Review of Brambles Warning Against the Scots Discipline, Chapter
CHAP. ULT.
The Warners exceptions againſt the covenant are full of conſidence but exceeding frivolous.
THough in the former Chapters the Warner has shewed out more venome and gall then the bagge of any one mans ſtomack could have been ſuppoſed capable of, yet as if he were but beginning to vomite, in this laſt Chapter of the covenant a new flood of blacker poyſon rusheth out of his pen. His undertaking is great, to demonſtrat cleerly that the covenant is meerly void wicked and impious. His firſt clear demonſtration is, that it was deviſed by ſtrangers, impoſed by ſubjects, who wanted requiſite power, and was extorted by juſt feare of unjuſt ſuffering, ſo that many that took it with their lips, never conſented with their hearts. Anſ. This cleer demonſtration is but a poor and evill argument: the Major, if it were put in forme, would hardly be granted, The Covenant was not diſhonourable to union.but I ſtand on the minor as weake and falſe for the covenant was not deviſed by ſtrangers, the Commiſſioners of the Parliament of England together with the Commiſſioners of the Parliament and generall aſſembly of Scotland were the firſt and only framers thereof, but they who gave the life and being to it in England were the Lords and Commons aſſembled in Parliament at Weſt-Miniſter by the Kings call, and at that time acknowledged by his Majeſtie without any queſtion about the lawfullnes of their conſtitution and authority: theſe men and that Court were not I hope great ſtrangers in England. The covenant was not impoſed upon the King: but the Parliaments of both Kingdomes made it their earneſt deſire unto his Majeſtie, that he would be pleaſed to joyne with them in that Covenant, which they did judge to be a maine peece of their ſecurity for their Religion and liberties in all the three Kingdomes. As for their impoſing of it upon the ſubjects of England, an ordinance of Parliament (though the King conſent not) by the uncontroverted lawes of England, is a ſufficient authority to crave obedience of all the ſubjects of England, during the continuance of that Parliament.
The laſt part of the demonſtration is dishonorable indeed to the English Nation if it were true, it was no dishonour to England to joyne with their brethren of Scotland in a Covenant for mantainance of their Religion and Liberties: but for many of the English to ſweare a covenant with their lippes, from which their heart did diſſent and upon this difference of heart and mouth to plead the nullity of the oath, and to advance this plea ſo high as to a cleer demonſtration, this is ſuch a dishonour and dishoneſty, that a greater cannot fall upon a man of reputed integrity, Eſpecially when the ground of the lie and perjury is an evident falshood: for the covenant was not extorted from any flesh in England by feare of any unjuſt ſuffering; ſo far was it from this, that to this day it could never be obtained from the Parliament of England, to enjoyne that covenant upon any by the penulty of a two pence.
The Warners ſecond demonſtration is no better then the firſt, the ground of it is, Covenanters were not deceived, but underſtood what they ſweare.that all oathes are void which have deceipt and errour of the ſubſtantiall conditions incident to them. This ground had need to be much better cautioned, then heere it is, before it can ſtand for a major of a clear demonſtration: but how is the minor proved? behold how much short the Warners proofes are of his great boaſtings. His firſt argument is grounded upon an evident falshood, that in the Covenant we ſweare the lately deviſed diſcipline to be Chriſts inſtitution. Anſ. There is no ſuch word nor any ſuch matter in all the Covenant: was the Warners hatred ſo great againſt that peece of write, that being to make cleare demonſtrations againſt it, hee would not ſo much as caſt his eye upon that which he was to oppugne, Covenanters ſweare to endeavour the reformation of England, according to the word of God and the beſt reformed Churches, but not a word of the Scotes Presbytery, nor of any thing in any Church even the beſt reformed, unleſſe it be found according to the paterne of Gods holy word.
