thee: etc. Learned Melanchton, was not so well versed in Scriptures, as to see this. For he sayeth in his Epistles, Pag. 328. Ye see that the Rite of the Ancients is, that the Bridegroom and Bride, are joined before the Altar, in the sight of GOD, and with the incalling of GOD. Which custom undoubtedly hath been ordained by the first Fathers, that we may consider that this conjunction was appointed by GOD, and is assisted by Him.  
14. Secondly: By this commandment of GOD, to bless the people, Numb. 6. either there is a necessity laid upon the Church, to bless Marriages solemnly, or not. If ye say, there is not a necessity, than there is no Commandment of GOD there-anent, for it is necessary to obey GOD'S Commandment. If ye say, there is a necessity, what say ye then to your friend Didoclave, who in his Altar of Damascus, pag. 866, affirmeth, that neither the presence of the Congregation, nor blessing of the Minister, is necessary to this action? And if ye descent herein from him, ye are holden to prove your opinion, by a necessary consequence from holy Scripture, which we are persuaded ye are not able to do.  
15. Thirdly: the commandment, to bless the people, is no less, if not more general, then that, 1. Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently, and in order: on the which words, both ancient and recent Divynes, do ground the lawfulness of the Ceremonies which we allow.  
16. Fourthly: Since that commandment, of blessing the people, is general, what reason have ye, for not including other civil important Contracts, especially that are performed with a Vow, or promissory Oath? A vow made to GOD, is a Covenant with GOD▪ as well as the Matrimonial Oath. All Vows and Oaths, are Acts of religious Worship, although they be joined to civil Contracts: and, therefore, if because of the Covenant with GOD, ye bless Marriage solemnly, ye ought to do the same, to other civil Contracts, wherein there is the like Covenant, by virtue of an Oath or Vow.  
17. Fiftly: Whereas ye say, that though Marriage were a paction, merely Civil, yet because it is so important, ye would not withhold Ecclesiastic Benediction from it, notwithstanding of the abuse of Popery: we would understand, how this agreeth with the current Doctrine of those that are of your mind: for we read in the Abridgement of Lincoln, pag. 17. that we should cast away even such things, as had a good original, (if they be not still necessary, and commanded of GOD) when once they are known to be defiled with Idolatry, or abused by it. So in the dispute against the English Popish ceremonies, Parte 3. cap. 2. Sect. 2. it is affirmed, that Rites, ancient, lawful, and agreeable to GOD'S Word, should, notwithstanding, necessarily be abolished, because of their superstition, and wicked abuse. Ye add, that ye will not use Marriage superstitiously, according to the prescript of the Service Book. Ye did not find the Service Book, neither in our Demands, nor in our Replies; yet we know not, how ye so often reach unto it.  
18. Last: of the stipulation of Godfathers in Baptism, instanced by us, in our fifth Demand, ye have spoken nothing particularly, either in your first or second Answers. We have no precept, or example 
See Peter Mart. on the 6. chap of the Epistle to the Rom. & Gerardus, in Loc Theolog. Tom. 4.  of it in holy Scripture: yea, some of our learned Divynes affirm, that it was instituted by Pope Higynus: and ye will not deny, that it hath been much abused in Popery. How cometh it to pass, then, that this Ceremony is allowed, and used by some of you? we say, some; for we are informed, that some of your mind, do not use it at all. See D. Morton, in his defence of the three ceremonies, pag. 24.    

The VI DUPLY.  
IN your first Answer to our sixth Demand, ye answered nothing to that, which we affirmed concerning the judgement of Divynes, ancient and modern, who either have absolutely allowed these Rites, which were concluded in Pearth Assembly, or else have thought them tolerable, & such as ought not to make a stir in the Church: neither did ye touch that, which we objected, concerning the venerable custom, and practise of the ancient Church, and the most eminent lights of it, which ye condemn in your interpretation of the negative Confession, contained in the late Covenant. Wherefore, in our Reply to that Answer of yours, we did hold your silence, for a granting of the truth of that which we said, concerning so many Divynes, ancient and modern, who stand for us. Now in your second Answer to that Demand, ye labour to bereave us of this advantage, and granting that Divynes, both ancient and modern, are against you, concerning the lawfulness of things controverted, (a thing to be noted by the Reader, and which should make you more sparing in your speeches of us who favour Pearth Articles, than ye are) ye say, first, that Divines, ancient, and modern, are against us also: and that both these propositions may be true, in respect they are both indefinite in a matter contingent. But our proposition concerning the judgement of Divines who stand for us, was more than indefinite. For albeit we said, not, that all are for us; yet we said, that many, yea, so many; meaning, that a great many are for us, and against you, in matters of lawfulness, and unlawfulness, and, consequently, in matters of faith. This expression of the number, ye were glad to pass by: because ye can not say the like of these, who favour your judgement, concerning the unlawfulness of those things. For, scarce know we any modern Divines, without his Majesty's Dominions, that peremptorly condemn these Rites, as unlawful, which were concluded in Pearth Assembly: and of Ancients, we mean the Fathers of the Ancient Church, we know none at all, who are of your mind. How is it, then, that for these your new positions, ye make such stir, and do take such dangerous courses in hand.  
Secondly: Ye say, that almost all Divines allow of such a forbearance, of things indifferent, as ye require of us. But ye will not be able to make this good: For, who of our Divines, have anywhere allowed, in subjects such a forbearance of things indifferent, and lawful, as is conjoined with a total and sworn disobedience to standing Laws, against the Prohibition of their Superiors.  
Thirdly: That which ye say, concerning Innovations already introduced; to wit, that nothing is required of us, concerning them, but a Forbearance of them for a time; and, that we may condescend to it, without either disobedience to Authority, or wronging of our Flock; it is already refuted, in the two former Duplyes.   

The VII DUPLY.  
OUr Reason proponed in the seventh Demand, is not sufficiently answered, neither the impediment removed, as we have formerly made manifest, especially in our fourth Duply. Whereas, for removing of our scruple, concerning your interpretation of the short Confession, ye tell us, that ye urge not upon us your meaning, but leave us to our own, till the matter be examined in an Assembly: We answer; we love not the swearing of an Oath, without clear interpretation thereof; and we approve not subscription of such a Covenant, with divers, or doubtful meanings: neither do we think that a convenient mean, for solid Pacification. And as we are free, in professing our meaning, concerning the Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy; so we require of you the like plainness, or then the reason of your tetyrednesse.  
2. The Pearth Articles ye do unjustly call Novations, if by this name ye understand, things repugnant to our reformed Religion, or forbidden by our public Laws: for these Articles are not of this sort. Those of them which we call necessary, the Assembly of Pearth did not conclude as indifferent, (as ye allege) neither can any such thing be inferred from the words of the Acts of that Assembly. Therefore, we have no reason to change this opinion, as ye would have us to do. We hold all the five points, to be lawful, and laudable, and some of them more than indifferent, which also the words of the Synod itself do imply: so that, without just reason, it hath pleased you to say, that things formerly indifferent, are become necessary; and what was but lawful before, and had much ado to gain that Reputation, is now become laudable. Thus again, we do plainly declare unto you, that the cause of our unwillingness to subscrive, or promise forbearance, is both the commandment of Authority, and also the necessity and excellency of some of the things commanded: besides that, we think them all lawful, and laudable. What we would do, at the commandment of Authority, in the forbearance of the practice of those things, for the peace of the Church, and Kingdom, shall be declared in our Duply to your thirteenth Answer, wherein ye urge this point again.   

