ALthough there were other three papers delivered in to the Honorable Com­mittee of Estates from the Generall Assembly, beside the Assemblies De­claration, yet nothing was returned from their Lordships, except only some observations upon a part of the Declaration; Which Observations being sent to the Generall Assembly, while they were hastening to a close, after so long atten­dance, were read and considered, and declared unani­mously to be no wise satisfactorie to the Assembly; Who did therefore appoint us their Commissioners to prepare a particular answer thereunto: And this we are the rather willing to do, least by our silence we should seem to be satisfied with such observations. And this onely we shall further premise that both we and the people of God in the land who expect information from us, are put upon this disadvantage, that while many [Page 4]of their Lordships Papers are Printed and spread to the detriment of Religion and the cause of God, the Presse is not patent to our papers, whereby we desire to clear the truth. And now to come to the parti­culars.

Whereas their Lordships are pleased to say that the offers of the Committee of Estates for securing of Religion have not been accepted by the Generall As­embly at the suggestion of some disaffected persons: They maybe pleased to remember that the Generall Assemblie did in some former papers demonstrate to their Lordships by good and solid reasons (never yet answered) that their Lordships offers are so farre from securing Religion, that they are inconsistent with the security of Religion; In all which (we blesse the Lord) we had never a more unanimous Generall Assembly, and more free of the suggestions of disaffected persons: And we heartily wish their Lordships may be as free of the hearkning to the suggestions of disaffected persons as the Generall Assembly was: Neither shall we judge any thing before the time, concerning these Observati­ons; but shall leave it to him who will bring to light the hidden things of darknesse and dishonesty, what sugge­stions have been made to their Lordships in that busi­nesse, As likewise: whether their Lordships did from a reall desire to be informed and edified, or for some other ends, call for proofs from Scripture of the unlawfulnesse of the present ingagement in warre; However we shall answer to the Observations as they are offered to us. We understand not why the five Ar­guments in the Assemblies Declaration brought to prove the sinfulnesse and unlawfulnesse of the present [Page 3]ingagement, are by their Lordships reduced to four Classes: but we come to the matter.

