An Answer to Forbes Peaceable Warning

An answer to the first Chapter.

YOur historical discourse upon the Con • ession of Faith. which you call, The short negative Confession, is insufficient. For it was not only approved by the general assemblies holden in the year 1581; and then subscribed universallie, but also in the year 1590. by a charge from the secret Counsel procured by the general Assemblie. There was an Act made in the Assemblie holden in June 1587. that Students in Vnivrsities subscribe the Religion then established and professed by the mercy of God within this Realm, before they be promoved to Degries. Whereupon, all such as have been laureat in the College of Edinburgh since that time to this present year to the number of 1500 or thereabout have subscribed that Confession.

In the Assemblie holden in March 1589 some were appointed to seek from the Clerk of Register a copy of the act made lately before concerning the new subscription of the Band, and the same Confession of Faith. Some were sent to petition the Counsel, that Commissions might be given to such persons, as were agried upon before the holding of the Assembly, to receive de novo subscriptions to the Band of maintenance of Religion subscribed by his Majesty, and the same Confession of Faith, which was put in execution, and the Band was printed with the Confession. Whereby you may perceive, what is meant by Religion in the Band of maintenance.

As you have yourself cited sundry acts of Parliament for the first Confession, you might have added an act of approbation of this Confession also. In the 12 Parliament holden in June anno 1592. and act 123 it is declared, that no Subject shall enjoy the benefit of the act of Pacification made in Februar 1572. of aboltion made in December 1585. or of both ratified in July 1587. unless they profess the true Religon, as the same was then professed within this Realm, and acknowledge his Highness Authority. But the heads contained in that Confession were the points of Religion then professed within this Realm; was not universal subscription p • eceeding a sign of profession, Was any subscription accepted but to that Confession since it was first subscribed. The title of the Act showeth, that by profession, is meant giving confession of their Faith. The conjoining of the acknowledegment of the Kings authority with professing the true Religion, as it was then professed, leadeth • s to that Confession: For in the end of that act, there 〈◊〉 a clause binding the subscribers to acknowledge K. James to be their Sovereign Lord, which agrieth not with any other Confession. No other Confession of Faith can be meant in the acts of Parliament following.

Whereas you say, it was called The Kings Confession, because it was set out in the Kings Name, We say, it might have been as well so called, because it was first subscribed by the King and Court. But there is no great matter, upon what ground it was so called by any. This is undoubted, that it was the Confession of the Kirk of Scotland that it was so taken by foreign Kirks, and therefore insert in the harmony of the Confessions of the reformed Kirks, and there called in the superscription The Confession of the Faith of Scotland, which is a larger title, than to call it The Kings Confession. If that Confession which was universally subscribed by direction from Authority, and of the national assembly, may not justly be called, The Confession of the Kirk, let any man judge.

You say, because it insisteth most in rejecting of errors, it is also called The negative Confession. It is so called by Papists, and such as look back to Popery, but not justly. For it consisteth of an affirmative part, comprehending the first Confession as these words do expressly bear. We believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm before God, and the World &c. and of rejection of errors, for which you call it often The negative Confession, taking the denomination from a part, from the lesser part, and from the negative part, rather than from the affirmative. Nay rather from the quality of the appendix to the old Confession, than of the Confession it self. For the rejection of errors is appended to the old Confession. This course to join the rejection of errors with positive points of doctrine was followed at the Counsel at Dort. Your self confess that many masked Papists subscribed the old Confession deceitfully, and therefore that this form of consenting to the old, with a rejection of all contrary Religion, and sundry popish errors particularly expressed, was drawn up to discover them. Was not that needful, and the course lawful? Whereas you say, a certain reverend Brother, meaning Master Craig did it. Will any man think, that none did perceive the deceit of masked Papists, but he alone? Or that he presumed to draw up that form without the consent of other reverend Brethren. finding this course to be necessary, or that it could pass without approbation of the general Assembly. M. Alexander Anderson Principal, M. Andrew Galloway Sub-principal. M. Andrew Anderson, M. Duncan Norie, Regents of the College of Aberdeen, were called before the Earl of Murrey Regent, and the Lord's of privy Counsel, who were present with him in Aberdeen in July 1569. and were required to approve by subscription the old Confession of Faith, with all other Acts made concerning Christian Religion in the Parliamenrs holden at Edinburgh in August 1560. and December 1567. They were deprived for their refusal of all honors, dignities, functions, preeminences, faculties, and privileges within the said College, and of liberty to instruct the youth in any part within this Realm. The Commissioner of the Kirk to the shirefdomes of Aberdeen, & Bamfe, pronounced the like sentence, by the advice, counsel, and consent of the Ministers and Elders in these bounds. But so it is, that su • dry of these acts of Parliament, whereunto they were required to subscribe, were negative, as you use the term or a rejection of popish errors, either in general or particular, as the denial of the Popes authority and jurisdiction, the annulling of all Acts made since K. James the first his time, not agrieing with the word of God, and contrary to the confession of Faith, then published, the condemni • g of the Mass, baptising conform to the manner of the popish Kirk, and the abrogating and annulling of all laws acts, and constit • tions, canons, civil, or municipal, contrary to the said true Religion. So you see, that even then they thought it not enough to require subscription to the Confession, but also to abrenunce contrary errors, specially popish. This Confession, which you call the negative, explaineth more particularly these acts. And therefore in the title before it was called, A general Confession of the true Christian faith & Religion, according to GOD'S Word, and Acts of Parliaments. It were good that the like course were taken with you, and your fellows in Aberdeen to that which was taken with these before you, that is, to remove you, if you subscribe not that Confession, which you seem to despyte so much. In the mean time, I would have you content to call it not the negative Confession, but the general Confession ; as the title beareth.