The VIII DUPLY.  
Whereas ye do remit the Reader, to your former Answer, and our Reply; we also remit him thereto, and to our first Duply; hoping that he shall rest satisfied therewith.  
2. We have, in those places, answered your Argument, concerning your swearing, the defence of the KING, and his Authority, with a specification, as ye call it; and have shown, that what hath not been looked to so narrowly, in this matter heretofore, is requisite now, for the reasons expressed in our eight Reply, and first Duply. Concerning the full expression, of the loyalty of your intentions, to mantain the KING'S Person, and honour; whether, or not, ye have given just satisfaction, to those who are nearest to the KING'S Majesty, (as ye say) we refer you, and the Readers, to that, which ye, and they, will find near the end of our first Duply. We wonder greatly, ye should affirm, that we, by craving resolution, do wrong the KING, and ourselves; or that ye, by giving of it, should wrong them who are nearest his Majesty, and also the Covenant, and the subscrivers thereof. For our requiring of resolution, in this matter of so great importance, is a pregnant Argument of our loyalty towards our dread Sovereign, and of our care, to have alwise our own consciences void of offence, towards GOD, and towards Men. And your giving of satisfaction unto us, would have served for farther clearing of your Covenant, and the subscriptions thereof. Your pretence, that by giving us satisfaction, ye should wrong them who are nearest his Majesty, is grounded upon a wrong supposition, as if they had already received satisfaction by your Declaration.  
3. GOD is witness, we do not wittingly and willingly multiply doubts, for hindering a good work, or to oppose against a shining light, (as ye would have the Reader to think of us) but in all humility, and uprightness of heart, do declare our mind, and do intimate our unaffected scruples. And we think it very pertinent, at this time, to crave resolution of them, and to desire your answer, concerning this main duty, which is not fully expressed in your Covenant; whereas a more full expression of it, had been very needful, at this time.  
4. Last: Whereas ye complain, that we took not sufficient notice of you, while ye were amongst us; ye may easily consider, that our public charges, and employments, together with the shortness of the time of your abode here, do sufficiently vindicate us, from any imputation of neglect in that kind: and our doors were not closed, if it had pleased you, in Brotherly kindness, to have visited us: which we ought rather to have expected of you, seeing ye came undesired, to the place of our Stations, to deal with us, and also to deal with our people, against our will, before we had received satisfaction.   

The IX. DUPLY.  

AS ye do refer the Reader, to your former Answers; so do we refer him to our former Replies, and Duplyes.  
2. The meaning of the Act of the Assembly of Pearth, citing the words of the Psalm. 95. is not (as ye do interpret it) any perverting of the Text, neither tendeth it to infer thereupon, absolute necessity of kneeling, in all worshipping of GOD, or in this part of his Worship, in the celebration of the holy Communion: but only to inserr the lawfulness, and commendable decency of kneeling, in divyne worship; and that it is such a gesture, as our lawful superiors may enjoin to be used, in GOD'S worship; and that religious adoration, and kneeling, is to be done to GOD only, although they sin not, who use another gesture, where this is not required by Authority, but another appointed, or permitted.  
3. We do not kneel before the Sacramental Elements, making them the object of our Adoration, either mediate, or immediate: neither doth the Act of Pearth Assembly import any such thing. But all our Adoration, both outward, and inward, is immediately directed to GOD only, with Prayer, and thanksgiving, at the receiving of so great a benefit. Wherefore, your objecting of Idolatry, against us here, and in your other Treatises, is most unjust. We marvel also, how ye do here refer us, to those Treatises, which in your twelfth Answer, ye seem to disclaim, finding fault, that any of us should lay hold on them, or build any thing upon them. As likewise ye here allege, that the Assembly of Pearth made Kneeling necessary in all points of GOD'S Worship; and, consequently, in receiving the holy Eucharist: not remembering, that in your seventh Answer, ye said, the Assembly had concluded the five Articles as indifferent.  
4. Concerning the Service-Book, (which now is not urged) we have already answered. Neither find we any reason, of your uncharitable construction of us, or of the disposition of the people, as if they were now become superstitious. Nor doth this time give any just cause of such fears, as are sufficient to overthrow the reasons of that Act of Pearth Assembly.  
5. We did not in malice, but in love, say, that such a defence as ye profess here, according to your Protestation, and such meetings and conventions do require the KING'S consent, and Authority, to make them lawful, according to our judgement: whereof some reasons we have expressed before in our second Reply, which as yet ye have not satisfied.  
6. It seemeth, that ye are either not able, or not willing, to answer particullarly and plainly, to our interrogatories proponed in our ninth Reply: and we would understand some reason, why ye do so, in such a free and brotherly conference; seeing although ye do otherwise interpret our meaning, yet truly we did not propone them to be snares to you, but to obtain satisfaction to ourselves and others, for a peaceable end. As for your Questions, which ye throw against us, with plain profession to work us discontentment thereby, we shall here make an answer to them in meekness, and evident demonstration of our peaceable disposition.   

Questions Answered.  
7. YOur first Question, concerning the Service-Book, and book of Canons, is nowise pertinently proponed to us. If we did urge upon you the said books of Service and Canons, as ye do now the Covenant upon us, we should particularly and punctualy, declare our mind concerning them.  
8. To your second Question, we answer, that it is our duty to inquire carefully, what is incumbent upon us by the Law of GOD, and man, towards our Prince. We do not move questions of state, but do answer to your propositions, resulting upon matters of state, and we do labour, as it well becometh all good Subjects, to be well informed, before we put our hand to any thing, which concerneth our due obedience to our Prince. As for that which here again ye allege, of his Majesty's Commissioner, and wise Statesmen, as having received satisfaction from you, we refer you, as before, to our Answer made thereto, in our first Duply.  
9 To your third Question, we answer; our assertion concerning the unlawfulness of Subjects their resisting the Authority, of free Monarches, by force of Arms, even although they were enemies to the Truth, and persecuters of the professors thereof, can not in the judgement of any reasonable man, import that we have the least suspicion of our KING, that either he shall change his Religion, or shall fall upon his religious and loyal Subjects with force of Arms. We have often declared in these our Disputs, that we are fully persuaded of our KING'S Majesty's constancy, in profession of the true Religion, and equitable disposition in ministration of Justice. And in testification hereof, we rest satisfied with his Majesty's Proclamation, against which ye have protested.  
10. To your fourth Question, we answer, because that we do esteem subscription to your Covenant, neither to be warrantable by GOD'S word, nor to be a convenient mean for pacification, we hold it our duty, both to withhold our hands from it, and to dehort our people from it.  