The ſecond ground of his demonſtrantion is alſo an evident errour, The Warner unwittingly comends the Covenant.that the covenant in hand is one and the ſame with that of King Iames. Anſ. Such a fancy came never in the head of any man, I know; much leſſe was it ever writen or ſpoken by any: that the Covenant of King Iames in Scotland 1580, should bee one and the ſame with the Covenant of all the three Kingdomes 1643, whatſoever identities may appeare in the matter and ſimilitude, in the ends of both; but the groſſeſt errors are ſolide enough grounds for praelaticall clear demonſtrations. Yet heere the Warner underſtands not how hee is cutting his own vines; his friends in Scotland will give him ſmall thanks for attributing unto the nationall Covenant of Scotland, (that Covenant of King Iames) theſe three properties, that it duplicate page duplicate page was iſſued out by the Kings authority, that it was for the maintenance of the Lawes of the realme, and for the maintenance of the eſtablished Religion: tyme brings adverſaries to confeſſe of their own accord long denyed truthes. But the Characters, which the Warner inprints upon the ſolemne league and Covenant of the three Kingdomes, wee muſt bee pardoned to controvert, till he have taken ſome leaſure to trie his wilde aſſertions. Firſt that the league is againſt the authority of the King, ſecondly that it is againſt the Law; and thirdly that it is for the overthrow of Religion. The man cannot think, that any should beleeve his dictats of this kind without proofe, ſince the expreſſe words of that league do flatly contradict him in all theſe three poſitions.
His gentle memento, that Scotland, when they ſued for aid from the crowne of England, had not the English diſcipline obtruded upon their Church, might heer have been ſpaired: was not the English diſcipline and liturgy obtruded upon us by the praelats of England with all craft and force? did we ever obtrude our diſciplin upon the English? but when they of their owne free and long deliberate choice had abolished Bishops and promiſed to ſet up Presbytery, ſo far as they had found it agreable to the word of God, were wee not in all reaſon obliged to encourage and aſſiſt them in ſo pious a work?
In the nixt words the Warner for all his great boaſts finding the weaknes of all the former grounds of his ſeconde demonſtration, The King did not clame the ſole and abſolute poſſeſſion of the militia.he offers three new ones: which doubtles will doe the deid: for he avowes poſitively that his following grounds are demonſtrative, yet whoſoever shalbe pleaſed to grip them with never ſo ſoft an hand shall find them all to be but vanity and wind. The firſt, after a number of proſyllogiſmes reſts upon theſe two foundations, firſt that the right of the militia reſides in the King alone: ſecondly that by the covenant the militia is taken out of the Kings hands; and that every covenanter by his covenant diſpoſes of himſelfe and of his armes, againſt the right which the King hath into him. Anſ. The Warner will have much adoe to prove this ſecond ſo, that it may be a ground of a clear demonſtration: but for the firſt that the power of the militia of England doth reſide in the King alone, that the two houſes of Parliament have nothing at all to doe with it, and that their taking of armes for the defence of the liberties of England or any other imaginable cauſe againſt any party countenanced by the Kings preſence againſt his lawes muſt be altogether unlawfull; if his demonſtration be no clearer, then the ground where upon he builds it, I am ſure, it will not be viſible to any of his oppofits: who are not like to be convinced of open rebellion by his naked aſſertion, upon which alone he layes this his mighty ground. Beleeve it, he had need to aſſay its releefe with ſome colour of ane argument; for none of his owne friends will now take it of his hand for ane indemonſtrable principle, ſince the King for a long time was willing to acknowledge the Parliaments jointe intereſt in the militia, yea to put the whole militia in their hands alone for a good number of yeares to come: ſo farre was his Majeſtie from the thoughts, that the Parliaments medling with a parte of the militia, in the time of evident dangers, should be ſo certainly and clearly the crime of rebellion.
