to be no wise satisfactorie to the Assemblie; who did therefore appoint ws, their Commissioners, to prepare a particular answer therevuto. And this we are the rather willing to doe, least by our silence we should seeme to be satisfied with such Observations. And this only we shall further premise, that both we and the people of God in the land who expect information from ws, are put vpon this disadvantage, that while many of their Lordships papers are printed and spread, to the detriment of Religion and the Cause of God, the presse is not patent to our papers whereby we desire to clear the truth. And now to come to the particulars.

'Whereas their Lordships are pleased to say that the offers of the Comittee of Estates for secureing of Religion have not been accepted by the General Assembly at the suggestion of some disaffected persons, they may be pleased to remember that the General Assembly did in some former papers demonstrat to their Lordships by good and solid reasons (never yet answered) that their Lordships offers are so farre from securing Religion, that they are inconsistent with the securitie of Religion: In all which (we blesse the Lord) we had never a more unanimous General Assembly and more free of the suggestions of disaffected persons. And we heartily wish their Lordships may be as free of the hearkning to the suggestions of disaffected persons as the Generall Assembly was. Neither shall we judge anie thing before the time concerning these Observations, but shall leave it to Him who will bring to light the hidden things of darknesse and dishonestie, what suggestions have been made to their Lordships in that businesse ; as lykewise whether their Lordships did from a reall desire to be informed and edified, or for some other ends, call for proofs from Scripture of the vnlawfulnesse of the present Ingagement in Warre. However we shall answer to the Observations as they are offered to ws. Wee vnderstand not why the five Arguments in the Assemblies Declaration, brought to prove the sinfulnesse and vnlawfulnesse of the present Ingagement, are by their Lordships reduced to four classes. But we come to the matter.

'The substance of the first Argument vsed by the Assembly was this :-In all lawfull warres of the people of God, the end principally intended and driven at is that wherein the glory of God is chiefly concerned; But in this present warre the end principally intended and driven at is not that wherein the glory of God is chiefly concerned; Therefore 'tis not a lawfull warre of the people of God. Their Lordships doe not denie the proposition of the

Argument, onely they answer to one of the Scripturall proofs thereof, that the warres of Gods people wer called the warres of the Lord, because as they wer vndertaken by warrant from Gods Vicegerents, so for an honest cause, and for the glory of God. We suppose their Lordships mean for the glory of God principallie, and so yeild the point. Yet it shall not be amiss here to put their Lordships in mind of the other two reasons why the warres of Gods people were called the warres of the Lord, namely, 1. Because their warres were not vndertaken without consulting of God and his will, revealed by his Ministers, as is manifest from Numbers 27. 21, and diverse other places. 2. Because their warres were to be managed and ordered according to the Law of God. As to that which their Lordships say concerning the assumption of the Assemblies Argument we answer,—(1.) Their Lordships say nothing of it as it stands in the Assemblies Declaration with the proofs thereof; but, passing all this, they form another assumption which they deny, and bring some reasons for their denyall of it. The Assembly did clearly prove in their Declaration, that the end principally intended and driven at in this Ingagement is not that wherein the glory of God is chiefly concerned; and this was proved by the Parliaments not satisfying of the Desires of the Kirk concering the safety and security of Religion, as likewise of their resolutions of bringing his Majestie to some of his houses in or near London with safety, freedome, and honour, before any securitie had or sought from him for Religion and the Covenant, which is a manifest postponing of the safety of Religion to his Majesties safety, of the freedome of the Gospel to his Majesties freedome, and of the honour of God to his Majesties honour. But all this their Lordships are pleased to passe in silence. And as if the Assembly had denied all duty to the King, they goe about to prove that 'tis a duty incumbent to subiects to vndertake a warre for his Majesties freedome and honour (we know not why their Lordships omit his safety), and severall texts of Scripture are cited by their Lordships to this end; Whereas they touch not the point in controversie, viz.,-Whether, Religion being in so great danger by his Majesties opposition therevnto, it be the subiects dutie to make warre for his Majesties freedome and honour, before securitie sought and had from him for Religion? (2) Their Lordships, instead of weakning the Assemblies first Argument, do indeed adde no small strength to it; For while they are answering that very Argument which challengeth the neglect of

the glory of God and of Religion in this Ingagement, they mention nothing of Religion, but only the Kings freedome and honour as the cause of vndertaking the present warre. (3) The Kirk of Scotland hath ever been and is most willing to resent any injuries done to his Majestie, and to performe every duty for his Majesties freedome and honour in the right way and order, that is, giving to God in the first place what is Gods; But it hath not been the mind of the Kirk or State in this land to make warre for his Majestie in an absolute way and without any qualification, or to the detriment and hurt of Religion. For in the year 1643 this Kingdome was solicited by his Majestie to vndertake warre for him, but because he was ingaged in a course against Religion and the liberties of the Kingdoms, therefore all giving of assistance to him was declined, although at that time the Kingdoms were not joyned in Covenant. How much less is it the subiects duty, after such a Covenant, and after so much blood shed by the means of his Majestie opposing the Covenant and Reformation, and his Majesties adhering still to his former principles, yet notwithstanding of all this to ingage in war for him, and to espouse his quarrell before security desired and had from him for Religion? (4.) The three Scriptures alledged by their Lordships, John 18. 36, Genesis 14. and 1 Samuel 30. do in no wise help their cause, or militate against the Assemblies Argument. For there are four great differences which will marre the application of those Scriptures to the present Engagement in War :-(1) Christs cause against the Jews; Lots cause against the four Kings, who had taken away him and his goods; David and his men, their cause against the Amalekites, who had taken their wives captive, was without controversie a good and honest cause, and no wise to the prejudice of Religion. (2) The instruments and managers wer without exception. (3) The parties to be relieved were also without any exception, so far as can be known from Scripture. (4) None of the three texts cited by their Lordships doth hold forth a war vndertaken for a humane interest with neglecting and postponing the glory of God; and therefore come not home to the point of the Assemblies Argument. When their Lordships shall prove their cause to be as good, the managers and parties to be as much without exception, the glory of God to be as little neglected in this Ingagement as in the example cited, then may their Lordships apply those Scriptures in reference to this Ingagement, but not otherwise. (5) Whatsoever be the duty of subjects towards the relief of their King, which in