11. To your fifth Question, we answer: 1. We hold it a wrong supposition which ye make, that the Prelates and their followers, are labouring to introduce Popery, and to make a faction. 2. We know our gracious KING, to be so just, and so wise, and so ripe in years and experience, that he will no● suffer any of his Subjects, to abuse his Majesty's name, in the execution of any injustice. 3. To make resistance by force of Arms, against the KING'S public standing Laws, and against his Majesty's public Proclamations, is not (in our judgement) a convenient or lawful way, for defending of the Religion, of the Liberties, and Laws of the Kingdom, and of the KING'S Authority; but on the contrary it bringeth scandal upon our profession. See our Reasons in our second Duply.  
12. To your sixth Question, we answer, that in all free Monarchies, there is nothing left to subjects, in the case of persecution, by their own Sovereign Princes, but patient suffering, with Prayers and Tears to GOD, or fleeing from their wrath, as we have at length proved in our second Duply. This doctrine did the people of Alexandria, learn of their holy Bishop Athanasius, as is evident by their own words, in their Protestation, subjoined to the Epistle of Athanasius, ad vitam solitariam agentes. If (say they) it be the commandment of the Emperor, that we be persecuted, we are all ready to suffer Martyrdom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 1. Oper. Athanas. Pag. 868. Edit. Paris. 1627. As for the nature of the Government of this Kingdom of Scotland, read the Book of King JAMES the sixth of blessed memory, entitled, The true Law of free Monarchies, and the Preface of the first Book of Regiam Majestatem; where it is expressly said, of the KING of Scotland, that He hath no Superior, but the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Ruler of all things. This our Answer, neither proceedeth from flattery, neither from any intention, to stir up Princes against their loyal Subjects, nor from any aim at other worldly ends, (as ye do uncharitably judge) but from our due fidelity to our KING, from our true love to our Country, and from our upright desire to the Glory of GOD, and the comfort of our own Souls, in the Day of our Accounts.    

The X. DUPLY.  
ALthough we take you to be of the number of those who penned the late Covenant, yet pardon us, to call your Glosses of it in question, so long as ye do not satisfy our Arguments, which prove them to be contrary to the very words of your Covenant. We have shown, in our Replies, and now again in our fourth Duply, that the words of the Covenant import a perpetual adherance, to the who●e external Policy of the Church, as it was Anno 1581.; and the removing of Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, as of things contrary to the Liberty and Purity of the Gospel. Whence we still infer, that these who have sworn the Covenant, are tied by their Oath, to vote against Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy: and, consequently, can not, without prejudice, either dispute, or give out a decisive sentence concerning them, in the intended Assembly.  
2. Ye say, ye will not judge so uncharitable of us, as to think us so corrupt, that, in our opinion, since the time designed by us, nothing hath entered into the Church▪ beside Episcopacy, and the Articles of Pearth, which can be prejudicial to the liberty and purity of the Gospel. We are glad, that although ye judge uncharitably of us, yet ye judge not so uncharitably: and, although ye think us corrupt, yet ye think us not so corrupt, as not to be sensible of these things. We told you our mind before, in our fourth Duply, concerning these abuses, which ye think to have been occasioned by Pearth Articles: and now we tell you, that if Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, for these their alleged consequents, be altogether removed, the benefit which ye think our Church may receive, by removing of them, shall not, in any measure, equal her great losses.   

The XI. DUPLY.  
We complained in our Demand, of the uncharitableness of your Followers, who calumniate us, as if we were favourers of Popery. And to show how unjust this calumny is, we declared, that we are ready, to swear, and subscrive, our national Confession of Faith, ratified and registrated in Parliament: to which Declaration, we have now added our Oath, which we did swear, when we received the degree of Doctorate in Theology, and have solemnly again renewed it, Pag. 81. 82. In your Answer to that Demand, ye slighted our complaint, and did not so much as once mention it; which made us in our Reply, to complain also of you, who have shown yourselves so unwilling to give us that testimony of our sincerity in professing the Truth, which all who know us, think to be due to us. We expected, that in your second Answer to that Demand, this fault should have been amended. But, contrary to our expectation, we perceive, not only that ye are insensible of the grievous injury done to us, by the calumnious reports of others; but also, that ye have busied your own wits, to inquire, as ye say, in matters, to search, and to try our ways, and to expiscate what ye could against us, by the unfriendly testimony of some, who, perhaps, are displeased with us, as Achab was with M●ca●ah, for the freedom of our admonitions. Charity, ye know, thinketh no evil, 1. Cor. 13. 5. and covereth a multitude of transgressions, Prov. 10. 12. 1. Pet. 4. 8. But uncharitable inquisition, and prying into other men's doings, not only discovereth those infirmities, unto which GOD will have every one of us subject, for humbling of us; but also bringeth even upon good men, a multitude of undeserved Aspersions. Brethren, we intent not to give you a meeting in this; for our resolution is, not to be overcome of evil, but to overcome evil with good, Rom. 12. 21. And we are glad to suffer this for his cause, whose Truth we maintain, pitying in you this great defect of Christian and Brotherly compassion; and praying GOD, not to lay it to your charge. Wherefore, we will not search and try your ways, as ye have done ours: but we will reflect our thoughts upon ourselves, and see whether or not we be guilty of these things, which ye here reprehend in us.  
2. Ye say, first, That we have taken an ample testimony to ourselves. But what, we pray you, have we testified of ourselves; but this only, that in sincere and zealous profession of the Truth, we are not inferior to others; and, according to our measure, have striven to be faithful in all the duties of our Calling? Ye have, indeed, put more into our Apology, and say, that we have praised ourselves, from our frequency of Prayer, extraordinary Humilations, and holiness of Life, and Conversation, etc. For, as ye are loath to speak any good of us; so ye would have the Reader believe, that we speak too much good of ourselves. But in this, as ye wrong us, so ye make the Reader to see, how negligently ye have read and considered our words. For, whereas in the second part of our Reply, we told you, that we have other means, and more effectual, than your Covenant, to use, for holding out of Popery; mentioning in particular, extraordinary Humiliation, frequency of Prayer, amendment of life, diligence in Preaching, and searching the Scriptures, etc. Ye imagine, that we do arrogate to ourselves, some singularity, in using these means; not considering, that it is one thing to say, that we may and aught to use these means, and another thing, to say, that we are singular, and eminent, above others, in the diligent use of them.  
3. Next: Whereas ye say, that ye were desirous, rather to hear that testimony, at the mouths of others, (as if ye had never heard our Pains and Labours, for the Truth, commended by any) who knoweth not, but in this case, in the which we stand for the present, it is lawful, and most expedient to men, to vindicate themselves, and their fidelity in their Callings, from the contempt and calumnies of others. We have in the Scriptures, notable examples of GOD'S dearest Saints, who in such cases, yea, in other cases also, without any derogation, to their singular humility, did fall out into high expressions, of their own virtuous and pious carriage. Who ever spoke so humbly of himself as Paul, who calleth himself less than the least of all Saints, Ephes. 3. 8. & yet elsewhere he sayeth, that he was not a white behind the very chiefest Apostles; and, that he laboured more abundantly than they all, 1. Cor. 15. 10. 2. Cor. 11. 5.  
