DUPLYES Of the MINISTERS & 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.  IEREM. 15.19. 
Honour all men: Love the Brotherhood: Fear GOD: Honour the King.  1. PET. 2.17. 
Printed in Aberdene, by Edw. Raban, 1638.   

 coat of arms or blazon   

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 Julie 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 not 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, conveaned in the court of a noble man 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, & 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 divulgate 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, & 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 writ, on the Lord's 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 Lord's 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 not be ascribed unto us, but to the invincible force of divyne Truth. We conclude with zorobabel, 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. Whence ye conclude, that we were rather aiming at victory, moved thereto by prejudice, than 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 Divynes: 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 your 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 Wyse 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 Divynes, 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 hath 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 and 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 ascribe this to the pungent force of our Answers; 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 Subscribentes did find in their Consciences, before they subscribed your Covenant; together with the Limitations, and Reservations, wherewith they subscribed 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 who-so-ever, 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, & 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 & 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 acclayme, 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 remede 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 timously prevented and cured. But withal 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 Novatus, recorded by Eusebius, Lib. 6. Historiae Cap. 37. worthily sayeth, You ought rather to have suffered any thing whatsoever, for avoiding of cutting asunder the Kirke of GOD: and Martyrdom for keeping the Kirke from Schism, is no less glorious, than 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 subscribe 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 Confoederation, and 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, and in the Latin, that Covenanting, and Confoederation, 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 Subscrybing thereof, do bring some places of Scripture, wherein mention is made of a COVENANT, & 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, (JOSHVA 24. verse 25) and in the days of Jehojada the Priest, (2. KINGS 11. verse 17) and in the days of King Asa, (2. CHRON. 15. verse 15) and that which is mentioned by ISAIAH, 44. verse 5.  
8. As we are still informed, that some have fled the Country, and some have subscribed 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 Subscrybing 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 persons 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 subscribed, did appertain only to the persons of the subscrybers, all the days of their lyves; 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, and 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 subscribe 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 subscribe. 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 mandatori: expirat mandatum. Extra. De 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 subscribe that Negative Confession; but only some Articles relative to the National Confession. And as for 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.  

Ego A. B. sancte & ex animo coram omniscio & omnipotente Deo confiteor & profiteor fidem eam quae de sancta Trinitate, & Mediatore Emmanuele à sanctis Patribus in sex primis O Ecumenicis conciliis, contra Pauli Samosateni, Sabellij, Arij, Macedonij, Apollinaris, Nestorij, Eutychetis, & Monothelitarum haereses proposita explicata & defensa est, esse vere Christianam, orthodoxam, Catholicam, ex sacris Canonicis scripturis haustam; Symbolum quoque sancti Athanasii ut similiter orthodoxum me recipere. Item me ex animo detestari haeresin Pelegianam, ejusue reliquias Semipelagianas, & eas haereses quae Imaginibus aut ulli merae creaturae religiosam concedunt adorationem. Item, me monarchiam Papae Romani in universam Ecclesiam, & ejus cum in spiritualibus tùm in temporalibus primatum, & judicij Papalis in religionis controversiis infallibilitatem, tanquam antichristiana deliramenta rejicere, omnesue etiam alias haereses tum olim invectas, tum recens sub Romani Pontificis tyrannide natas anathematizo. Agnosco Spiritum sanctum in Canonicis V. & N. Testamenti scripturis per Prophetas, Evangelistas, & Apostolos loquentem, esse nobis unicum, supremum, infallibilem, & ordinarium omnium de fide vitaue Christiana controversiarum judicem. Et S. scripturam Canonicis V. ac 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 DEI verbo proponitur de credendis, sperandis, amandis, doctrinam esse orthodoxam, Catholicam. Et ipsam hanc Ecclesiae Scoticanae doctrinam, me ad extremum usque vitae meae halitum constanter per DEI gratiam professurum & pro mea vocatione defensurum sancte promitto, juro. Insuper almae huic Vniversitati cui hunc scholasticum (docturae Theologicae) honorem debebo, me nunquam ingratum futurum, sed semper ei ex animo fauturum, ejusque commoda, piè, seriò, sedulò, fideliter promoturum sancte etiam coram eodem omniscio & omnipotente DEO 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, and that we will not have the King to be satisfied; whence ye infer, that our dealing is more suitable to Papists, and such incendiaries, than for us; who desire to prove good Patriots, in using all means of pacification. But certainly ye wrong us: for 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 nowayes 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 intend 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 former REPLIES: but in the tenderness of our Consciences, we do uprightly signify to you our scruples, which hinder us from approving or Subscrybing 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, and Christians, in such evident love of Truth and Peace, as it shall be manifest, that we neither have been, nor shall be Authors, or Fomenters, of this miserable Combustion.  
14. Ye are sorry, ye say, That we should account your Covenant, to be a Confoederacie 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 Truth, we should make no opposition thereto. And we do heartily wish, that according as ye do here profess, so indeed no man be threatened with worldly terroures, to go your way. We aim 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 remede thereby, would have resolved, according to the practice of Ancient Christians, either to flee his Majesty's dominions, or else patiently to suffer whatsoever punishment it should have pleased him to inflict. 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 declare it.  
