ALbeit the Offers of the Commmittee of Estates, for securing of Religion, hath not been accepted by the Ge­nerall Assembly (at the suggestion of some dis-affected Persons) Yet the Committee Resolves never to leave Persuing of their Duties, for Preser­ving the same according to the Solemn League and [Page 2]Covenant. But least by their filence they should seem to be satisfyed with the Papers presented to them by the Assembly the last day of July, Entituled, A DECLARATION, &c. of the 21. of July. They thought fit to return for the present a very few short OBSERVATIONS thereupon, Intending to emit a large Narrative of the Reasons and necessities of the present Engagement of this Kingdom in a War against the Sectaries in England, wherein, as they will Vin­dicate themselves from encroaching in any sort upon the Liberties of the Kirk, So they resolve to assert and maintain the just power of the Civil Magistrate against all usurpation whatsoever: All the Arguments brought to prove the Sinfulnesse and Unlawfulnesse of this En­gagement, are reduced in the Assemblies Declaration to four Classes. 1. From these places of holy Scripture, wherein the Wars of Gods people are called VVars of the Lord, and that all things should be done to the Glory of God. 2. From these places, which discharge Association with the Canaanites, Idolaters, and wicked men. 3. From these places, wherein we have the example of the people of God seeking reparation by Treaty, before they engaged in a War. 4. From these places wherein Breach of Covenant is condemned for a great Sinne procuring Nationall Judge­ments.

To the first we Answer, by acknowledging and be­leeving that all the Wars of the People of God, should be the Wars of God, undertaken at the Command of these who have lawfull authority under God, as were the Wars by the command of Moses, Joshua, the Judges and Kings of Judah, And as undertaken by warrant from Gods Vicegerents, So for an honest Cause, for the glory of God; But where as it is assu­med [Page 3]that this Engagement is not such, we deny it, Because it hath the warrant of lawfull Authority, The Estates of Parliament, And the Cause being honest to do a Duty commanded of God to our Prince, God is glorified by doing that Duty, The releeving of our King out of Prison, is a duty, John 18, 36. If my King­dom, sayes our Lord, were of this VVorld, then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews. Our Lord suppones it was a common Dutie, that Sub­jects should fight to preveen the captivity of their King, And if a Warre be lawfull to preveen captivity, Is it not lawfull to deliver him from that base capti­vity, are we lesse obliged in dutie to our Native Prince, then Abraham to his kinsman Lot? who engaged in a Warre for rescuing him, notwithstanding Lot had as­sociated himself in Warre with wicked men, The Sodo­mites, Gen. 14.? Are we lesse obliged then David and his associates to their captive wives, who engaged in Warre for their freedom, 1. Sam. 30.?

As for the duty of honour, for performance where­of we have engaged our selves; We beleeve it is a du­tie commanded by God himself in the fifth Command, Pro. 24.22.1. Ep. Pet. 2.16.17. We are forbidden to use our Christian liberty as a Clock to malicious­nesse, for withholding or withdrawing Dutie. Yea Pagans by the light of Nature, reading the law of Na­ture, which is from the God of Nature, do use all ho­nour to their Kings, Yea, holy Samuel undoubtedly zealous of Gods Honour, notwithstanding he knew certainly by Divine Revelation, that God had re­jected Saul, yet honoured him before the People, 1, Sam. 15.30.31.