4. The defects, which by your strict and curious Inquisition, ye think ye have found in us, may be reduced into two points: One is, that we are too sparing in our pains, in Preaching; and, that we often fill our places with Novices. The other is, that the small pains which we have taken, are not fruitful. And, to prove this, ye say, that Popery hath no less increased in our City, under our Ministry, than any time before since the Reformation. As for the first of these, to omit that which modesty will not permit us to speak, either of our own pains in teaching, or of yours, it is very well known, that in the case of sickness, and extraordinary employments in our callings, which but seldom do fall forth to us, it is both lawful, and commendable to see, that our places may be filled, either with some actual Minister, or, failing of that, with able students of Divinity, approven by public Authority, whereof yourselves can not be ignorant, in respect of your frequent Peregrinations, from your Stations.  
5. As for the next point: Although it were true, yet the Parable of the seed sown in divers sorts of ground, and the dolorous complaints, which these most painful and thundering Preachers, Eliah, 1. King. 19 10. Isaiah, 53. 1. Paul Gal. 1. 6. and 3. 1. yea, of CHRIST himself, Matth. 23. 37. and Luke 19 41. 42. made of the hard success of their labours, may learn you to be more benign in your censures of us, than ye are. In the mean time, it is known to his Majesty, to the Lords of secret Counsel, and to all the Country here; as also it is evident, by many public extant Acts of the said secret Counsel, and of our Diocoesian Assemblies, that we have been as diligently exercised, in opposing of Popery, as any Ministers in this Kingdom. Neither hath our success herein been so bad, as ye have given it out: for since our entry to the Ministry here scarce hath any man been diverted from the truth, to Popery; some Papists have been converted, to the profession of the Truth, and others who were incorrigible, have been forced to depart from this Country. Yea, we think, that our success, in dealing with the Papists, had been undoubtedly greater, if they had not been hardened in their Error, by your strange and scandalous Doctrines, repugnant to Scripture, and sound Antiquity.  
6. That which ye say in the second part of your Answer, concerning the powerful effects of your Covenant, meeteth not with that which we did object, concerning the unlawfulness of it. For, that which is not in itself lawful, can never be truly profitable to any. And Solomon hath told us, that their is no wisdom, nor understanding, against the LORD, Prov. 21. 30.  
7. As for the last part of your Answer, we have so often told you that your fear of the inbringing of the Service-Book, and Canons, is causeless: and ye have so oft denied this, that it were folly to weary the Reader any more with this matter. In the mean time, we tell you, that if your Covenant be unlawful in itself, (as we still think it to be) your fear, although it were justly conceived, will never free your Souls of the guiltiness of it.   

The XII. DUPLY.  
TO justify or excuse your omission, of public disallowing and condemning the public disorders, and miscarriages of some who have subscrived the Covenant; especially the offering of violence to Prelates, and Ministers, in time of divine Service, and in the House GOD, whereof we spoke in our twelfth Demand, and Reply: ye answer, first, that ye acknowledge not the Service-Book, for the LORDS Service. Ye might say the same of any Service Book, (If ye allow the Reasons lately set forth in Print against the Service-Book) for there a Prescript form of Prayer, is condemned, which directly crosseth the practice of the universal Church of CHRIST, Ancient, and Recent.  
2. Ye allege, that ye acknowledge not the usurped Authority 
Altar. Da. masc. pag. 120. Disp. against the English Popish Ceremonies, part, 3. cap 8. digress. 1  of Prelates, for lawful Authority. For aught we can perceive, by the Doctrines of those with whom ye join, ye acknowledge no lawful Authority at all in Prelates, above yourselves, and other Ministers: and ye seem so to insinuate so much here, by blaming us, for calling them, Reverend and holy Fathers. We are persuaded of the lawfulness of their Office, and therefore are not ashamed, with Scripture, and Godly Antiquity, to call such as are advanced to this sacred Dignity, Fathers, and Reverend Fathers. Neither should personal faults, alleged by you, hinder our observance, till what is alleged be clearly proven. For, so long as things are doubtful, we should 
Favorabiliores rei potiꝰ quam actores ha bentur. ff. Lib. 50. Reg. 125.  interpret to the better part, Luke 6, 37. And it is a rule of Law, that in a doubtful case, the state of a Possessor, is best; and, consequently, of him that hitherto hath been in a possession of a good name: as also, that in things doubtful, we should rather favour the person accused, then him that accuseth.  
3. If ye be of this same judgement, with us, concerning the lawfulness of their Office, why do ye not reverence them, as well as 
Melan. in an Epistle to Camer. in Concil. Theolog.  we? But if their very Office seem to you unlawful, we esteem your judgement contrary to holy Scripture, to all sound Antiquity, and to the best learned amongst reformed Divines. Hear what Melanchton sayeth, I would to GOD, I would to GOD, it lay in me, not to confirm the Dominion, but to restore the Government of Bishops: for I see what manner of Policy we shall have; the Ecclesiastical Policy being 
Melan. in an Epistle to Camer. in Concil. Theol. pag 90. Quo jure enim licebit nobis dissolvere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiasticam? Si Episcopi nobis concedant illa, quae aequum esse eos concedere? Et ut liceat, certe non expedit. Semper ita sensit ipse Lutherus, quem nulla de causa, quidem ut video, amant, nisi quia beneficio ejus sentiunt se, Episcopos excussisse & adeptos libertatem minime utilem ad posteritatem. So in an Epist. ad Episc. Augusten. Deinde velim hoc tibi persuadeas de me deque multis aliis nos optare ut pace constituta Episcoporum potestas, sit incolumis. Et hanc plurimum prodesse Ecclesiis judicamus▪  dissolved: I do see, that hereafter will grow up, a greater tyranny in the Church, than ever was before. And again, in another Epistle to Camerarius, he sayeth, You will not believe how much I am hated, by those of Noricum, and by others, for the restoring of juridiction to Bishops. So our Companions fight for their own Kingdom, and not for the Kingdom of CHRIST. So in other places. See Bucer, de Regno CHRISTI, Pag. 67.  