The substance of the first Argument used by the As­sembly was this, In all lawfull warres of the people of God, the end principally intended and driven at, is that wherein the glory of God is chiefly concerned: But in this present warre, the end principally intended and dri­ven at, is not that wherein the glory of God is chiefly concerned; Therefore 'tis not a lawfull warre of the peo­ple of God. Their Lordships do not denie the propo­sition of the argument; Onely they answer to one of the Scripturall proofs thereof, that the warres of Gods people were called the warres of the Lord; because as they were undertaken by warrant from Gods vicege­rents, so for an honest cause, and for the glory of God: We suppose their Lordships mean for the glory of God principally, and so yeild the point; Yet it shall not be amisse here to put their Lordships in mind of the other two reasons, why the warres of Gods people were called the warres of the Lord, namely. 1. Be­cause their warres were not undertaken without consul­ting of God, and his will revealed by his Ministers, as is manifest from Numb. 27, 21. and diverse other places. 2. Because their warres were to be managed and ordered according to the Law of God. As to that which their Lordships say concerning the assumption of the Assemblies argument, We answer, 1. Their Lord­ships say nothing to it as it stands in the Assemblies De­claration with the proofs thereof; but passing all this, they form another assumption which they deny, and bring some reasons for their deniall of it. The Assem­bly did clearly prove in their Declaration, that the end [Page 4]principally intended and driven at in this ingagement, is not that wherein the glory of God is chiefly concerned; And this was proved by the Parliaments not satisfying of the desires of the Kirk, concerning the safety and se­curity of Religion, as likewise by their resolutions of bringing his Majesty to some of his Houses in or near London, with Safety, Freedome and Honour, before any security had or sought from his for Religion and the Covenant, which is a manifest postponing of the safety of Religion to his Majesties safety, of the Freedome of the Gospell to his Majesties freedome, and of the Ho­nour of God to his Majesties honour. But all this their Lordships are pleased to passe in silence; And as if the Assembly had denyed all duty to the King, they go about to prove, that tis a duty incumbent to subjects to undertake a warie for his Majesties freedome and ho­nour (we know not why their Lordshipt omit his safety.) And severall texts of Scripture are cited by their Lordships to this end; Whereas they touch not the point in controversie viz. Whether, Religion be­ing in so great danger by his Majesties opposition there­unto, it be the subjects duty to make warre for his Ma­jesties freedome and honour, before security sought and had from him for Religion. 2. Their Lordships in stead of weakning the Assemblies first argument, do indeed adde no small strength to it; For while they are answering that very argument which challengeth the neglect of the glory of God and of Religion in this in­gagement, they mention nothing of Religion. but onely the Kings freedome and honour, as the cause of under­taking the present warre. 3. The Kirk of Scotland hath ever been, and is most willing to resent any injuries done [Page 5]to his Majesty, and to perform every duty for his Maje­sties freedome and honour in the right way and order, that is, giving to God in the first place what is Gods: But it hath not been the mind of Kirk or State in this land to make War for his Majestie in an absolute way, and without any qualification, or to the detriment and hurt of Religion. For in the year 1643. this Kingdom was solicited by his Majestie to undertake War for him; but because he was ingaged in a course against Religion, and the Liberties of the Kingdoms, therefore all giving of assistance to him was declined, although at that time the Kingdoms were not joyned in Covenant: How much less is it the subjects duty, after such a Covenant, and after so much blood shed by the means of his Ma­jesties opposing the Covenant and Reformation, and his Majesties adhering still to his former principles, yet notwithstanding of all this, to ingage in War for him, and to espouse his quarrell before security desired, and had from him for Religion. 4. The three Scriptures al­ledged by their Lordships, Job. 18.36. Gen. 14. and 1 Sam. 30. do in no wise help their cause, or militate a­gainst the Assemblies Argument: for there are four great differences which will marre the application of those Scriptures to the present Engagement in War. 1. Christs cause against the Jews, Lots cause against the four Kings, who had taken away him and his goods; David and his men, their cause against the Amalekites who had taken their wives captive, was without con­troversie a good and honest cause, and no wise to the prejudice of Religion. 2. The instruments and Mana­gers were without exception. 3. The parties to be relie­ved were also without any exception, so far as can be [Page 6]known from Scripture. 4. None of the three Texts ci­ted by their Lordships doth hold forth a War underta­ken for a humane interest, with neglecting and postpo­ning the glory of God, and therefore come not home to the point of the Assemblies Argument. When their Lordships shall prove their cause to be as good, the Ma­nagers and Parties to be as much without exception, the glory of God to be as little neglected in this ingagement, as in the example cited; then may their Lordships apply those Scriptures in reference to this Ingagement, but not otherwise. 5. Whatsoever be the duty of Subjects towards the relief of their King, which in the due order and subordination to the glory of God and security of Religion, is not denyed, we can­not see how the Text, John 18.36. proveth it; seeing that Scripure holdeth forth a common custome of the world, rather then a dutie of Subjects, and sheweth what men use to do, rather then what they ought to do. And this sence may be plainly drawen from the Text it self, If my Kingdome were of this World, that is, as the King­domes of this World are, and use to be, then would my ser­vants fight for me: Least of all was it our Lords meaning to allow fighting, and making warre in a cause prejudi­ciall and hurtfull to Religion. And whereas their Lord­ships say in their next citation, that Lot had associat himself in warre with wicked men the Sodomites: As here­by they tacitely intimate the lawfulnesse of associati­on in warre with men as wicked as the Sodomites, So we shall humbly beseech their Lordships to observe here, how necessary it is for their Lordships to search more accurately into these Scriptural arguments, for their is no such thing in the Scripture as is cited in their Observati­ons. [Page 7]We read indeed of Abrahams (not Lots) confe­deracy with Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; but that these three were either Idolaters, or wicked men, is more then can be proved. 6. The following Paragraph is as wide from the point, proving what no body denies, viz. The duty of honouring Kings. We wish their Lordships may seriously ponder two things joyned with this duty in the first Text cited by themselves: One is fear God, and this is put in the first place; Another is, medle not with them that are given to change; Whereby we are warned that under collour of doing for the honour of Kings, we may not joyn with those who fall off from the cause and wayes of God. To presse any duty con­cerning the Kings honour, with the neglect or prejudice of the honour of God, is indeed to use libertie as a cloak of Maliciousnesse; so that this falleth back upon them who charge it without cause upon others. The text 1 Sam. 15.30, 31. Is no better applyed; for when Sa­muel yielded to honour Saul before the people, and to turn again with him, It was upon his confession and acknowledgment of his sinne; and with all, Saul was so honoured before the people that Agag was cut in peeces.

The second Argument of the Generall Assembly was to this purpose; Every ingagement in warre which is pretended to be for Religion, and yet hath in it a confe­deracie and association with wicked men, and enemies of true Religion, is sinfull and unlawfull: But the pre­sent ingagement in warre is pretended to be for Religi­on, and yet hath in it a confederacy and association with wicked men, enemies of true Religion; Therefore 'tis unlawfull. Their Lordships are pleased to make four [Page 8]answers, the first three against the proposition, the fourth against the assumption. First they say associati­ons were forbidden with the Canaanites, because they were destinate to destruction, and their countrey promi­sed to Gods people. If the meaning be, that the prohi­bition of association with the Canaanites and the ground thereof was temporary, and such as concerned the Jews onely, and that 'tis now free to the people of God to associat with such as the cursed Canaanites, let, any who is of that judgement speak it out in time. To us it seems manifest from Scripture, that the chief ground and reason of that Law was morall and perpe­tuall, such as concerneth us in all like cases, viz. Lest they should make Israel to sinne, and be a snare unto them Exod. 22, 33. and 34, 12, 15. Deut. 7.4. And whereas their Lordships say, that they hope there is none who pretendeth such a warrant for destroying all who differ in Religion from them, we shall here passe what their Lordships seem to suppose, but cannot be proved, namely, that the Jews had such a warrant, or did pretend to it; Onely we shall desire that their Lordships may never forget that they are ingaged by solemn Co­venant to God, that they shall sincerely really and faith­fully endeavour the discovery, triall and condigne pu­nishment of Malignants, Incendiaries and enemies of reformation; Now then can it be lawfull to associate with them, as long as they remain such? Or how can their Lordships joyn with those as friends of the cause who by the Covenant ought to be tried and punished as enemies to the cause?

