Review of the Seditious Pamphlet by Dr Bramble, Chapter
CHAP. ULT.
The Warners exceptions againſt the Covenant are full of confidence, but exceeding frivolous.
THough in the former Ch…pters the Warner has ſpewed out more venome and gall then the bagge of any one mans ſtomack could have beene ſuppoſed capable of, yet as if he were but beginning to vomite, in this laſt Chapter of the covenant a new flood of blackes poyſon rusheth out of his penne. His undertaking is great, to demonſtrate cleer…y that the covenant is meerly void wicked and impious. His fi…ſt 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 tooke it with their lips, never conſented with their hearts. Anſ. This cleer demonſtration is but a poore and evill argument: the Major, if it were put in forme, would hardly be granted, but I ſtand on the minor as weake and falſe; for the Covenant was not deviſed by ſtrangers;The Covenant was not diſhonourable to union. the Commiſſioners of the Parliament of England, together with the Commiſſioers of the Parliament and generall aſſembly of Scotland were the firſt and onelyonly framers thereof, but they who gave the life and being to it in England were the Lords and Commons aſſembled in Parliament at Weſtminſter by the Kings call, and at that time acknowledged by his Majeſtie without any queſtion about the lawfulneſſe 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 Parliament 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 …aine 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 dishonourable indeed to the Engliſh Nation, if it were true it was no diſhonour to England to joyne with their brethren of Sc…tland in a Covenant for maintainance 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 cleer demonſtration, this is ſuch a diſhonour and diſhoneſty, that a greater cannot fall upon a man of reputed integrity; eſpecically when the ground of the lye and pe ju y is n evident falshood: for the Covenant was not extorted from any fleſh in England by feare of any unjuſt ſuffering; ſo far w…s 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 penalty 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 ſware. …hat 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 here it is, before it can ſt…nd 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. Anſw. 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 i…, he 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 Scots Presbytery, nor of any thing in any Church even the beſt reformed, unleſſe it be found accorcording to the paterne of Gods holy word.
The ſecond ground of his demonſtration is alſo an evident errour,The Warner unwittingly commends the Covenant. that the covenant in hand is one and the ſame with that of King James. Anſw. 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 James in Scotla…d 1580, ſhould be one and the ſame with the Covenant of all the three Kingdomes 1643, whatſoever identit es 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 here the Warner underſtands not how hee is cutting his owne veines; his friends in Scotland will give him ſmall thanks for attributing unto the nationall Covenant of Scotland (that Covenant of King James) theſe three properties, that it 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: time brings adverſaries to confeſſe of their own accord long denyed truthes. But the Characters; which the Warner in prints upon the ſolemne league and Covenant of the three Kingdomes, wee muſt b… pardoned to controvert, till he have taken ſome leaſure to prove 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 fo… the overthrow of Religion. The man cannot think, th…t any ſhould beleeve his dictats of this kinde without p oofe, ſince the expreſſe words of that league doe 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 here have beene ſpared; 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 agreeable to the word of God, were wee not in all reaſon obliged to encourage and aſſiſt them in ſo pious a worke?