4. Thirdly, Ye allege the zeal of the People; by reason whereof ye say, that it was nothing strange, that in such a case, they were stirred up to oppose. Suppone they had opposed, yet, that they should have so opposed, as to have offered violence to sacred Persons, Prelates or Ministers, who are spiritual Fathers, seemeth to us very strange, for all that hitherto ye have said. There is no zeal, without the extraordinary instinct of GOD'S Spirit, which can warrant men destitute of Authority, to lay their hands on such persons. Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm, sayeth the LORD, Psal. 105. Let all things be done decently, and in order, sayeth S. Paul, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  1. Cor. 14. 40. GOD is not the author of confusion or timult, but of peace, sayeth that same Apostle there, verse 33. To this purpose Gregory Nazianzen in his 26 Oration, speaking of the chief causes of division in the Church, sayeth, One of them is unruly, ferventness without reason and knowledge, and that another is, Disorder and undecency, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
5. The Son should account the person of his Father sacred, ff. de obsequiis, Leg. 9 So we ought also to esteem of our spiritual Fathers: and, therefore, to offer injury to their persons, and that, in time of divine Service, must needs be a grievous sin. In the Novel 
Si quis cum sacra mysteria celebrantur, in sanctam Ec clesiam ingredients, Episcopo, aut clericis aut Ministris aliis Ecclesiae injuriam aliquam inferat: jubemus hunc verbera sustinere, & in exilium mitti. Si verò haec sacra Ministeria conturbaverit, aut celebrare prohibuerit: capitaliter puniatur. Hoc ipso & in Litaniis, in quibus Episcopi, aut Clerici reperiantur custodiendo. Et siquidem injuriam solum fecerit, verberibus exilioque tradatur. Si verò etiam Litaniam concusserit, capitale periculum sustinebit: & vindicare jubemus non solum civiles, sed etiam militares judices.  Constitutions of justinian, Authent. Collat. 9 Tit. 6. Novella 123. de Sanctiss. Episcopis, etc. cap.▪ 31. there is a remarkable Law to this purpose, cited upon the Margin. The like Law we find in Cod. justin. Lib. 1. Tit. 3. the Episcop. & Clericis Leg. 10. Now although in these imperial Laws, the sanction be severe, yet we wish no such severity to be used amongst us, but praying GOD, to forgive them who have transgressed: We desire them to consider, that anciently amongst Christians, such doings were greatly disallowed.  
6. Chrysostom, speaking of the reverence due by people to Pastors, sayeth, A man may now see, that there are not so great scoffs and reproaches, 
In his secod homily upon these words salute Priscil la and Aquila. Tom 5. Edit. Savil. pag, 327.  used by the unfaithful, against the Rulers, as by those that seem to be faithful, and to be joined with us. Let us therefore inquire whence cometh this negligence, and contempt of piety, that we have such a hostility against our Fathers. There is nothing, there is nothing that can so easily destroy the Church, as when there is not an exact jointure of Disciples, to their Masters; of children to parents, and of them that are ruled, with their Rulers. He that but speaketh evil against his brother, is debarred from reading the divine Scriptures, (for what hast thou to do to take my Covenant in thy mouth sayeth the LORD; and subjoineth this cause, Thou sittest and speakest evil of thy brother,) and thinkest thou thyself worthy to come to the sacred porches, who accuseth thy spiritual Father? How agreeth this with reason? For if they who speak evil of Father or Mother, should die, according to the Law; of what judgement is he worthy, who dare speak evil of him who is much more necessary, and better, than those Parents? Why feareth he not, that the Earth should open, and swallow him, or that thunder should come from Heaven, and burn up that accusing tongue? See him also, Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio, Cap. 5. & 6.  
7. In the next place, ye say, that the keeping of GOD'S House, from pollution and superstition, belongeth to Authority, to the community of the faithful, and to every one in his own place, and order: but, certainly if every one, or all the community, keep their own place, and order, they can do nothing in this, by way of force, without, far less against Authority. Hence Zanchius, in his first Book of Images, Thes. 4. sayeth, Without Authority of the Prince, it is lawful to none in this Country, to take Idols out of Churches, or to change any thing in Religion: he that doth so, should be punished, as seditious. This he confirmeth by reason, and by the testimony of S. Augustin, Tom. 10. the Sermone Domini in Monte, Homilia 6. And a little after, he subjoineth; Augustin handleth this Argument piously, he dehorteth his people, from such a practice, and sayeth, That it is pravorum hominum, & furiosorum circumcellionum.  
8. As for your vehement accusations and threatenings, (here, & Answer 14) against the writer of the late Warning to the Subjects in Scotland, ye may easily perceive, by the printed Edition of that WARNING, and by the Printed Editions of our Replies, that, that offence is taken away. And now, reverend Brethren, why are ye pleased thus to digress from the matter in hand, to waken and hold on foot, personal quarrels against your brother, by digging up buried words, and renewing haske interpretations thereof, contrary to his loving intentions, and after that himself, for satisfaction to all men, hath so publicly disallowed and abolished these words? This uncharitable dealing, can bring no advantage to the cause which ye mantain, but rather maketh it the more to be disgusted, in consideration of your too great eagerness to stir up hatred against your neighbour, and to work him trouble; whom ye ought not to persecute with implacable wrath, which worketh not the righteousness of GOD; nor to exasperate against him his other dear Countrymen: but rather, as well beseemeth your profession and calling, ye ought to exhort them to the most favourable construction of things, and to 
Aug. Lib. de unico Baptismo, Cap. 13. O quam de testandus est error hominum, qui clarorum virorum quaedam non recte facta laudabiliter se imitari putant â▪ quorum virtutibus alieni sunt.  christian placability, and to the entertaining of their wont loving affection towards him. As for these our present questions, we desire Theologically only, and peaceably, to confer of them with you, or any other our reverend Brethren, of our own calling.  
9 Ye say that Master Knox spared not to call Kneeling a diabolical invention. If ye allow this saying, how can it be, that in your Covenant, intended for removing of Innovations, and recovering of the purity of the Gospel, ye expressly aimed not at the abolishing of this ceremony, which is so hateful in your eyes? But if ye do not approve this his saying, why did ye not choose rather, in charity to cover this escape of so worthy a personage, then openly to blaze it abroad?  
10. Ye have needlessly drawn into your discourse, mention of Irenicum. Of which work, for mitigation of your unpeaceable censure, be pleased to take notice of the judgement, of that most worthy Pastor, and most grave and learned Divine, D. james Usher, Archbishop of Armach, Primate of all Ireland, in this his Epistle written to the Author.  

VIR EXIMIE.  
SUmma cum voluptate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tuum perlegi: eamque Patriae tuae foelicitatem sum gratulatus, quod novum tandem produxerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Euseb. lib. 5. Hist. Eccles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  qui eam ipsi praestitit diligentiam & virtutem, quam olim exteris Ecclesiis (quum non admodum dissimiles de adiaphoris obortae lites earum pacem perturbarent) exhibuit ille vetus; qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Sam. xi.   
Nulla salus bello: ipsique bello salus si qua sit, non alio quam pacis nomine ea continetur. Nam & de pace belli Uriam, opinor, à David● aliquando interrogatum meministi. 
7. Judic. seven. xxii.   
I am verò, pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, scriptum remitto tibi ego 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: sed quod jucundum praebeat spectaculum midianiticorum satellitum inter se manum conserentium, & mutuo isto bello Ecclesiolae nostrae, pacem promoventium.  
Tu quicquid, hoc est, munusculi, ut ab homine optimè ergate affecto transmissum suscipe, & me (ut facis) ama.  
Pontanae, in Hibernia, III. Id. Decembr. anno reparatae salutis 1632. Tuus in CHRISTI Ministerio conservus JACOBUS ARMACHANUS.  