Secondly, 'tis answered in the Observations that con­fidence and trust in these worldly helps are forbidden. [Page 9]It seems their Lordships understand the Scriptures cited in the Assemblies Declaration, to condemn, not the association of it self with wicked men, but confidence in the associats: And if so, then association with wicked men is no more sinfull then association with good men; for we may not put trust and confidence in worldly or humane helps from whomsoever we have them. We shall yet desire that their Lordships may take a further review of the Scriptures cited in the Assemblies Decla­ration (which for brevities cause we do not here re­peat) and we doubt not, but it will plainly appear to every one who looketh upon these Scriptures, that associations with such men in warre, are condemned as unlawfull and sinfull in themselves. As to the instances adduced by their Lordships from the examples of our Ancestors: The desire of the Generall Assembly 1583. that their might be a band of union betwixt the Chri­stian Princes, professing the true Religion for defence thereof, against the persecution of Papists, was a most just desire, neither can such application be drawen from it, as it is brought for: A band of union with Princes, professing the true Religion is hugely different from an union and association with the professed enemies of the true Religion, which is the case now in controversie. As touching the help which our fathers had from Eng­land them under prelacie and the Service-Book: As there have been in England ever since their first reformation, many who kept themselves free of these corruptions, So they who at that time came from England for help and assistance to thi [...] Kingdome invaded by the Frensh, had not born Arms against the reformation of Religion, as they have done who are now associated with. Be­sides [Page 10]all this, the evils of Prelacy and the Book of Com­mon-Prayer were not then discovered in any such mea­sure or degree as now they are, neither were the King­doms then obliged by solemn Covenant as now they are for extirpation thereof.

Thirdly, tis answered in their Lordships Observati­ons, that there is a great difference in joyning with stran­gers Idolaters, and subjects obliged in a common duty, living under a King. But we shall desire it may be re­membred. 1. That the present ingagement in warre cannot be purged of all associations with strangers Ido­laters. 2. Their Lordships distinction is as if one should say (which no man will admit) that strangers who are enemies to the King, ought not to be taken to fight in the Kings Wars, yet they who live in his Dominions and did once swear Allegiance to him, though after­wards they have Rebelled against his Majestie and his Laws, and still continue in Rebellion may be trusted, as­sociated and joyned with in the Kings Wars. If a faction of Rebels against the Lord be admitted to fight in a War which is pretended to be for Religion, and yet a faction of Rebels against the King be not admitted to fight in the Wars for the King, then do men lay them­selves open how much they slight and despise the Ho­nour of God, and how prodigall they are of his cause. 3. Tis all one to the point of unlawfulnesse, whether such associations be with the Enemies of true Religion without or within the Kingdom, even as tis all one to the unlawfulnesse of marriage with Idolaters, and of fa­miliar conversation with ungodly men, whether they be without or within the Kingdom. Were not those mi­litary associations of Jehoshaphat with Ahab, 2 Chron. [Page 11]19.2. and of Amaziah with the 100000. men of Israel, 2 Ghro. 25.7.8. condemned upon this reason, because the associats were ungodly haters of the Lord, and be­cause God was not with them. Which reasons will ex­tend against all military associations (and especially in a cause of Religion, which is the present case) with a known Faction of Malignant and wicked Enemies of Religion.

Fourthly, Tis answered, that their Lordships have declared, that they will associate with none but such as will ingage themselves to be faithfull in the Ends of the Cove­nant, and who do so, cannot be repute Malignants, that is, Popish and Prelaticall, unlesse they be false hypocrites. Whereto passe that their Lordships do not make it plain that they mean of the Solemn League and Covenant, It is to be observed 1. That their Lordships are not plea­sed to say that they will associate with none, but such as take the Covenant, yea rather their Lordships tacitely yeild, that they will associate with such as neither have taken nor will take the Covenant, so that they ingage themselves in those generall and ambiguous termes that they will be faithfull in the Ends of the Covenant: 2. Their Lordships are here pleased to make the signi­fication of the word Malignants, commensurable with the Popish and Prelaticall party; whereas there are di­vers Malignants who are not of the Popish and Prelati­call party, but drive at an Arbitrary Government, and are against the Covenant, the Reformation of Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms. 3. How can it be sup­posed that they who will not take the Covenant, yea, have born armes against it, and still continue in their for­mer principles, can really or truly engage themselves to [Page 12]be faithfull in the Ends of the Covenant, or that they will be indeed faithfull in these ends, and if there were no more, how can they be faithfull to that end of the Covenant which concerneth the discovery, triall and punishment of themselves and others of their kinde.