To the second Chapter.

YOu say, divine authority appertaineth absolutely to the canonical Scriptures, conditionally to other writings and sermons, to wit, in so far as they have the truth revealed in the Scriptures contained in them. What if there be no error, but all truth which is contained, will you call them therefore absolutely divine? We profess, we believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm both before God and the World, that the Religion particularly expressed in the conf • ssion of Faith confirmed by sundry acts of Parliaments is God's eternal Truth, and therefore you are bound to stick to it howbeit we hold not that or any other confession absolutely divine. For that testimony, whether by word or writ is called divine, and hath absolutely divine authority, which hath God himself for the author of it, either immediately by himself, or by the ministry of men, to whom he delivered his will by vision, dream, or immediate inspiration of the Spirit. Both the matter and diction are from GOD. If the testimony of learned men agreeable with the Scriptures might be called divine absolutely and simply, then there should be no difference between the holy Scripture & the same writings of the learned. The Manicheans said, that what Orpheus Sybilla, and the Philosophers of the Gentiles foretold of Christ, were of as great authority as the words of the Prophets. Augustine answereth, that if any truth be found in them, it availeth to their conviction, but not to be holden in estimation or authority as the words of the Prophets. For the Devils, said he, spake true things of Christ, yet were not of as great authority as the Angels. See in Gratian dist. 37. Sicut veri. But it may be instead of conditionally divine, you would say in some regard or respect, that is in respect of the truth of the matter, in which respect it cannot be called conditionally divine because it is already so far divine. And this is the expression of Divines, Etsi enim verae Ecclesiae judicium & testimonium dici possit divinum, non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nis mirum quatenus cum Scriptura sacra, & proinde cum Spiritu sancto & revelata Dei voluntate congruit, tamen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 considaratum non est divinum, sed humanum. quia non est immediate a spiritu sancto inspiratum. Alioqui omne juo dicium & testimonium cujuscun{que} hominis congruens cum sacra scriptura esset divinum, at{que} ita jamnulla esset differentia quoad authoritatem interscripta Prophetarum, & Apostolorum & aliorum ecclesia Doctorum sacris literis consentanea scribentium. So we say of our Confession of Faith, it is not simpliciter divine, but in respect of the matter & truth contained into it, it may be called in that respect, and so far only divine.

Where you say, if we find in the writings of men anything repugnant to the holy Scriptures we ought to reject it, correct it, or amend it; as our progenitors willingly professed in their epistle prefixed to their national Confession. That epistle or preface seemeth to have been written in name of the Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, & other Subjects professing the true Religion, who after that they had in their Supplication to the Estates offered to prove the doctrine of the Roman Kirk to be repugnant to the word of God, were commanded to draw up the sum of that doctrine, which they would maintain. and desire the Parliament to ratify. Within four days after, it was presented and read, first before the Lord's of the Articles, and after. before the whole Estates. Some of the Ministry were present standing ready to answer, what might be alleged against it. The Bishops and others of a contrary mind were charged in the name of GOD to object against it, if they could. Everie Article was read by it self. None would, nor could object in the contrary. The Eerle of Marshall protested, that no Ecelesiasticall person should afterward have place to oppone, considering, that time was granted them to advise, and none opponed in so free and peaceable a Parliament. After that none opponed by argument. The Confession it self (without their epistle prefixed, when it was exhibited by the Protestants, as the title beareth before the Confession ) was authorized, as a doctrine grounded upon the infallible Word of God, as you may see, where it is insert in the acts of Parliament.

Apparently you would have no Confession of Faith ratified and authorized, or to stand firm and stable, but that every man may have liberty to impugn it. This were to unsettle a Kirk or Estate. After a Confession is ratified, none should be suffered to be members, let be office-bearers in that Kirk, who refuse to subscribe or impugneth it private or public, in schools or pulpits, unless it be first corrected by the Kirk and Estates, which hath approved and ratified it.

You say, that short Confession hath human private authority, and is respected for the Penner, and many well affected Christians subscribers. But that in this regard we are no more tied to this Confession then any part of Augustine Ambrose, Luther, or Calvin's works approved by many good Chistians, nor that the obligation of the subscribers can be extended beyond their own persons and lifetimes. But we have told you already, that it is the Confession of the Kirk of Scotland, approved by the Kirk of Scotland, and subscribed universally by direction of authority at two sundry times, which is more than to be penned by M. Craig, and subscribed by many good Christians, or hath been done to any part of Aagustine, Ambrose, Luther, or Calvin's works

Beza set forth a notable Confession of faith, which is approved by many good Christians, yet is esteemed only as a private work. But so is not the general confession of the Kirk of Scotland. The orthodox confession of a reformed kirk deserveth greater respect than the treatises or works of Ambrose, Luther &c. Sunt enim hae Confessiones orthodoxae, tanquam tabulae authentica, privatorum Doctorum scriptis anteponendae. as is said in the Latin preface to the Confessions of faith. There is good reason for it: for human authority admitteth degrees. The public is more valide than a private. Sententia communi omnium assensu recepta; longe probabilior erit sententia ea, quam unus & alter statuit. One man speaking according to Scripture is to be prefered before a great assembly of doctors speaking without criptures: But then his judgment is preferred because of God's authority. not for his own. B • r we are now comparing private men with a whole Kirk ceteris paribus, in regard of themselves, and consider human testimony or judgment qua tale in so far as it is human. To conclude this point, We are as well tied to the general Confession as to that which you call the national, for the general is national as well as the first. In the mean time, you have shown little respect either to the penner or subscribers, for you call it the negative Confession, the short negative Confession.