The Warners ſecond demonſtrative ground wee admit without queſtion in the major, that where the matter is evidently unlawfull, the oath is not binding; but the application of this in the minor is very falſe. All that hee brings to make it appeare to be true, is that the King is the ſupreame Legiſlator, that it is unlawfull for the ſubjects of England to change any thing eſtablished by Law, eſpecially to the prejudice of the Praelats without their own conſent, they being a third order of the Kingdom; otherwiſe it would be a harder meaſure then the Friers and Abbots received from Henry the eight. The change of lawes in England ordinarly beginne by the two houſes without the King.Anſ. May the Warner be pleaſed to conſider how farre his dictats heere are from all reaſon, much more from evident demonſtrations. That the burden of Bishops and ceremonies was become ſo heavy to all the three Kingdomes, that there was reaſon to endeavour their laying aſide, he does not offer to diſpute; but all his complanit runnes againſt the manner of their removall: this (ſay I) was done in no other then the ordinary and high path-way, whereby all burdenſome Lawes and cuſtomes uſe to be removed. Doth not the Houſes of Parliament firſt begin with their ordinance before the Kings conſent be ſought to a Law? is not an ordinance of the Lords and Commons a good warrant to change a former Law during the ſitting of the Parliament? The Lawes and cuſtomes of England permit not the King by his diſſent to ſtoppe that change. The King did really conſent to the abolition of Bishops.I grant for the turning an ordinance to a ſtanding Law, the Kings conſent is required, but with what qualifications and exceptions wee need not heere to debate, ſince his Majeſties conſent to the preſent caſe of abolishing Bishops was obtained well neere as farre as was deſired; and what is yet lacking, wee are in a faire way to obtaine it: for the Kings Majeſtie long agoe did agree to the rooting out of Epiſcopacy in Scotland, he was willing alſo in England and Ireland to put them out of the Parliament, and all civil courts, and to diveſt them of all civil power, and to joyne with them Presbyteries for ordination and ſpirituall juriſdiction; yea to abolish them totally name and thing, not only for three yeares but ever till he and his Parliament should agree upon ſome ſetled order for the Church, was not this Tantamont to a perpetuall abolition for all and every one in both houſes having abjured Epiſcopacy by ſolemne oath and Covenant, the Parliament was in no hazard of agreing with the King to re-erect the fallen chaires of the Bishops: ſo there remained no other, but that either his Majeſtie should come over to their judgement, or by his not agreing with them, yet really to agree with them in the perpetuall abolition of Epiſcopacy, ſince the conceſſion was for the laying Bishops aſide ever, till hee and his houſes had agreed upon a ſettled order for the Church. If this be not a full and formall enough conſent to the ordinance of changing the former Lawes anent praelat…, his Majeſtie, who now is, eaſily may and readily would ſupply all ſuch defects: if ſome of the faction did not continually, for their own evill intereſts, whiſper in his eares pernicious counſel, as our Warner in this place alſo doeth by frighting the King in conſcience from any ſuch conſent, for this end he caſts out a diſcourſe, the ſinshews whereof are in theſe three Epiſcopall maximes. The Praelats would flatter the King into a Tyranny.Firſt that the legiſlative power is ſollie in the King, that is according to his Brethrens Cōmentary, that the Parliament is but the Kings great counſel of free choyce, without or againſt whoſe votes hee may make or unmake what Lawes he thinks expedient; but for them to make any ordinance for changing without his conſent of any thing that has been, or inſtituting any new thing, or for them to defend this their legall right and cuſtome (time out of mind) againſt the armes of the Malignant party, no … may deny it to be plaine rebellion.
II. The praelats takes to themſelves a negative voice in Parliament.That the King and Parliament both together cannot make a Law, to the praejudice of Bishops without their own conſent, they being the third order of the Kingdome: for albeit it be ſacriledge in the Lords and Commons, to clame any the ſmalleſt share of the legiſlative power, (this in them were to pyck the chiefeſt jewel out of the Kings Crowne) yet this muſt be the due priviledge of the Bishops, they muſt duplicate page duplicate page be the third order of the Kingdome, yea the firſt and moſt high of the three, far above the other two temporall States of Lords and Commons; their share in the Legiſlative power muſt be ſo great, that neither King nor Parliament can paſſe any Law without their conſent, ſo that according to their humble proteſtation, all the Lawes and acts, which have been made by King and Parliament, ſince they were expelled the houſe of Lords, are cleerly voide and null.
That the King and Parliament in diveſting Bishops of their temporall honour and eſtats, The Praelats grieve that Monks and Friers, the Pope and Cardinals were eaſten out of England by Henry the eight.in abolishing their places in the Church, doe ſin more againſt conſcience then did Henry the eight and his Parliament, when they put down the Abbots and the Fryers. Wee muſt beleeve that Henry the eight his abolishing the order of Monks was one of the acts of his greateſt Tyranny and greed: wee muſt not doubt, but according to Law and reaſon, Abbots and priours ought to have kept ſtill their vote in Parliament, that the Monaſteryes and Nunryes should have ſtood in their integrity, that the King and Parliament did wrong in caſting them down, and that now they ought in conſcience to be ſet up againe, yea that Henry the eight againſt all reaſon and conſcience did renounce his due obedience to the Pope, the Patriarch of the Weſt; the firſt Bishop of the univerſe, to whom the ſuperinſpection and government of the whole Catholick Church in all reaſon doth belong. Though all this be heere glaunced at by the Warner, and elſewhere … prove it to be the declared mind of his Brethren, yet we muſt be pardoned not to accept them as undenyable principles of cleare demonſtrations.… ſupremacy of Kings is not prejudged by the Covenant.