The third Argument in the Assemblies Declaration was to this sence. Whatsoever ingagement in War is undertaken without first essaying the lawfull, possible and ordinary means of preventing bloodshed, is unlaw­full and sinfull: But the present Engagement is such: Therefore, &c. Tis to be observed that their Lordships do not deny the proposition, but only the assumption of this Argument: The reasons of their deniall are two, 1. Because the Commissioners at London did represent wrongs and seek reparation. 2. Because a Messenger was sent with the demands of the Parliament of this Kingdom to the Kingdom of England. But here 'tis not to be forgotten, that neither the Commissioners at Lon­don, nor the Messenger here meant of, did make known to the Parliament of England the breaches found and declared by the Parliament of this Kingdom in their Declaration to the Kingdom concerning the grounds and causes of the present ingagement. How can it then be supposed that all the means of preventing bloodshed were sufficiently essayed, seeing the very grounds and causes of the War found by the Parliament of this Kingdom were not so much as made known to the Par­liament of England, that their Answer thereunto might be heard: And whether there is some other mysterie in the not making known those breaches to the Parliament of England, time may peradventure discover. 2. Their Lordships are pleased here to passe in silence that which [Page 13]seemed most strange to the General Assembly, that the offer of a Treaty upon the Propositions of both King­doms being made by the Parliament of England, was yet slighted and not embraced by the Parliament of this Kingdom. 3. Was not the Town of Berwick seized up­on (which Act now their Lordships own in this Paper of their Observations) before the Messenger was sent with the Demands to the Houses of Parliament; from all which laid together, it will quickly appear that this ingagement was undertaken without first essaying those amicable and peaceable wayes, which might and ought to have been used for preventing of bloodshed.

The fourth Argument was this; Whatsoever ingage­ment in War hath in it the breach of a Solemn Cove­nant made with God, is sinfull and unlawfull: But the present ingagement is such: Therefore, &c. The pro­position is yeilded, and their Lordships conceive it needlesse to prove it. But when we observe how many there are who make no conscience of the Covenant, and in their deeds do deny it; we cannot think it needlesse but necessary to shew from the Word of God how great a sin the breach of Covenant is: As to the Assum­ption which was verified in all the Articles of the Co­venant, Their Lordships say that the breach of the first Article is instructed in the Declaration of the As­sembly by the induction of three particulars: But upon a review their Lordships will finde, that the breach of that first Article is instructed by five instances. And as their Lordships make the instances fewer then the As­semblies Declaration doth, so the third instance as 'tis expressed by their Lordships, is not in the Declaration of the Assembly, viz. The not answering of the Pe­titiòns [Page 14]of Presbyteries and Synods. To the first in­stance 'tis answered by their Lordships, that the State hath not quarrelled any Ministers Doctrine though they may quarrell seditious Doctrine. We thank God their Lordships have no just cause (so farre as we know) to charge sedition or seditious Doctrine upon any Mini­ster who hath freely and faithfully reproved the sinnes of the times: And we do not doubt but every faithfull Minister is able to say as Paul said, and according to Pauls meaning, they found me not raising up the people neither in the Synagoge nor in the City, neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. It was not affirmed in the Declaration of the Assembly, either that the Parliament or Committee of Estates quarrell Ministers Doctrine, but quarrelled it is very fre­quently by most, if not by all of those who are most active & forward in the present engagement. However, the judgment of Ministers Doctrine belongeth to the ju­dicatories of the Kirk, both by Divine right and by the Law of the land; and we hope their Lordships do not intend under collour of quarrelling sedition, a new way of trying and judging Ministers Doctrine, nor to assume to themselves the exercising of the same power over all persons of whatsoever estate, degree, function or condi­tion they be of, in all matters wherein they shall be charged to answer; A power once granted to the Coun­cell in the 129. Act Parliament 8. King James 6. anno. 1584. But was afterward abrogated in the 114. Act Parliament 12. King James 6. anno 1592. as likewise in the Act recissory 1640.