The supreme authority civil you distinguish in royal or legal, and the legal you make also royal. So then the royal power is royal or legal. Or you mean, the royal power is either conjunct with the Estates, as in making Laws, because ne civiles quidem leges ex fua solius authoritate ferre potest, as saith Burthillus contra Becani controvers. pag. 66. or without their concurrence, as in giving remissions &c. But this you may call the royal Prerogative. The power legal you should call legislative, or law giving power, which Politicians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . for the power of execution, or administration of justice should be also legal▪ and ruled by the laws. This short Confession, you say, had never authority legal, for it was never ratified by act of Parliament, but all the civil authority it had, was only royal by the Kings mandat. You would say imposed by virtue of his royal prerogative▪ I believe that his Majesty professing lately in his Declaration, that he would not urge the Service book farther but in a legal manner, would not impose upon us subseription to the Confession of Faith by his royal mandat, but in a legal manner. I am sure there is as great reason for the one as for the other. But we have shown already, that it hath been ratified by act of Parliament universally recived & subscribed, which is equivalent to a Parliament. But more of this anon.

You say, Authority ecclesiastical was given to this Confession by two national Synods. But I have cited moe, which you have omitted, whether of set purpose, or otherwise, I refer to your own conscience.

You say, the Authority synodicall immediate, was that approbation, whereby these Synods declared this Confession to be a true, Christian, faithful, and godly Confession, and that such as truly profess Jesus Christ ought to agree thereto. That by this reason it tendeth to manifest a divine authority of the confession of the doctrine thereof, and in respect of the matter so approved doth equally oblish all Christians. We have already cleared that point of divine authority wherein you have fumbled. As for the other point, we do think that all good Christians should embrace our Confession, We being persuaded, when we subscribe, that it is the undoubted truth grounded upon the written Word. But our intention was not to set down a Confession of faith, whereunto all Christians in the world should be tied, but only such as will be members of this Kirk, and to make known to the world what we profess. For as it is well observed in the preface to the harmony of Confessions. If every man be commanded to make Confession of his Faith, so often as God's glory & the edification of the Kirk shall require, what a wonderful and strange thing ought it to seem, if Cities, if Provinces, if whole Kingdoms have made profession of their Faith, When they were falselie charged by the Popish sort, that they had gone from the doctrine of the true Church. You acknowledge you are obliged to reverence the judgment of a national Synod of our Kirk in matters substantial. Why not in matters also ritual and disciplinarie? for these I suppose you oppose to matters substantial. Yet in matters substantial, you profess you are no more obliged to hearken to those two Synods, than to the preceeding, or following, or to the Synods in foreign Kirks, or to the ancient Councils, that is, only by restriction. Yet you ought to depart from us, if you be not of us; if your judgment be not conform to the judgment of our Kirk.

The ecclesiastical authority mediate given by these Synods to this Confession you make to be their enjoining Ministers to give obedience to his Majesty's commandment anent the said Confession. Is the ordinance of the Assembly ecclesiastical media • e authority. You vanish in your distinctions. An ordinance of an Assembly floweth immediately from the ecclesiastical authority or power of the Assembly▪ But you prove your mediate authority ecclesiastical thus. Nothing is spoken in these statutes, but in relation to the Kings Majesty's mandat and for a time, but that doth not make the power ecclesiastical mediate, but only adj • vant or concurrent. I will tell you more, the Proclamation had taken small or no effect, if it had not been seconded with the authority of the general Assembly. Yea it had been a dangerous preparative to command Ministers to crave subscriptions to a Confession of Faith not approved by the Kirk. The work was good, but the order preposterous. In the year 1589. the assembly began, and desired Commissions to be given to that effect and gave in a roll of such, as they had nominat to be Commissioners, which was performed by the secret Counsel. You must know also that there have been acts of Assemblies made for subscribing that Confession without relation to the Kings commandment, as for that students in schools and Universities made anno 1587 and this following Sess. 3. quarto Martij 1589. Anent subscriptions to the Confession of Faith with protestation, that the Subscribers do the same only to obey the King & his Laws, the Assembly esteemeth of no such subscriptions, but ordaineth such persons to be proceeded against, as against simple refusers. Suppose the two acts cited by yourself make mention of the Kings mandat, yet they enjoin Ministers to do the same thing that the mandat requires, not being urged by the King or Counsel, but of their own accord for furtherance of the work it self. The first Act required Ministers to follow the tenor of the Proclamation. But the second Act differeth in some points from the tenor of it. Where the King with advice of the Counsel enjoined Ministers to deliver the Names of the refusers, and the process led against them to the Ministers of his House, under the pai • e of forty pounds, the Assembly enjoined them to report their diligence to the next Synods, that the same might be reported to the general Assembly, and that under the pain of deprivation.