2. Your urging of us again, with the saying of King JAMES, forceth 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 part, ought not to be against the will and 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, where by many strong Arguments, he doth at 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 take up in two or three sentences, grounded upon all these Argmentes, 
Lond. edit. anno 1616. pag. 200.201.  out of the law of GOD, the duty & alleadgeance 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 fobbes and tears to GOD, according to that sentence used in the primitive Church in the time of the persecution, 
P●eces & lachryma, sunt armae Ecclesiae: 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 part 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 pertinent 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 pretence, without his Highness or his successoures' privity and consent, had and obtained thereto; under the pain to be holden & 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 statuted 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 pains 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 of Parliament, and inserted them in the book of your Covenant. We omit the missapplying 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, potiores sunt his quae ipsas praecesserunt. ff. 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, 
XII. Tabularum fragmenta. de officio consulis. Regio imperio duo sunto: iique praeundo, indicando, consulendo, praetores, judices, consuls appellantor: militia sumùm jus habento, nemini pavento. Salus populi suprema lex esto.  Salus Reipub. suprema lex esto, or the 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 Common-Wealth be his chief Law. And where he seeth the Law doubt some, or rigorous, he may interpret or mitigate the same, lest otherwise summum jus be summa injuria: But this sentence doth no ways 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 DUPLYE. The responses and verdicts of Juris-Consults concerning your Covenant, are not known to us, nor yet the reasons & 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 Divynes in the reformed Church, and learned Politickes; 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 tumults 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, and finally the Laws themselves gave them warrant to do the same. I will not say more of this matter, which is nowayes 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 maintain 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 & 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 tolerable for the Subject, to bear Arms against his natural and absolute Prince. You prove, which is nothing to our purpose. But, Sir, in this enterpryze, the person must be 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 possess your own souls. This is the way for all Christian Subjects to conquer Tyrants, and this is the remedy provided in the New Testament against all persecutions, not to resist 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 diversly of the Magistrate's 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 some following pages.  
8. The same is the meaning of Doctor Rivet, (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 Vapulans: where being pressed by an adversary, 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 Buchanane, 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 Magistrate. For the Scripture teacheth us, that the SWORD belongeth only to the KING, and to them who are sent by him, ROME 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: Who-so-ever, therefore, sayeth S. PAUL, resisteth the Power, resisteth the ordinance of GOD: And they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation, ROME 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 MATTHEW 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 who-so-ever 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, & other writers.  
10. Tertullian, in his Apologeticke, Chap. 30. and 33. and 37. telleth us, that the ancient Christians in his time, although having an 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, than 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 Thebaean Legion of 6666 Christian Souldioures, 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 arma è 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 more 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 wit, neither to obey in that which he could not perform with a good conscience, nor yet to resist by force of Arms. His words to the people, (CONCIONE 1. contra AUXENTIUM) are these; Why, then, are ye troubled? I shall never willingly leave you. If I be compelled, I can not gayn-stand. I may be sorry, I may weep, I may sigh. Against Arms, Soldiers, the Goathes also, my Tears are Arms: For such are the Guards of a Priest. Otherways I neither ought nor may resist. 
a Quid ergo turbamini? volens nunquam vos deseram, coactus repugnare non n●vi. Dolere potero, potero flere, potero gem●re; adversusarma, milites, Gothos quoque, Lachryma mea arma sunt. Talia enim munimenta sunt sacerd●ti●. Aliter nec dib●a nec possum resistere.  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 deb●●.  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 the 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 much to be regarded, 
Interest enim quibus causis, quibusque authoribus homines gerenda bella suscipiant: ordo tamen ille naturalis, mortaliam paci accommodatus hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli authoritas, atque consilium penes Principem sit. Aug. Lib. 22. contra Faustum, Cap. 75.  (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, delectumve habuerit, exercitum comparaverit. Et Cod. ut armorum usus inscio Principe interdictus sit. Nulli prorsus nobis insciis, atque inconsultis quorumlibet armorum movendorum copia tribuatur. These are the words of the Emperors Valentinian and Valens. Et Cod. de re militari, Leg. 13. Nemo miles. Nemo miles vel sibi vacet, vel aliena obsequia sine nutu principali peragere audeat, etc.  
17. BODIN, in his first Book de Republica, cap. 10. Num. 155 & 156. (Pag. 244. Edit. Latin. 4. Vrsell. 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 fourth Book of his INSTITUTION, in the last Chapter of that Book, disputeth the Question at length, and by many strong Arguments evinceth, and concludeth, that it is noways 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 Fleeing, is a sort of Suffering. Neither are his words subjoined in the 31 Sect. to wit, I speak always 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 33 Sect. at the beginning of it, he termeth those of whose duty he disputeth, Subjects. And indeed, who-so-ever is a Subject, is also, in respect of the supreme Ruler, 
Hugo Grotius, de jure belli & pacis, lib. 1. cap. 4. num. 6.  a private man. Although Magistrates, who are under the King, be public persons, in respect of their inferioures; 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. 
Averrces' ●▪ Metaphys. comment. 6▪  Hence KING JAMES, in his Book Of the true Law of free Monarchies, PAG. 206. affirmeth, that all the people are but private men, the authority being always 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, apppointed 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 Lacedaemonian Ephori, the Roman Tribunes, and the Athenian Demarchi. When the Ephori were set up in Lacedaemon, the Kings of Lacedaemon, were but Kings in name, 
See Hugo Grotius, de jure belli & pacis, pag. 66 where he citeth sundry ancient Authors.  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 fame 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 the three Estates assembled in Parliament. Hence the learned RIVET, speaking of CALVIN his mind in this place, 
Rivet, in his jesuita vapulans, cap. 13.  sayeth, that he giveth no power to people over Monarches, properly so called. 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 magistratu politico, NVM. 483. where he discourseth accuratelie of this matter: Zepperus in his 3 Book de Politia Ecclesiastica, in the last Section of the 13 Chapter, PAG. 573. Edit. Herborn. 1595. Albericus Gentilis, in his regal disputations, disput. 3. de vi civium in Regem semper injusta. 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 Francisci Suarez, CAP. 6. § 27. joannes Angelius Werdenhagen, I. C. in his Politica generalis, LIB. 3. CAP. 10. QUEST. 14.  
21. By these Testimonies we intend not to lay upon you, or any of our Countrymen, 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 Writers 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 alleged 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, ye mean not only the last and most remote ends, but the nearest and immediate; we pray you tell us what ye mean by the nearest and immediate end: if ye mean the object 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, & all other actions, are to be esteemed & 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 strive, 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 Kirke, 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 Kirke 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-Booke; and are credibly informed, that They are discharged by Act of Counsel, [at Holie-Rood-House, the fifth of Julie 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: and, that he neither intendeth innovations in Religion nor Laws; as we declared 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-Booke, as ye require; but it was sufficient, to discharge it, in manner foresaid.  
