together with him in the likeness of his Resurrection and alive through him unto God that we also should walk in newness of life the necessity of holiness is evidently thereby as much assured as the acts of life are in their proper principle How can it then be alledged that in our way the necessity of holiness is less secured then in yours Nay such is the certainty of this truth that true Faith in Jesus Christ is the root and principle of the new life of holiness that as it is by you acknowledged so I cannot but wonder how reason could so quickly desert you as to think that any necessary effect such as you must grant good works to be of true Faith can be rationally joined with its cause in the consideration of a condition which your discourse imports If fire or life were in any case required as a condition he that should thereto join heat or motion necessarily thereon dependent were plainly ridiculous I need not take notice of what may be objected from these seeming Beleevers who because of their profession are said to be in Christ and yet for want of fruits to be cut off as it doth not more militat against us then against you who acknowledge true faith to be alwayes fruitful so it answereth it self But 3. because by necessity its like that you do understand the obligation to holiness as if in your way it were rendered more binding and pressing and thence would commend your explanation as more engaging unto a holy life I shall not here resume what I have already declared viz. 1. That to press the necessity of holiness antecedently to our being and acceptation in Jesus Christ is vain and fruitless 2. That to join our imperfect holiness with Christs unspotted and alone sufficient Righteousnesse which is faiths value is proud and presumptuous but rather represent these true grounds of the necessity of holinesse which are found in our way equally yea more obliging then all your vain pretenses And 1. We say with the Apostle that the holy and just and good Law of God remaineth in its entire force threatning and condemning all sin whereever found and as the poor sinner convicted is thereby urged to flee for refuge unto Christ who alone delivereth from the wrath to come so he who expecteth Salvation by the Death of Christ and doth not witness the truth of his profession in a holy life is in so farre no less exposed to its severity and terror neither can the Beleever sinning whatever may be the difference of his state in Gods sight more pretend to the peace and favour of God without repentance renewed and faith in Christ reacted whence the study of holiness will undoubtedly revive and flow then the wicked persisting in his impenitence What is then the difference betwixt you and us You must acknowledge that the great obligation of holiness doth descend from the Law of God and we grant that this holy Law continueth in the same force and power against all sin I say not sinners whereever found whether in the Beleever or Unbeleever so that thereby in our way licentiousnesse to sin must be equally excluded If you say that by requiring Faith alone for Iustification we relaxe the study of holiness I must again tell you that true faith in Christ Iesus the thing which we require cannot be without the study of holiness Next if any person should thence delude himself unto licentiousness the Holy Law of God remaining in the same severity against it cannot but in our way wherein that high aggravation of turning the Grace of God unto wantonnesse is more manifest be also more powerful If any man go on to urge us with the possible delusions of presumption and libertinisme whereunto the Devil both hath and may abuse the truth and free grace of God he but fighteth with the Devils weapons whereby mans wretched frailty is indeed discovered but the truth by Paul plainly asserted against the like cavâ—â—â—aâ—ions and by us owned not in the least impugned Nay I may further affirme that as all error is delusâ—on and inductive of more so where one hath been tempted to abuse the proposal of free Grace hundreds through Natures pride both desiring and overvaluing propriety have stumbled upon this your so descrived conjunction of our good works and fallen into that not entire submitting unto the Righteousness of God and a going about to establish their own Righteousness by which sin the rock of Salvation became unto the Iews a rock of offence 2. As the Law in the severity of its sanction doth still abide in force to deterre from all sin to bring in and reclaime unto Iesus Christ our Righteousnesse and also our Sanctification so it s more binding Authority derived from the greatness and goodness of God it s own holiness and perfection are upon none so powerful and in none so effectual as these who through faith have laid hold on Christ Iesus for Righteousness and therethrough alone have attained unto peace I need not tell you that true repentance discovering the sinfulness as well as the guiltiness of sin cannot but endeare holiness and that God appearing in Christ Iesus in that inconceivable glory of his Holiness Iustice Love and Mercy and justifying us through Faith in his Name cannot but beget a deeper reverence and a greater regard to his will and commandments then all the thunderings of mount Sinai the greatest motive to holiness in the construction of your way But when I consider that Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousnesse and that the Law through Faith is not made void but more established and therefore we are chosen and created in him unto holiness and good works to the Glory of God when I observe the connexion that God hath established and his word holds out betwixt Iustification and Sanctification 1. In his purpose Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thess. 