They intended perpetuity in these Acts: for they acknowledged it to be a true Christian conf • ssion worthy to be received by all true professors, a godly and Christian confession, which ought to be embraced by all the Kings subjects. where-upon they urged subscription. To approve a Confession, and to urge subscription, import an intent, that such as shall be members of the Church, shall profess conform to that Confession, and subscribe when they are required. When they ordained Students in time to come to subscribe, before they past their Degries, did they not intend perpetuity. Did not the continual practice afterward, when any suspect of Papistry were required to subscribe, prove a perpetuity was intended at the first. If the first Confession standeth, because it is national; This other, or the former with this appendicle continueth for the same reason. For a Confession subscribed universally through the whole Nation by direction of Authorititie both civil and ecclesiastical may and should be called national, and with as good reason, as a Confession authorized by Parliament without subscription of the Subjects, the one being the collective, the other but the representative body. And yet it was also approved by Parliament, as I shown before. Doth any Nation receive a Confession, but of purpose to continue in the same? If every generation should change their Confession, what a reproach should it be to a Kirk? Hear the reproach of Papists. Quoties non mut arunt suam quis{que} sententiam. Quod edificant body, cras destruunt say the Professors of Culane in their Antidiagma, that is, How oft have everyone of them changed their opinion. That which they build the day, they demolish the next day, And Bellarmine saith likewise that the Catholic Kirk, meaning the Catholic Roman, is not like the Synagogues of the Protestants, quae singulis annis non solum ritus, sed etiam fidem mutant, That change every year not only their rites. but their faith also.

You call the Kings charge his royal mandat, and make no mention of the Counsels advice and consent. You see the second act of the assembly cited by yourself beareth, that the Kings Majesty, with advice of his Counsel hath set forth and proclaimed &c. The Commissions given in March 1509 were given likewise by authority of the King and counsel. Which is more than you do insinuate, and yet had not been sufficient without approbation and concurrence of the Assembly.

You say, the vigor of the act of assembly remained no longer than the Kings mandat stood, which expyring it did expyre also. I have shown already, that these acts of assemblies were not made by direction or injunction of any royal mandat, and have cited some acts which make no mention of any act of Counsel, or royal mandate, but respect the stablished course.

You subsume, and say the mandat royal hath expyred long ago, because it was no perpetual law, but a temporary mandat given out in his Majesty's minor age. First, I answer that mandat was not only given in his minority, but again also in his Majoritie. Next, it was not only his Majesty's mandat, but it was an act of Counsel. Doth not an act of counsel stand in force till it be altered, or annulled. Thirdly, the mandat or act of Counsel began the work not to continue for a time, but so long as the Kirk continued, Fourthly, it could not be recalled, nor yet can be either by act of counsel, or act of Parliament, because res non est integra. When they labored to draw the whole Nation to subscription, intended they not the perpetuity of a Confession. After the People were brought on to swear by the great name of the Lord to continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk, how could the mandat or charge be recalled?

Your sentence therefore cited out of the gloss upon Gratians Decree, Causa sublata tollitur constitutio ex causa illa orta, maketh nothing for the expyring of the force of the acts of the Assembly. For both the acts of Counsel and assemblies tended to establish a perpetual Confession in this Church and Kingdom. So the vigor of these acts yet remaineth and continueth. Next, this sentence is explained causa 19 quaest. 2. cap. Duae sunt. Glossa, propter criminosos. Vbi aliquid statuitur propter impulsivam causam▪ causa cessante non ideo cessat constitutio, sed ubi aliquid propter finalem causam est statutum, ibi, si cessat causa, cessat constitutio. That is, A constitution doth not expyre, when the impulsive cause ceaseth, but when the final cause ceaseth. But here the impulsive cause of bringing in this Confession was, as yourself confess, the deceit of Papists subscribing to the first Confession, minding thereby to subvert the true Religion, and the end of drawing up that Confession was to discover them. The same causes both impulsive and final yet remain. And suppose both should fail, there is another principal end wherefore Churches set forth the Confessions of their Faith, to wit, to make known to the World, what they profess, as I have observed before out of the preface to the harmony of the Confession.

You prove the royal mandat to be expyred first, because he dissallowed this confession in a certain speech uttered in conference at Hampton Court. There have been sundry copies of that conference spread abroad, and we have no reason to believe Bishop Barloes report. Suppose the report were true, we allow the speech in a part. For it would have made the Book of the English articles to swell to a great volumne to insert every negative position. But think you that well applied to this Confession: for it doth not contain every negative position, but is only a rejection of sundry popish errors particularly expressed, with general clauses for rejection of the rest, as yourself confess in the 9 page. Neither is it a great volumne. How often do yourself call it a short Confession. You say, it may be gathered by that speech that he did utterly disallow and annul that Confession. He allowed it before both in his none age, and majoritie. Next, it was necessary for the discovery of masked Papists, and still is for masked Papists and Ministers to use such forms of speech I detest, I abhor &c. It is strange, that that should be dislyked now, which was thought necessary then. But suppose the form of the Confession was disallowed by that speech, yet could it not annul the former mandat