3. Ye do conclude your Answer unto our thirde Reply, with an uncouth and incredible Position, whereof ye bring no proof at all, but only this bare Assertion; Who-so-ever 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-Booke, and Canons, than 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, where-by the Service-Booke is discharged, & 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, than with the Service-Booke, and Canons.   

THE IV. DUPLY.  
YE alleged a 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 of our reformers, and in charity to recommend it to others. Hence we inferred in our REPLY, that ye ought not 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 subscribed 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 writs: 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 Superintendents, established in the first book of Discipline, hath declared, that the statutes & 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, misregarde the ordinances of our Reformers, prefixed to the PSALM BOOK, concerning the office of Superintendentes, 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, Antiquie, and consent of the Reformed Churches; that they truly make for us, and against you, the unpartial Reader may perceive, by these our Disputes.  

Whether or not Episcopacy, and Pearth Articles, be abjured in the Late Covenant.  
3. As for the second Misstaking 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-Booke, 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 noways satisfactory, nor hath so much as a show of satisfaction. For ye are afraid to express that period of time, lest ye be forced 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 and 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 Consequentes 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 cluding our Argument.  
6. secondly: Who can think, that ye, and others, Contryvers of the Late Covenant, who condemn Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, as much as ye do the consequentes of them, have only vowed, to remove their Consequentes, 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 intend 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 your 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 can not 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 fively: How can we swear, to remove these 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 consequentes 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 Christ-mas Feastivitie. For sure we are, that these abuses have not come by the anniversary commemoration of CHIST'S Nativity, in the which by the ordinance of Pearth Assembly, all Superstitious 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 Feastivities, PAG. 63. proveth, because (sayeth he) we have lacked preaching upon Christ-mas day, these fifty seven years bygone, in our Church, yet Riot, Profaneness, Surfeit, and Drunkenness, have not been wanting.  
11. Seaventhlie, as for Superstitious observation of days, (whereof hitherto we have had no experience) we marvel, that ye can reckon it, amongst the Consequentes 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 LORD'S 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 an other period of time, than ye did before? or if ye design only this selfsame period of time, (in the which both the foresaid Practical Abuses, and these Doctrinal Corruptions, have entered into this Church, accompanying, a 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 tyme.  
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 praeceeding 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 praeceeding the inbringing of Pearth Articles, comprehendeth all that tract of time which interveaned 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 to it 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 can not 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 Consequentes, 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 answer 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 Episcopacy, 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 Subscrybers. 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 subscribe 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 Answer 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 who-so-ever 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, and 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 contryvers of the Late Covenant: as ye may easily perceive.  
20. thirdly, ye say, that we have perceaved 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 subscribe the New Covenant, in the which that Old Covenant is renewed. 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, perceaving the force of them) to show, that we can not conveniently subscribe your Late Covenant, notwithstanding of our Judgement, or 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, nor 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 by past, have accused us of Perjury, for the alleged violation of the Old Covenant, sworn by our Praedecessoures'. 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 Praedecessoures', 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 subscribe & swear the New Covenant, as it includeth and ratifieth the Old, and yet be really free from all abjuration, or condemning 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 subscrybing of your Covenant. These Questions require a punctual Answer. For if our subscrybing 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, subscribe your Covenant; neither can ye, with a good conscience, require it of us.  
22. fively, from our refusing to subscribe the Late Covenant, in so far as it reneweth the Old Covenant, or Little Confession; because that Confession, 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 subscribed the Late Confession any time bypast. secondly, That we can not swear the Confession of any Church, no, not the Articles of the CREED, Petitions of the LORD'S PRAYER, nor Praeceptes 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, LORD's 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 Penne-men 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 always 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 subscribe 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 TRVETH, and if these who require our Subscription, be, in our judgement, Opposers of the Truth, in any point contained in that Confession, & may make advantage of our Subscription, alleging, 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 subscribe it, to declare unto ●s, 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 anno 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 not be denied by us, in respect these twenty years bygone, we have thought ourselves free of Perjury, notwithstanding of the 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 subscribe 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 strayteth 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 subscribe it, we will collect out of that which hath been already said, some INTERROGATORIES, which we pray you to answer punctually, if ye intend to give us satisfaction. The first is, Whether or not your declaration of the extent of the LATE COVEMANT, 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 Contryvers of it? The reason wherefore we propone this question, ye will perceive by these that follow. secondly, seeing ye and others the chief Contryvers 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 & 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? fively, 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? Sixthly, How can we concur with you in an Oath, wherein we are infallibly persuaded that ye have abjured Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy? Seaventhlie, 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 injustlie 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-Booke, 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-Booke 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 2 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 no ways satisfy our consciences. For, to begin with the last part of your Answer; THE MEMORY OF SUPERSTITIOUS CELEBRATION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, is not renewed in this Kingdom, for aught we know. And, if ye mean, that it is renewed by the Service-Booke; suppone that were true, yet, ye know, the Service-Booke is discharged, by the Act of Council, 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 nynth 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 advise, or counsel. This apprehension proceedeth from ignorance: for that phrase is most frequently used by Counsels, in their decrees. In that Apostolic Council, mentioned ACTS 15, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are expressly used, verse 22.25.28. In the Council of Ancyra, Can. 1. & 2. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used. In that Great and first O Ecumenicke Council of Nice, Can. 5, ye have these words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Can. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Can. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the third Council of Carthage, Can. 1.2. & 3. the word placuit is used, & in codice Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae Graeco-Latino passim habetur vox PLACVIT 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Decrees of the Apostolic Council were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 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 Vlpianus, 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 where-by 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; ROME 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 whould 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, enjoying 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 Bannez, who (sayeth he) affirm, that we should abstain, even a 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 consilio, non vero sub praecepto, of matters of Council, and not commanded by any Authority, divyne 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 Jnterpreters 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 2 am 2ae Divae 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, when-so-ever 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 Law: For who-so-ever resolve, and determine, not to practise Pearth Articles, until they be tried in a New Assembly, and 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 Perth 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 Superioures, 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 thb Laws of the Church, when they prescribe 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: who-so-ever are not persuaded of the unlawfulness or inexpediency, of the things commanded by their Superioures; and on the contrary think them to be expedient ad vitandum Scandalum; these ought not for eschewing of Scandal, refuse obedience to the laws and ordinances of their Superioures. 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 Superioures, for any fear of Scandal causelessly taken.  
