the matter you make your N. C. in place of a solid representation of the truth controverted rap out an indigested heap of Pompous titles and by this personat blustering you take the occasion very kindly to commend your own personall modestie whether this be not more invidious then ingenuous dealing let others judge certainly if you had used that candor which you professe your N. C. would have told you that the work of God we desire to own is that inlightning grace and assisting presence of God whereby after that the Lord had caused his people to receive the truth in its power he mightly stirred them up and inabled them to resist the growing corruptions and shake off the heavie yoke of wicked Prelacie to restore and establish his ordinances specially the Ministerie and Government of his Church in puritie to maintain and defend the same against the violence of Adversaries and to direct all these endeavours and attainments to the advancement of our Lords Kingdom over the hearts and consciences of men and the prospering of his pleasure in these Lands and that by such righteous means and methods as are clearly warranted and approven by Scripture Reason and many uncontroverted precedents This is the truth your Non-conformist ought to have witnessed not more confirmed by the publick writings and actings of these times then indelebly sealed in the hearts and by the experiences of many thousands of the seekers of God but seing I am astricted to follow you I returne to your objections And first you say Rebellion was the Soul of our whole work our Covenant a Bond to cement us in it in an excess of faire dealing not questioning the particular merit of the hypothese of our cause you demand one place in both the Testaments warranting Subjects their fighting for Religion say plainly you can bring many against it Sir if you had thought it convenient I judge it was proper for you to disprove from Scripture Subjects their fighting for Religion not to require your Non-conformist to prove it for seing you know that quae sunt juris permissivi such things as law and right permit if not prohibited 〈◊〉 suâ—ficiently understood to be permitted any N. C. by an undeniable subsumption may easily evert your argument If a miserable Melancholian falling in disgust with certain necessary means of 〈◊〉 should affiâ—me that it is unlawful to use them because he finds not one place in either Testaments expresly warranting it would you account his reasoning conclusive I am confident you would not wherefore then do you urge us with his dreams Now your negative objection a Testimonio negato from a negative Testimonie as they say being such a notorious fallacie I need say nothing to what you adde of the Scriptures silence of the Jews Israelites their not rising up against their apostat idolatrous Princes much less can their omitting what they might and ought to have done be of any import If you could bring an example from Scripture of a King polluting the Sanctuary and the people offering to oppose him restrained either by rational perswasion or the Lords plain prohibition that only were apposite to your purpose But you say The faithfull Prophets their not exhorting to popular Reformation or resisting Princes doth evidently show that the omission of it was no sin 'T is answered to make this argument better then your last it is not enough to alleage that the Prophets did not provock to such courses unless you adde that they did industriously forbear so to do even in its season You know so well the necessity and beautie of tide and season to every purpose and work that your inconsideratnesse in this point is scarcely excusable The Scripture tells us most frequently of the perversnesse and bentness of that peoples heart to Idolatrie and Rebellion against God And no doubt in publick defections they were either the Kings entisers as Hos 7. 3. or did willingly walk after the Commandment Hos. 5. 11. What wonder then if the Prophets did forbear to ply them with any such expresse exhortation let be that you should account their simple omission as you love to speak or rather the Scriptures silence in the thing of any force And here I cannot but note the unequall dealing of the men of your perswasion who notwithstanding of their clamorous arguings from the silence of the Prophets against Subjects their taking Armes Yet when in the case of the ten Tribes their falling away from Rehoboam by them condemned for Rebellion by others justified as warrantable they are pressed not with a bare negative silence which is all that you object but with a silence of reproof circumstantiat with all that could render it significant they wave it as of no strength But lest you should think me too rigid in insisting only against your methods I proceed to give you though not obliged a positive return to your demand and to shew you some of the positive warrants that I finde in Sripture for Subjects their sighting for Religion and although as doubtful of the old Testament you seem to alleviat its testimony by terming its dispensation more carnall and fierie yet I hope you are perswaded that change of dispensations doth no wayes alter the truth and righteousnesse of God The first ground therefore which I take from Scripture is from the Law of Moses where I finde the keeping of the Lords Covenant not only injoined to the People of Israel as one body incorporat under the highest perswasives and strongest Sanctions that can be conceived and established to be their supreme Law but also its vindication and execution recommended to them in such a manner as doth clearly evince that it was the constant dutie of the faithful amongst them all other regards set aside even by force to have asserted and maintained it If salus populi the safety of the people under the interpretative notion and force of Suprema Lex Soveraigne Law have in all just exigences in all ages amongst all Nations licensed and warranted a defensive resistance and controll against their King and Rulers can Religion infinitly preferable in it self and confirmed by such an expresse Law be thought destitute of this prerogative It is in vain to alleage a disparitie from the inconsistencie of carnall weapons with the spirituality of Religion this is already obviat by the Lords own determination Deut 13. 12. If Israel was to animadvert with the sword against any city turning aside to Idolatrie can we doubt that it was lawful for them in the same manner to defend the true worship Do not recurre and say it was certainly lawfull in many cases but not against the Prince For if you allow Religion this weapon I have already proved its right and privilege by a higher title and clearer evidence then any other received cause of defence can pretend to But if you utterly disallow defensive armes against the Powers you destroy Nature deny Reason contradict Scripture
pervert the subordination of Laws preferre midses to their end and repugne to the unanimous consent of all Nations as you may elswhere understand The next ground I alleage is from Deut. 17. vers 18. 19. Where you have the Law of the Kingdome delivered and committed to the people and in it an express provision that the King to be set up should keep all the words of this Law and these statutes to do them whence I inferre that as the delivering of the Law to the people doth undeniably import that they were to be its keepers and exactors so the Prince his deportment in conformity to this part of it did in such manner belong to their cognition and oversight as he could not impunè without danger of punishment mal-verse much less subvert Religion and persecute its true Professors without control The only difficulty in this argument is whether the tuition and custodie of this Law be by its addresse intrusted to the people I may not stand upon long elucidations but if you consider 1. That there is not an jota of the Law of God in vain 2. That this directing of the Law to the people can have no other signification And 3. That both the continued tenor of the words and the just Analogie of reason must make the oversight appertain to them to whom the election and setting up is so expressely given your hesitation if prevalent can only appeare obstinacie 3. As the frequencie or infrequencie of instances doth wholly depend upon matter of fact so one clearly found in Scripture I know will be to you as a a thousand I shall therefore content my self with the case and practice of Libnah This citie being a citie of Iudah and also of Priests Ios. 21. 13. in the reign of Iehoram a wicked and idolatrous Prince and one who compelled Iudah to the like abominations revolted from under his hand because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers Say not as the Surv. of N. profanely alleageth that this was a citie of Priests seditiously inclined or that the revolt was only providentiall like to that of Edom and not lawful by-reason of the Kings apostasie If you but read the Text bearing that Edoms revolt was from under the hand of Judah without any motive annexed And then in a distinct Period mentioning Libnahs to have been from under Iehoram's hand not Iudahs intimating plainly their resistance to an Idolatrous Tyranne without any Apostasie from the Common-wealth which Edom did make and because he had forsaken the Lord you will discover both his unsincere handling of Scripture and the clear evidence of this passage specially if you remember that thereafter under better Kings we find Libnah returned to her subjection and affoorded a wife to good Iosiah If it were needfull to superadde more examples I might adde another Scripture 2 Chron 25. 27. Where you may read how after that Amaziah did turne away from following the Lord they made a conspiracie against him in Ierusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him and treated him more severely then I love to mention and really were not this storie too tragicall for me to dip in the justice of the cause the generality of the concurrence and the impunitie of the actors specially adverting to the difference of this case from that of the Fathers exit may be so evidently held out from Scripture to the advantage of my assertion that any reply which you could make from the application of a dubious word Conspiracie would prove a poor reliefe With these might also be remembred King Vzziah's elevation in a pretended Supremacie and his invasive attempt of the Priests office with the noble resistance made by Azariah and the fourscore valiant Priests who went in after and withstood him 'T is true it broke out into force upon a second occasion which I think I cannot so fairly urge yet if you consider their number character and peremptorie manner of speech so particularly noted by the Spirit of God I doubt not but you will grant that the same force was very agreeable to if not influenced by their first resolution but it is enough 4. Though I have already told you that the Prophets their not provoking unto popular Reformations is no argument for you unless you could represent their omâ—â—â—on in an opportune season as well as a clear exigent yet now I further adde that the frequent exhortations made by the Prophets to both King and People as in the first place they have a respect to every ones proper station so by reason of their principal intendment of the great end to which all Politick degrees and their order are subordinate and do referre in the deficiencie or perversion of the more immediate midses they must of necessity lay a subsidiary obligation upon the people as succedaneous in that exigence If the nature of this discourse did allow me to inlarge I could confirme this position 1. From Nature which in the perturbation of its established harmonic forcing things for the good of the whole contraire to their proper tendencies exhibiteâ—a clear emblem of these vicarious assistances 2. From things rationall wherein the Prevalencie of the end and its obligation doth alwayes overrule the order and regard of the midses to a convenient subserviencie 3. From the received acknowledgement of a twofold calling appertaining to every man one Generall flowing immediatly from the end and exerting it self in extraordinarie emergents another Particular aranging to a certain fixed station in the regular course of ordinarie events 4. From the approven instances of many extraordinarie stretches in the case either of our own or others their unforeseen and imminent dangers specially from that most apposite example of the noble effort of Sauls Souldiers in rescueing Ionathan from his fathers unreasonable violence without the least imputation of a transgression 5. From this plain supposition A certain King commands a bodie of Souldiers to chose their own Generall and other Officers and march against one of his Provinces apostatized to Idolatrie severely injoining unto both Generall officers and souldiers the execution of his pleasure under pain of death In the expedition the General chosen and others with him forgetting dutie fall away and joyne with the Idolaters whereupon the remaining part of the Armie although in a sufficient capacitie to have effectuat their Prince his Command yet deserte and returne making no other pretense then that they were not free to exceed their private vacations whereunto they held themselves absolutely confined Would this be sustained for a good defence and not rather looked upon as a cowardly and lasie shift taking refuge in the words contraire to the certain meaning of the orders Let any man judge and apply But leaving all these grounds to your better improvement the plain and obvious reading of the Scripture is my entire satisfaction And really when with these warnings generally made I also take a view of the commensurat