The King did not clame the ſole and abſolve poſſeſſion of the militia.In the next words the Warner for all his great boaſts finding the weaknes of all the former grounds of his ſecond demonſtration, he offers three new ones: which doubtles will doe the deed: for he avowes poſitively that his following grounds are demonſtrative, yet whoſoever ſhall be pleaſed to gripe them with never ſo ſoft an hand ſhall finde them all to be but vanity and winde. 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 unto him. Anſw. The Warner will have much adoe to prove the 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 Parli…ment 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 my party countenanced by the Kings preſence againſt his lawes muſt …e a together unlawfull; if his demonſtration be no clearer, hen the ground whereupon he builds it, I am ſure, it will not be viſible to any of his oppoſits 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 neede to aſſay its reliefe with ſome colour of an argument; for none of his owne friends will now take it of his hand for an indemonſtrable principle, ſince the King for a long time was willing to acknowledge the Parliaments joynt 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 part of the Militia, in the time of evident dangers, ſhould be ſo certainly and clearely 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 ſupream Legiſlator; that it is unlawfull for the ſubjects of England to change any thing eſtabliſhed by Law, eſpecially to the prejudice of the Praelates without their own conſent, they being a third order of the Kingdome; otherwiſe it would be a harder meaſure then the Friers and Abbots received from Henry the eight.The change of lawes in England ordinarily begin by the two houſes w…thout the King. Anſ. May the Warner be pleaſed to conſider how farre his dictates here 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 complaint 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 duplicate page duplicate page 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 O…dinance to a ſtanding Law, the Kings conſent is required, but with what qualifications and exceptions wee need not here to debate, ſince his Majeſties conſent to the preſent caſe of aboliſhing Biſhops was obtained well neere to as farre as was deſired; and what it 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, hee was willing alſo in England and Ireland to put them out of the Parliament, and all civil Courts, and to diveſt them of all civill power, and to joyne with them Presbyteries for Ordination and ſpirituall jurisdiction; yea, to aboliſh them totally name and thing, not onelyonly 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 pertuall abolition? for all and every one in both houſes, having abjured Epiſopacy by ſolemne Oath and Covenant, the Parliament was in no hazard of agreeing 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 agreeing with them, yet really to agree with them in the perpetuall abolition of Epiſcopacy, ſince the confeſſion was for the laying Biſhops aſide for 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 praelats, his Majeſtie, who now is, eaſily may and readily would ſupply all ſuch defects: if ſome of the faction did not continually, for their owne evil intereſts, whiſper in his eares pernicious counſell, as our Warner in this place alſo doeth by frighting the King in conſcience from any ſuch conſent;The praelats would fl…tter the King into a Tyranny. for this end he caſts out a diſcourſe, the ſinews whereof are in theſe three Epiſcopall maximes Firſt, that the legiſlative power is ſoly in the King, that is according to his Brethrens Commentary, that the Parliament is but the Kings great councel of free choyce, without or againſt whoſe votes hee may make or unmake what Lawes he thinkes expedient; but for them to make any Ordinance for changing without his conſent of any thing that has been, inſtituting any new thing, or for them to defend this their legall right and cuſtome (time out of minde) againſt the armes of the Malignant party, no man may deny it to be plaine rebellion.
II.The praelates take to themſelves a negative voice in Parliament. That the King and Parliament both together cannot make a Law, to the prejudice of Biſhops without their owne conſent, they being the third order of the Kindome: for albeit it be ſacriledge in the Lords and Commons, to claime 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 be the third order of the Kingdome, yea the firſt and moſt high of the three, farre 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 void and null.
Wee muſt grant that the King and Parliament in diveſting Biſhops of their temporall honour and eſtates,The praelats grieve that Monks and Friers, the Pope and Cardinals were caſten out of England by H. in aboliſhing their places in the Church, doe ſin more againſt conſcience then did Henry the eight and his Paliament, when they put down the Abbots and the Friers. We muſt beleeve that Henry the eight his aboliſhing the order of Monks was one of the acts of his greateſt Tyranny and greed: we 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 downe, 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 here glaunced at by the Warner, and elſewhere wee prove it to be the declared mind of his Brethren, yet we muſt be pardoned not to accept them, as undenyable princ…ples of cleare demonſtrations.
The juſt ſupremacy of Kings is not prejudged by the Covenant.The laſt ground of the Doctors demonſtration, is, that the Covenant is an Oath to ſet up the Presbyterian government in England, as it is in Scotland, & that this is contrary to the Oath of Supremacy; for the Oath of Supremacy makes the …ing the onelyonly ſupreame head and Governour of the Church of England, that is, the civill 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 governour 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 civill 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 granted upon his bare word. IV. That In Scotland no other governors are acknowledged then Presbyters, himſelfe contradicts in the very next words, where hee tells that the Scots Presbytery aſcribs 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,The Warner… inſolent Vanity. it is a ſenſeleſſe untruth.