The second instance was the disturbing of, and with­drawing from the Worship of Go & namely from the [Page 15]late solemn humiliation. Although the Assembly did not lay the strength of their argument either upon this instance or the former, their Lordships answer, that such disorders are not owned by them, and shall be cen­sured when represented to them and duly instructed. But we shall crave leave to put their Lordships in mind, that some of those disorders were particularly represen­ted to their Lordships and offered to be instructed, yet not tryed nor punished; And we wish their Lordships may sadly ponder in their own consciences, whether they be not really owners of, and accessary unto such disorders, as knowing of and having power to punish yet they do not punish. Whatever insolencies or disor­ders were committed by some in former expeditions, can be no excuse or extenuation of the like and worse exorbitancies now. Neither can it be denied, but for­mer disorders and scandalls when known, were not one­ly represented by the Ministery, but searched after, and oftimes exemplarily punished by those who had Power and Authority for that effect.

The third instance hath more strength in it then their Lordships are pleased to take notice of. We do not ar­gue that their Lordships not granting of all the desires of the Kirk doth inferre, that they maintain not the go­vernment of the Kirk; But the force of the reason is, that their Lordships not granting so much as one of those things which were desired by the Kirk, as necessa­ry to the preservation of the true reformed Religion, may inferre that the true reformed Religion is not pre­served and maintained according to the Covenant. It seemeth strange to their Lordships that the Kirk should be both Petitioners and Judges of their own Petitions. [Page 16]There may lurke some ambiguity in the word Judges, but we had thought it no strange thing for Petitioners to judge of the answer of their Petitions by the judge­ment of Christian prudence and discretion, whether the answer be satisfactorie to their consciences or not; And when Kirk Judicatories are the Petitioners, it belongeth to them more peculiarly, not onely by the judgement of discretion, common to all Christians, but by a mini­steriall and directive judgement to determine so great a case of conscience; whether an answer returned to Pe­titions concerning the safety and security of Religio [...] be satisfactory in point of conscience or not. Their Lordships argument seemeth much more strange to us, namely, that if their Lordships not granting of all the desires of the Kirk (suppose them all to be just without controversy) inferre that they maintain not the govern­ment of the Kirk, may not they also conclude, that the Generall Assembly maintaineth not the just Authority of their Civill government, because they refused the just desire of the Committee of Estates for granting them the space of 2. or 3. dayes to propone their just excepti­ons against the proceedings of the late Commission of the Kirk before the Assembly should approve them, as also because they refused the Pious and Lawfull desire (as their Lordships call it) for Ministers to the Army. Where 1. As their Lordships make themselves judges of their own desires, as much as the Kirk hath judged of theirs, so these desires proposed to the Generall Assem­bly, being about matters meerly Ecclesiasticall, viz. The approving of the proceedings of the Commission of the Kirk, and the appointing of Ministers for the Army, we cannot but offer it to their Lordships second thoughts, [Page 17]how their judging and determining thereof not onely without, but against the judgement of the Generall As­sembly, can consist with the established Law of the Land, that all matters Ecclesiasticall shall be determined by the Assembly of the Kirk, and all matters Civill by Parliament. 2. The truth is, Neither of those desires refused by the Generall Assembly were just; That the desire of Ministers to the Army was not a just desire, the Generall Assembly hath discovered abundantly in [...]eir Declaration; And as to the other desire, there is an expresse Act of the Generall Assembly 1601. That the proceedings of the Commissioners for the publick affaires of the Kirk shall be examined by the ensuing Assembly in the beginning thereof, & approved or cen­sured before the Assembly take in other matters: not­withstanding whereof, when the late Generall Assem­bly begunne to examine the proceedings of the late Commission, and notwithstanding that the Committee of Estates had sufficient time before, to prepare any ex­ceptions which they had to offer; Yet at their Lord­ships desire, the Assembly agreed to a new delay for a competent space, professing to the Earl of Glencairn then sent by their Lordships to the Assembly, that the As­sembly should then be ready to here their Lordships exceptions against the proceedings of the said Com­mission; But no exceptions being given in at the time appointed, the Assembly was necessitated to proceed, having many things of importance to do, which could not orderly be brought in till the proceedings of the late Commission were first examined.

The fourth instance (though their Lordships do not take notice of it as such) was taken from a limitation [...] [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [Page 1]and restriction in the late Declaration of the Com­mittee of Estates: Their Lordships answer confirmeth our Argument; For they so farre adhere to that restricti­on as it is established by Law, That in their Lordships opinion, the true reformed Religion in Doctrine, Wor­ship, Discipline and Government in this Kirk, cannot be otherwise maintained and preserved, but as 'tis establish­ed by Law, unlesse (as they say) some would have their Lordships to maintain some novations in Doctrine Worship, or Government, though not established b [...] Law. Their Lordships might have taken notice from the Assemblyes Declaration that there are diverse things by the mercy of God enacted by Generall As­semblyes, which yet are not by his Majesties goodnesse established by Law; Neither is there any part of the uniformity agreed upon in both Kingdomes, as yet by his Majesties goodnesse established by Law among us. We are heartily sory that their Lordships should look upon so many good and necessary Acts of Assemblies, as novations, and that their Lordships are not to main­tain them. We marvell why their Lordships should account it any breach of Charity to say that his Maje­sty hath not established by Law, all that hath been by the mercy of God enacted in Generall Assemblyes. Their Lordships cite the Assembly 1639. As acknow­ledging his Majesties goodnesse in establishing the work of Reformation; Yet there is nothing in the sup­plication of that Assembly looking toward their Lord­ships restriction, or contrary to that passage of the late Declaration into which their Lordships reply; Neither will it be a good paralell between a time of his Maje­sties granting, and a time of his refusing the desires of his good Subjectsconcerning Religion.