the Count of Tholouse was a Peer of France and by Hugo Capetus constitution Peers were rather Vassals then Subjects It is answered ne ultra crepidam if Peers be Vassals as they are indeed being such Peers among themselves only and not with the King that therefore they are of all the most strictly oblidged subjects is notour to all that know the fidelity and gratitude which Vassallage doth import so that whatever priviledge their Peerage may give them over their inferiours yet that in order to their Soveraign and Liedge Lord they are in every respect subjects is uncontroverted But why should I spend time on your triflings Admitting that the Waldenses in this war had not so directly and immediatly resisted the King their Soveraign as not being their direct and immediate Persecutor have we therefore no advantage from this passage And are there not many other precedents in the History of that people which do fully and exactly infer our conclusion And as to the first do we not at least finde even in your own concession the Waldenses persecute for Religion standing to their own defence Now if once you allow to Religion the common priviledge of a defensive resistance the main strength of your arguments founded upon a pretended singularity in the cause of Religion as disowning forsooth all resistance and in a special manner astricted to suffering both by Gospell precept and primitive practice is thereby dissolved and removed I may not here insist on this subject But once for all let me demand you may not Religion be defended aswell as other rights and interests If you say it may but neither that nor any other against the invasion and persecution of the King and soveraign Power This is indeed a consequent but so destitute of all reason that as there is scarce a man in the world so stupid or debauched by flattery that will not in some suppositions grant the lawfulness of resistance so the most precious import of Religion and the atrocity of the injuries whereby it useth to be persecute can not but render it the first and most favourable of all excepted cases But if you say it may not then whether is it your meaning that it may not at all be defended either against Superior equall or inferior And certainly the Scripture and also many of the primitive instances abused to prostrate Religion unto tyranny do seem to run in this latitude without insinuating any distinction so that this generality being manifestly absurd doth of necessity evince them to have an other meaning and to be nothing conclusive to your purpose Or do you understand that in this the cause of Religion is singular that though against persecuting inferiors or equals Religion aswell as other rights doth permit defence yet against the Powers over us it is subject to a special restraint Assigne me for this speciality but any colourable pretext cris mihi magnus Apollo That the Gospel precepts Resist not evill Turn your cheek to the smiter Love your enemies c. Have their holy and Christian use of patience and godliness for all manner of injuries from whatsoâ—ever hand And that these other commands of subjection non-resistance honour and obedience to Kings and all in Authority have also their righteous influence of determining in every occasion our due compliance and submission without the least vestige either in all or any of the places of injoining a singular subjection to Powers persecuting for Religion is obviously evident What speciality you will gather from primitive practices the general mistakes that we find in their opinions as we may understand from Ambrose and Augustine condemning private defence even against Robbers ne dum salutem defendit pietatem contaminet may give us a satisfying conjecture From all which we may assuredly conclude that seing Religion doth lay no speciall prohibition of resistanceâ— in order to Superiors upon Subjects by them persecuted and that the above-written passage of the Waldenses doth at least evince that in other cases it hath the common priviledge your inferring of specâ—al consequences in favours of the Powers from abused generalls is but a politick improving of your lies unto base and selfish flattery Now as to other examples that may be found among the Waldenses Pray Sir was this the only passage in all that History which you conceived did favour our cause or was you loth to follow them over the Alpes unto the valleys of Piemont to meet with instances which indeed you have reason to think can only be best answered by concealing them in the obscurities of the places where acted And really this omission is so grosly supine that you must pardon me to think it designed However the History that I referre you to for a full and particular account aswell of the faith stedfastness and simplicicy of these Waldenses in Piemont as of their many and great persecutions by their own Rulers and Princes and their just and frequent oppositions made against them particularly from the year 1540 to the year 1561. And how in the year 1571 they entered into a League of mutual assistance and from that year did undergo many vicissitudes sometimes of peace and quiet then of cruell and barbarous persecutions wherein they testified great constancy and patience and sometimes of necessary defensive resistances wherein they witnessed no less uprightnesse and courage even until the year 1658 wherein the narration terminates is that of the Evangelical Churches in the valleys of Piemont very faithfully and acuratly collected and written by Mr Morland Where I am confident every ingenuous person will finde the case of defence for the cause of Religion against persecuting Rulers so justly stated so tenderly and submissively proceeded into and lastly so singly and moderatly prosecuted and that not only once or twice but often that as he will be thereby greatly confirmed in the righteousness of this practice so he can not but observe the inexcusable omission of your silence The next instance which you undertake to vindicate is that of the Bohemians under Zisca their fighting and resisting when the chalice was denyed them And for answere to this you bid us consider that the Crown of Boheme is elective in which case certainly the States of a Kingdom share more largely of the Soveraign power But 1. You hereby plainly acknowledge that Religion is not indefendible except by meer subjects against their Soveraign So that again we see it is not from the cause of Religion but from the quality of the persons that you foolishly go about to exclude Religion from defence which yet notwithstanding in several excepted cases all inferior to that of persecution is to subjects against their oppressing Princes by all almost allowed 2. That the States of a Kingdom share more largely of the soveraign Power in an elective then in a successive Kingdom hath no proper dependence upon the way of election but is thereto meerly accidental the Dictators in free Rome were elected and
that only occasionally and for a short space and yet were uncontrollable The Roman Empire though elective yet gave to the Emperours absolute Soveraignity And on the other hand we see many Kingdoms successive wherein nevertheless the Soveraignity is divided betwixt the King and the Estates so that your ground doth not hold As Grotius de jur belli l. 1. c. 3. § 11. in explication of that distinction aliud esse de re querere aliud de modo habendi doth fully cleare 3. Admitting the Crown of Boheme to be elective which yet you know in the competition betwixt Ferdinand and Frederick was much controverted and that the Estates do indeed share largely of the Soveraignity And further that they were the Authors of this resistance which also you ought to have alledged yet the opposition by them authorized upon the denying and with holding of the Chalice and undertaken upon the common and just grounds of defence considering the participation of power which our Estates before his Majesties restitution did constantly acclaim and oftentimes by themselves exercise this similitude of the cases doth only the more assimilate this instance to that of our last Reformation 4. Although the Hussites being numerous in Bohem and their provocation very injurious and intolerable the success of Zisca their Chieftain did in a little time draw the whole Estates of the Kingdom to appeare on that side yet it is apparent from History that the beginnings of these troubles were so far from being authorized by the Estates that they were rather occasional and as it were tumultuary upon the hindering of some Hussites in the town of Prague to celebrat the Lords Supper with their accustomed solemnities which the Hussites by force resisting it was from this spark that the flame kindling the party became to be headed by Zisca and he and they advanced breaking down Images and dissipating Cloisters until at length he contracted a just Army and strenuously stood to his defence and thereby obtained the concurrence of the Estates against Sigismond then both Emperour and upon Venceslaus his death become King of Boheme Now whether this was not a clear resistance of the people begun at least without the States against their Soveraign upon the account of Religion I remit it to your second thoughts But you say that Comenius gives but a slender character of Zisca and his business extolling him chiefly as a good souldier And I pray Sir what would you have him to say more beside that it is not Comenius his testimony but the practice of the Bohemians which upon your own appeal we are concerned to notice In the next place you tell us That the Iustifiers of the late Bohemian wars never run upon this strain of subjects resisting their Soveraign upon the account of Religion but upon the laws and liberties of that elective Kingdom I intreat you Sir to consider what you say That the injuries provoking to that war were the invasions made upon the Liberties of Religion formerly confirmed by Maximilianus and Rudolphus is notour and manifest Now if in this case they did aggravate the wrong not only from that liberty which is every where due to truth but from these royal concessions thereto superadded certainly this can make no disparity to our prejudice But if you mean that these Resisters had not only law for them as to the making out of the wrongs which they suffered but were in a legal capacity as being the States of the Kingdom to resist the invasions of their Prince I have already told you how much this if it were true would make for and not against us 2. You must consider that the opposition which gave the immediat occasion to the war 1618. and the war thereon ensuing did proceed from and was carried on only by the Religionis Bohemicae socii Ordines and not by the whole Ordines Regni which were partim Pâ—ntificii partim Religionis Bohemicae So that the share which the Estates of the Kingdom had of the Soveraignity in this case doth not assist you I grant that the Ordines Religionis Bohemicae at first prevailing seem thereafter to have attained to the whole power and so to have proceeded to the election of Frederick But the lawfulness of his election is not now the point in question You add Neither were the Protestants too well satisfied with the last Bohemian businesse And it is very like that the briskness of the first assaulâ— upon the King's Counsellers with other miscarriages in the progress of that businesse might possibly offend but can you thence infer that either these defensive wars were not undertaken for Religion or that on this account the Protestants did dislike them As for what you subjoin Yea K. James notwithstanding of his interest in the elected King was no way cordial for it He who desires a true account of King Iames his deportment in this affair how contrary to the inclination of all English Protestants the advice of his best Councellers and the earnest solicitation of Archbishop Abbot he strangely delayed to assist and in effect deserted both his Son in Law and the cause of the protestant Religion in that juncture may finde it at length in Mr. Rushworthâ—s collections But the truth is his Majestie in that particular was so possessed and captivat by a design or rather an humor that then overacted him toward a Spanish match not only in prejudice and to the ruine of his own Daughter and Son in Law his own and Englands honour and interest but contrary to his sounder opinion in â—â—vors of the French protestants necessitate to a resistance that if you had consulted the honour of his memory you had in this matter chosen to be silent Your third instance is adduced by your N. C. In these words But you know there was fighting in Germany upon the account of Religion To which you answere This showes how overly you read History when you bring this as a precedent And truly Sir I do conceive tâ—at the most overly reading may give so full and intire satisfaction as to this point that I exceedingly long to hear how your more accurat perusal will convel the evidence You say when Luther rose the Duke of Saxon moved of God did receive the reformation peaceablie into his principalities c. And what then as to the matter of defence But you adde that in the years 1524. and 1525. There arose a war in Germanie fomented by some troublesome Preachers as saith the Historian who pretended the liberty of the Gospel for their chief quarrel And this war of the Rusticks was again and again condemned by Luther as an execrable rebellion nay opposed and broken even by protestant Princes All the concludency of this passage on your part depends upon the supposition that this war of the Rusticks was by them necessarily ingaged into for defence of themselves and the true Religion against their persecuting Adversaries Which though you be bold enough
by the Protestant and Popish Cantons with many other letters and declarations is but one evidence and that irrefragable against you What impudence is this then whereinto you are hardened But the Electors of Cullen amd the Palatine both Protestants lay neuters And what then Do we not know how rare a things it is in a time of danger for all concerned to unite even in the most uncontroverted duties Beside the Elector of Cullen was then recently deposed and excommunicate and his people specially his principal Clergie and he at great variance for the Reformation by him intended And the Palatine inclining to favoure in effect aiding the Princes with 400 horse was by the evil success of the war forced to retreat and excuse himselfe Next you adde That the Elector of Brandenburg and Maurice of Saxe armed for the Emperour And I grant That Albertus Ioannes Brandenburgici quanquam erant religionis Ioannes quidem etiam foederis Protestantium tamen quod Caesar non propter Râ—ligionem sed quorundam rebellionis ulciscendae causa belluâ— sucsipi diceret suam illi operam addixisse But as their resting upon Caesar's assertion and promise for the security of Religion was by all the circumstances of that war declared to be but an emptie pretext so Iohn's breach of faith in this his ingagement can as little be denyed as his relation of Son in law to Henrie of Brunswick then detained captive by the Langrave seemes to have been his great motive However it is certain that the Elector of Brâ—ndenburg for whom it is like that in your heedless way you take one of his above mentioned Brothers did stand off neuter endeavouring rather to mediate as the History testifies and we may see by his interposing betwixt the Elector of Saxe and Maurice at the seige of Lipsick As for Maurice his part it was indeed foulest and deservedly condemned by all equal Judges But seeing you can adduce no other argumeâ—ts for your pretended vindication then undeniable wrong and perfidy the truth and righteousness of that defensive war on the Princes their part against the Emperour needeth not my further patrociny And yet As if you had said something to purpose you have the boldness to conclude in these words So you may see what pitiâ—ul Hisâ—orians they are who alledge the precedent of Germany O os durum Who would not Laugh at such excessive confidence above the excuse of all possible ignorance The fourth instance which you go about to cleare is that of Sweden and you say That King Gustavus with the States of that Kingdome did in the Year 1524. peaceably receive the Reformation and who would not wish that Religion and Reformation might have had the same fate every where Neither were there any broils about it till after seventy years that Sigismond King of Polland the Son of their former King and therefore by them acknowledged though a Papist was by force entering the Kingdome resolving to root out the Protestant Religion Whereupon they deposed him no strange thing in the Sweedish History that being before an Elective Crown and but newly then become hereditary and the States still retaining the supreme Authority Sir I must confess that this is a passage whereunto I