2. 13. 2. In his promise Ezek 36. 25 26 27. Micah 7. 19. 2 Pet. 1. 4. 3. In his precept Tit. 3. 8. 4. In Christs purchass Tit. 2. 14. 5. In the Gift of Christ to his people 1 Cor 1. 30. 6 In the sincere desire of and great dâ—light in holiness as well as pardon recorded of the Saints in all the Scripture specially Psal. 51. 103. 3. 7. In the description of lustification given us by Paul in the first 6 chap. Rom. and Gal. 2. I seriously wonder how you or any man can doubt but a holy life both in its obligation and also in its performance is by the way of Iustification by Faith only molsty assured 3. In the way of Justification by faith only not only the obligation of the Law of God remains in the manner declared but also our Lord for our further encouragement unto holiness hath graciously intimat that even these good works wâ—ich we performe in his strength shall be by the same grace from which they flow also graciously rewarded Wherefore the Apostle saith
you do further urge particular Authorities when you have answered all my just scruples against the former and satisfied me in all their other opinions in the matter of Armes then you shall have my Answere but in the mean time pardon me if while I do indeed admire and praise the Grace and Glory of these Primitive sufferings I be neither too credulous of the mistakes of men nor do condemn the diversitie of the operations of the same God which worketh all in all specially seeing that by the same sufferings whereby you go about to impugne he hath so signally confirmed these practises which I do maintain But to this last you answere that you are far from thinking the better of a Cause because some die handsomlie for it Neither Atheisâ— Heresies nor Murthers want their pretended Martyres Sir I neither approve your too much magnifying pag. 7. nor your too much undervaluing pag. 9. of mens sufferings And therefore as at best I account them only a confirming and accessory and not a principal and leading argument so I must tell you that I conceive the force of its inference to flow from a certain lustre and insinuation of grace which your jejune Epithets of handsomnesse and gallantrie do but meanly expresse whether or not this appeared in our late Sufferers I wonder nothing that you deny it but sure I am that all the sincere lovers of the Truth have to their joy both acknowledged it been established by it After this by a transition of your own framing making your N. C. faintly and childishly disown and wave bygones whereof to deal plainly I do as little fear the odium as I account your Aâ—ologies taxing them of Rebellion to be most odious you come to enquire wherefore wee keep not the day of thanksgiving for the Kings restauration and seing you are not pleased with your N. C. answere I will give you mine Aud first it is not because you make it a holy day I know this is as much above your power as your act is presumptuous in ordaining it to be observed and your practices are far from keeping it as a holy day Nor do I now debate the Magistrates power in appointing pro re nata dayes of solemne thanksgiving wherein it is more then certain that the apparent abuse that hath been in institutions of this kinde and the end and designe of the appointment do give the Church a very necessary interest of advice Nor lastly will I detain you in the application of the difference of designing a day as a Circumstance for thanksgiving to be performed on it and dedicating a day to be kept as Holy in Commemoration a Popish error expressely by us abjured and by you revived he who desires a full clearing in this matter with a satisfying answere to all objections may find it in the English popish ceremonies but the great reason wherefore N. C. neither doe nor ought to keep that day is because you have assigned for the cause of it not only the mercie of the Kings returne but also the wicked overturning of the work of God and that with such a libeling preface of blasphemies against God and his cause and vile reproches upon the whole Nation that no true hearted man can read the Act without abhorrencie Now before you reject this my answere I only desire you to peruse and consider the Act and I am almost certain that although perhaps you will not come the length of the character I have made of it yet you will think it strange that men accessorie to many of these Righteous things against which it so foully railes should have been on the one hand indulgently indemnifyed without any acknowledgementâ— and