The laſt ground of the Doctors demonſtration is, that the covenant is ane oath to ſet up the Presbyterian government in England at it is in Scotland and that this is contrary to the oath of Supremacy; for the oath of Supremacy makes the King the only ſupreame head and governour of the Church of England, that is, the civil head to ſee that every man doe his duty in his calling; alſo it gives the King a ſupreame power over all perſons in all cauſes: but the Presbytery is a politicall papacie, acknowledging no governours but only the Presbyters: it gives the King power over all perſons as ſubjects, but none at all in Eccleſiaſtick cauſes. Anſ. Is there in all this reaſoning any thing ſound? Firſt what article of the covenant beares the ſetting up of the Presbyterian government in England as it is in Scotland? II. If the oath of ſupremacy import no more then what the Warners expreſſe words are here, that the King is a civil head, to ſee every man doe his duty in his calling, let him be aſſured that no Presbyterian in Scotland was ever contrary to that ſupremacy. III. That the Presbytery is a papacy, and that a politicall one, the Warner knowes it ought not to be graunted upon his bare word. IV. That in Scotland no other governors are acknowledged then Presbyters, himſelfe contradicts in the very nixt words, where he tells that the Scots Presbytery aſcribes to the King a power over all perſons as ſubjects. V. That any Presbyterian in Scotland makes it ſacriledge to give the King any power at all in any Eccleſiaſtick cauſe; it is a ſenſeleſſe untruth.
The Warners arguments are not more idle and weake, The Warners inſolent vanity.then his triumphing upon them is inſolent: for he concludes from theſe wiſe and ſtrong demonſtrations, that the poor covenant is apparently deceitfull, unvalide, impious, rebellious, and what not? yea that all the learned divines in Europe wil conclude it ſo, & that all the covenanters themſelfes who have any ingenuity, muſt grant this much; and that no knowing English man can deny it, but his owne conſcience will give him thely. Anſ. If the Warner with any ſeriouſneſſe hath weighed this part of his owne write, and if his mind goe along with his pen, I may without great preſumption pronounce his judgment to be none of the moſt ſolide.
His following vapours being full of aire we let them evanish, only while he mentioneth our charging the King with intentions of changing the Religion and government, we anſwer, that we have been moſt willing alwayes to aſcribe to the King good intentions but withall we have long avowed that the praelaticall party have gone beyond intentions to manifeſt by printed declarations and publick actions their former deſigne to bring Tiranny upon the States, and popery upon the Churches of all the three Kingdomes: and that this very write of the Warners makes it evident, that this ſame minde yet remaines within them without the leaſt shew of repentance. So long as the conſcience of the court is mannaged by men of ſuch principles, it is not poſſible to free the hearts of the moſt underſtanding, from a great deale of Jealouſy and feare to have Religion and lawes ſtill overturned by that factione.
But the Warner commands us, The covenant is not for propagating of Religion by armes.to ſpeake to his Dilemma, whither we think it lawfull or unlawfull for ſubjects to take armes againſt their prince meerly for Religion. We anſwer, that the reaſons whereby he thinks to conclude againſt us, on both ſides are very poor, if we shall ſay, it is unlawfull; then he makes us to condemne our ſelfes, becauſe our covenant teſtifies to the world, that we have taken up armes meerly to alter Religion, and that we beare no alleadgance to our King but in order to Religion, which in plaine tearmes is to our owne humours and conceits. Anſ. There be many untruthes here in few words, firſt how much reality and truth the Warner and ſome of his fellowes beleeves to be in that thing which they call Religion, their owne heart knowes; but it can be no great charity in him to make the Religion of all covenanters to be nothing but their owne humours and conceits. Secondly it is not true that Covenanters beare no alleadgance to the King but only in order to religion. III. The Parliament of England denied that they took up armes againſt their King, though to defend themſelves againſt the popish praelaticall and malignant faction, who were about to deſtroy them with armes. IV. They have declared, that their purpoſe was not at all, to alter Religion but to purge it from the corruptions of Bishops and ceremonies that to long had been noxious unto them. V. They have oft profeſſed that their armes were taken for the defence of their juſt liberties, whereof the preſervation and reformation of Religion was but one.