Me juvat alma quies, gens haec fera bella minatur,  
Et quoties Pacem poscimus, arma crepat.   ARTH. JONST. Paraph. Psal. 120.   

The XIII. DUPLY.  
YE repeat your former Answer, concerning your interpretation of the clause of forbearance, which we have already refuted in our former Replies, neither do ye bring here any new confirmation thereof: And therefore all the three scandals, mentioned in our 13 Demand, do yet remain unremoved.  
2. Although your interpretation were admitted, which we can not admit, yet at least the third▪ scandal were nowise avoidable thereby, (whatsoever may be supposed concerning the other two,) and that because of the reason expressed in our 13 Reply; to which your Answers here are not satisfactory. 1. Ye do insinuate, that ye think our Oath of obedience to our ordinary, and Pearth constitutions, not lawful in itself: which we are persuaded is very lawful. 2. Ye would seem to infer the unlawfulness of it, by challenging, the Authority whereby it was exacted; and alleging that their is no ordinance made Civil or Ecclesiastic, appointing any such Oath. This reason (although it were granted) hath no strength at all, to prove that which ye intent, to wit, that either our Oarh is in itself unlawful, or that we may now lawfully break it: for our swearing of that Oath is not against any lawful Authority, either divyne or humane: and in such a case, Oaths concerning things lawful, aught to be keeped, whether they be required by appointment of a public ordinance, or not: which whosoever denyeth, he openeth a patent door to the breaking of lawful Oaths, in matrimonial and civil Contracts, and many other cases, daily incident in humane conversation. Also the exacting of that Oath, was clearly warranded by two Acts of Parliament, viz. Parliament 21. of King JAMES the 6. holden at Edinburgh, Anno 1612. Chap. 1. and Parliament 23. of King JAMES the 6. holden at Edinburgh, Anno 1621. Act 1.  
3. Ye take upon you to call in question, with what conscience that Oath was given. How oft, Brethren, shall we exhort you to forbear judging of other men's consciences, which are known to GOD only? judge not, that ye be not judged. Matth. 7. 1.  
4. Ye allege, we can not answer before a general Assembly for our Oath, and the scandal risen thereupon. No man needeth to be ashamed, before a general Assembly, or any other judicatory, of his lawful and due obedience, which he hath given to the public constitutions of the Church of Scotland, and to his Majesty's standing Laws; or of any lawful Oath, whereby he hath promised that obedience. As for the scandal, it was not given by us, but unnecessarily, and unjustly taken, by you, and some others, upon an erroneous opinion, obstinately mantained against the lawfulness of the matters themselves.  
5. Ye say, that conceiving the Oath, according to our own grounds, none of us will say, that we have sworn the perpetual approbation and practice of these things, which we esteem to be indifferent, whatsoever bade consequent of Popery, Idolatry, Superstition, or Scandal, should follow thereupon. We answer, 1. These bad consequents are alleged by you, but not proven. 2. Evils of that kind should be avoided, by some lawful remedy. And we do not esteem it lawful for us, to disobey Authority in things lawful, although in themselves indifferent: for obedience commanded by the fifth Precept of the Decalogue, is not a thing indifferent. There be other means which are lawful and more effectual against such evils, as we have specified in our eleventh Reply: 3. We did not swear perpetual approbation, and practise of indifferent things; but knowing these things in themselves, to be approvable, we did swear obedience to the public Laws, requiring our practice in these things, so long as the Law standeth in vigour, and our obedience thereto is required by our lawful Superioures. 4. This course we hold to be more agreeable to our duty, then upon private conceptions of scandals unnecessarily taken, to break off our due obedience to that Authority which GOD hath set over us.  
6. Out of our assertion (Reply 4.) concerning the administration of the Sacraments in private places, to sick persons, in case of necessity, ye do collect, that we cannot forbear the practice of these, although our ordinary, and other lawful superiors, should will us to do so. And hence ye infer, that herein Pearth Assembly, for which we stand, is wronged by us two ways: 1. That we differ in judgement from them, about the indifferency of the five Articles: and next, that at the will of our ordinary, and ye know not what other lawful superioures, we are ready to forbear the practice of these things, which the Assembly hath appointed to be observed.  
7. As for your main Question, Whether a duty necessary by divyne Law, may be, or may not be omitted, in case, our ordinary, & other lawful superioures, should will us to omit it? before we answer to it, we must expound what we mean by our other lawful superiors, because of your jesting pretence of ignorance hereof. We mean hereby, the King's Majesty, the Parliament, the secret Counsel, and other Magistrates, and ecclesiastical Assemblies, whereunto we owe obedience in our practice required by them, according to public Laws.  
8. The Question itself ye do express more clearly in your Answer to our 4. Reply, where ye allege, that we find some of the Pearth Articles so necessary, that although the general Assembly of the Church should discharge them, yet we behoved still, for conscience of the commandment of GOD, to practise them.  
Thus are we brought to this general Question;  Whether, or no, any thing necessary (or commanded) by divine Law, may, in any case, without sin, be omitted when public humane Authority dischargeth the practice thereof? 
For resolving of this question, we desire the Reader to take notice of these Theological Maxims, received in the schools, & grounded upon holy Scripture.  
9 Affirmative precepts, do bind at all times, but not to all times, but only as place and time require; that is, when opportunity occurreth. [Praecepta affirmativa obligant semper, sed non ad semper, nisi pro loco & tempore; id est, quando opportunitas occurrit.] But negative Precepts, do bind at all times, and to all times. [Praecepta negativa obligant semper, & ad semper. 
a Thom 2a 2ae, qu. 71 art. 5. ad 3m Bonavent. in 1. sent. didst 48. art. 2. qu. 1. in Resolutione. Scotus in 3. sent. didst 9 qu. unica, num 4. ] As for example; A man is not obliedged to speak the truth at all times; for he may be some time lawfully silent, but he may never lawfully lie.  
10 Of Affirmative necessary duties, some are the weightier matters of the Law, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as Judgement, Mercy, and Faith, Matth. 23. 23. Others less weighty, such as are those of the Pearth Articles; which we call necessary, and ye do reject.  
11. The exercise of some affirmative necessary duties, may be some times omitted, by Authority, without sin, for the public peace, or some pressing necessity. Thus Moses permitted repudiation of a man's married wife, not fallen into adultery; neither did he urge strictly the affirmative duty of adherence, and that for the hardness of their heart. Wherein Moses had respect to the peace and unity of the Tribs of Israel, as Alexander Alensis observeth in his Sum of Theology, Part. 3. Qu. 46. Membro 1. Art. 1. & Art. 2. David did not execute, in his own time, judgement against joab, for his murdering of Abner, and Amasa, because the sons of Zeruiah were too hard for him. Circumcision was omitted, because of the uncertainty of their abode in one place, when the people were with Moses in the Wilderness.  