A speech uttered in a conference holden out of the Country could not repeal the acts of Counsel made at home, and his own public Proclamation. Next, that speech was uttered. if uttered, in a free discourse to such as were there present, and was not delivered by way of precept, charge or declaration to us. M. Patrick Galloway in a letter dated the tenth of Februar, 1604. and directed to the Ptesbyterie of Edinburgh hath these words, Sundrie, as they favored, gave out copies of things here concluded. Where-upon I myself took occasion, as I was an eye and ear witness, to set them down, and presented them to his Majesty, who with his own hand mended some things, and eeked other things which I had omitted. Which corrected copy with his own hand I have, and have sent you heerewith the just transsumpt of it word by word, But in that transsumpt there is no mention of such a speech, nor the least inkling against the Confession of our faith, which had been very pertinent and requisite, if he had intended either a recalling of his mandat, or a declaration of his disallowance of that Confession. But suppose he had, yet as I have said, that could not be a recalling of his royal mandat, the Confession of faith being authorized by acts of Counsel, acts of Assembly, and Parliament, neither could the Confession be abandoned being already received, sworn and subscribed by the Subjectes universallie. Doctor Andrew's in his Tortura torti denieth, that he might have given liberty of conscience in respect of his oath, at his Coronation first in Scotland, and then in England. For then saith he, he should be twice perjured. Non semel perjurus esset quin bis si te andiat. You would draw upon him a greater guilt, that would have made him to draw others also into perjury. You prove next, that the royal mandat was made void by his death, and expyred with the royal breath, and to this effect you cite the sentence following out of the gloss upon the 19 chapter of the first Book of the Decretals, Morte mandantis, expirat mandatum, which as you have cited: is false. But these words of the gloss are received, Mortuo mandatore, re existente integra, expirat mandatum. The scope of the text is to determine that the jurisdiction of him that is delegate expyreth not by the death of him who delegated, if there be litiscontestation before his death, because then the matter is not whole and untouched. So likewise Justinian saith of that mandatum that is contracted betwixt him that giveth, and him that undertaketh the charge of any business, the Mandator and Mandatarius that the contract is loosed, if the death of any of them interveene before entry to execution. Si adhuc integro mandato mors alterius interveniat. Such like in authorative mandats, if he to whom commission was given to put it to execution depart before he put it in execution, there can be no farther proceeding, till another be placed in his room. But for the receiving the Confession of Faith, the Commissions given were put in execution both in the 1580 and 1590 years. The Confession being once received, sworn to and subscribed, could not be recalled by the death of the King, who was the first beginner, and ringleader of the work. Doth a house fall with the death of the Master builder? Neither was that Confession received for the Kings Mandat, or direction alone, but for the act of Counsel also. Now the Counsel never dieth. For politick bodies are immortal, and continue by succession. Nor yet for the act of Counsel. but most of all and principally, for the ordinances and directions of the general Assembly. And last of all this Confession of faith is nothing else but the first Confession enlarged with some general clauses, and rejection of popish erours.

To the third Chapter.

YOu think it not convenient, that the negative Confession be authorized at this time, and subscriptions required thereto, and that for the reasons expressed in the conference at Hampton Court, and because of some ambiguities, and no small difficulties therein. How valide your reason is alleged by you out of the conference at Hampton Court let the Reader judge. No man complained of ambiguities and difficulties in it, till such as you are, began to pretend the same, because apparently your eyes were dazzled with the light thereof, and you saw perhaps that which you desired not to see. Howsoever, it is already sufficiently authorized, and needeth not to be authorized again for want of authoriti • e. And seeing it is authorized, all the members of this Kirk ought to subscribe it, and at this time especially, when the frame of Religion was like to be altered. If there be any ambiguities, they may be explained to the subscribers. Cavillators and tergiversators should be proceeded against as simple refusers. We aggree to the words of the 18 article in the Confession of Faith ; but that maketh nothing against us, who are already persuaded, that our Confession is grounded upon the holy Scriptures.

It is true, we ought to be busy instructing the people in the positive grounds of truth, but that hindereth us not to explain to them points of heresy, which were set down for masked Papists, and now Ministers themselves are leavened with Popery & Arminianism. Should not the true shepherd be careful to warn the sheep, if they be in danger of the Wolf.

If any of us have given any other interpretation then the Confession of faith it self will bear, we shall be ready to pass from it, when we shall be convinced. You are sorry that some of us in printed works condemn Episcopacy, and the five Perth articles. What any have written I trust they will be ready to defend. For the present, I maintain that by this Confession, which you call the negative, we abjure Episcopacy. For in this Confession, we protest that we detest the Roman Antichrist, his wordly Monarchy, and wicked Hierarchy. The Popish hierarchy doth consist of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, that is, baptising and preaching Deacons. For it is so determined by the Council of Trent. in the 4. chap. de Sacramento ordinis, Can. 6. Si quis dixerit in ecclesia catholica non esse hierarchiam divina ordination institutā, quae constat ex Episcopis, Presbyteris & ministris; anathemasit. Bellarmine likewise in his book de clericis cap. 11. answering to Chemnitz, alleging Dionysius Areopagita, for three orders only, to wit, of Bishops. priests, and dea • ons, whom he calls Ministers, saith, that that Dionysius did not set down the number of the Orders, but of the hierarchies. For saith he, there are three hierarchies in the militant Church, the first of Bishops, the second of priests; the third of Deacons, and that the deacons are also princes if they be compared with the people: but for inferior orders, subdeacons, acolythes, lectors, exorcists, and ostiaries or door keepers, they bear no rule or charge over the people, but only serve the Deacons or the priests, For hierarchy properly is sacer principatus, a sacred preeminence or rule. The fore-named counterfeit writer Dionysius, calleth the Bishop, the Hierarch, because he is the chief Hierarch. The Pope himself is not within the hierarchy, primats, Metropolitans, or Arch-bishops, but as they are Bishops. Whereas some allege, that in our Confession we detest and abhor his hierarchy, that is to be interpret, as the rest are to be interpreted to be his, as canonization of Saints. dedicating of Kirks, days, altars. &c. are called his, not that there is another lawful canonization, or dedicating of Kirks, days, altars, &c. Whereas some alledgde, that this hierarchy was before there was a Pope. We answer, that it is called his, notwithstanding, as dedicating of Kirks, days, altars, oil, salt, &c. are called his. Because what ever corruption was in the Kirk, either in doctrine, worship, or government of the Kirk, since the mystery of iniquity began to work. that is, Popery began, so much as he retained and maintained, and obtruded by his authority upon the Church are his. Next we must consider the Pope or Roman Antichrist not only in his growth and perfect age, but from his conception, and first birth.