The fifth instance which concerneth all the rest of the first Article of the Covenant, their Lordships do wholly pretermit; therefore we come to the Observa­tions upon the second Article.

The first instance of the breach of that Article was taken not from their Lordships desire of the Queens re­turn; but from their desire of her return without any condition tending to the restraint of her Masse and exer­cise of Popery. We do not say that the solemn league and Covenant dissolves the Covenant of Marriage be­tween the King and Queen: But if their Lordships by defending and asserting that Covenant of Marriage, mean to defend all the Articles of contract, whereof one is, that she shall have the free exercise of her own Religion and her Priests to attend her; How then can their Lordships avoid the Toleration of Popery, contra­ry to the Covenant. As for the Sectaries, If their Lord­ships or any other know any in this Kirk of Scotland, who gave them encouragement or hopes of Tolerati­on, we desire it may be made timely known, that such persons (if any be, for we know none such) may be tried, censured and avoided.

To the second instance, concerning his Majesties con­cessions, their Lordships make no particular nor plain answer, though it hath been often and earnestly desired, onely they referre to what they have said before, and so do we to what was answered before.

In their Lordships answer to the third instance, The subordination and due order between duties to God, and duties to the King is still forgotten; Their Lord­ships presse the doing of duties to his Majesty, not­withstanding the fear of any bad consequence. But, [Page 20]1. How much more ought we to do duty to God, what ever danger or bad consequence may come thereby. 2. The point which was to be proved, was, that it is a duty to undertake a War for his Majesties restitution to some of his Houses in or neer London, before security had and sought from him for Religion, which point neither is, nor can be proved. There is nothing which hath more hardened the Kings heart in refusing to do his duty for securing of Religion, then the unseaso­nable endeavours of some to restore him to the exer­cise of his Royall power before his securing thereof. 4. The Assembly well knew that there is a diffe­rence between a consequent in respect of order of time, and in respect of causality; but the bad con­sequences to Religion, which are apprehended from the bringing of his Majesty to London with Safety, Free­dom and Honour before security had from him for Re­ligion are consequents in respect of causality; both be­cause the Declaration of Parliament, May 5. holdeth forth that his Majesty being so restored, will be put in such a condition whereby his concessions may be ren­dred effectuall, (which cannot as we conceive be under­stood without the exercise of his Royall power) and likewise because his Majestie being so principled, and holding himself obliged in conscience, and by his Co­ronation Oath, to establish Episcopacy, will use his ut­most endeavours for the same. 5. Whereas their Lord­ships bring an instance of the Honour and Freedom gi­ven by God to our first Parents, which was not the cause of their abuse thereof that followed in time. WE must humbly crave leave to say, that this instance might have better become Papists, who hold that [Page 21]there was some roots of concupiscence in Adam be­fore his fall, then Protestants, who hold that there was no bad principle then lurking in his nature. And how shall their Lordships apply their Simile to the case in hand, unlesse they will say (which we know they will not) that the Kings Majestie hath no bad principle in him more then Adam before his fall. As for that which their Lordships adde in the close that they will not put in his Majesties hands any such power, whereby Re­ligion or the Covenant may be endangered: For this point we are referred to the Declaration of Parliament pag. 13. which needeth no other answer, then was made by the late Commission of the Kirk in their Represen­tation, pag. 17. viz. That upon supposition his Maje­stie is come to London with Honour, Freedom and Safe­ty, we doubt not whether it may prove impossible to their Lordships (were they never so willing) to hinder the putting of such a power in his Majesties hands whereby Religion may be endangered.