can make no reply your undertaking was to convince us by undeniable evidence of History of the falshood of that vuâ—gar error That the Reformation was carried on that is maintained as I have before shewed by resistance and here you give us an instance of a Kingdome not only resisting but deposing their King because of his invading of Religion Which in place of a vindication is a full and plain concession For as to what you insinuate that that Crown had been a little before Elective I told you upon the instance of Boheme that though it had been even for the time Elective yet it could not make for you much less when you acknowledge that then for as for your own or the Printers escape referring the change to the Year 1644. I urge it not it was become successive And where you alledge that the States did still retain the Supreme Authority if you understand it otherwayes then according to that power and priviledge which appertains to our Parliaments it is only your own fiction But you subjoyne that If this serve not to vindicat the Sweds at least the Reformation was not introduced by wars among them And pray Sir who of us did ever defend such a practice To introduce and to maintain are things so different that they can not be fairly confounded The last shift you make is That the actions of that state were never looked upon as a precedent to others But if so why then do you mention them and if they be indeed a precedent certainly it is hard to determine whether you be more false in your general assertion anent the establishing of the Reformation or ridiculous in this part of your vindication The fift instance you mention is That Denmark received the Reformation peaceably But seing this hypothese excluds the question controverted anent the maintenance of Religion by armes not casible without the antecedent violence It is evident that it is rather transiently then pertinently by you adduced The sixt instance is tabled by your N. C. thus But you cannot deny there was force used in Helvetia and Geneve Aâ—d to this you answere both in the manner and termes of your accustomed vanity That this shewes what a superficial Reader of History your N. C. is And then you tell us Tâ—at Zurich received the Reformation peaceably but being maligned by the other Cantons and by them injured at the Popes instigation it broke out into a civil war purely defensive upon Zuriches part Likeas the Cantons are not subject to one another but free States only united in a League It is answered that here upon the account of Religion there was force used in Helvetia is clear from your own narration How then do you taxe your N. C. for this allegeance as a superficial Reader of History As for that that it was used by one associat against another and not by subjects against their superior it is only accidental from the condition of these Cantons the other circumstances of that war And seing that neither the Gospel nor Reason do lay any special restraint upon subjects in case of their Superiors intolerable persecution because of Religion as I have already shewed this precedent is no small confirmation of the practices by us maintained 2. I must tell you further that this war on Zuriches part was not so purely defensive as you give it out in asmuch as it is certain from Sleidan 4. and 8. Books that the provoking injuries were for the most part committed upon their citizens without their territories and the first act of hostility by the interclusion of passages was done by these of Zurich so that although their guards were indeed surprised yet dating the war from the hostile interclusion
plainly accused of having joined to the confederats against the inquisition for remisness in the maintenance of the Romish Religion were very early cut off even in the first fermenting as it were of these tumults before the ensuing war was formed but however certain it is that although they professed and practised mainly for the liberty of their Countrey against tyranny yet they greatly favoured the persecute protestants and also much inclined to their way as is clear from their very accusation and also from the manner of their death specially Horn's who for all Grotius his saying that they were execute post sacra romano ritu peracta yet at first refused to confess to the Bishop of Ypre saving that he had confessed himselfe unto God What then doth this allegeance destitute of reason and little favoured by truth avail you Your next argument is that the States by a Placaet declared it scandalous to say they fought for Religion Sir I wish you had given us the words at least the date of that Placaet For sure I am that in what termes soever the Estates in policie might think fit to declare and publish the cause of these wars and to assigne for the same rather the invasion of liberties and priviledges which was the effect of the Spanish persecution then Religion which was the more remote cause yet whoever reflects upon their first beginnings will finde that it was after this manner The Flamings receiving the light of the Gospel being therefore sore vexed by long and cruel persecutions the same upon the succession of Philip to his Father Charles are by the Spainards much intended and a resolution being taken to root out the Protestants new Bishops are created the Spanish Inquisition is threatned and many terrible edicts emitted by which courses not only in themselves wicked but also contrary to the priviledges and destructive of the liberties of that people many tumults and confusions were in all parts occasioned untill at length the Nobles do confederate for resistance and mutual assistance and relief in consequence whereof they petition the Regent and applications are made to the King when in the meane time on a suddain these of the Religion seeing no success that way keep their meetings and assemblies openly assuming armes for their own defence aggainst suddain violence and by the meaner sort of the people images and idols are as with a whirl-winde quales olim saepe motus Iudeorum erant which is Grotius his remark thrown down almost in all places These things make the Regent more easie towards the Protestants and force her to remit bygons and indulge their Preachers but the Lords retearing to their respective charges for rendering the concessions effectual and being terrified by the reports of the King 's implacable displeasure betake themselves to divided Councels whereupon the Regent resiles from the agreement renewes the persecution levies new forces imposeth new oaths and the Spainards supposing the whole people one way or other to have been involved in the late tumults conceive them as guiltie of rebellion to have forfaulted their former liberties and to be become obnoxious to an absolute domination This being the condition of matters when the Duke d'Alva was named to the government the Prince of Orange Brederode both Protestants retire Brederod his forces of the same Religion resist and are beaten and many shift for themselves then the Duke arriving fills all places in a moment with tyranny and persecution putting to death many Lords and Gentlemen and many thousands beside because of the former confederacie and upon the account of their Religion And the Prince of Orange being cited and not compearing his Estate and Lands ar seised on and thereafter takking armes by the perswasion of the banished and declaring to the world both the injuries done unto him and that he was of the Religion he is once and again beaten so that there remained no opposition to the Duk 's rage violence save what was made by a few escaped from the former defeats given to the Protestants who made war in the Princes name partly by piracie at sea and partly from woods and forests against Priests only and Officers of justice In this deplorable estate under most insolent tyrannie and violent persecution these poor Countries remain untill the Earl vander Marke with his Protestants or sea Gueux as they were then called surpriseth the Town of Breill after which Flussing and several other townes in Zealand and Holland refuse spanish garisons and being Protestants revolt to the Prince of Orange who having implored the aid of all Protestant Princes after a successess enterprise for the succour of his Brother Ludovick at Mons and a proclamation emitted declaring the cause of his ingagement to be for relief of these Countreys form Alva's tyranny and from the crueltie and oppression of his proclamations edicts taxes and imposts cometh unto Holland from which time the war for Religion and liberty proceedeth thorow many and various accidents and both are in all places equally restored This is the plain and true and account of the rise of these wars at which period even Grotius who of all the writters of that History doth most decline and wave the cause of Religion as an ingredient in the quarrel noteth Religionis causa primi talibus caeptis sociaverant Smalcaldico faedere Germani post quos Galli proceres plurimis etiam Scriptis disseruerant non peccare in fas obsequii minores potestates qui invito quà mvis principe divina ac publica jura vitam que innocentium si necesse â—oret armis defenderent c. And a little after romanae ceremoniae ejectae templis c. Whether or not then persecution for Religion appears to have been the cause of these wars let all impartial men judge But you tell us that the true ground of the quarrel as we may read in all the Histories was that their Prince was not an absolute Soveraign but limited in his power and that by expresse compact they might use force if he transgressed his limits as he notoriously did Sir for the true and proper ground of the war I have alreadie clearly narrated it from the best Historians that which you point at here is rather a justification of their resistance from the right and capacity whereunto their Prince was astricted But 1. You cannot deny that persecution for Religion whereby they were injured both in their special priviledges and common and natural rights and liberties was the provoking cause of these wars and consequently that Religion no more then other interests doth not forbid to subjects necessary defence and resistance against their Superiors 2. For all the vaine talke that you and your fellowes make against us for allowing to the people a discretive judgement anent their Princes actings yet you not only suppose and approve it in these of the Netherlands in order to their Prince but stick not to vent your aime in saying
that the King did most notoriously and tyrannically pass his limits 3. Though we should urge this instance no further then you allow it yet it stil remaines a very agreeable precedent for justifying our late courses it being certain that not only the rights and priviledges of both Kingdomes were violate but that the undoubted priviledges of Parliament and the resticted nature of the Kings soveraignity over us did give us as good and sufficient a warrand for the oppositions then made as upon this head can be alledged and instructed by these of the Netherlands And really when I reflect upon the particular case of the late warres betwixt the King and Parliament and how that in the Papers printed by consent of both for clearing the controversie there appeareth nothing save the pretensions and pleas of prerogative and priviledge and yet all do acknowledge Religion to have been the original cause I think this sole consideration might have made you to forbear this poor vindication It is true Grotius sayes and seems to lay much weight upon it quod Brabanti illud quoque proprium pacisci solent ut principe leges violante ipsi fidei obsequii vinculo liberantur donec demantur injuriae But not to draw you to long discourses anent the effect of an irritant provision adjected to a mutual contract 1. It were no great difficulty to shew you from undeniable reason nay from Grotius himselfe in his de Iur. Bell. that as there is such a connexion in all contracts that the failzeer of the one party doth in so far liberat the other from his mutual corresponding ingagement and repone him to his antecedent condition and liberty so in the present case an irritant provision though in other cases it may sometimes extend its vertue and influence beyond the intrinseck import of the failzie wherby it is committed appears not to have any special use but only to serve ad majorem quia expressiorem cautelam 2. It might here be sufficient to make that answere for us which Grotius a little after in the same place makes for the other Provinces viz. ab aliis quoque Belgarum nationibus idem jus moribus usurpatum which may be verefied as to Scotland and England by many most pregnant and luculent examples Butâ— 3. As I grant that a reservation of these things which otherwse would be imported in the peoples surrender appertain to the Soveraign fortified or not fortified by an irritant provision may give to the people when therein wronged the liberty of asserting their own right which without a special reservation had been none so undoubtedly as to such rights which do reserve themselves and are so much ours that even by an express surrender they cannot be absolutely resigned such as the right of Religion our lives and whole fortunes are the preservation whereof being the very ends of go vernment can not be understood to be permitted to the Governour 's absolute arbitrement the people therein invaded by vertue of the power inherent to rights reserved and the liberation flowing from all such failzeours though not expressed may very justly resist and demand reparation And is it indeed possible that any rational man should think because of a reservation of things of less value and therefore within our power a Prince transgressing may lawfully be resisted and that nevertheless these high and atrocious invasions in matters of the greatest value and which therefore can neither be absolutely surrendered nor do need an express reservation should and ought to be stupidly swallowed down But seing the greatest Royalists do in certain suppositions wherein their own sense and interest do give them a better understanding not stick both to acknowledge and practise according to this principle it is very evident as I have often said that it is only their indifferency in matters of Religion and the security that they thence derive which makes them and us to differ on this subject In the close of this instance you tell us That for all this you refer us to Grotius And for matter of fact I decline him not as you may perceive but if his too manifest prejudice in matters of Religion do make him less express to our purpose I hope the supplement of other Authors and also of solid reason shall obtain from you al men a just acknowledgment The 8th instance that you would vindicate is that of the Civil warrs of France and first you say Their first civil wars were managed by the Princes of the blood who by the laws of that Crown are not ordinary subjects And certainly by all law and common sense extraordinary persons may well be said not to be ordinary subjects but are they therefore not subjects Surely the conferring of high dignities and great Authority may well intend their obligation it doth not alter their condition And how often have we heard and seen them accused and forfeited for rebellion Why do you then render youâ— selfe ridiculous by such a pitiful alledgeance But you add besides the wars were begun in the minority of the King And do you seriously think that setting aside the greater incapacity it might have put them into had the King been major they would have been of another minde But you say that in this case the power of the Princes is greater And we have indeed often heard that the dignity of the Princes doth consist mainly in two viz. their right of succession and privilege of Regencie during the Kings minority or absence but as in the matter of Regencie the nearest and not all the agnati of the royal blood can pretend to it and that only in the case of no nomination made by the preceeding King and during the space of the young King's pupillarity just according to the common rules of tutela legitima so you may remember that the wars we speak of falling out in the reigne of Francis the Second being for the time at least sixteen years of age there was no place for the Princes their pretence of Regencie beside the first appearance of these wars was only supposed to be countenanced but not openly by them owned And as for the continuation of the war in the non-age of Charles the Nynth it is certaine that the King of Navarre to whom as nearest agnat the Regencie belonged did voluntarily renounce his pretension in favours of the Queen mother nay that he joined with her the Guisians and died fighting against the Protestants headed by Conde and the Admiral And likewise these wars were againe renewed in the King his Majority But not to enter further into these iliads of tumults and confusions occasioned by the restles perfidie and unsatiable cruelty of the adversaries though I should admit that these wars were not only incited and provoked to by persecution but that also even on the Protestants their side they were not a little influenced both by particular interests and passions and the general fervor of that Nation