Farther this hierarchy is distinguished in the confession from the Popes Monarchy. Neither can it be interpreted of the manifold orders in the Church of Rome. For that is mentioned before in the Confession of faith ; where, we abjure his manifold orders. Next in the Confession of faith, we profess that we abhor and detest all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they were then damned, and confuted by the Word of GOD. and Church of Scotland. But so it is, that the office of a Bishop was condemned by the Kirk of Scotland, and confuted in the pulpits, by M, Lowson, M. Arburthnot. M. Pont, and many other godly and learned men. From the year 1575 to 1579, when the heads of constant policy and plat-form of discipline were agitate in Assemblyes, it was declared, that such as had the Bishoprics, and were called Bishops, should be tied to particular flocks, that they should be called by their own names, or the name of brethren, that they should be content with reasonable rent, and not lift up for the maintenance of their ryotousnesse, the emoluments of the Kirk, which may sustain many Pastors, the Schools and the poor: that they should not claim the titles of temporal Lord's, that they should not usurp criminal jurisdiction, that they should not exerce temporal jurisdiction. that they must not empire above particular elderships, nor usurp the power of presbyteries- In reforming the corruptions of that estate, they abolished Episcopacy, after they had agreed on all the heads of the constant policy, in Aprile anno 1578 which are extant in the book of policy, or 2 book of discipline. But besides, there was a special act made in July 1580 at Dundie with full consent of the whole Assembly against the office, as followeth,

For às much as the office of a Bishop, as it is now used, and commonly taken within this Realm, hath no warrant, authority, nor ground in the word of God, but is brought in by the folly of man's invention, to the great overthrow of the Church of God, The whole Assembly of the Church in one voice, after liberty given to all men to reason in the matter, non • opponing themselfe in defending the said pretended office, finds and declares the said pretended office, used and termed as is abovesaid, unlawful in itself, as having neither fundament, ground, nor warrant in the scriptures of God. and ordains, that all such persons, as brook • , or shall brook hereafter the said office, shall be charged simply to dimitt▪ quite and leave off the same, as an office▪ whereunto they are not called by God; and suchlike, to desist and cease from all preaching of the Word, ministration of the Sacraments, or using any way the office of Pastors, till they receive de novo admission from the general Assembly, under the pain of excommunication, wherein if they be found disobedient, or to contraveene this Act in any point, the sentence of excommunication after due admonition is to be executed against them.

The Confession of faith was not authorized and subscribed till March, and the year following. It is clear then, that that office is abjured in the Confession of Faith, seeing it was consuted by the word of God and Kirk of Scotland. In the Assembly holden at Glasgow in April 1581 we have this Declaration in the sixth Session, Anent the act made in the assembly holden at Dundie against Bishops, because some difficulty appeared to some Brethren to arise out of the word Office, contained in the said act, what should be meant thereby, the Assembly consisting for the most part of such as voted, and were present in the assembly at Dundie, to take away the said difficulty. resolving upon the true meaning and understanding of the said act, declareth, that they meant wholly to condemce the whole state of Bishops, as they are now in Scotland, and that the same was the determination and conclusion of the Assembly at this time.

Thirdly, in that Confession we profess, that we join ourselves, willingly to this true reformed Church, in doctrine, faith, Religion, discipline, & use of the Sacraments, as livelie membere of the same in Christ our head, promising & swearing by the great name of the LORD our GOD, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this Church, & shall continue in the same according to our vocation and power all the days of our life, under the pains contained in the Law, and danger both of body and soul in the Daye of God's fearful Judgment. But so it is, that the Episcopal government was damned and the presbyterial rested upon as most consonant to the word of God, & to be observed in all time coming, before the Confession of faith was subscribed. And while the general assemblies wtre about the constitution of presbyteries, the King sent with the Laird of Capringtoun to the assembly holden at Glasgow in Aprile 1581 a plot drawn up for that purpose, together with a letter which was to be sent to the Noble-men and Gentlemen in the bounds for furtherance of the work, which being considered and made more perfect, some were appointed by the assembly to see presbyteries erected everywhere. The Confession of Faith was subscribed by the King and his household in Ianuar preceeding, and enjoined in March to be subscribed by the subjects, which Confession was approved by this assembly holden in Aprile, when directions were given for erection of Presbyteries. The subscription to the Confession and erection of presbyteries went forward together the same year. So the discipline by presbyteries was sworn to, and not by diocesian Bishops, or yet Superintendnets, which ceased in the year 1575. In the general assembly holden in August 1590, it was ordained as followeth,