As to the breach of the third Article; First 'tis an­swered, that breach of the Priviledge of Parliament and prejudice to the Liberty of the Subjects, should be best known to them. We might say by the same rule, that breach of the Priviledges and Liberties of the Kirk should be best known unto us; yet notwithstanding of our resentment of manifold encroachments upon the Liberties of the Kirk, their Lordships undertake in the beginning of these Observations to vindicate themselves from any such encroachments. But we shall only put their Lordships in minde of that whereunto this their Answer is applied. The Assembly complained that the Liberties of the Subjects are overthrown, and the per­sons and Estates of such ashave been best affected to [Page 22]the Cause and Covenant, are exposed to most grievous injuries, and crying oppressions; Whereunto there is no other satisfaction returned, but that, prejudice to the Liberty of the Subjects should be best known to their Lordships. Shall the Subjects then shut their eyes, deny their sence, and blindly give up their persons, Liberties and Estates to the naked arbitrement of men? God for­bid; We hope their Lordships will allow Subjects to know their Liberties better: And seeing men of all e­states and degrees are under the bond of the Solemn League, each one swearing for himself, and seeing as we are taught by the Word of God, each one of us must give an account to God for himself; It cannot but ne­cessarily follow, that no man is to depend upon, or fol­low blindely any humane authority whatsoever. As to the next instance of his Majesties negative voice in Par­liament, their Lordships touch upon an Argument for it, drawn from the good use which may be made of it, and namely, in hindering the passing of an Ordinance for Toleration of Sectartes. Where 1. We wish their Lordships may here apply the good rule cited by them­selves in the precedent Paragraph, viz. That evil may not be done that good may come of it. 2. 'Tis as strong an Argument, and stronger against it, that a very bad use may be made of it, to the overthrowing of the Co­venant and Reformation of Religion, whereof there is no small ground of fear from his Majesties adhering to the Prelaticall principles. 3. Tis in recent memory, what offers of Toleration to such as differ from Pres­byteriall Government, were contained in his Majesties Answer to the Propositions of both Kingdoms presen­ted to him at Hampton Court, and in his Message from [Page 23]the Isle of Wight, dated Novemb. 16. 1647. So that we are forty we have cause to say, Toleration of Sectaries stuck not so much upon his Majesties part, as other things to which he would not agree. The third instance which they call the second, concerning the subordina­tion of Civill power to the good of Religion, is granted by their Lordships, and that it is a great sin in Kings to do otherwise, but that if Kings fail in Religion, Sub­jects are notwithstanding tied to obedience in things lawfull. We conceive it will not be denyed but that Subjects are as straitly tied to a subordination of all to God as the King is? Doth not the Word of God ob­lige all men, whether Kings or Subjects, to prefer the glory of God and good of Religion to all things, to seek it in the first place, and to postpone it to nothing whatsoever? If any man be of another opinion, surely 'tis new and strange Divinity, neither agreeable to the Scripture nor to the practise of the Jewish Church, nor to the Confessions of Faith of Reformed Churches; As for their Lordships qualification of the Subjects obe­dience in things lawfull, we only desire that another qualification may be taken alongst with it, viz. always preferring the glory of God, and the security of Reli­gion to all humane interests.

For the point which was and is to be proved (if any thing be made out to the advantage of the present En­gagement) is this, that though his Majestie will give no security for the true Religion and for the Covenant, but continue opposing the same to the utmost of his power, yet the Subjects are bound even in that case to take Armes in his Majesties quarrell, which (as hath been said) hath not been nor cannot be proved.

As for the breach of the fourth Article of the Co­venant, their Lordships onely refer us to their Obser­vations upon the Assemblies second Argument, and these were before answered.

When their Lordships come to speak to the breach of the fifth Article, we meet with one thing, which if there were no more may make all the people of God in the land to take good heed whose professions they now give belief unto: For in the narrative of the first Act of Levie, we finde these words. And now finding that the Town of Berwick is seized on, & that the dangers are nearer to us then formerly, whether from Sectaries or Malignants, and that it is our duty to make use of the power and strength of the Kingdom for its preservation and safety. How this can possibly agree with their Lordships Answer to the Assemblies Argument concerning the breach of the fifth Article, we cannot understand: There they will not own the seizing upon Berwick, here they do own it: There they make the seizing on Berwick to be a greater and neerer danger to the Kingdom; Here they make it necessary for preservation of the Kingdom: There they use a dubious expression, Whether from Sectaries or Ma­lignants; Here they mention only dangers from Secta­ries, as that which they lookt at in that businesse: Whe­ther this be straight and upright walking we refer it to their Lordships own consciences. And whereas their Lordships intimate a paralell betwixt their garrisoning of Newcastle in the first expedition, and their garrison­ing of Berwick and Carlile now, the parallell holds not: Because as there was neither then Covenant nor Trea­ties between the Kingdoms; so this Kingdom being then invaded was necessitate for their own preservation [Page 25]to do what they then did. And as to the large Treaty. their Lordshis naked affirmation, that what they do, con­sists w [...]th that Treary, cannot satisfie mens consciences that it is so. Concerning the offer of a Treaty from the Parliament of England upon the Propositions of both Kingdoms, their Lordships are pleased to answer no­thing, but passing that, they speak to another point, that they have received no satisfaction to their Demands sent to the Parliament of England, nor so much as a Treaty offered thereupon. Their Lordships may be pleased to remember that they themselves did not de­sire a Treaty upon their Demands, nor yet offer any as­surance not to make War, if their Demands were gran­ted: And what though the Parliament of England did not offer a Treaty with that limitation that it should be upon the three Demands of the Parliament of this Kingdom? might it not conduce as much and more to the setling of a happy Peace, and preventing of a new War, that they offered a more comprehensive and full Treaty, upon the Propositions agreed upon by the Par­liaments of both Kingdoms? Lastly, whereas their Lordships say that the Parliament and Committee of Estates are only Judges, if the answer of the Parliament of England be satisfactory, we shall desire their Lord­ships to remember what we have touched before, that others also have a Judgement of discretion, and must not be led by implicite Faith or blinde obedience.