Which in effect is the very worst account that even the enemies of the truth do give of them and cannot be received by any impartial inquirer Yet seing it is most evident that persecution for Religion was the true cause moving the body of the Protestants to their own defence and that their Ministers and Teachers whom God had honoured to be instrumental in their conversion as Beza and others did countenance these wars and constantly maintain that a defensive resistance to subjects in a due capacity was no more prohibite upon the account of persecution for Religion then in the case of any other intolerable oppression The mixture of mans corruption inseparable even from his best actions in the prosecution of so good a cause can neither prejudge its justice nor deprive us of the advantage of this precedent But knowing your former answers to be weake and unsatisfying you subjoyne that you do not deny their following wars to have been direct Rebellion And is this the vindication you promised Only you bid us consider the fierce Spirit of that Nation and we must confess it was not Religion but their temper that was to be blamed Well Sir is this your candor The question is whether or not Religion was the cause of these wars which if the lawfulness thereof were not first supposed were utterly impertinent and you not darring to deny it do first tell us by a blunt petitio principii that the wars were rebellion and then that the French temper more then Religion is to be therefore blamed Who should regard such a pitiful Sophister But seing it can not be denyed that the many and great injuries suffered upon the account of Religion were the just provocation to these wars although some small censuâ—e either of precipitancy or of excess in the prosecution may possibly be imputed to the hote temper of that people or excused by the signal insolencie of ther provocations yet sure I am that neither the cause of Religion nor the justice of it is thereby in the least disproven But now you say many of the eminent men of that Church are fully convinced of the evill of these courses yea one of the glories of our Nation Cameron in the wars of the last King directly preached against their courses as Rebellion I will not answere that possibly it hath befallen the eminent men of that Church as it did many of our own who as they were removed from the first times of the Reformation the then opposition of adversaries from the evidence of the Lord's Spirit presence that therein appeared so according to the influence of after temptations were induced to condemne that which otherwise they would have approven It is enough for us that your many eminent whoever they be are more then overballanced by many more and more eminent still abyding on our side And for Cameron whom forsooth in your pedantick stile you more then cannonize by terming a Glory you must pardon us who know him better whatever be his opinion in this matter not to be dazled by his splendour specially seing you know that if we were disposed to vie with you in such vanities we might by adducing King Iames his justifying of the French Protestants their defensive wars in his answer to cardinal Perron eclipse this your glory into obscurity but what need of more words If these last wars were purely defensive for Religion they could not be rebellious and if they were not we only lose the instance but not the argument as I have abundantly proven But to this you make your N. C. Answer by asking How did the late King give assistance to the Rochellers in the last wars if so be they were rebellious And to this you reply That it proceeded from a particular reason Viz. Because the King of Britain had become the surety in the former pacification that the French King should observe the agreement Sir If I had the management of your N. C. part I think I should not have troubled you with this answer The assistance you mention was so like rather to a treachery that both for the good of these poor Protestants and for the honour of our King's memory I wish it had never been But since you suppose it to have been real how is it that by your return you do so pitifully betray your cause For seing by your acknowledgment the late King did in the pacification after the second war of Rochell with consent of the French King become surety to his Protestant subjects for due observance and by this his accession clearly acknowledged the lawfulness and validitie of the Protestants their treatie it is a more manifest confession of the Peoples right and capacity to restrain both by contract and necessary force the unjust and persecuting violence of their Prince then all the instances adduced do afford It is true you adde That this assistance was on our Kings part most just what ever the Subjects of France their part in it might be But where is your reason for this insinuat distinction Or what Logickâ— can prove that a just concurring assistance may be given in an unjust war That the King of Britain interposing was injured and affronted by the King of France his breach is not denyed by or contrary to us more then the injury done by the French King unto these his Protestants subjects But to clear this passage of your foolish quibles The Duke of Rohan in the Ninth of his Politick Discourses entituled His Apology upon the last troubles of France because of the Religion plainly tell us that the King of Britain did by a Gentleman sent to him remonstrat how he was surety in the last peace and did compassionate the Protestants their sufferings that if by fair means he did not obtain relief he would ingage his whole Kingdomes and his proper Person in so just a war to which he found himselfe oblidged in honour and conscience providing that the Protestants would take armes with him and promise as he would do not to hearken to any treatie but jointly with him And thereto the Duke subjoines that this promise of assistance was his principal ingagement to arme What think you then Do not these words plainly enough denote both Religion to have been the cause and what was the Kings approbation of these wars Or if you doubt the French man's faith pray take but a view of Mr Rushworth's Collections as to this affair and there beside the confimation of what the Duke sayes I am perswaded you will find the King so express and the Parliament so cordial in their resentments of the wrongs done to these poor Protestants and in their readinesse to assist for their relief that you will be ashamed hereafter to scorn your selfe by such confident childish conjectures and distinctions But I am sorry that by reflecting upon the part of the French Protestants in that war as less just then the King of Britains you should have forced
of my writing is such as I conceived to be most proper for my purpose if the prosecution of your particularities specially in an essay pretended indeed to be equally managed but without question unequally designed for the parties therein contending prove irksome and tedious to others as it hath been to my self I have no Apologie but the necessity of a full reply aswel to deliver the true Non-Conformist from your disingenuous imposings as to refute your Conformist's Objections As for other matters I referr all to the Reader There is one thing only I would intreat and that is that if in the perusal of what I have written you do find any thing that may move you again to take up your pen you would not imploy it in any further continuation of this dramatick way of scribling But seeing truth's interest is that which both of us ought to regard let the differences in controversie be fairly stated propositions clearly drawn forth and by you either defended or impugned according to the exigence of your cause and I promise you either my assent or the reasons of my dissent without passion or partiality Now as to your language and manner of writing your Friend sayes It is accommodated to these meaner capacities who are most apt to be abused by such as care not nay which is very sad but too true wish not Religion nor godlinesse to prosper in the hands of those who differ from them in opinion about external things which are not of great moment Sir this is a charge of too high an import to be let flye at randome There are I confesse amongst us who do apprehend that both the opinions and practices of you and your Associats do directly tend to the debauching of Conscience by the false pretences and undue extensions of Civil Obedience and Allegeance the perverting and destroying of Gospel Ordinances not only of Church-government and a sent Ministry but even of the two Sacraments by turning their divine institution into ecclesiastick custome and lastly to the subverting of the very foundation Justification through faith in Jesus Christ by the superadding of our own to his righteousnesse and who therefore justly fearing that your colouring and covering of these most momentous points as if different opinions about things externall were all the controversie to be only a turning of things upside down and a seeking deep to hide your Counsel from the Lord do wish that the Lords people may bewar of such deceivers specially seeing their universal perjury and intrusion their common profanity and ordinary insufficiency are obvious to all men But that there are any of us who care not nay wish not Religion to prosper even in the manner here represented is not more groundlesse then it is most certain that the prospering of Religion and godlinesse would be the most effectual mean both to ruine your course and establish what me maintain But let us hear how your Friend makes out his accusation and he saith it may appear from their perswading poor souls to take for a mark of zeal that which in all christian Nations is lookt on as a very great mark of impiety to wit not going to Church A mighty conviction and worthy to be write in greater letters But where did he learn that not going to Church in the meaning only pertinent to his reflection viz our not going to the house appointed indeed for publick divine worship but invaded and usurped by perjurious Intruders for the most part as palpably wicked and naughty as their intrusion is undeniable is lookt on in all Christian Nations as a great mark of impiety Or how will he make it out that we perswade not going to Church that is to the assembling of our selves together for the more solemn worship and adoration of God and hearing of our lawful Pastors though in corners as God gives opportunity which is most certainly all whereunto Christianity doth oblidge Let him prove either and then let him boast himself But seeing either of these demands must of necessity sinke him into perpetual silence how foolishly doth he second his allegeances He subjoynes that you mean no prejudice to any person in writing of it viz. your DIALOGUES that it is only published to informe sincere people Whither it be so or not let the work bear witness As for my intention in answering I have already declared it and I hope the answer it selfe will not contradict I wish indeed it had been more timous But as I affect not hasty productions so there are many other reasons easily supposible for the delay If it may give any light for establishment in this evil time I know it is not yet unseasonable And in this single and earnest desire I recommend it to all that love our righteous Cause and wait for the Lords appearance A short INDEX Of the chief things handled in this Treatise DIAL I. NOn-Conformists vindicated from some groundlesse and odious charges suggested in the entrie Pag. 2 3 c. The sound clear rule for Christian practice in the point of Separation with the true reason why Non-Conformists cannot join with Curats 6 c. The work of God which Non-Conformists owne no Rebellion 9 Whether that argument taken from the Prophets their not exhorting to Popular Reformation doth militat against Subjects their fighting for Religion 10 Positive grounds from Scripture warranding Subjects to defend Religion by armes 11 12 c. The Peoples obligation to Popular Reformation cleared 16 The example of the Maccabees a good ground for Peoples maintaining Religion by armes 18 19 The invalidity of these Objections taken from the mortifying design of Religion and our Lords beginning the Gospel with suffering discovered 20 21 c. Whether that injunction of our Saviours to his Disciples not to draw for him and his words to Pilat Iohn 18. 36. doth militat against the defending of Religion by Armes 24 c. Whether the Practice of the Primitive Christians be a sufficient argument to condemn fighting for Religion 29 30 Why N. C. cannot keep the Anniversary day 32 The Publick course against the adversaries of the Covenant Work of Reformation vindicated from the Calumny of Cruelty and rigor and proven to be most rational and righteous 34 35 A short account of the barbarous and inhumane Cruelty of the Prelats and their party against innocent Non-Conformists 36 Ministers cleared from that charge of Medling in State or Publick affairs 39 Superstition how unjustly charged upon N. C. 41 c. DIAL II. A discovery of the evil of the new convenient contrivance of Religion 52 Kirk-Sessions vindicated 54 55 Their excellent use for suppressing ungodliness 57 The Ministers liberty and manner of reproving sin vindicated also their cariage toward the late King Ibid. Their Preaching vindicated 60 Communions vindicated 67 Of the posture in time of publick Prayer 70 Family Worship and private meetings vindicated 71 c. The Divisions charged upon N. C. whence they did proceed