[Page 4] To the second Classe of Arguments; against asso­ciations with Malignants, We answer, 1. These places wherein association with the Canaanites is forbidden, proves not the point, for they were destinated to de­struction, Deut. 7.2. that Gods People, might have that Countrey promised of old for their peculiar ha­bitation: We hope none pretend such a warrant, for destroying all who differ in Religion from them, That they alone may dwell in the Land, or if any be of that judgement, Let him speak it out in time. 2. It would be considered, that confidence and trust in these world­ly helps are forbidden; Did not the Generally As­sembly in the year 1585. supplicate King James of happy Memory (as is mentioned in the Assembly 1642) to command his Ambassador, then going to England, to deal with the Queen, that there might be a bond of Union betwixt them and other Christian Princes professing the true Religion, for the defence thereof, against the persecution of Papists joyned in League, by the bloody Decree of Trent? And who doubts but many of these protestant Princes were Lutherians: Did our fathers wrong in taking help from England then under Prelates; and using the Service Book, To withstand the French Persecution? 3. There is a great difference in joyning with Strangers, idolaters, as the Kings of Judah sometimes did, And Subjects ob­liged in a common Dutie living under one King. 4. We declare (as may be seen in our Declaration To this Kingdom, and in our Answer to the Petitions of Presbyteries and Synods) that we will associate with none, but such as will engage themselves, to be faith­full in the Ends of the Covenant, and who do so can­not [Page 5]be reputed Malignants, that is, Popish and Pre­laticall, unlesse they be false Hypocrites: And if at any time they manifest their falshood by their works, in ob­structing or opposing the Ends of the Covenant, we have declared that through Gods assistance we shall do our uttermost endeavours to suppresse them.

To the third, because there hath been no Treaty, That is denied, Because our Commissioners did for a long time represent wrongs, and seek reparation, as is men­tioned in their Papers given into the Parliament of Eng­land; and approven in this Parliament, also a Messenger with our just and necessary Demands, was sent to the Houses in April last; yet, by the prevalency of Sectaries, no satisfaction is returned thereunto.

To the fourth Classe of Arguments, taken from the Breach of Covenant; We grant that breach of Cove­nant is a great sin; and pains needs not be taken for pro­ving that which none denies; But that by this Engage­ment, as it is represented in our Declaration, The Cove­nant is broken in all the Articles thereof, Is more then can be well proven: The breach of the first Article, is instanced by an induction of three particulars, quarrel­ling the doctrine of Ministers, the disorders committed by the Souldiery in time of Divine Worship, and the not answering the Petitions of Presbyteries and Sy­nods; Therefore we maintain, not the Doctrine, Wor­ship and Government of the Church.

To the 1. Instance, we answer, neither Parliament nor Committee of Estates hath quarrelled any Mini­sters doctrine, and though they should quarrel any in an orderly way for seditious doctrine, were it any breach of Covenant? for we are not bound to maintain any [Page 6]such doctrine, but rather to censure according to several Laws of this Kingdom the Abetters thereof, as distur­bers of the publique peace? Some Ministers have been conveened before us, and challenged for seditious pra­ctises; if any quarrell this, we conceive they break Covenant, which bindes them to maintain, and not to quarrell the undoubted Priviledges of Parliament, to judge by themselves or their Deputies, all persons in causes Civill, or Criminall: To that, we say no more, but it is, and shall be, our hearts desire, that all the Mini­sters of the Land may be alwayes able to say as Paul, Act. 24 12. They found me not raising up the people, neither in the Synagogue, nor in the City.

To the second instance, We answer, Disorders in time of Divine worship, are not owned by us: When they are represented to us, and duely instructed to have been such, we shall, according to justice censure them. Dis­orders committed by some in England, and lately in this Kingdom, were never used as an Argument to prove the unlawfulnesse of these engagements: And we wish, there had been the like search in former times, who knowes, but it might have preveened insolencies and disorders at this time?

To the third, we answer, We did take pains, and used all lawfull means, to give satisfaction to their Desires: It seems strange to us, they should be both Petitioners, and Judges of their own Petitions; Yea, suppose, That For an uncontroverted Truth, which is in question, to wit, That all your desires were just: If our not grant­ing all your desires, infer We maintain not the Govern­ment of the Church: May not we with as much rea­son, in our sense, conclude, That the refusing of the just [Page 7]desire of the Committee of Estates, given in by the Earl of Glencairn, for granting us the space but of two or three dayes, to propone our just exceptions, against the proceedings of the late Commission of the Kirk, before that the Assembly should approve their proceedings; As also the refusing of that pious and lawfull desire of the Army for Ministers: May we not conclude, That this is not a course to maintain the just Authority of our Civill Government?