In answer to the breach of the sixth Article, Their Lordships do not deny, that they are to assist and de­fend many who have not entered into the League and Covenant; Onely they make a diversion, and desire it may be considered that while they are challenged [Page 26]for this, yet no notice is taken in any Church Judi­catories of these who have gone to the Army of Secta­ries: But their Lordships may be pleased to take notice of this great difference, that their Lordships Declarati­ons and Professions make manifest what was said in the Declaration concerning their assisting and defending many who have not taken the Covenant, Whereas that which is objected by their Lordships on the other hand concerning some gone to the Army of Sectaries, is not made to appear to us; And when the offence of such per­sons, if there be any, shall be made evident to us, we shall do what becometh us in our Places and Callings. As to that which their Lordships expect of the faith­full Covenanters in England, we do for our part hope for better things of them, and things that accompany Salvation, and we shall rest confident of them through the Lord, that they are and will be more mindfull of the Covenant, then to comply with any course contra­ry or prejudiciall thereunto, or prefer any humane inter­est to the securing of Religion.

To the next instance their Lordships answer by deny­ing that they depart from their first principles, which we fear is but too true of some of them, who having be­fore gone out from us because they were not of us, have now been most active in this ingagement; But sure we are, there is a departure from the first principles and resolutions expressed in the Covenant, Treaties and Declarations of both Kingdomes. Neither is this a bare humane assertion (as their Lordships are pleased to esteem it) for it was proved by the late Commission of the Kirk in their Declaration March 1. and in their Representation, whereunto the Declaration of the As­sembly [Page 27]did expresly relate: For proof of that particu­lar, We shall here give instance, in the postponing of Religion to the Kings interest, in the association with Malignants, in the oppression and persecution of such as have been most zealous and active for the Covenant and Reformation of Religion, in the manifold en­croachments upon the liberties of the Kirk; Were these the first principles? Or rather what can be more con­trary to the first principles?

The fifth Argument in the Assemblies Declaration, their Lordships are pleased to make very light of, as humane and popular, not Scripturall; But by their Lordships favour, it is no wise agreeable to Scripture rules to believe that all they who have been most zealous and faithfull in the Covenant and cause of God, should he deceived and deluded in this businesse, and that they who were enemies to the work of God in the beginning, and have never yet brought forth the fruits of repentance, should now find out the will of God more then his most faithfull servants in the Land. We claime no infallibility, yet comparatively, it cannot be denyed that such as have been for God and his cause are in a better, and more hopefull way to find out his will, then such as have been, and are on the contrary side, and that God hath made a promise to his servants and chil­dren to guide them into all truth, John 16.13. to teach them in the way that he should choose, Psal. 25.12. whereas there is no such mercy promised to Malignant enemies of the cause and wayes of God.

The six Arguments which their Lordships are pleased to adde by way of retortion, to prove from each Article of the Covenant, that it had been a breach of [Page 28]Covenant if they had not ingaged, may be (as we humbly conceive) very shortly and easily answered. All their six Arguments runne upon the dangers from Sectaries; And that such dangers are to be obviat by all lawfull wayes and means, we do most willingly agree with their Lordships; But why do not their Lordships provide against dangers on both hands? We hear no word of Malignants in these Arguments except in the fourth which tells us they have been punished al­ready. That we are obliged by solemn Covenant to en­deavour the extirpation of Heresie and Schisme, is ma­nifest and uncontroverted among us; The point com­plained of is, that upon pretence of doing against Secta­ries, there is an associating and joyning with Malig­nants, a strengthning of the enemies who formerly fought against the Covenant, a casting down of what hath been built, so that the remedy is worse then the dis­ease, and the latter end worse then the beginning. What their Lordships assert of duties to the King, have been aboundantly answered before; We plead against no duty to the King, but for preferring the glory of God, and security of Religion to all humane interests. We wish their Lordships may here apply to themselves, what they have blamed in others, and so we shall con­clude with their Lordships own words in their late De­claration to the Parliament and Kingdome of England, Pag. 13. We are sorry to see ether interests still so carefully provided for, and so little security to Religion, which indeed was the main and principall cause of our engagements in the late Warres.