37. secondly, that which may be removed by information or instruction, can not be a 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 flee 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. fively, 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. Sixthly, 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, ROME 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 though 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 vilipende 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 always to be understood with the exception of the case of Scandal causelessly taken. For, Wyves, Children, and Servantes, 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 there-at. 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 peremptorlie required, by our lawful Superioures, as we shall show in our next Argument.   

Whether the PRECEPT of OBEDIENCE to SUPERIORS, or the PRECEPT of eschewing SCANDAL, be more obligatory?  
43. Last of all: When a man is peremptorlie 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 where-by 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, where-by the weak may be scandalised, and that other Precept which forbiddeth the resisting of Authority; and telleth us, that who-so-ever 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 otherways 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 Superioures.  
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 Superioures 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 otherways, 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 Superioures, enjoining, and peremptorlie 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 otherways would be Disobedience; because we ought not for the Commandment of man, do that where-by 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 Superioures, may make that Scandal of our weak brethren, not to be imputed unto us, which otherways 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 Superioures.  
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 Superioures, 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 Superioures are not obligatory, when the things commanded by them are unexpedient. We, on the contrary, say, that when our Superioures 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 DVETIE OF OBEDIENCE, which we owe to the lawful Commandments of our Superioures.  
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 commanded by our Superioures, 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 hic, & nunc, in some particular places, and times: providing always we do this, Without offence of our Supericures, 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, than to the harm which some particular Persons may receive there-by.  
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, & probable Arguments may be brought pro and contra, 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, & may prove most pernicious to the Church, for it maketh the Church obnoxious to perpetual Schism, & disconformity in matters of external Policy: in respect men ordinarily are divided in judgement, concerning the expediency of these things. Suppone, 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 forty, 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 acquiesee, 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 ascribe 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 aedification; we ought to acquiesce into the Decree or Constitution of the CHURCH, although it be not of infallible authority: and that partly because it is impossible, that otherways we can agree in one Conclusion, concerning matters of this nature; and partly, because if we deny Obedience to the Decree 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 where-by 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 Superiors. 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 of 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 Supeperioures. For this cause (as Calvin judiciouslie noteth, Instit. Lib. 2. Cap. 8. §. 35.) GOD to allure us to the duty of Obedience to our Superiouree, 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 Superioures, is of greater obligation and moment. And, first, we prove this by an Argument taken from the dyverse 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 aedificative, 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 Superioures, which prescribeth an Act aedificative 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 Superioures, is of greater Moment, and consequently more obligatory, than the Precept of eschewing Scandal; is evident by these reasons which are brought by our Divynes, 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 Authors, Religion and Piety. secondly: This Precept, is the ground and sinew, (sayeth Pareus, in his Catecheticke 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, oeconomic, Civil and Ecclesiastical, do consist and are conserved, by the submission or subjection of Inferioures to Superioures, 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 Superioures 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 (saith 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 violations of the singular Precepts. Now we subsume: the denying of Obedience to Superioures, enjoining such things as in themselves are lawful and exdient, 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 Inferioures to their Superioures,) ought to be regarded, sayeth, that Martyrdom suffered for eschewing of Schism, is more glorious, than Martyrdom suffered for eschewing 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 prescribe Duties of Justice, are of greater obligation, than these which prescribe 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 Scholastickes and Popish Casuists▪ but also by our Divynes. 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 5 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 proprio jure 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 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 obliged to pay his creditor, than to give alms. Such-lyke, 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 omission 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 to 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 apppointed 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 Duplye.  
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 and Purity 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 and 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 & 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, than ours. In the mean time, ye know the Bishops never disclaimed the Authority of that 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 & Communion, do condemn the practice of this our Church, from the Reformation, till Pearth Assembly, & 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, neminem judicantes (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 DUPLYE, but also of dyverse Reformed Churches, and of the Ancient Church, as we declared in our sixth DEMAND, and shall again speak of it in our sixth DUPLYE.   

A DEFENCE OF OUR DOCTRINE and PRACTICE, concerning the Celebration of BAPTISM and the LORD'S 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 with all 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 with all 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 save any: yea, on the contrary, we are confident, that when Baptism is earnestly sought for, or unfeygnedlie desired, and yet can not be had, the Prayers of the Parents, 
Ambrose in obitum Valentiniani. See Doctor Field in his 3. Book of the Church, CAP. 32.  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 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 Kirke, 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 be not present there; and the like doctrine we find in others, also cited on the Margin, 
Altar Damascen, pag. 828. & 853. Re-examination of the Assembly of Pearth, pag. 227.  which soundeth so harshly in the ears of some of your own adherentes, 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 Kirke. 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, 
●n regulis ●uris, leg. 42.  they may be dispensed with: for according to that same Law, That which is chief and principal, should not be ruled by that which is accessory, but contrariwise. 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 LORD'S, 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 Prtmitive 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. ANANIAS 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 Infant, who about Midnight is at the last gasp, to enjoy the presence of the Congregation, as it was impossible for any of the aforementioned, the Eunuch, Saul, or the Jailor, 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 of Gregory Nyssen, against them who delayed their Baptism, from S. Basill, 
Gregory Nazianzen. Orat. ●0.  in his 13 Homily, which is an Exhortation to Baptism, Tom. 1, from Gregory Nazianzen, in his 40 Oration, whose words we have cited upon the margin. Hence although two set-tymes were apppointed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Upon these words, NICETAS, his Interpreter, speaketh thus; Baptismum suscipe quamdiu minime circum te pugnant is qui te baptismi aqua tingare parat, & qui poecuniarum ●uarum hares futurus est. Ille videlic●● studi●se agens 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 hares scribatur.  for Solemn Baptism, yet the case of necessity was ever excepted. This is clear by the foresaid Testimonies, as also by these following, Siricius Epist. 1. Cap. 2. Tom. 1. Concil. Gelas. Epist. 9 ad Episcopos Lucaniae, 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 holily 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 than at Excommunication, where-by 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 delyeered by CHRIST to every particular Church, or Congregation, collectivelie 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 publiekc, 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 not.  