the due order and subordination to the glory of God and security of Religion is not denyed, we cannot see how the text, John 18. 36, proveth it, seeing that Scripture holdeth forth a comon custome of the world, rather then a duty of subjects, and sheweth what men vse to doe rather then what they ought to doe. And this sence may be plainly drawn from the text itself. If my Kingdome were of this world, that is, as the Kingdomes of this world are and vse to be, then would my servants fight for me. Least of all was it our Lords meaning to allow fighting, and making warre in a cause preiuduciall and hurtfull to Religion. And whereas their Lordships say in their nixt citation that Lot had associat himself in warre with wicked men, the Sodomites, as hereby they tacitely intimate the lawfulnesse of association in warre with men as wicked as the Sodomites, so we shall humbly beseech their Lordships to observe here, how necessarie it is for their Lordships to search more accurately into these scripturall arguments, for there is no such thing in the Scripture as is cited in their Observations. We read indeed of Abrahams (not Lots) confederacy with Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre ; but that these three were either idolaters, or wicked men, is more then can be proved. (6.) The following paragraph is as wide from the point, proving what no body denies, viz., the duty of honouring Kings. We wish their Lordships may seriously ponder two things joyned with this duty in the first text cited by themselves. One is, Fear God; and this put in the first place; Another is, Medle not with them that are given to change; whereby we are warned that, vnder collour of doing for the honour of Kings, we may not joyne with those who fall off from the cause and wayes of God. To presse any duty concering the Kings honour, with the neglect or prejudice of the honour of God, is indeed to vse libertie as a cloak of Maliciousnesse; so that this falleth back vpon them who charge it without cause vpon others. The text 1 Samuel 15. 30, 31, is no better applyed; For when Samuel yielded to honour Saul before the people, and to turn againe with him, it was vpon his confession and acknowledgment of his sinne; and withall Saul was so honoured before the people that Agag was cut in peeces.

'The second Argument of the General Assembly was to this purpose. Every Ingagement in warre which is pretended to be for Religion, and yet hath in it a confederacy and association with wicked men and enemies of true Religion, is sinfull and vnlawfull; But the present Ingagement in warre is pretended to be for

Religion, and yet hath in it a confederacy and association with wicked men, enemies of true Religion; Therefore 'tis vnlawfull. Their Lordships are pleased to make four answers, the first three against the proposition, the fourth against the assumption. First they say associations were forbidden with the Canaanites because they were destinate to destruction and their countrey promised to Gods people. If the meaning be that the prohibition of association with the Canaanites, and the ground thereof was temporary and such as concerned the Jews only, and that 'tis now free to the people of God to asssociate with such as the cursed Canaanites, let any who is of that judgement speak it out in time. To ws it seems manifest from Scripture that the chief ground and reason of that law was morall and perpetuall, such as concerneth ws in all like cases, viz., lest they should make Israel to sinne and be a snare vnto them, Exodus 22. 33, and 34; 12. 15; Deuteronomy 7. 4. And whereas their Lordships say that they hope there is none who pretendeth such a warrant for destroying all who differ in Religion from them, we shall here passe what their Lordships seeme to suppose, but cannot be proved, namely, that the Jews had such a warrant or did pretend to it. Onely we shall desire that their Lordships may never forget that they are ingaged by solemne Covenant to God that they shall sincerely, really, and faithfullie endeavour the discovery, triall, and condigne punishment of malignants, incendiaries, and enemies of Reformation. Now then can it be lawful to associate with them as long as they remain such? Or how can their Lordships joyne with those as friends of the cause who by the Covenant ought to be tried and punished as enemies to the cause?

'Secondly, 'Tis answered in the Observations that confidence and trust in these worldly helps are forbidden. It seems their Lordships vnderstand the Scriptures cited in the Assemblies Declaration to condemn, not the association of itself with wicked men, but confidence in the associats. And if so, then association with wicked men is no more sinfull then association with good men; for we may not put trust and confidence in worldly or humane helps from whomsoever we have them. We shall yet desire that their Lordships may take a further review of the Scriptures cited in the Assemblies Declaration (which for brevities cause we doe not hear repeat), and we doubt not but it will plainly appear to every one who looketh vpon these Scriptures, that associations with such men in warre ar condemned as vnlawfull and sinfull in themselves. As