Wee wonder, how any can carp at the limitation to maintain Doctrine, &c. as it is established by Law, un­lesse some would have us to maintain some innovations in Doctrine, Worship or Government, though not yet established by Law: It appears also not to consist with ordinary charity, to carpe at our harmlesse acknow­ledgement of the Kings goodnesse in establishing the Work of Reformation here; yet we say far lesse then hath been acknowledged by the Assembly 1639 in their Letter of thanks to the Kings Majestie.

To the instances of breach in their second Article of the Covenant: We answer to the first: That the de­sire of the Queens return can be no breach of the Co­venant, unlesse the Covenant obliged us to remove the Queen, and our Covenant dissolves not the Covenant of Marriage: Withall Wee wish, there may be no grea­ter encouragements given to Sectaries to expect their long laboured for Toleration then Wee have, or ever shal give either to the Popish or Prelatical party to hope for favour or connivence from us to their Idolatry and Superstition.

To the second Instance for breach of the second Ar­ticle: We desire our Answer to the 1. Argument may [Page 8]be repeated. 2. Doing of a necessary and timeous duty to our King, is a duty acceptable to God who com­mands it, and will be a mean blessed of God for encli­ning the Kings heart (from the sense of our loyall En­deavours) to his duty for securing Religion; These were our old Principles according to Gods Word from the which by his Grace, We shall not depart; To wit, That as evil may not be done that good may come of it, So must we not omit necessary duties for fear of bad consequents, This is in Gods hand and the other is re­quired at our hands: As it is president presumption to do evil that good may come of it; So it argues both disobedience to, and distrust of God, to omit duties for fear of consequents. The Generall Assembly knows, there is a difference betwixt a consequent in respect of Order of time and of causalitie, The Honour and Free­dom given by God to our first Parent in the State of Innocencie: As it was not the Cause of his abuse of both which followed in time; So the giving of both was Tree of all blame; Besides we have declared, we will not put in his hands any such Power whereby Religion or the Covenant may be endangered, 13. pag. Decla­ration.

To the branch of the third Article in the first instance, We answer, That breach of Priviledge of Parliament, and prejudice to the liberty of the Subject, should be best known to Us, who are both Parliament men, and Subjects sensible of our own Libertie: We desire it to be considered, if the Kings Majestie should give his consent to an Ordinance for Toleration of Errours, would not this greatly prejudice Religion? in such a case were it not good He had a negative voice? It is well [Page 9]known That Ordinance had been past into a Law, if his Majesty had not refused it.

To the second Instance, we grant the Civill power is subordinate to the good of Religion, and it is a great sin in Kings to do otherwise, but if Kings fail in Religion, and in all things obey not Christs Ordinance, that there­fore their Subjects are not tied to obedience in things lawfull, Is against Scripture, The practise of the Jewish Church, and the Confessions of Faith of all Reformed Churches.

To the breach of the fourth Article, We desire our Answer to the second Argument be repeated.

To the breach of the fifth Article in taking the Fron­tier Towns in England; We Answer, there being a ne­cessitie of engagement in War, as we have shown, and having certainly understood, that a party of Sectaries, declared Enemies to Religion, King & Kingdoms, were to seize upon these Towns, the very law of Nature, that in necessity teacheth self-preservation, by laying hold on these weapons, whereof Enemies would make use for our destruction, allows it in such an exigent: As the Kingdom of England hath experience of our Fidelity in rendring up to them the Town of Newcastle, where­in we secured our selves for a time, in our first Expedi­tion: So we intend and declare, that after Religion, King, and Kingdoms are secured from that prevalent party of Sectaries, we shall with the same fidelity, ren­der up these Frontier Towns; what we have done con­sists well with the large Treaty betwixt the Kingdoms, which we intend to keep inviolable on our Parts; That Treatie was with the Kingdom of England, but not with Sectaries.

Whereas it is insinuated, the Parliament of England hath offered a Treaty, We answer, The Parliament and [Page 10]Wee who are authorised by them are onely Judges, If their Answer be satisfactory, And the truth is, neither first nor last have they nor Wee received any satisfaction to the necessary demands of this Kingdom. Nor so much as a Treaty offered to Us thereupon.