63. As for the administering of the Sacrament of the LORD'S Supper, we say it is most profitable, for comforting of the Souls of men, fight with the terroures 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. 
Concilium Nicenum, Can. 13.  The famous O Ecumenicke Council of Nice, in the 13 Canon, and second part thereof, appointeth the same, or rather confirmeth the ancien Laws there-anent. The like we may see in the 76 Canon, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  of the fourth Council of Carthage. See Balsamon also, upon the 20 Canon of the Council of Carthage, where speaking of dying persons, he sayeth, That the LORD'S Supper should be carefully administered unto them; and Baptism, if they be not baptised. Hence Bishop Jewel, in his Dispute against Hurdings, 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 Council of Carthage, speak, Canon 78. So Gaudentius in his second Treatise on Exodus. So in saint 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 mystical bread to the faithful in the public Congregation, but also administrateth to dying persons this viaticum, as the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and all Antiquity, 
Balsamon his words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  call it.  
64. Learned Calvine 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 remaineth 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 apppointed for the confirming of our faith, and increase of our Communion with CHRIST; if we ought by the use of it to testify our faith and study of repentance; why should they be depryved of so great a good, who fight with long disease's, or are in danger of their life? When doth Satan labour more strongly to shake and brangle our faith, than when we are exercised with bodily diseases? When do our consciences tremble more, and stand in need, of the most ample corroboration of faith, than when we find that death is knocking at the door, and that we are called to compeare 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 subscribe 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 fore mentioned censure, considering that part of the LITURGY, wherein the administrating of the Communion to sick persons is set down, sayeth, Things here commanded, are agreeable anough 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 so hateful to Papists, that after he was dead, they raised up his bones, and burned them. PETER MARTYR, writing upon the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the CORINTH. speaking of the LORD'S Supper, hath these words, They say it must 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 oftentimes 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 part, the practice of others, leadeth people to the contempt of the Sacraments, because they are moved there-by, 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. Lastlie, 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, 
Altar Damascen, pag. 341. dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies, PART. 3. CAP. 1. SECT. 2. Re-examination of the Article● of Pearth, pag. 143  that on the contrary they teach, 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. Chrysost. homil. 36. on the first Epistle to the CORINTHIANS, 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.    

THE V. DUPLY.  
THE indifferent Reader may perceive, by our former DUPLYE, that your ANSWRE to our first exception, taken from the obedience, due to Authority, and from our judgement, concerning the administration of BAPTISM, and the LORD'S Supper, to dying persons in private places, hath not given satisfaction.  
2. We asked of you, in our fifth DEMAND, how we can subscribe the Negative Confession, as it is propounded by you, without contradicting the Positive Confession, approved by Parliament, holden Anno 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 Rites of the Church; at least according to your judgement, who urge the Subscryving of this Covenant and Confession upon us? We urged farther 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 foresaid 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 Writing 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 Late 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 tyme. Pardon us, that we wish greater ingenuity, and a more direct Answer. Consider the words of that Treatise before cited, Parte 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 judement 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 contradict the Positive Confession, approved in Parliament: Had we dot 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 nynth Answer: How do ye not see, that, with a good conscience, ye can not require us, to swear, and subscribe, 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 your 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 subscribe 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 subscribe 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. Lastlie: 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 omission of these things; then why have ye, in all your Writing 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 there-in, 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, than to contemn our Reasons. That which ye here again add, concerning the change of Commissioners, is answered in our fourth DUPLYE.  
8. To give light to your former Discourse, ye subjoin 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 apppointed 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 Objectes. thirdly: For the ordering of Circumstances, to be observed in all actions, Divine, and Humane: and so ye say it is variable. First by these Distinctions, the matter seemeth rather to be obscured, than 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 Ceremonies, 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 oftentimes, 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 not deny) ye may easily perceive, that we are urged by you, to swear, and subscribe, 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 Parliamentes, from Presbyters, to Bishops.  
11. thirdly: If these Constitutions of Counsels, concerning Objects alterable, mentioned in the second member of your Distinction, be one, and 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 be made concerning some alterable matters of Religion, which are not bare Circumstances; which is repugnant to your ordinary Doctrine; 
See the Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies, part. 3. cap. 7. sect. 5.  where-by ye maintain, that nothing changeable, is lest to the Determination of the Church, in matters of Religion; but only Circumstances of Actions. We can not see, how ye can maintain 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 intend 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, 
The late Confession of Helvetia, cap. 27. Confession of Bohemia, cap. 15. English Confession, art. 15. Confessio 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 quarium Praeceptum, Melanchthon, in many places, etc.  without the word of GOD. 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 Divynes 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, (NVM. 6.) First, who ever before you, did ground the necessity of solemn blessing of Marriage upon these words, NVM. 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 apppointed by GOD, and is assisted by Him.  
14. secondly: By this commandment of GOD, to bless the people, NVM. 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, than that, 1. COR. 14.40. Let all things be done decently, and in order: on the which words, both Ancient and Recent Divines, 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. fively: 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-booke. Ye did not find the Service-Booke, neither in our Demands, nor in our Replies; yet we know not, how ye so often reach unto it.  
18. Lastlie: 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 of it in holy Scripture: yea, some of our learned Divines affirm, that it was instituted by Pope Higynus: 
See PETER MARTYR, on the 6 CHAP. of the Epistle to the ROME and GERARDUS, in Loc. Theolog. Tom. 4.  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, and 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 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 Divynes, 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 Propositions concerning the judgement of Divynes who stand for us, was more than indefinite. For allbeeit 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 unlawfullnesse; 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 unlawfullnesse of those things. For, scarce know we any Modern Divines, without his Majesty's Dominions, that peremptorlie condemn these Rites, as unlawful, which were concluded in Pearth Assembly: and of Auntientes, 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 anie-where allowed, in Subject's such a Forbearance of things indifferent, and lawful, as is conjoined with a total and sworn Disobedience of standing Laws, against the Prohibition of their Superioures?  