whole strain runs upon suffering but seeing your insinuation is General and inconcludent and that afterward you do more particularly object from it I proceed Having thus at some length supplied your N. C. omission in the next place I come to the Argument where with you furnish him viz. That the law of Nature teacheth us to defend our selves therefore there is no need of expresse Scripture for it In Answere to this having broke your jâ—ast You begin very Magisterially with your N. C. tell him that he is a stranger to the very designe of Religion which is to mortifie Nature that it is a thing Super natural that the Scriptures are strangely contrived ever telling us of suffering without the exception of resistance if in a capacitie you appeal to Conscience if either â—ighting which a carnal man may do or suffering which he cannot do be the likelier way to advance Religion whence you conclude That it is not to be defended or advanced by rules borrowed from Nature but from Grace Fye upon you M. Conformist where is ingenuitie Your N. C. sayes that Nature teaches us To defend against injuries though inflicted for Religion you tell him that Religions desigâ—â— is to mortifie Nature that it is not to be defended or advanced by natures rules Is not this strangely contrived reasoning The N. C. is as persuaded as you are that the Grace of God bringing Salvation hath appeared unto all teaching us to deny ungodlinesse and wordly lusts and so to mortifie corrupt Nature but doth it therefore contradict pure Natures light or warrant us to destroy our selves If any private Person should injuriously impose upon and invade another for Religions sake were it not lawful for the Person thus injured to defend himself Or were this contraire to the designe and nature of Religion you cannot say it I know the Magistrat invested with authority is no private Person but remember that you now argue from the Supernatural quality of Religion and not from the character of the Magistrats power and therefore as upon this subject I would tell you that notwithstanding the Magistrat by reason of his place may deserve a greater though no illimited forbearance yet he hath as litle warrant for and greater sin in persecuting then a privat person so in the case in hand it is evident that if the mortifying designe of Religion reject all Natures assistances in must of necessity do so as well against a privat as a publick person And verily if this be your understanding of the designe of Religion you are too forward to teach others but what you lacke in skill you endeavour to make out by cunning The N. C. asserts Natures warrant only for defence which you perceiving Religion not to controll draw out a faire conclusion not against Defending but against Defending and Advancing of Religion by Natures rules Sir you know so well the difference of these two Defending and Advancing and that Non-conformists are no Turks that I wish my charitie could hide your calumnie Setting aside therefore this your foisted in Advancing which all Non-conformists do disown let us hear what you adde against Defending You say The Scriptures do ever tell us of suffering without the exception of resistance when in a capacitie I grant the Scriptures do speak of many and great sufferings according to the holy Counsel of God and frequent lot of his Saints that all that will live godly must suffer persecution They contain also many precepts and excellent encouragements to Patience under Suffering but that they do hold out any direct Command to men simply to Suffer abstracting from patient suffering or the least insinuation that though in a full capacitie they should not at all resist which in effect doth little differ the many passages adduced by me in the contraire with the advice of Flight often given show to be as remote from Truth as requisite to your inference As for your appeal to Conscience Whether fighting or suffering be the likelier way to advance Religion I appeal to common Sense if it be pertinent to contest for that which your Adversarie doth not deny The glorious power of the grace of God in propagating Religion by the weaknes and sufferings of his Servants is the great miracle of the Gospel and the praise of all Saints and yet if at any time the Lord in pitie to his afflicted did raise them up a Saviour or give them a banner for Truth was this blessing therefore despised or the means of it condemnedâ— God forbid The works of the Lord are all holy beautifull and well consistent and in this the Non-conformists do experimentally joy As to your close of this passage That a carnall man can fight wee know that spiritual men have done it also Heb. 11. 33. And where you adde that he cannot suffer it is no further my concernment then to bid you be more advertent seeing you tell us in the very next leafe of some Murtherers that suffered gallantly and that the seal of a Martyrs bloud is not alwayes the seal of God and to ponder the native import of 1 Cor 13. 3. Now as if you had demonstrate the unlawfulnesse of fighting you still your N. C. regrate for the neglect and ruine of the work of God by the Consideration of Gods Power and Providence and tell him that to defend Religion by force is but the wrath of man that Religion was first propogate by suffering whereas fighting hath been ever fatal to it It s answered as it is but to tempt and mock God and his Providence to neglect the means of preservation allowed by him So in the love of his Glory to appear for his interests against Persecuters and Subverters with the hasard of all our worldly concernments is not the sinfull and selfish wrath of man but the very power and zeal of God That Religion hath been much propagated by suffering is already acknowledged but that fighting hath been ever fatal to it is manifestly contradicted by the establishment of almost all the Reformations in Europe But you go on and tell your N. C. that our Lord did begin the Gospel with Suffering when he could have commanded Legions in his defence and when you have made him to mutter out That Christ knew it was his Fathers will you proceed to tell with compassion for his ignorance of Christs injunction to his Disciples not to draw for him and add his words to Pilat not only as an evident assurance of what you assert but as a manifest conviction of the coldnes of your Adversaries Sir such is the hight severity of your conceitednesse in this place that if the aversion I have for all things like it did not restrain I should hardly forbear to give you a humbling retaliation But all I desire is that by descending a little from it you may be in case to receive a sober answere That our Lord did not only begin but found the Gospel upon
you in a word what is the reason that the Christian world doth not patiently stretch out its neck to the Turkish Cruelty Sure you are not ignorant that the pretended cause of his invasions hath often been to destroy the Christian Faith if then the spirituality of Christs Kingdom doth altogether prohibite his Servants fighting wherefore do not Christian States and Princes lay down their Carnall defensive weapons and rest quietly in this that God who governs the world can maintain his own right and the wrath of man doth not work his righteousnesse as you are pleased to Cant to your N. C. I know the only reply you can make is that the case of free Estates and Soveraigne Princes against foreiners is very different from that of Subjects against their Rulers but doth not this plainly discover the Sophistrie of your Method you tell us first that Subjects may not fight for Religion against their persecuting Prince because the spirituality of Christs Kingdom forbids all fighting upon that account And then when you are urged with the incontrovertible practice of Christian Kingdomes you just recurre say that the instance not being of Subjects against their Prince doth not quadrat and not remembring that this is the very quaesâ—â—um you make the vain and emptie assertion of the irresistibilitie of Princes without any proofe both head and tail of all your reasonings I may not insist to tell you that if the spirituality of Christs Kingdom did cause the King of Kings and him who even on earth owned himself greater then Solomon to suffer without resistance The Soveraignity of Christian Princes cannot give them a contrary privilege I know these of your way and many others also carried away with their error forgetting both the Authority which Christ exercised and for which he was questioned by the jewish Rulers and also his own most expresse words no man taketh my life from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again stick not to make an obligation of subjection to the then Tyrannes Murtherers an ingredient in his submission but I am tedious More consideration of the worth and wonderful love of our Lord Jesus Christ would teach you no doubt both a better understanding in the Truth of God and more reverend and tender vindications then these you make of the True and Faithfull Witness You proceed in the next place upon occasion of your N. C. alledging that you condemne our first Reformation carried on by Fighting to tell us that the ages immediatly after Christ afford the best examples in these the Christians though suffâ—â—iently numerous and cruelly irritate did onlâ— increase by suffering and not by fighting the force used in our Reformation was the enemies tares and no precedent of men is to be opposed to the expresseâ— word of God Sir to begin where you leave I hope I have already fully cleared that the expresse word of God is against you and not for you neither will I expatiat upon the undeniable Necessitie Righteousnesse Reason and evident blessing of that Force used in our first Reformation by which our Religion Libertie yea the Royall line and Crown were under God only preservedâ— Nay your reprochful likening of it to the devils tares is so far from lessening the evidence of that Spirit which after having resisted unto bloud and wrestled through many great and strong persecutions did animate the Lords people to a very noble defence countenanced by all the then Reformed Churches that it doth not so much as demurie my charitie that if you your self had been in these dayes you had taken part with the Congregation That which I shall stay a little upon is the practice of the Primitive Christians whereby you think fighting for Religion to be as much condemned as suffering is highly commended And because this objection doth lead unto the delightful search and vindication of the works of God for answere I observe first that as in the holy and determinate Counsel of God it became the Captain of our Salvation to be made perfect through suffering so it pleased him for the greater manifestation of the power of his Grace by the Foolishnesse of Preaching and Weakeness of Suffering to render the propagation of his Truth more glorious and thus in the first times of the Gospel the greater the crueltie and the more ineluctable that the necessity of the suffering was the more inexpressible was the glory of that presence and the joy of that consolation whereby the Church in its deepest distresse did most highly triumph 2. So unspeakeablie did the power of this assistance prevail to the dispelling of the fear and removing of the horrour of all these torments and afflictions that many instead of flying incontrovertibly lawfull did directly run to suffering and to a great part the Garland of Martyrdom became a most Ambitionat Crown by the mistake of the exuberance of which assisting grace not only many odd practices in precipitating themselves unto suffering and death but Opinions also then held such as that of the unlawfulnesse of all resistance for Christians even against Robbers and Murtherers can only be excused 3. But if the beautie and splendor of this grace did in some measure dazle the eyes of its more immediate witnesses how much more did it astonish its more remote and after admirers who receiving the report with fames increase and taking their measures more from their own good design then the exact simplicitie of truth by their pious and affectionat Rhetorications stopt not to strain matter of fact sometimes beyond probabilitie If you be a stranger to this truth advert how the almost immediate after Age magnifies their Patience and Sufferings such as veflra omnia repleâ—iâ—us with more then one grain of allowance 4. As this was the dispensation of the first ages of the Gospel so when the Lord advanced the Church to a certain and visible capacity of defence peruse Histories and you will find plenty of instances of Christians their fighting for Religion The Armenii very early even before Constantine his Empire Libertatem exercendi Christianismi Armis vindicant Clade afficiunt Maximinum as the History beares and how the persecuted Christians under the Persian and Arrian did implore and receive the aid of the Roman and Orthodox Emperours would be superfluous to narrate By these few reflections as I have cut of from your argument all the necessary suffering and strained capacities of the Primitive Christians so I have given you such a full and evident account of their not searching after or improving sooner any real measure of sufficiencie for defence which probably they did but little minde that this their omission cannot without manifest calumnie be adduced to disprove either their immediate afterâ— practises or the agreeable and universally approven examples of our late reformations Now if for proving their more early capacite for or expresse dissent from Defensive Armes