12. Exercise of ecclesiastical Discipline, against open obstinate offenders, is an affirmative duty, incumbent, by divyne Law, upon the Pastors, towards those who are committed to their charge. Yet it may, and aught to be forborn, when it can not be used without an open rupture, and unavoidable Schism. Because in such a case the public peace is rather to be looked to, lest in our inconsiderate zeal to 
Gregor. respons. ad 7. interrogationem Au gustim Can tuariensis. In hoc enim tempo re sancta Ecclesia quaedam per favorem corrigit, quaedam per mansuetudinem tolerat, quaedam per considerationem dissimulat, at que portat, ut saepe malum quod adversatur, portando & dissimulando compescat. Prosper, Lib. 2. de vita contemplativa, Cap. 5. Propter hoc ergo, blanda p●etate portandi sunt, qui increpari pro sua infirmitate non possunt.  separate the Tares, we pluck up also the Wheat. And what we can not get corrected by censure, we can do no more but mourn for it, and patiently wait till GOD amend it, as Augustin proveth at length, Lib. 3. contra Epistolam Parmeniani, Cap. 1. & Cap. 2. & Lib. de fide & operibus, Cap. 5. For in this time (sayeth Gregory) the holy Church doth correct something by fervour, something she tolerateth by meekness, some things by consideration she dissembleth, & beareth, so that often by bearing & dissembling, she compesceth (or putteth away) that evil which she hateth. And Prosp. saith; for this cause therefore, they most with gentle piety be borne with, who for their infirmity, may not be rebuked.  
13. When a doctrinal error (not being fundamental) prevaileth by public authority in any Church, a private Pastor or Doctor espying it, may lawfully and laudably, sorbear public striving against it, when he evidently perceiveth, that unavoidable Schism would follow thereupon. In such a case he should content himself, to seed his hearers with that wholesome Milk of the Word, which they may receive, and delay the giving of stronger Food, unto them because of 
Nazianz. Orat. 26. tom. 1. pag 446. and 447. Edit Graecol. paris. Anno. 1630.  their infirmity: Considering that more necessary and weightier duty, which he oweth for preservation of order and peace; and labouring, in a mild and peaceable manner, to cure them. To this purpose belongeth that saying of Gregory Nazianzen, Let no man, therefore, be more wise than is convenient, neither more legal than the Law, neither more bright than the Light, neither more strait than the Rule, neither higher than the Commandment. But how shall this be? If we take knowledge of decency, and commend the law of nature, and follow reason, and despise not good order. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) 
Eccles. Lugd. Lib de tenenda veritate Scripturae post medium (in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Part. 2. Edit. 4. ) Qui non tranquillè & pacifice moderatur quod sentit, sed statim paratus est ad contentiones, dissentiones, & scandala, etiamsi non habeat Haereticum sensum, certissime habet Haereticum animum.  And that of the ancient Church of Lions in France, near eight hundreth years ago; Who doth not calmly and peaceably moderate that which he thinketh, but is ready incontinent to contentions, dissensions, and scandals, although he have not an heretical sense, most certainly he hath an heretical mind.  
14. Divine Institution, by the Ministry of the Apostles, craveth Deacons, ordained by imposition of hands, for all their life time, Acts 6. Yet in our reformed Church of Scotland we have no such Deacons. Which oecomenicall defect, necessitated by detention of Church mantenance necessary for their sustentation, we hope shall not be imputed to our Church, as sin, so long as she despiseth not that Institution, and acknowledgeth, and lamenteth, this deficiency, and endeavoureth, by peaceable lawful means, to have it remedied.  
15. Although some affirmative Duties, necessary by divine precept, do give place, sometimes, to other more weighty, and more pressing duties, (as the saving of a stranger may be omitted, for saving my father or my brother, or my son, out of the same danger, when I am able only to save one of them. And many such like examples do occur:) yet it is never lawful to condemn or oppugn such Duties, as evil, or superstitious, or scandalous in themselves, neither to rank them amongst things in themselves indifferent.  
16. Hence we do infer, that notwithstanding of the necessity of those of the Pearth Articles, which we call necessary, yet sometims the practising of them, may become not necessary, and the omission thereof not sinful, public authority, & necessity of the peace of the church, so requiring. Some time indeed, the omission of a thing prescrived by an affirmative Divine or Humane Law, may befaultlesse: But it is never lawful for Subjects, to transgress the negative part of the divine 
Thom. 2a 2ae qu. 43 art. 7. propter nullum scandalum quod sequi videatur, debet homo praetemissa veritate, falsitatem decore▪  Precept, by resisting with force of Arms, that power whereunto GOD hath subjected them, and to which he hath forbidden them, to make such resistance. Neither is it at any time lawful, for Pastors and Teachers, to teach erroneous Doctrine.  
17. Ye do attribute to us, as a great absurdity, that at the will of our ordinary, and other lawful Superiors, we are ready to forbear the practice of these things which the Assembly hath appointed to be observed. And this ye infer from the necessity of administration of the Sacraments, sometimes in private places, according to our judgement. Certainly, ye will have much ado, to make good, by right Logic, this your inference from such an Antecedant. But to speak of the matter of the Consequent, for satisfaction to the Reader, we find no such absurdity in it, as ye seem to proclaim. For, if some Duties appointed by divyne Law, give place sometimes to other weighty duties, such as is the keeping of public peace and good order, as we have already shown, much more may a thing, notwithstanding of any humane Law appointing it to be observed, before these respects omitted, at the will & direction of those superiors, to whom we owe our obedience required by that humane law, & who have power to dispense with our practice in that part.   

The XIV. DUPLY.  
IF the words of the Covenant be plain, (say ye) concerning the mere forbearance▪ and speak nothing of the unlawfulness, no man's thoughts can make a change. But we have given our reasons, which justly move us to require greater plainness; neither have we as yet received satisfaction, concerning those reasons.  
2. In our 14 Reply, we said, that your Band of mutual defence against all persons whatsoever, may draw subjects, perhaps, to take Aims against their King, (which God avert) & consequently from that loyalty of obedience, which they owe to their Sovereign, & ours; except ye declare, and explain yourselves better, than ye have hitherto done. To this ye answer, that, by this Reply we do a threefold wrong: one to ourselves, another to the subscrivers, the third to the King's Majesty. But ye have not directly answered to the point proponed by us.  
3. The wrong which ye say, we do to our selus, is in forging from the words of the Covenant, impediments, & drawing stumbling blocks in our own way, to hinder our subscription. This your wrongous' asseveration, we justly deny, protesting, as we have often done, that we do walk sincerely in this matter, according to our light, not forging to our selus impediments, nor drawing stumbling blocks in our own way; but clearly showing the impediments, and stumbling blocks, which the contryvers of the Covenant have laid in our way, by their very incommodious expression, irreconciliable [in our judgement] with your exposition.  