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 seaventh 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 Episcopie; so we require of you the like plainness, or then the reason of your retiredness.  
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, & 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 subscribe, 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 Duplye; 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 Duplye. Concerning the full Expression, of the Loyalty of your Intentions, to maintain 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 Duplye. 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 Subscrybers 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 always 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 tyme.  
4. Lastlie: 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 Employmentes, 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 there-upon, 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 infer the lawfulness, and commendable Decency of Kneeling, in Divine Worship; and that it is such a Gesture, as our lawful Superioures 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 apppointed, 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. Wherhfore, 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 say 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 seaventh Answer, ye said, the Assembly had concluded the five Articles as indifferent.  
4. Concerning the Service-Booke, (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 particularly and plainly, to our intergatories proponed in our nynth 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 answer to them in meekness, and evident demonstration of our peaceable disposition.  

QVAEST. Answered.  
7. YOur first Quaestion, concerning the Service-Booke, and book of Canons, is noways 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 punctually, 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 DUPLYE.  
9 To your third Question, we answer; our assertion concerning the unlawfulness of Subjects their resisting the Authority, of free Monarchies, by force of Arms, even although they were enemies to the Truth, and persecutors 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 Disputes, that we are fully persuaded of our King's Majesty's constancy, in profession of the true Religion, and equitable disposition in mtnistration 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 warrandable 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 not 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 DUPLYE.  
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 DUPLYE. 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 all are 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 MAIESTATEM; 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 Duplye, that the words of the Covenant, import a perpetual adherence, to the whole 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 praejudice, 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 praejudiciall 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 no we we tell you, that if Pearth Articles, and Episcopacy, for these their alleged Consequentes, 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 subscribe, 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. 15.16. 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 Micajah, 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 intend not to give you a Meeting in this; for our Resolution is, not to be overcome of evil, but to overcome evil with good, ROME 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 say 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 faythfuil in all the duties of our Calling? Ye have, indeed, put more in-to our Apology, and say, that we have praised ourselves, from our frequency of Prayer, extraordinary Humiliations, 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 seconde 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 GGD'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, and yet elsewhere he sayeth, that he was not a whit 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 Employmentes 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 thunderin 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 unlawfullnesse of it. For, that which is not in itself lawful, can never be truly profitable to any. And SOLOMON hath told us, the there is no wisdom, nor understanding, against the LORD, PROVERBS 21.30.  
7. As for last part of your Answer, we have so often told you, that your fear of the inbringing of the Service-Booke, 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 you 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 misscarriages of some who have subscribed the Covenant; especially the offering of violence to Prelates, and Ministers, in time of Divine Service, and in the House of GOD, whereof we spoke in our twelfth Demand, and Reply: ye answer, first, that ye acknowledge not the Service-Booke, for the LORD'S Service. Ye might say the same of any Service-Booke, (if ye allow the Reasons lately set forth in Print against the Service-Booke) for there a Prescript form of Prayet, is condemned, which directly crossth the practice of the Vniversll Church of CHRIST, Ancient, and Recent.  
2. Ye allege, that ye acknowledge not the unsurpd Authority of Prelates, for Lawful Authority. For aught we can perceive, 
Altar. Damase pag. 120. Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies, part 3. cap, 8. digress. 1.  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 Revenrend 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 interpret to the better part, 
Favor●iliores rei potius quam actores habentur. ff. Lib. 50. Reg. 125.  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 Possission of a good name: as also, that in things doubtful, we should rather favour the person accused, than 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 we? But if their very Office seem to you unlawful, we esteem your judgement contrary to holy Scripture, to all sound Antiquity, 
Melanch. in an Epist. to Canerarius, in Concil. Theolog.  and to the best Learned amongst Reformed Divines. Hear what MELANCHTHON 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: 