Christians ought not to press or judge one another in the performance or forbearance of things in themselves indifferent as acceptable and well-pleasing to God without his warrant and therefore the force and effect of humane Laws ordering and commanding things in order to the Politick ends of Government and in so farre by the Lord commanded to be obeyed are not by this Doctrine in the least demurred Now that your Ceremonies and other impositions being all relative to the service and worship of God wherein as every thing is to be observed with the faith of the Lords acceptation so nothing can be acceptable without his warrant are not of the nature of things as objected to civill commands but plainly such wherein Paul pleads for liberty is manifest Nay you your self know so well that the very things scrupled at by us as enjoyned toward a religious observance would be readily complied with upon any other reasonable occasion and that thousands who detest the Surplice would chearfully engadge in a Camisado for their Prince's service that I add nothing If you say that the things in debate though commanded for religious uses are never the less enjoyned not as acceptable to God and under this formality but are only necessary because commanded You bewray not only a sinful gaudie licentiousness of doing things for and in the house of the God of Heaven not commanded by the God of Heaven wherein even Heathens let be Christians have been tender but expose the purity and simplicity of Religion to all the corruptions of mans vain imagination As to what you adde anent the pretext which this liberty may give to offenders to decline Discipline it is yet less to the purpose in as much as submission to Discipline doth in effect flow from the Lords Authority whereby it becomes necessary and Mens part therein is only a naked ministerial application Lastly if you object that publick Peace and Order require your conforming obedience Your opinion and method in this point is much different from the Apostles he makes it his great argument not only for not judging and censuring Non-conformists but also in the case of offence for complying with them in their forbearance That we ought to follow the things which make for peace and wherewith one may edisie another But you and your partie for all the noise you make for publick Peace before you tolerat a Non-conforming in the greatest indifferencies and howsoever tender and innocuous will sooner both deprive your Brethren of Peace and for your vain trifles destroy the work of God whereas though you had faith in these things yet you ought to have it to your selves before God But Sir it is already too manifest that as in practice you know not the way of Peace so in this discourse by pressing a strict obedience from the free Spirit of Christian liberty which you seem to commend you palpably condemn your self in that which you appear to allow Having thus farre in the pursute of your reasonings digressed in the explanation of true Christian Liberty because of its after use in the perusal of your remaining purposes I shall not stick in the considering of what you make your N. C. add That we forbear the things pressed for avoiding the scandal of others I have already told you that the reasons of our forbearance have no less then the indispensable motive of the will and Oath of God Yea suppose the things required were meere externals and indifferent as they are not yet I have so clearly proven that your abridging of our Christian liberty therein by vertue of your commands is in it self repugnant to the Apostles Doctrine and in its effects pernicious that your requiring to make the restraint of Authority abused to these impositions the warrant of Practice to the forcing of Conscience and the offending of a Christian Brother is a Sophisme no better then if the hardie practiser or proud imposer who is expressly commanded in Christian tenderness to regard his Brothers offence should by a vain pretending of his own offence taken from the others indulged forbearance or recusancie thereby turne the Argument and elude the exhortation to the very scorne of Scripture That which I rather observe is that seing that to give Scandal is not ill defined by you to be a stretching of our liberty to practice to the drawing of others to the like or grieving or making them weak who have not the same clearness why do you not begin your application at Prelats Who having first streatched their practice to the ensâ—aring do also frame unjust decrees to the forcing of such who have no clearness to conform And on the other hand ought you not to indulge such who only desire to reâ—uge their Conscience in the Sanctuary of an allowed forbearance But these are the men whom having first sinfully spoiled of liberty you scornfully abuse by telling they may now act without regard to Scandal since you do permit them no liberty to the contraire But I hasten to your more closs examination of the matter of Conformity And first you ask why do not our Ministers join with your Courts for Church-discipline It 's answered it were tedious to examine the follies of you and your N. C. in this point we join not in your Courts because they are not the Courts of Jesus Christ but of the King and Prelates If this you deny read the Act Par 1. 1661 Sessâ— 1. Concerning Religion and Church-Government the proclamation of Councel thereafter discharging all Presbytries untill Authorized by the Bishops and the Act Par. eod Sess. 2. For the restitution of Bishops where as you will finde that Presbytries were made Precarious as to their continuance not as to their right which is indeed Divine by the first Act and then simpliciter discharged and broken up by the Proclamation so that which returnes in their place by the last Act and what ensued is not the former Presbyteries but only the Exercises of the Brethren having both their regulation and authority from the Bishops who have all their Church-power and Jurisdiction in a dependance upon and subordination unto the soveraign power of the King as Supream So that the Kings Authority and Prerogative Royal is plainly the proper fountain and last resort of all the power and jurisdiction to be found either in your Church or its Meetings Nay further this 〈◊〉 so certain that as his Majesty doth not so much as pretend a Commission from Jesus Christ as the anointed King of his Church for this effect which yet the Pope in his most wicked usurpation did alwayes Judge necessary so if it be Treason as it is dict sess of the same Parliament act 3. to derogat from the prerogative of the Imperial Crown of this Realm and if absolute supremacie in Ecclesiasticks incapable either of superior or conjunct do thereto by the late Act of Supremacie appertain certainly to make our Lord so much as a sharer with the King in
meaning in affirming that Children can not be bound by their Fathers Oath were only that however a promissory Oath may be binding upon the Posterity in the nature of a promise and for performance yet the religion of the Oath is not so transmitted as to render the Posterity in case of a breach perjured there might possibly appeare to be some ground of debate betwixt us of which afterward but seing it is apparent both from your proposition explication subjoined and design aimed at that you deny a Fathers promissory Oath even in the substance viz. so much as a promise let be in the quality of an Oath to be obliging as to his Children you manifestly repugne not only to the instances given but to the common opinion reason yea and sense of all Men Nations and Ages whereby it is most constant that such is and hath been alwayes repute the power and representation of Fathers quoad their Children that their pactions and contracts not only in matters determined by divine precept but also in things in themselves free and indifferent viz. their condition in order to the Society civil whereof they are members yea even their state as free men of slaves have without the least challenge of Usurpation over Conscience seing founded in that Authority which God approves been holden perpetually binding But that I may immoveablie establish the obligation of this Covenant which I am perswaded God will require for ever I shall not content my self with these common concessions 1. That the sworne Pactions and Covenants of a Nation or People incorporate in one Body Politick do even in the quality of Oaths descend to after Generations because while the same civil form of their constitution remains they are still understood to be the same People notwithstanding of the change whether partial or total of the individual constituents which doth no more alter the formal identity of the Nation then the fluxe and change of parts in our bodies waters in a channel or boards in a Ship do change the samness of the Person River or Ship 2. That the promissory Oaths of Fathers in all things whereunto the sphere of their Authority doth extend do at least bind the Children as promises and to the implement which concessions granted by all do nevertheless above all scruple confirme the obligation of our Covenants which you impugne yet seing that I do apprehend both the disparity placed betwixt a Nation and a private person to be narrow and groundless and the second position to fall short of Truths full extent in this matter to remove from you all ground of scruple I shall reduce the whole matter to these certain positions 1. That though assertory Oaths being only accessory for further security do indeed intend but cannot extend the force of any Obligation either as to its subject matter or the persons thereby bound beyond its rational import yet such hath alwayes been the Religion and Reverence of promissory Oaths as nothing impeding either from the peculiarity of the subject or other circumstances or from the declared will of the person engaging ever to ampliat and extend the interpretation and make the successors as well as the promiser himself understood to be therein comprehended 2. That the true ground and measure both as to the determination of the subject and extent of the obligation whereby the force of the Fathers contract expressly binding himself and his posterity may be known and defined is this Paternal power and authority it being in it self evident that as by reason hereof the Children follow the state and condition of the Father unless in so farre as the favour of liberty or positive Law hath made an alteration so where the Father by command may oblige to obedience if by his obligation he do bind to performance he is thereby truly to be understood much more de facto to exercise all the power he hath whereby he may render his engagement effectual Now in what things and how farre Fathers may both dispose upon and command their Children is sufficiently known and their undoubted Authority not only to command obedience to the Law of God but also to determine them in matters free are by the examples of Pious Parents and that of Ionadab upon record much more cleared then is necessary to our hypothesis 3. Seing it is from the virtue and influence of this paternal power that the Contract of Society whereby Politick bodies do at first coalesce doth descend unto the posterity and so continue the Society and its constitution to after-generations the reason wherefore the other Contracts either simple or sworne engaged into by these associat people do bind their successors must of necessity resolve into the same cause and to referre it to an imaginary samnesse having no other reality then the first intercession and continuance of the fundamental Contract of Society is but an emptie Notion importing no real difference for as the perpetual obligation of the original Contract constituting the Society can have no other cause then what is assigned and it were irrational to attribute its continuance to a samness which it produceth so it is only in the force and power thereof that all other after-National-Contracts are binding upon the whole and propagat to the succeeding race 4. This third position being certain it necessarily follows that the oath taken by Ioseph of the Children of Israel anent his bones and that given by them to the Gibeonites both by Scripture declared to be binding as Oaths upon the Posterity have no proper and peculiar reason but do unanswerably conclude that whereever the Father's obligation otherwayes binding to his off-spring is confirmed by an Oath it is transmitted to them with the same accessory force to â—ender them guiltie in God's sight not only of breach of Promise but breach of Oath which argument is so much the more evident in the first case of Ioseph that the Children of Israel were not when they sware to him imbodied in a Politick state but did only stand in their natural Relation of Consanguinity 5. Seing we finde in Scripture the Lord Covenanting with Fathers for themselves and their Posterity as in the case of Abraham Fathers engaging to the Lord in the same manner as Ioshua for himself and his house the above-mentioned import and extent of Ionadab's command and not to mention the Fathers power of devoting their Children and of making void their vowes even the adjuration and curse of Rulers taking effect many Ages thereafter as that of Ioshua against the Rebuilders of Iericho with what shew of reason can we deny the matter or other argument of a contraire intention not prohibiting that the sworne obligations of Fathers are binding upon their Children aswell for the Religion of the Oath as the Truth of the Promise I know that as to mans tribunal and judgement it is thought hard poenam perjurij illi irrogari qui ipse Deum testem ac vindicem non invocaverit that
wicked School 2. Though the assertion as by you indefinitly laid down be not a little invidious yet seeing it is undeniable that Phineas and Elias did neither as Magistrats whatever was their capacity nor by special warrant punish crimes and execute judgment and that desperate disorders in the publick government may by the force of necessity license to private persons specially parents and masters this power controverted to affirme without exception that the doctrine concerning private persons their punishing of crimes in case of the supinness of the Magistrate is cursed seemeth rather to be the effect of passion then of reason 3. Divine impulses have been and are still casible and that the Lord thereby without the giving of any special commission may stirre up to such an heroick act as though necessarily debording from common methods may not the less in its whole tract and event be attended with so peculiar a lustre and evidence of Gods approbation as may even force from you an assent notwithstanding that the deed can only be maintained by these general positions which you seeme to disprove is to me unquestionable And therefore your so severe disowning without any reserve of private persons their punishing of crimes in case of the supinness of the Magistrate excluding all possibility of divine excitations to that purpose appeareth to be very precipitant Are the contingencies of humane affaires and their surprisals and pressures such as to move Kings and Princes on earth over and above all fixed and regular courses to define certain causes and occasions Quando liceat unicuiqne sine judice se vindicare velpublicaÌ„ devotionem subjug are edicto quod serum esset punire judicio it a ut cuncti adversus latrones publicos desertoresque militiae jus sibi sciant pro quiete communi exercendae publicae ultionis indultum And if in the far more pressing and conspicuous exigences of the glory of God when Soul-murderers and Christ-deserters are not only permitted but patronized the Lord in that case animat private persons to heroick undertakings for his glory when all other judgment faileth shal the justifying of such practices though otherwise countenanced by many undeniable testimonies be exclaimed against as accursed doctrines far be it from us and all that love the Lords glory and adore his soveraignity I say otherwise countenanced c. for that some men under these collours may pretend to the like warrant when in reality they have it not is indeed to be regreted nay that the present loose and lewd practices of some who most licentiously invade Conformists under cloud of night in their own houses to no good purpose whatsomever but to the great scandal of Religion and prejudice of the Countrey are such as by many clear circumstances are utterly to be condemned whatever they may pretend is I hope manifest without any observation and needeth not any further caution 4. If I may come a little nearer on this subject wherein I protest sincerâ—ly I have no designe but to vindicat the truth and wayes of the Lord with all tenderness and fear and with all due regard to the deceitfulness of humane passion and corruption are there not many suppositions casible wherein to speake roundly freely in the