The Warners arguments are not more idle and weake, then his triumphing upon them is inſolent: for he concludes from theſe wife and ſtrong demonſtrations, that the poore covenant is apparently deceitfull, unvalide, impious, rebellious, and what not? yea, that all the learned divines in Europe will conclude it ſo, & that all the Covenanters themſelves who have any ingenuity, muſt grant thus much; and that no knowing Engliſh man can deny it, but his own conſcience will give him the lie. Anſw. If the Warner with any ſeriouſneſſe hath weighed this part of his own write, and if his minde go along with his pen, I may without great preſumption pronounce his judgement 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 alwaies 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 formed deſigne to bring Tyranny 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 Jealouſly and feare to have Religion and lawes ſtill overturned by that faction.
But the Wa ner commands us, to ſpeake to his Dilemma, The covenant is not for propagating of Religion by armes.whither we thinke it lawfull or unlawfull for ſubjects to take armes againſt their prince meerely 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 ſelves, becauſe our covenant teſtifies to the world, that we have taken up armes meerly to alter Religion, and that we beare no alleagiance to our King but in order to Religion, which in plaine terms is to our own humours and conceits. Anſ. There be many untruths 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 own heart knownes; but it can be no great charity in him to make the Religion of all covenanters to be nothing but their own humours and conceits. Secondly it is not true that Covenanters beare no alleagiance to the King but only in order to Religion. III. The Parliament of England denied that they took u… armes againſt their King, though to defend themſelves againſt the popiſh pralaticall 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 corruption of Biſhops and ceremonies that too long had beene noxious unto them. V. They have oft profeſſed that their rames 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 juſtifie 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 Magiſtrates, who are in a contrary opinion to them; that it is a ridiculous partiality for any to priviledge their owne Religion as truth and Goſpell.The Warners black Atheiſme. Anſw. Whether will theſe men go at laſt? the ſtrength of this reaſon is black atheiſme, that there 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 preferre 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 onelyonly turnes the moſt certaine truths, even theſe divine ones of Religion, into meer uncertaine conceptions: but which is worſe, it will have the moſt orthodoxe beleever ſo to think, ſpeake and act, as if the opinions of Independents, Anabaptiſts, Turks, Jewes, Pagans or groſſe Atheiſts were as good, true and ſolide as the beleefe of Moſes or Paul were of the truths revealed to them from heaven. Secondly we ſay that ſubiects defence of their Religion and liberties eſtabliſhed by Law, againſt the violent uſurpation of Papiſts, Prelats or Malignants, is not the planting of Religion by armes; much leſſe is it the cutting of the throats of all Magiſtrates, who differ in any point of Religion.*The Praelats condemne the defenſive armes of the Dutch and French Proteſtants. III. In the Iudgement of the prelaticall party, the defenſive armes of the Proteſtants in France, Holland, and Germany, muſt be as 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 hande ſo brutiſh and Atheiſticall maximes.
*The Praelats decline the judgement of counſels. The Praelats overthrow of the foundation of Proteſtant Religion.He concludes with a wiſh of a generall councell, at leaſt of all proteſtant Churches for to condemne all breachers of ſeditious principles. Anſ. All true covenanters goe before him in that deſire, being confident that he and his fellowes as they have declined already the moſt ſolemne aſſemblies of their own countries, upon aſſurance of their condemnation, ſo their tergiverſation would be as great if they were to anſwer to an oecumenick Synod. What (I pray) would the Warner ſay in a councell of proteſtant▪ 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.*The Praelats are ſtill peremptory to deſtroy the King and all his Kingdomes if they may not be reſtored. Alſo what could they anſwer in a Chriſtian councel 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 wickedneſſe (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 Idol and Antichriſt, they will chuſe yet ſtill to imbroyle all in new calamities? This King alſo and his whole Family, the remainder of the blood and Eſtates in all the three Kingdoms, muſt be hazarded for the ſowing together of the torne mytres, and the rejecting of the fallen chayres of Praelats. If Biſhops muſt lie ſtil, in their deſerved ruines, they perſevere in their peremtory reſolution, to have their burials ſprinckled with the aſhes of the royall Family and all the three Kingdomes,
FINIS.
End of the text · Robert Baillie, Review of the Seditious Pamphlet by Dr Bramble (1649)