Melanch. in an Epist. to Camerarius, in Concil. Theol. pag. 90. Quo jure enim I●c●bit nobis dissolvare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiasticam? ●i Episcopi nobis concedant illa, quae aequun esse eos concedere? et ut liceat, c●rte non expedit. Semper it a sensit ipse Lutherus, quem nulla de causa, quidam ut video, amant, nisi quia ●enefitcio ejus sentiunt se, Episcopos excussisse & adept●s libertatem minime vtil●m ad post●ritatem. So in an Epist. ad episc. Augusten, Deinde v●lim h●● tibi persuadeas de me deque multis aliis nos optare ut pace constituta Episcoporum p●tes●a●, sit incolumis. Et hane plurimum prodesse Ecclesiis judicamus  for I see what manner of Policy we shall have; the Ecclesiastical Policy being 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 Jurisdiction to Bishops. So our Companions fight for their own Kingdom, & not for the Kingdom of CHRIST. So in other place. 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 exraordinarie instinct of GOD'S Spirit, which can warrant m●n desti●●●e ●f Authority, to say their hands on ●●●h persons. Touch not Mine anointed, and do My Prophet's 〈◊〉 harm, sayeth the LORD, PSALM 105. Let all th●nges be done decently, and in order, sayeth S. PAUL, 1. COR. 14.40. GOD is not the Author of confusion or tumult, but of peace, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  sayeth that same Apostle there, VERSE 33. To this purpose Grogorie Nazianzen, in his 26 Oration, speaking of the chief causes of division in the Church, sayeth, One of them jam unruly, ferventness without reason and knowledge, and the another is, disorder and undecency, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
5. The son should account the person of his Father Sacred, ff. de obsequiis, Lib. 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 Constitutions of JUSTINIAN, 
Si quis cum sacra mysteria celebrantur, in sanctam Ecclesiam ingredients, Episc●po, aut Clericis, aut Ministris aliis Ecclesiiae 〈◊〉 juriam aliquam inserat: jubemus hunc verbera sustinere, & in exilium mitti. Si verò haec sacra Ministeria conturbaverit, aut celebrare probibuerit: capitaliter puniatur hoc ipso & in Litaniis, in quibus Episcopi, aut Clerici reperia●tur, custodiendo. Et siquidem i●●uriam solum feceri●is, verberibus exilioque tradatur. Si verò etiam Litaniam concusserit, capitale periculum su●tin●bi●● & vindicare jubemus non solum civiles, sed etiam militares judices.  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. 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. S. chrysostom, speaking of the reverence due by people to Pastors, 
In his second Homily upon thes words Salute Priscilla and Aquila. Tom. 5. Edit. Sa●il. pag. 327  sayeth, A man may now see, that there are not so great Scoffs and reproaches, 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 divyne Scriptures, (for what hast thou to do to take my Covenant in thy mouth? saith the LORD; & subjoineth this cause, Thou sittest and speakest evil of thy brother,) and thinkest thou thyself worthy to come to the sacred porches, who accusest thy spiritual Father? How agreeth this with reason? For if they who speak evil of Father or Mother, should dye, 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 cursing 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 saint Augustine, Tom. 10. the Sermone Domini in Monte, Homilia 6. And a little after, he subjoineth; Augustine 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, and 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 intention, 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 maintain, but rather maketh it the more to be disgusted, in consideration of your too great eagerness to stir up hatred against your neighbour, & 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 christian placability, and to the entertaynnig of their wont loving affection towards him. As for these our present questions, we desire Theologicallie 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, 
Aug. lib. de unico Baptismo, cap. 13. O quam detestandus est error hominum, qui elarorum viro rum quadam non restè facta laudabiliter se imitari putant, à quorum virtutibus alieni sunt.  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, than 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 Divyne, D. james Usher, Archbishop of Armach, Primate of all Ireland, in this his Epistle written to the Author.  
VIR EXIMIE;  
SVmma cum voluptate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tuum perlegi: eademque Patriae tuae foelicitatem sum gratulatus, quod novum tandem produxerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qui eam ipsi praestitit diligentiam & virtutem, quam olim exteris Ecclesiis (quum non admodum dissimiles de adiaphoris obortae lites earum pacem perturbarent) exhibuit ille Vetus; 
EUSEB. LIB. 5. HIST. ECCLES. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Nulla salus bello: ipsiue bello salus si qua sit, non alio quam pacis nomine ea continetur. Name & de 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. SAM. XI. 7.  pace belli Vriam, opinor, a Davide aliquando interrogatum meministi.  
Jam verò, pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, scriptum remitto tibi ego 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: sed quod jucundum praebeat spectaculum Midianiticorum satellitum inter se manum conserentium, 
JUDIC. VII. 22.  & mutuo isto bello Ecclesiolae nostrae, pacem promoventium.  
Tu quicquid, hoc est, munusculi, ut ab homine optimè erga te affecto transmissum suscipe, & me (ut facis) ama.  
Pontanae, in Hibernia, III. Eid. Decembr. anno reparatae salutis 1632.  
Tuus in CHRISTI Ministerio conservus JACOBUS ARMACHANUS. 
ARTH. JONST. PARAPH. PSAL. 120   
Me juvat alma quies, gens haec fera bella minatur,  
Et quoties Pacem poscimus, arma crepat.   

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 no ways avoidable there-by, (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 where-by it was exacted; and alleging that there 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 intend, to wit, that either our Oath 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 who-so-ever 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, where-by 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 maintained against the lawfulness of the matters themselves.  
5. Ye say, That conceaving 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 bad consequent of Popery, Idolatry, Superstition, or Scandal, should follow there-upon. We answer, 1. These bad consequentes 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, than 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 can not forbear the practice of these, although our Ordinary, and other lawful Superioures 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 apppointed to be observed.  
7. As for your main Question, Whether a duty necessary by Divine Law, may be, or may not be omitted, in case, our Ordinary, and other lawful Superioures, should will us to omit it? before we answer to it, we must expound what we mean by our other lawful Superioures, 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 fourth 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, and grounded upon HOLY SCRIPTURE.  
9 Affirmative Praeceptes, 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 Praeceptes, do bind at all times, and to all times. [Praecepta negativa obligant semper & ad semper. 