extreme pressure either of our own or our neighbours interest in matter of life or estate both you and I and all others whatever be our shynesse in opinion would have a clearnesse to act many things of the same nature with or as important as the punishing of crimes not only without but even in some cases against the Magistrate how can we then deny the like obligation and warrant to the highest and most important concernment of the glory of God in its just and manifest exigence Sir I know that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God but verily when I reflect how that in many cases relating to self the most part of men and even dissemblers in profession are neverthelesse in practice firmly perswaded and in some cases all without exception are even in opinion most determined as to their right and obligation of defence and resistance And withall consider that our love which is certainly the foundation of this right and obligation ought to be infinitly more intended toward God then toward all things else I cannot but wish that both the perswasion and zeal of all men in his matters were accordingly proportional to their value But oh who is now on the Lords side and who are they that aspire unto Levi's blessing who said unto his father and to his mother I have not seen him neither did he acknowledge his brethren nor knew his own Children 5. Although the position be by you exhibited in such a laxe Manner as if upon the emergencie of every crime every private person were constitute the Magistrats overseer and exacter of his administrations that you may the better load us with your forged absurdities Yet Naphtali's doctrine above declared over and above the just exigence required is so clearly set down in the case only of gross and notorious backsliding and defection countinanced or connived at by the Magistrate wherein the concernment of Gods glory and our call to assert the same is far more discernable and manifest then in the punishing of other crimes that I hope I have said enough to cut off vain and impertinent cavillations It is therefore certain that though this doctrine concerning private persons their punishing of crimes in case of the supinnesse of the Magistrate in its undefined and uncautioned latitude may be obnoxious to gross abuses yet absolutely to deny the same and thence to condemne not only many fair scripture-examples but all heroick excitations which in their suteable exigences are by a clear concurrence of circumstances manifestly demonstrate to be from the Spirit of God as to the matter warranted by his command and in their manner dependent on his soveraignity were most rigid and unjust But you go on and tell us that what cursed effects this cursed doctrine produced all the Nation saw when in the sight of the Sun a villain with a pistol invaded the persons of two of the fathers of the Church and that in the chief â—â—rect of our royall City What an empty pomp of words have we here to make out this cursed effect a villain fathers of the Church chief strâ—et royal City big words indeed Sir the way to be just in your resentments is first to be equal and then I doubt but if you have as much respect to our Lord Jesus King over his Church as you pretend to your fathers of the Church that the wrongs and invasions by them villainously committed with a high and insolent hand in the sight of all the Nations against his glory and prerogative will not only make you give to them the epithet wherewith you censure their invader but account the effects of their wickednesse a hundred-fold more accursed But lest I offend you by
it appears rather to have been assertive then purely defensive 3. The advantage which this example doth give us is the more observable from that preface they make to their expostulation emitted to their confederats in these words Christus inquiunt unam ferienti maxillam jubet alteram quoque preberi feriendam hanc eius doctrinam sequâ—ti multa profecto toleravimus patienter quidem Nunc autem quando nullus est injuriarum finis aut modus cogimur ad illud confugere quod Christus usurpavit si malè quid egimus doceri petimus illud atque demonstrari c. Whereby understanding the patience which our Lord enjoynes according to its just exigence and measure and by a very exact and sound observation holding out how in a continued tract of injuries the duty of patience may at length cease and the liberty of defence then take place they plainly reject these abusive inferences of absolute subjection or rather stupidity in the cause of Religion which men assured by their indiffeâ—encie in these matters against the temptation and hazard would thence inferre 4. When you remembred the practice of the Suitzers in the point of Reformation how came you to forgett Basile Where you may finde Sleid. l. 6 that after the Reformation was in a manner established the Papists nevertheless did prosecute their own designe until the citizens thereby provoked assemble and supplicate the Senate that certain of their number countenancers of the popish preachers might be removed Which being refused they make an other Assembly and Supplication quamvis sine armis â— non tamen tam demisse quà m antea whereupon the Senate returning a second displeasing answere and the people being more offended because of the apprehended usurpation of a few they openly declare that they would take a course not for Religion viz. simply and only but for the vindication of their own right And so they instantly take armes And the same day one of them casting down a certain statue they suddenly take the occasion to throw down all the idolls and statues within the city making answere to such who came from the Senate to compose the matter that what the Senate had been advising upon for three years they would perfect in one hour that idols might no more be the cause of contention Upon which the Senate grants thâ—m all their desire removing the suspected Senators abolishing the Messe and settling the reformed Religion In which passage subjects their maintaining and asserting of the Reformation by armes againstâ— their superiors is so evident that it is very easie to conjecture the reason of your silence and omission It is true the people do mention the vindication of their right and not religion as the immediate cause of their taking armes But seing their meaning is plain enough that their just demands in behalf of Religion were in such a manner refused as not only their common right but their special priviledges were injured and seing in the progress the cause of Religion was by them most directly intended and pursued it is manifest above exception that as it was the occasion so the Reformation of Religion was the principal motive and end of all this stir As for Geneve you say the Bishop fled from it out of a pannick fear when the Reformation was received And 't is true the History saves that upon the change Episcopus atque Clerus irati discesserunt ab urbe But is it then pertinent for you to observe that no force was used where there was no provocation But you subjoine that Geneve was a free Town neither subject to the Bishop nor the duke of Savoy And no doubt you give this caveat for that war which you know was made against them in the year 1534. By the duke of Savoy adjutus ab ejus urbis Episcopo vel potius instigatus partim ob Evangelii proâ—essionem partim aliis de causis But seing although Geneve was a free Town yet it had a considerable dependence upon the Bishop and though it had not yet the instance is no less concludent for us then that of the war of Zurich I will not insist in any longer reply The seventh instance you also adduce by your N. C. Questioning what you say to the war in the Netherlands To which you answere that you say still they fought not for Religion And that they fought not for Religion that is to propagate it by Armes you are in the right But that persecution for Religion carried on by the making of new Bishops the Inquisition and bloody Edicts was the principal cause of all these wars Historians on both sides such as Bentivoglio Strada Grotius Grimstoun and his Authours do so fully attest that your confidence is to me admirable But you say Papists and Protestants did jointlâ— concurr in it It is answered 1. That the cause of these wars being complexe the Spaniard endeavouring no less to subvert the liberties of these Provinces then to extirpate the Reformed Religion it is nothing strange that there should have been a joint concurrence iâ— the opposition Specially seing 2. even the persecution at that time practised upon the Protestants in these Countries by the Spaniards strangers was so tyrannous ragefull and pernicious that many of their Compatriots though otherwise not of their Religion were yet induced to favoure their cause But 3. As it was the spreading of the Reformed Religion in these parts that first gave the Spaniard occasion to exercise tyranny and by violating and subverting their Liberties to designe an uniforme royalty over all his Dominions So it is unquestionable that Religion and the cruelty practised upon its Professors were the originall and principal cause of that war as the Apology set out by the Protestants after their first defeat in the end of the Regency of Margaret doth fully witness And here I might tell you of the joynt supplications and confederacies made about that time by these of that Religion for their own preservation and also the concessions made to them in that behalf But the History is so large in this matter that it were superfluous in this place to be more particular And therefore I say 4. That although in the beginning the mixed designe of the extirpation of Religion mainly intended and of the erecting of an uniforme Monarchy assumed through the occasion thereof carrying along a manifest and most injurious violation of all rights liberties and priviledges did at first ingage even Papists in the resistance yet it is most certain that the principal cause of the war viz Religion more and more prevailing of the Flamings themselves there were few save Protestants that took part on the defensive side And as for the French or others who joyned afterwards upon a clear ground of interest it belongeth not unto the present consideration You adde that Egmond Horn beheaded by the D of Alve as the chief instruments in it died both Papists 'T is answered Egmond and Horn
me to a discovery which rendreth its event so dishonourable to our King's memory Having run thorow so many examples with such success as we have spoken you conclude And thus I have cleared the Churches abroad of that inâ—urious stain you brand them with But seeing I have so mamanifestly discovered your falshood and presumption in this matter I will not insult over this your folly You go on in the next place to our Britain and tell us of the English Reformation and how that it was stained with no blood save that of Martyrs and that indeed was no stain but as you do well correct your selfe its chief Ornament But Sir if the Reformation in other places were no less confirmed and rendred glorious by this zeal and testimony and withall the People by defensively resisting when in a sufficient capacity did evidence a greater and more universal constancy not versatile by every blast of Authority and ambulatory at Princes their pleasure doth it not rather augment then diminish their praise You adde That in England though a Popish and persecuting Queen interveened betwixt the first Reformation of King Edward and the second of Queen Elizabeth yet none rebelled And what then Pray Sir how or wherefore doth Scotland want that glory Sure I am that the Reformation being established in Scotland after a sharp war and by the way you may remember that Queen Elizabeth sided with the subject both by Pacification Authority and determination of a General Assembly yet we received Queen Mary from France a declared violent Papist without the least question anent her right of Government or any opposition moved against her until provoked by such weakness wickednesse as I am ashamed to mention Wherein then in this regard are we inferior to England unless it be that neither for the favour nor fear of a woman we were moved by any publict act let be by vote of Parliament as the Representative of that Nation to deny the â—aith and again take on theyoke of the Romane Antichrist Or how are you not ashamed to reproach your Nation with a nimious fervour specially upon this occasion wherein our worthy Reformers did make the Court complyance back-drawing and lukwarmness of a few temporizers their great and continual complaint In the next place you tell us that all that travelled the World can witness that we were not approven in our late rebellion and passing by Diodat Spanhem Rivet Salmasius Blondel Amerald de Moulin and others not named as all either in print or publick discourse declaring for you you say There was an act made by the Consistory of Charentoun that no man should be barred the communion for the Scots Excommunication except it were for a crime And this forsooth was a loud declaration of their disowning of our practice 'T is answered 1. Though you could give a account of the opinion of the Nations abroad concerning our late wars yet their judgement in matters so remote from their knowledge and wherein the favour generally born to Kings specially when so fatally unfortunat as Charles the first was is able to create in the most part very little inquisitive a very strong prejudice cannot amount to a testimony of any moment 2. That the more knowing among them did both by their Histories and other writtings also by their letters approve our proceedings might be very easily made out by an unanswerable condescendence nay that the generality both of Dutch and French Protestants did condemne the King's party and their practices I am certain none of these to whom you appeal in this matter can justly disown it As for Diodat and the rest you name why do you not eâ—hibite their words You say indeed for some of them very wisely and safely That they did only declare themselves in their Discourses and Sermons And for these I think you must be excused because you heard them not But for the rest I ingage that whatever passages you shall adduce from them on your part I shall redargue either their information in matter of fact or their reasons in matter of Right to the satisfaction of all unbyassed men Beside Salmasius is most exceptionable in respect he was imployed and got money in the cause and yet in the judgement of many though he had unanswerable advantages as to the main design of his defence he was even in that shamefully baffled And for Amerauld read but his own vain and ridiculous Dedication of his paraphrase upon the Psalmes to the King in the year of his restitution and I am certain you will allow us to think the want of his suffrage no prejudice to our cause Now for your act made at Charenton I confess your not producing of it doth the more dissatisfy because you represent it in termes little consistent viz. That the Scoâ—s Excommunication should not debar unless it were for a crime That you take a crime in this place in its larger acceptation for an offense and not in that more strict and proper wherein Lawyers use it it were disingenuity in me for to call it in question But then how Excommunication can otherwise proceed without the allegation of any crime as you seem to accuse us is indeed to me a difficulty inexplicable whereof I am sure our Church could not be guilty and therefore seing the Consistorie could not doubt that the Church of Scotland did hold an offense and obstinacie to be the necessary causes of excommunication for them to have â—lighted the tryal by us made and judged the particular grounds of our procedure not answerable to the general rule had been breach of Christian communion and charity whereof your naked assertion shall never make me think the French Church guilty withal yow know that the Bishop of Galloway whom you alledge to have been upon this act admitted to the Lords Table notwithstanding of his excommunication was excommunicate upon the accusation of clear crimes So that what you call a loud declaration on the Consistories part I apprehend to be only a loud calumny on yours But whatever be in that act or the Bishops admission upon his own information in opposition to all your vain pretenses of contrary Authorities it is certain that not only the truth and right was on our side but also that our practices were approven yea applauded and we therein encouraged by letters from several of the reformed Churches yet extant upon record But in the next place your N. C. Demanding it you undertake to tell him ingenuously what precedents there are in History for subjects fighting upon the account of Religion And the first you say that you know is that of Gregory the seventh arming the subjects of Germanie against Henry the fourth from whom other Popes taking example they made no bones upon any displeasure pretending alwayes some matter of Religion to depose Princes and liberat their subjects As you instance in Frederick the. 1. und 2. Lewes of Bavier and several others but the latest