To the Breach of the 6 ^th, Article. In our assisting or defending these that are not in the Covenant, And that we will by this Engagement set our selves against faith­ful Covenanters in that Kingdom, who wil never Con­sent that the King be brought to or neer London with Honour, Freedom, and Safety before he secure Religion. To the 1. We Answer as before to the second Argument. And with all desire it be con­sidered, That although we be quarrelled for assist­ing those that have not taken the Covenant; yet no notice is taken so far as we know, in any Church Ju­dicatory of these perfidious Country-men, who have gone to that Army of Sectaries under the Command of Lambert. To the second We answer, We expect better things of the faithfull Covenanters in England, seeing the Parliament there in 1647. did invite the King to come to London with Honour, Freedom and Safety, which had been performed had they not been over­awed by the Army.

To the second instance, for Breach of the 6. Article We answer, We divide not from our first Principles, but prosecute the same Ends of the Covenant, Bare human Assertions prove little or nothing, Wee have not withdrawn from any that adhere to publick Principles, But if any walking upon private principles have separate from us, They themselves know best, they went from us because they were not of us.

[Page 11] Whereas much is spoken anent the probabilitie of light and judgement in the greatest part of the Ministers' condemning this Engagement as sinfull and unlawfull, Wee Answer, the Argument is but humane and Popular, and not from Scripture, unlesse your in­fallibilitie could be demonstrated from the Word of God, Such an Argument, if admitted, will prove Im­plicite Faith, which if we should give to the word of man, were indeed a Breach of our Covenant.

Let us also offer to your considerations our thought anent breach of Covenant if we had not En­gaged.

I. Are Wee not bound by the 1. Article To endeavour the Reformation in Religion in the Kingdoms of Eng­land and Ireland? If we should sit still and behold Sectaries defacing Religion that were far from en­deavouring a Reformation there.

II. Are we not obliged by the 2d. Article To endea­vour the extirpation of Schisme and Heresie? But to fold our hands, and sleep in security, while the Evil One sowes the Tares, Is this to endeavour the extirpation? No, it is to give way to the rooting and spreading of Errour.

III. In the 3 ^d. Artile we are obliged to maintain the Priviledges of Parliament and Liberties of the Subjects, as also the Kings Person, and just power in the preservation, &c. If we sit still, Is not the Parliament overawed by an Army of Sectaries? And to do nothing, is a virtuall complying with Sectaries, and strengthen­ing of their hands; Are we not bound according to the explanation in the Assembly 1639. to assist and maintain in every case, which may concern His Ho­nour [Page 12]If we do nothing for His Honour, and Relief from that base and disgracefull Imprisonment, Are we not guilty of Breach of Covenant, and of that Duty we owe to our King by our Allegience, which is not weakened but strengthened by the Covenant, as is many times professed in our Declarations?

IIII. In the 4 ^th. Article we are obliged to disco­ver, and bring to triall and punishment Incendiaries, Malignants, &c. As Malignants have been punished, So, are we not bound to bring Sectaries great hinderers of the work to condigne punishment? Our Covenant binds us to endeavour for this.

V. In the 5 ^th. We are bound to preserve the Peace betwixt the Kingdoms, and to set our selves against the wilfull opposers thereof, either it must be avowed that the Army of Sectaries is no Enemy to the Peace of these United Kingdoms, (which we think none will professe) or it cannot be denied, but we fail, if we oppose them not by an Engagement in War, As the Church doth oppose them in their Ecclesiastick way.

VI. In the 6 ^th. We are bound to defend all that en­ter into this Covenant, In the pursuing thereof, but if we should lie by, and suffer the faithful Covenanters in England to be still borne down by that Army of Sectaties, Were not this a Breach of Covenant? Wee desire these things to be considered impartially, with­out prejudice of Self-opinions in judgement, of Self-interest in Association, which are the two moates that hinder the understanding, to discern Truth in the sim­plicitie thereof.