a Thom. 1 ● 2 ●, q●. 71. art. 5. ad 3m m Bonavent▪ in 1. sent. dist. 48. art. 2. qu. 1. in Resolutione. Scotus in 3. sent. dist. 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 weyghtier 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 Tribes 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 Zerviah 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 Pastoures, 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 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 Augustine 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 some thing by fervour, some thing she tolerateth by meekness, some things by consideration she dissembleth, and beareth, 
Gregor. respon ad 7. interrogationem Augustini Caentuariensis. In hoc enim tempore sancta Ecclesia quaedam per f●rvorem corrigit, quaedam per mansuetudinem tolerat, quaedam per considerationem dissimulat, atque portat, ut saepe malum quod aversitur, portando & dissimulando compescat. Prosper, Lib. 2. de vita contemplativa, Cap. 5. Propter hoc ergo, blanda pietate portandi sunt, qui increpari pro sua infirmitate non possant.  so that often by bearing and dissembling, she compesceth [or putteth away] that evil which she hateth. And Prosper sayeth; For this cause therefore, they must 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, forbear public stryving against it, when he evidently perceaveth, that unavoidable Schism would follow there-upon. In such a case he should content himself, to feed his hearers with that wholesome Milk of the Word, which they may receive, and delay the giving of stronger Food unto them, because of their infirmity: Considering that more necessary and weyghtier 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, 
Nazianz. Orat. 26. tom. 1. pag. 446. & 447. Edit. Graecol. Paris. Anno 1630.  Let no man, therefore, be more wise than is convenient, neither more legal than the Law, neither more bright than the Light, neither more straight 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. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] 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, 
Eccles. Ludg. Lib. de tenenda veritate Scripturae post medium [in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Part. 2 Edit. 4.] Qui non tranquillè & pacificè moderatur quod sentit, sed statim paratus est ad contentiones, dissentiones, & scandala, etiamsi non habeat Haereticum sensum, certissime habet Haereticum animum.  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 Economical defect, necessitated by detention of Church maintenance 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, some times, 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 some times the practising of them, may become not necessary, and the omission thereof not sinful, public Authority, and the necessity of the peace of the Church, so requiring. Some time, indeed, the omission of a thing praescrybed by an Affirmative Divine or Humane Law, may be faultless: But it is never lawful for Subjects, to transgress the Negative part of the Divine Precept, by resisting with force of Arms, 
Thom. 2 a 2ae qu. 43. art. 7. Propter nullum scandalum quod sequ● videatur, debet homo, praetermissa veritate, falsitatem docere.  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 Superioures, we are ready to forbear the practice of these things which the Assembly hath apppointed to be observed. And this ye infer from the necessity of Administration of the Sacraments, some times 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 Antecedent. 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 apppointed 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, be for these respects omitted, at the will and direction of those Superioures, to whom we owe our obedience required by that humane Law, and 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 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, 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 Subscrybers, 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 ourselves, is in forging from the words of the Covenant, impediments, and 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 ourselves 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 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. We do noways wrong the Subscrybers, when we propone uprightly our just Scruples, as we in our CONSCIENCES do conceive them, where-by we are moved to withhold our hands from that COVENANT: whereof one is, the fear of unlawful resistance to Authority, if we should hold to that COVENANT; how soever 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 GOD avert) think ye that the Covenantors are 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 Duplye, proving the unlawfulness of such resistance. But if ye think that they be not obliedged, then 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 unjustly allege) beget and breed suspicions of opposing the Truth, of making Innovation in Religion, and of dealing with the Subjects, contrary to his Laws and Proclamations, and contrary to the Oath at his Coronation. We answer; we 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 Subject's contrary to his Laws and Proclamations, or contrary to the Oath at his Coronation. This his Majesty's declaration, against which ye have protested, we have willingly received, and do truly believe it.  
6. What the most honourable Lords, of his Majesty's privy Counsel have done, concerning his Majesty's last Proclamation, and upon what motives, their Honours themselves do know, and 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-Booke, and Canons, as containing a real Innovation of Religion; and do affirm, that, the intention of the Prelates, and their Associates, the Authors and Contryvers 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 dispute, 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 foresaid Canons and Service-Booke, nor any thing of that nature, but in such a fair and legal way, as shall satisfy all his Majesty's loving Subjects; and, that his Majesty neither intendeth Innovation in Religion or laws. As for the intentions of his sacred Majesty, we do heartily and 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 so 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 many pregnant 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 DUPLYE, where ye did use greater exaggerations, than either the intention of the Warner did merit, or became your charity and profession. And by your repetition of it in this 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 DISPUTE. 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, and reforming the Kirke, 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 warrant of Authority, obtrude upon us, and upon those committed to our charges, the swearing of an Oath, which is against our own consciences: and because of our just refusal and opposition, ye do wrong us also, in misinterpreting our pious and upright meanings, and in making and stirring up collateral, 
Hieronym. Apologia adversus Ruffinum, quae incipit, Lectis literis, prope finem. Talibus institutus es Disciplinis, ut cui respondere non potueris, caput auferas; & linguam, qua tacere non potest se●●s? Nec magnop●re glorieris, si facias quod Scorpiones possunt facere, & Cantharideses. Fec●runt haec & Fulvia in Ciceronem, & Herodias in loannem: quia veritatem non poterant audire: & linguam veriloquam discriminali acu confoderunt.— Adversum impiissimos C●l●um atque Porthyrium quanti scripsere nostrorum? Qui om●ssa causa, in sup●rflua criminum objectio●● versatus est?  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 terroures, 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, as in our former Replies, That when-so-ever it shall please you, to specify these speeches, we hope to give you, and all peaceablie-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 doth not) 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 Enterpryze, from the multitude of Subscrybers, and from their Contentment, and 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 can not acknowledge, to be A Commentary written by the LORD'S 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 opposition only in those points. And we wish heartily, That leaving these weak Notes of Truth, to the Papists, chief Acclaymers of them, amongst Christians, (that we speak nothing of Aliens from Christianity) ye would be pleased to adhere, with us, unto the HOLY SCRIPTURES, as the only sure and perfect RULE of TRUE RELIGION, and the Heavenly Lamp, which GOD hath given us, to show us the Way of Truth and 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 ADERDENE, D. D.  
WILLIAM LESLEY, D. D. and Principal of the King's College in ABERDENE,  
IA: SIBBALD, Doctor of Divinity, and Minister at ABERDENE.  
ALEXANDER ROSSE, Doctor of Divinity, and Minister at ABERDENE·      

Some Escapes in Printing.  
Pag. line for read 7 23 because your Answers because their Answers 8 17 Answers Arguments 11 25 chap. 37 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cap. 37 ibid. ibid. Novatus Novatian (called their 13 31 discerned discerned [Novatus) 16 14 resicere, omnesque etiam resicere. Omnes etiam 28 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 30 20 in the 33 in the 22 33 7 alleged allowed ibid. 11 Conventions, ye mean Coventions, from their purpo 35 15 and that that [sed ends, yemean ibid. last service-book Service-Booke, and Ca●●● 36 1 is discharged are discharged 48 penult. condemning condemning of 52 30 contryvers recommenders 59 4 enjoying enjoining bid. last Consilio Concilio 80 margin Leg. 42 in Sexto. Reg. 42 89 11 had we eot had we not 98 26 our Propositions our proposition 99 11 of standing to standing 100 6 Episcopie Episcopacy 105 23 Monarchies Monarches 115 31 Lib. 9 Leg. 9 116 6 Clericis. Now Clericis. Leg. 10. Now ibid. 12 puniatur hoc ipso puniatur. Hoc ipso 117 4 cursing accusing 119 1. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