For as much, as it is certain, that the word of God cannot be kept in sincerity, unless the holy discipline be observed, it is therefore by common consent of the whole brethren & Commissioners present concluded, that whosoever hath borne office in the ministry within the Kirk of this realm, or presently beareth, or hereafter shall bear office therein shall be charged by every particular Presbyterie where they are resident, to subscribe the heads of the discipline of the Kirk in this realm, at length set down & allowed by act of the whole assembly in the botk of policy, which is registered in the register of the Kirk, & namely the heads controverted by the adversaries to discipline of the reformed Church within this realm, betwixt and the next synodall assemblies of the Provinces under the pain of Excommunication to be executed against the none subscribers. & that the presbyteries which shall be found remiss or negligtnt herein shall be rebuked publicly by the whole assembly, and to the end the said discipline be known as it ought to be, by the whole brethren, it is ordained, that the Moderator of each Presbyterie shall receive frō the clerk of the assembly a copy of the said book under his subscription upō the expensses of the presbytery, betwixt and the first day of September next to come, under the pain to be accused openly in face of the whole Assembly. The same year 1590 the Confession of faith was again subscribed universally throghout the whole realm. It is clear then what policy or discipline was then allowed & meant in the Confession of faith. In the Parliament holden anno 1592 it was ordained, that all presentations to benefices be directed to particular presbyteries in time coming with full power to give collation thereupon, & to put order to all matters and causes ecclesiastical within their bounds, according to the discipline of the Church. Whensoever their was any meaning to erect that estate of Bishops, the Confession of faith was alleged in the contrary, as first in a dialogue written anno 1585 by some learned and reverend Minister, and more at length anno 1606, when their estate was restored by Parliament; M. Andrew Melvill, M. James Melvill, and sundry other Ministers commissioners from presbyteries subscribed that protestation, which is extant in print in that book, which is entitled the Course of conformity, and among the rest M. William Cowper, late Bishop of Galloway. M. Adam Ballendine now Bishop of Aberdeen, and M. John Aburnethie now Bishop of Cathnesse, who therefore are guilty of that heinous crime, which the estates were desired to avoid.

In this Protestation the reverend brethren have these words following, Above all things, my Lord's, beware to strive against God with an open & displayed banner, by building up again the walls of Jericho, which the Lord hath not only cast down, but also hath laid them under a terrible int • rdiction & execration, &c. But the Noblemen and Sates of this realm have the reverence of the oath of GOD made by themselves, and subscribed with their own hands in the Confession of Faith, called the Kings Majesty's Confession, published more than once or twice, and sworn by his most excellent Majesty, and by his highness Nobility, Estates, and whole Subjects of the realm, to hold them back from the setting up the dominion of Bishops. Because it is of verity, that they subscrived and swore the said Confession, containing not only the maintenance of the true doctrine, but also of the discipline professed within the realm of Scotland. In the verification of the points offered to be proved in the Protestation, they have these words in the 4. cap. But so it is, that the Bishoprie is one of the greatest errors and corruptions thereof, (that is, of the adulterous Church of Rome) and hath no arguments of Scripture, Fathers, Councils, nor reason, but the selfsame, that the Papists use. and in the 5 cap. we have these words. If so be, that the setting up of Bishops will throw down the discipline of our Church, or if that office hath anything to do with these corruptions of Papistry and Antichristian hierarchy, the King our Sovereign his most excellent Christian Majesty, and his Highness most ancient religious and noble estates of Parliament, if there were none other reaeson but this one; would not for all the world fall under the danger of so horrible a perjury against God to set up Bishops again &c. But so it is, as all men know, the discipline and government of the Kirk▪ exercised by presbyteries and Bishops, are so far opposed one to another, that when the one is set up, the other must down of force. There fore the subscribers and swearers of the former Confession, if they should (as God forbid) go about to set up Bishops and Episcopal government, they could not eschew the crime of horrible perjury, execrable apostasy, and most cursed reparing of Jericho. The Reader may find more to this purpose • in the Protestation it self, & verification insert in the course of conformity above mentioned. This much for Episcopacy, that it cannot consist with the Confession of Faith.