The other horne of his Dilemma is as blunt in pushing as the former. If we make it lawfull (ſaith he) to take up armes for Religion, we then juſtify the independents and Anabaptiſts; wee make way for any that will plant what ever they apprehend to be true Religion by force, and to cut the throat of all Magiſtrats, who are in a contrary opinion to them; that it is a ridiculous partiality for any to priviledge their own Religion as truth and Goſpell. Anſ. The Warners black Atheiſme.Whether will theſe men goe at laſt, the ſtrength of this reaſon is blak atheiſme, that their is no realty of truth in any Religion, that no man may be permitted to take his Religion for any thing more but his owne apprehenſion, which without ridiculous folly he muſt not praeferre to any other mans apprehenſion of a contrary Religion: this is much worſe then the pagane Scepticiſme, which turned all reality of truth into a meer apprehenſion of truth, wherein their was no certainty at all: this not only turnes the moſt certaine truths, even theſe divine ones of Religion, into meer uncertaine conceptions; but which is worſe, it wil have the moſt orthodoxe beleever ſo to think, ſpeake and act, as if the opinions of duplicate page duplicate page Independents, Anabaptiſts, Turks, Jews, Pagans or groſſe Atheiſts were as good, true and ſolide as the beleefe of Moyſes or Paul, were of the truths revealed to them from heaven. Secondly we ſay that ſubjects defence of their Religion and liberties eſtablished by Law, againſt the violent uſurpation of Papiſts, Praelats or Malignants, is not the planting of Religion by arms; much leſſe is it the cutting of the throats of al Magiſtrats who differ in any point of Religion. aThe Praelats condemne the defenſive armes of the Dutch & Frensh Proteſtants.III. In the judgement of the praelaticall party, the defenſive armes of the Proteſtants in France, Holland, and Germany, muſt be als much condemned as the offenſive armes of the Anabaptiſts in Munſter, or of the ſectaries this day in England. Can theſe men dreame that the World for their pleaſure will ſo farre diveſt themſelves of all Religion and reaſon, as to take from their hands ſo brutish and Atheiſticall maximes.
bThe Praelats decline the judgement of counſels.He concluds with a wish of a generall counſel, at leaſt of all proteſtant Churches for to condemne all broatchers of ſeditious principles. Anſ. All true covenanters goe before him in that deſire, being confident that he and his fellowes as they have declined al ready the moſt ſolemne aſſemblies of their owne countries, upon aſſurance of their condemnation; ſo their tergiverſation would be als great, if they were to anſwer to an oecumenick Synod. cThe Praelats overthrow the foundatiōs of Proteſtant Religion.What (I pray) would the Warner ſay in a counſel of proteſtants for the practiſe of his party pointed at in his laſt words? I meane their purging the Pope of Antichriſtianiſme, of purpoſe to make way for a reconciliation, yea for a returne to Rome, as this day it lyes under the wings of the Pope and Cardinals. dThe Praelats are ſtil peremptorie to deſtroy the King and all his Kingdoms if they may not be reſtored.Alſo what could they anſwer in a Chriſtian counſel unto this charge, which is the drift of this whole Book, that they are ſo farre from any remorſe for all the blood and miſery, which their wickednes (moſt) has brought on the former King and all his Kingdomes theſe eleven yeares, that rather then they had not the Covenant and generall aſſembly in Scotland deſtroyed as an Idoll and Antichriſt, they wil chuſe yet ſtill to imbroyle all in new calamities? This King alſo and his whole Family, the remainder of the blood and Eſtats in all the three Kingdomes, muſt be hazarded for the ſowing together of the torne mytres, and the reerecting of the fallen chayres of Praelats. If Bishops muſt lie ſtill in their deſerved ruines, they perſeveer in their peremptory reſolution, to have their burials ſprinckled with the ashes of the royall Family and all the three Kingdomes.
FINIS.