4. Ye say, we wrong the subscrivers, in changing the state of the Question, and in making a divorce betwixt Religion, and the KING'S Authority, which the Covenant joineth together, hand in hand. We do nowise wrong the subscrivers, when we propone uprightly our just scruples, as we in our consciences do conceive them, whereby we are moved to with hold our hands from that Covenant: whereof one is, the fear of unlawful resistance to Authority, if we should hold to that Covenant; howsoever ye will not suffer to hear patiently this objection, because in your Covenant ye do profess, the conjunction of Religion, and the KING'S Authority: which profession of yours, doth not sufficiently serve for a full answer to our objection, against those other words of that same Covenant, whereupon our scruple did arise▪ To clear this, we wish you to answer directly (to this our present Demand:) whether or no, in case of disagreement, (which Godavert) think ye that the Covenanters as obliedged, by virtue of their Covenant, to make open resistance, by force of Arms? If ye think they are obliedged to make resistance, than we desire your Answer to the Reasons and testimonies brought in our 2. Duply, proving the unlawfulness of such resistance. But if ye think that they be not obliged, them declare it plainly.  
5. But most of all, ye say, we wrong the King's Majesty, in bringing him upon the stage, before his subjects, in whose minds we would (as ye do 〈…〉 allege) beget and breed suspicions of opposing the true 〈…〉 aching innovation in Religion, and of dealing with the s 〈…〉, contrary to his Laws and Proclamations, and contrary to the Oath at his Coronation. We answer▪ ●e have not brought, but have found his Majesty upon this unpleasant stage, opposing himself openly to your Covenant, with solemn protestations, against all suspicions of opposing the truth, or making innovation of religion, or dealing with the subjects contrary to his laws & proclamations, or contrary to the oath at his coronation. this his Majesty's declaration against which ye have protested, we have willingly received, & do truly believe it.  
6. What the most honourable Lords, of his Majesty's privy Counsel have done, concerning his Majesty's last proclamation, & upon what motives, their Hs. themselves do know, & his Majesty's high Commissioner, hath publicly declared in his printed Manifesto, contrary to some of your asseverations, concerning the proceeding of that honourable board.  
7. Ye profess here, that, it becometh you, to judge charitably of his Majesty's intentions, although ye disallow the Service Book, and Canons, as containing a real innovation of Religion; and do affirm, that the intention of the Prelates, & their associates, the Authors and contrivers of the books, is most justly suspected by you. We have told you already, that, concerning the matters, contained in those books, it is not now time to disput, the books themselves being discharged by his Majesty's proclamation, and a royal promise made, that his Majesty will neither now nor hereafter, press the practice of the forsaid Canons & Service book nor any thing of that nature, but in such a fair & legal way, as shall satisfy all his Majesty's loving subjects; &, that his Majesty neither intendeth innovation in Religion or Laws. As for the intentions of his sacred Majesty, we do heartily & thankfully acknowledge them, to be truly conform to his Majesty's gracious declaration, in that his last Proclamation. And, indeed, it becometh both you and us, to think s● of them. Neither do we take upon us, to harbour in our breasts, any uncharitable suspicion, concerning the intentions of those others of whom ye speak; seeing they stand or fall to their own Master, and the thoughts of their hearts are unknown, both to you and us: and in a matter uncertain it is surest to judge charitably. Yea, we have ma●●y pregna●● Arguments to persuade us, that those reverend Prelates, and their Associates, had no such intention, as ye judge.  
8. Ye make mention of three wrongs, done by us to you: the one, in the Warning, whereof ye have an answer already given in our 12. Duply, where ye did use great exaggerations, then either the intention of the warner did merit, ●● became your chartiy and profession. And by your repetition of it in th●● place, ye show, that ye have too great delight to dwell upon such expostulations, whereas theological reasons of the matter in controversy, would better become you in such a Disput. The second wrong is, that (as ye allege) we have wronged you, in withholding our hand and help from so good a cause, of purging Religion, 
Hieronym. Apologia adversus Russinum quae incipit Lectis literis, prope sinem. T●libus institutus es Disciplinis, ut cui respondere non potueris, caput auferas; & linguam, quae tacere non potest seces? Nec magnopere glorieris, si facias quod Scorpiones possunt facere, & Cantharideses. Fecerunt haec & Fulvia in Ciceronem, & Herodias in joannem: quiae veritatem non poterant audire: & linguam veriloquam d●●riminali acu confoderunt.— Adversum impiissimos Celsum atque Po●phyrium quanti scripsere nostrorum? Quis omissa causa, in superflua criminum objectione versatus est.  & reforming the Kirk, from so many gross abuses, and opposing all those who have modestly laboured for Reformation. But certainly, the wrong is done to us by you, in that ye do, without warra●● of Authority, obtrude upon us, and those committed to our charges, the swearing of an Oath, which is against our own consciences: and because of our just refusal & opposition, ye do wrong us also, in misinterpreting our pious and upright meanings, and in making and stirring up collateral, and personal quarrels against us, and threatening us therewith. Thus (if GOD by his special grace did not uphold us) might we be driven, by worldly terrors, to do against the light of our own consciences.  
9 The third wrong, wherewith ye charge us, and for the which ye do insinuate, that we may fear trouble, is (as ye allege) in our speeches, in public, and private, and in our missives, etc. Hereunto we answer, ●● in our former Replies, that whensoever it shall please you, to specify these speeches, we hope to give you, and all peaceably disposed christians, full satisfaction, and to clear ourselves of that imputation; so that none shall have just reason, to work us any trouble. In the mean time, if our ingenuity would permit us, (as it dothnot) to think it a decent course, to make use of hearkeners, and catchers of words, and to wait for the halting of our Brethren, some of your own speeches might be represented unto you, wherein ye would find weakness.  
10. As for these outward, or external Arguments, which ye bring here, to prove your Covenanting, to be the work of God, from the success of your enterprise, from the multitude of subscrivers, and from their contentment, & from their good carriage, (which we would wish, in many of them, to be more charitable, and peaceable, and so more christian, than it is) we cannot acknowledge, to be a Commentary written by the Lords own hand, (as ye pretend) in approbation of your Covenant; unless ye first clearly show us the text or substance of your Covenant, to be written in the holy Scriptures, in all points thereof; especially in those points, wherein ye and we do controvert, and which only, at this time, can be pretended against us, seeing we make oppsition only in those points. And we wish heartily, that leaving these weak notes of Truth, to the Papists, chief acclaimers of them, amongst christians, (that we speak nothing of aliens from christianity) ye would be pleased to adhere, with us into the holy Scriptures, as the only sure & perfect rule of true Religion, and the heavenly Lamp, which God hath given us, to show us the way of truth & peace: wherein the GOD of Truth and Peace direct all our steps, for JESUS CHRIST our Saviour, who is our Peace: To him be Glory for ever: Amen.   


JOHN FORBES of Corse Doctor and Professor of Divinity in ABERDENE.  
ROBERT BARON, Doctor and Professor of Divinity, and Minister in ABERDENE.  
ALEXANDER SCROGIE, Minister at old Aberdene, D. D.  
WILLIAM LESLIE, D. D. and Principal of the KING'S College in ABERDENE.  
JA: SIBBALD, D. of Divinity and Minister at ABERDENE  
ALL: ROSSE, D. of Divinity, and Minister at ABERDENE.    
FINIS.