That the five Articles are likewise abjured in the Confession of Faith is clear, For in the Confession we profess We abhor and detest all heads of Popery, as they were then damned and confuted by the Word of God, and kirk of Scotland his five bastard Sacraments, with all his rites and ceremonies and false doctrine added to the ministration of the true Sacraments, all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions brought in the Kirks, without, or against the word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed Kirk. But we have already proved in sundry printed books, that these five articles are traditions brought in the Kirk, without or against the word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed Kirk, that they have been damned by our Kirk, that confirmation or Bishoping is one of the five bastard Sacraments, & private baptism importeth the absolute necessity of baptism, that kneeling is a rite and ceremony added to the true ministration of the Sacraments without the word of God. And therefore for shortness we refer the Reader to these printed treatises. For the present only this much. M. Knox within a year after he was exyled out of England, after the death of King Edward, in his admonition, directed to England, ranketh kneel • ng among the superstious orders, which profane Christ's true Religion. In a letter directed from Deep, anno 1559 to Mistress Lock • he calleth the cross in baptism & kneeling at the Lord's table. Diobolte all inventions. In the first book of discipline he and the rest of his fellows contrivers of the book, forbid celebration of the Communion at Easter, for the avoiding of the superstition of the time. The observation of Christmas, cireumcision, epiphanie they judge ought to be utterly abolished. that the obstinate maintainers, and teachers of such abominations as are there reckoned in the first head, of which observation of days is one, ought not to escape the punishment of the civil Magistrate. In the Parliamen • holden in the year 1567, it was declared that whosoever refused to participat of the Sacraments, as they were then publicly ministered in this reformed Kirk were not true members of this Kirk. An act was likewise made corcerning the Kings oath to be given at his Coronation to maintain the due administration of the Sacraments then received, which was ratified in the Parliaments following anno 1581 and 1582. Again, in the year 1572. it was ordained by act o • Parliament, that such as did not communicate and partake of the Sacraments, as they were then truly ministered, if they continue obstinate, shall be reputed infamous, unable to stand in judgment &c. The right administration of the Sacraments is set down in the first book of discipline, and the book of common order prefixed to the Psalms in me • ter, whereunto Ministers were referred by acts of the general assemblies holden in the years 1562 and 1564. In the general assembly holden at Edinburgh, anno 1566 the lattet confession of Helvetia was approved, but with special exception against the same five days, which are now urged upon us. In the assembly holden anno 1575. complaints were made against Ministers and readers because they assembled the people to prayer and preaching upon certain festival days. An article was formed to be presented to the Regent craving, that all days heretofore keeped holy in time of Papistry, beside the Lord's day, be abolished, and a civil punishment be inflicted upon the observers. In the assembly holden in Aprile anno 1577 it was ordained, that the visitor with the advice of the synod shall admonish Ministers and readers, that read, preach, or minister the communion at Christmas or Easter, or such superstitious times to desist under the pain of deprivation. King James in the assembly holden anno 1590 praised God that our Church was sincerer that Geneva it self, because they observed Christmas and Easter without warrant, which our Kirk did not. In the book of common order before the Psalms it is said, that the Sacramenes are no • ordained of God to be used in private orners, as charmers and sorcerers use to do, but left to the Congregation, and necessarily annexed to God's Word, and seals of the same. In the Assembly holden at Edinburgh in October, 1581 it was ordained, that the Sacraments be not ministered in private houses, but solemnly, according to the good order hitherto observed, under the pain of deposition from the function of the Ministry. It is clear then, that the five articles are contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Church of Scotland, and therefore abjured in the Confession of faith,

It followeth then, that we have made two breaches upon the Confession. and Covenant for maintaining the same, for which the LORD hath threatened us with moe novations, and alteration of the whole frame of our Religion. Had we not need then to renew our Covenant and promise to repare our breaches so far as lieth in us.

As for antiquite, and other reformed Kirks, their judgment corcerning the five articles, the writer of these late printed books whom you tax, either allege their authority against the same articles, or clear their meaning, or answer with respect. No well reformed Kirk hath received kneeling or bishoping. Some observe holy days, but would be rid of them. We may safely have fellowship with such Churches, if we communicate not with their corruptions.

As for the agreement betwixt the oath and Covenant about these things, with the 21 article in the Confessien extant in the acts of Parliament, we can find no disagreement. The first book of discipline in the head of the policy of the Kirk, distinguisheth betwixt things necessary to be observed in every Kirk, and things variable to be ordered by every particular Congregation. There every particular Kirk is allowed to have a particular policy of their own, without prejudice of the common and gene • all, as whether to convene this or that day of the week to the Sermon. or how many days. For the whic • and many like, there can be no general order set down. That book of discipline was penned by the same persons, who drew up the Confession. They meant never that the five articles, or the like superstitious rites and ceremonies were variable as appeareth by that which I have already alleged. M. Knox who had a chief hand in that Confession maintained, after his first Sermon in public, in a convention of gray and black Friers at S. Andrew's, that the Church had no power to devise significant ceremonies. But these are properly called ceremonies, not politick constitutions for order and decency. And the other Confession, which you call the negative, condemns signs brought into the Kirk without or against the the word of God. Significant ceremonies being condemned, the cross and the surplice or other superstitious apparel cannot be received. You tax the royal Mandat, if you allege opposition betwixt the old Confession and the other, which you call the negative, but we call the general with a rejection of Popish errors as an appendicle. Before I come this length, I perceive your reasons for not authorizing or subscribing this Confession at this time have not been applauded unto by his Majesty, and the Lord's of secret Counsel. What will you do now? will you stay your subscription till his Majesty subscribe, or will you join with the Covenanters, or will you subscribe with reservation, howsoever, if you will, The case is altered. You were unwilling before, but now I will not for the reasons containd in the Protestation made at the cross of Edinburgh the 22 of September, where-unto I adhere.

To the fourth Chapter.

IN your former chapter, you seemed only to except at our interpretations. But now you seem to offend at the matter. For you say, that in so far as the matter of an oath is unlawful or unlawful, pl • asing or displeasing to GOD it ought to be kept or broken, which is uncontroverted, but not to the purpose, unless you would insinuate, that there is some bad matter in the Confession. And so should it never have been sworn to, or subscribed from the first hour notwithstanding of the royal mandat, or authorizing of it by the general assembly. If you assume or apply, you should be corrected before you be confuted, first cast out, and then answered, by such as shall be appointed.

You exhort us not to judge hardly or uncharitablie one of another, nor break the bond of peace and Christian brotherhood for diversity of opinions among us for rites and ceremonies. Then you would have us to suffer the people to be withdrawn by seducers from the simplicity of the Gospel, and to admit Episcopacy which you seem here to rank among rites and ceremonies. How can peace stand among men, when the glory of God is not kept safe, saith Bernard epist. 126.