King 's pretending to an arbitrary and absolute disposal of these previleges thus granted to be an injurious invasion and usurpation Yet in order to the Church and her rights and immunities they are not ashamed to cut off â—o even and just a parallel and deny so evident a consequence in behalf of her righteous liberty But wisdome is justified of her children And how much were it to be wished that at the least the children of light were as wise as the children of this world are in their generation 3. Beside the invasion threatened to the Church in its power of administration and the usurpation from the Church of the power of Government which this Supremacy imports it further attributes to the Prince according to our Parliaments late explication an illimited power in matters of Religion proper and reserved to God alone To enact whatever a man thinketh fit in Ecclesiastick meetings and maâ—â—ers I am certain is that which the Lord did never allow to any meer man under heaven and yet that this power is assumed and how by vertue thereof old unwarrantable superstitions have been retained new rites and ceremonies in Divine Worship devised and Churches turned and overturned according to mens pleasure is sufficiently known without my condescendence And therefore seing the King by vertue of his Supremacy doth not only intermedle by giving his civill sanction and confirmation to the intrinseck powers of the Church by you mentioned as you do allege or by acts imperate as others in contradistinction to elicite acts in these matters doe use to express it but doth lay claime to an absolute power in and over all Church-matters and persons the filly pretense whereby you go about to smooth it is not worthie of any mans notice In the next place you tell us of some explications provided for removing of the scruples which the generality of the words of the oath of Supremacy might suggest And to this it may suffice for answer that seing these explications are certainly confined to England and by no publick Act received or owned among us your allegeance with your childish ground that we have this oath from them is wholly impertinent as to our releifeâ— But seing the setting down of these explications contained in the English act and Articles above cited Which you do counningly omit will not only by comparing therewith the far different practices of the Kings of that Realme discover the inadequatnesse not to say the slightnesse of these sensings in effect meerly devised to palliat an excess in it self nowise justifiable but more fully manifest the strange extravagance both of the practical acceptation and late express interpretation of this Supremacie You may read them as follows the words of the Act in quinto Elizab. Declare her power and Authority to be a soveraignity over all manner of persons borne within the Realme whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal so that no forreigne power hath or ought to have any superiority over them and these of the Articles run thus Art 37. We give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizab our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himselfe that is that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civill sword the stubborne and evill doers These being the termes of these explications what consonancie the medlings of their Princes in imposing rites ceremonies and formes of Worship enjoyning their own dayes and profaning God's commanding what Doctrine Ministers should forbear permitting excomunication in their own name jointly with the Lords and finally by sitting and ruling in the Temple of God as in their own Court do hold therto is obvious to the first reflection Only this I must say that if the Kings of England their Ecclesiastick actings be indeed sufficiently warranted by the foregoing explanations the Author of the late discourse of Ecclesiastick policy who in prosecution of the King's Supremacie doth plainly annexe unto it the Authority of the preisthood and power over the conscience at least the obedience of men in matters of Religion in place of that applause wherwith he is generally received at Court deserves rather to be demeaned as the highest calumniator and depraver of his Majesties government But not to trouble you further with these double English senses viz that pretended by their Acts of Parliament and Articles which I grant to be more sound and such wherewith many godly men have rested satisfied and the other more true received and followed by their Court and Clergie nor yet to insist upon your incomparable and blessed Who now hath mens persons in admiration Bishop Usher his more full interpretation equally redargued by what I have alreadie said Let us consider our Scots most excessive though more ingenuous explanation and although I do apprehend the words of the Oath of Supremacie to be in themselves capable of a sound sense and that by understanding supreme Governour of this Kingdomeâ— not to be a limiting designation but a plain qualification of the nature of the government as being in order to its correlat this Kingdome in it selfe civil and only in this notion to be extended to persons and causes ecclesiastick all difficulties may be salved yet when to the rise and manner of this Supremacie above declared I adde how of late it hath been made the ground of the King his restoring of Bishops and framing their government to an absolute dependence upon himselfe granting of the high Commission appointing the constitution of a National Synod and of other strange acts before touched and especially that as the Act Parl. 1592. expresly and justly limiting this Supremacy was by the first Act 〈◊〉 2. Parl. 1661. Wholly abrogate and made voidâ— so by the first Act of the Par. 1669. The same Supremacie is assâ—rted to that absurd hight as doth import a plain surrender of Conscience and submission of all Matters of Religion for as to civills we are not so rash to his Majesties pleasure in a more absolute manner then ever to this day hath been acclaimed either by Pope or general Council These things I say being weighed I think I may safely conclude that I look upon the Supremacie not only as a civill Papacie but an height of usurpation against our Lord King in Zion whereunto never Christian Prince nor Potentate did heretofore aspire And here your N. C. seconding my assertion tells you that this Supremacie clearly makes way for Erastianisme To which you answer That this is one of our mutinous arts to find out long hard names and affixe them to any thing displeaseth us But passing the childishness of this conceite as if either a long or hard name were more odious then a short in my opinion
sâ—ch is the manifest wickedness of this your Supremacy that it is one of your â—elusive arts to make your N. C. rather vail it with an obscure name then leave it to an open discoverie and in the same manner it was that the men of your gang after they begun to broach their dangerous dissolute and undermining principles thought fairly to have palliate all with the gentle name of Latitudinarian as apparently obleidging to all parties But now that they are detected they turn their talk and loth to marr their affected smoothness by terming it otherwise then the long name they blame us for loading them with reproach whereas to the best of my knowledge it was their own invention and choise But not to detaine you about names which really I do so little value in any respect that I do not so much as regard the name Fanatick nor these many other wherewith the truth and partie which I maintain have been standered let us proceed to what you say to the things And first you tell us that in the old Testament the Kings of Judah frequently medled in divine matters and the Sanhedrin which was a civill Court determined in all matters of Religion 'T is answered did you not just now give us an account of certain restrictive explications made of the Supremacie What do you then intend by these instance Not that I do exclude Kings from a due medling in divine matters or do decline the righteous practices of the Kings of Iudah in the largest construction that they can receive But certainly if what you say of their Sanhedrin be true it will overturne all your pretended limitatioâ—s at least give to the King a determining judgement in all matters of Religon which neither ought nor can be admitted But. 2. This threed-bare argument taken from the Kings of Iudah and the Sanhedrin for your Supremacie is so fully answered by others specially by Mr. Gillespie in his Aaronâ—s Rod and he hath so evidently cleared that there was a Sanhedrin ecclesiastick distinct from the civill and that these two governments were not confounded that I wonder you are not ashamed of such jejune repetitions And in effect it is so plain in Scripture that none of these Kings did interpose in matters of Religion otherwise then by their extrinseck oversight and assistance except either by immediat commission and direction from God as it happened in the establishment made by David and Solomon not to be drawn in consequence or els in the case of necessary Reformation in which ordinary means ceasing the obligation of the end doth authorize even more extraordinary endeavours that seing the Lord himselfe did immediatly reprove the usurpation of Uzziah I can not imagine from what particular precedent you do designe your advantage However of one thing I am most perswaded and I am charitable to think that all your confidence dare not deny it that had any one of the Kings of Iudah arrogate to himselfe a Supremacie in all causes and over all persons aswell Ecclesiastick as Civill so as to declare that whatsoever he should enact anent Ecclesiastick meetings or matters should be obeyed and observed by all his subjects he had been repute no other then a rebell and usurper against God and a proud contemner of his Law And as for the Sanedrin though it were not proven that there was one Ecclesiastick and â—n other Civill yet their distinct sacred and inviolable Preisthood doth so strangly plead for a constant separation where we find the Lord to have made a divided institution that any conjunction in that Court or any thing beside occasioned by their singularly mixed Policy can nowise infer the conclusion you plead for The next thing you say is That the Christian Emperours did medle in matters of Religion 'T is ans That the first Chistian Emperours did medle in matters of Religion so as to confirme the truth and Ecclesiastick decrees by their Civill sanction to establish the Chuâ—ch in the condition wherein they found her to adorne her with certain priviledges enrich her with revenues and beautifie her with fair structures is not denyed But what is all this to your Supremacie And who is he who doth not wish for a just measure of the like favour and assistance You add that they called the first general Councils And why not Who denyes that the King may within his Dominious do the like But the point you drive is to have this power to the King solely and exclusive of any right and power in the Church to appoint and meet in such Assemblies what ever be the necessity contrary to the Kings prohibition And that for order and decency the King's consent and countenance should first be sought nay that his refusal ought to be of that moment as not to be counter-ballanced but by a very visible urgencie is by all granted Only that he hath an absolute veto in this matter I positively and firmly deny for seing it is evident that the Church while under pagane Princes did enjoy this power how she should lose it upon their becoming Christian otherwise then to be tyed out of respect and for order to make to him the first application to be regulable by his reasons and very tender of his displeasure is utterly unexplicable and were in plain termes to defer to them as Christians though acting as Antichristians and worse then their pagane predecessors And further it may be considered that the power of conveening in Council being founded on the same warrant with the Churches liberty to meet for the duties of Worship the former no more then the later can be made dependent upon the Prince his pleasure But you subjoine that they presided in these Councils And to this there is no answer like unto your own viz. that in presiding they only ordered matters but did not decide in them which together with a Moderator after the example of the first Nicen Synod wherein Constantine presiding Eustathius of Antioch did by prayer open the Council you know we do willingly allow But to help you a little in this point I grant that Theodosius in the Council of Constantinople seems to have gone a great length yet all that we find upon record is that the Council being divided without issue by the opinions of the Orthodoxe of the Macedonians Arrians Ennomians the Emperour requires their several confessions and after much earnest prayer to God for light and direction he declares for the Nicen Faith whereunto the Synod agreeing the contrary heresies are condemned And this was no doubt a very laudable practice warranted both by the exigent and the truth it selfe whereby many things less regular without inferring an ordinary and proper power in the Author for their warrant have very often been sustained A good turne specially when done in the cessation of other midses doth sufficiently subsist by its own merit Iehojada a Priest in a state of necessity armes against a Tyranne and reformes the