on the other obliged under the pain of losing their sâ—ipends to a thanksgiving expressing the highest recantation Are these wayes equal Think not that my indignation against this Act is all and only from my disaffection to your establishment that is indeed one cause sufficient to produce a just detest but ingenuously I have so much of true Loyaltie to my Prince and affection to my Countrey that the disservice done to the King in rendering the celebration of that day which in its righteous and proper use might have been an acceptable kindly warming of his Subjects affection a very odious provocation to aversion and alienation is to me not a more just then powerfull incentive but such were the healings of these violent Physitians and such have been and will be the effects Again making a stepping stone of both your N. C. and his cause after you have made him confess disloyaltie because you are not able to prove it you hold out his way to be evil because of its crueltie and rigor in forcing men to take the Covenant and punishing such as refused and your N. C. granting this to be a fault also you charge it home very odiously against our Leaders as Men unacquainted with the meek spirit and obstinat in those severities It s answered whether these things be objected or not in a meek spirit is more your concernment then mine who regard not your bitternesse in any dresse That which you call cruelty if counter-ballanced with the guilt of the recusancie will quickly be alleviat to moderation If the Covenants for I shall touch both pressed had been new Oaths arbitrarely imposed there were some ground for your challenge but as to the first was it not the same wherein the Nation stood engaged from the first beginning almost of the Reformation and if after a great and visible defection it was upon our returning renewed and with a more expresse application against these corruptions whereunto we had backslidden required to be taken by all who could not decline without a manifest declaration of both their unsoundnesse and insinceritie in the Oath of God call you this Rigor And as to the second the League if the Communion of Saints and that sympathie wee ought to have with all Christs sufferings Members did persuade it as a dutie and if your then ejected Prelats did by their restlesse instigations and the breaches of Faith and Hostile invasion from England thereby procured render it convincingly a most necessary meane for the preserving and prosequuting the ends of the first was it not both rational and righteous that they who stood thus obliged by vertue of the first Covenant to take the Second upon their recusance should be proceeded against as Deserters And the truth is as they were not many that were troubled simply for not taking the Covenants so there were but few if any who refused the second who either before were not or thereafter became not directly opposite to the First Nor did these few refusers subsist in a quiet dissatisfaction but for the most part turned violent and bloudy Enemies or at least partakers with such Adversaries Notwithstanding of all which perjury and wickedness the procedour against these recusants or rather Apostates was so litle adequate either to
unto the grace of God in Christ Jesus while in the mean time you do still arrogate them as a condition on the creatures part you the more declare the folly but in nothing diminish the sinfulnesse of your vanity These things need not to be illustrat questionless who ever doth consider his lost condition by reason of sin and wrath and hearkeneth unto that fundamental Gospel-precept deny thy self imprimis all self-righteousnesse and beleeve will find the power thereof so deeply descending into his Soul that all the desire trust and hope thereof will be fixed on Jesus Christ alone and to be found in him not having his own righteousnesse which unto his sincere reflection will be so far from appearing a condition that it will disappeare as dung but that Righteousnesse which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousnesse which is of God by faith But who can sufficiently declare and regret the madnes and ingratitude of this pride of man Jesus Christ is made of God unto us Righteousnesse and yet we will thereto join our own for Justification in Gods sight He is also made unto us Sanctification that in Him we may bring forth the fruits of holinesse unto the glory of God and the very same fruits will we impropriat to be the condition and as it were the price of our acceptance even with himself who is our only acceptation and our all Sir be not deceived as they who in the sight of sin and fear of wrath fâ—ee unto Christ alone for a refuge do finde his Righteousness not more sufficient then freely offered to every one that willeth for Justification in Gods sight so your Doctrine requiring both faith and a holy life as the previous conditions to give an interest in Christs Death and ascriving Justification to faith because forsooth of the pitiful fruits of our righteousnesse and not that perfect Righteousnesse of Jesus Christ which it doth apprehend is wholly dissonant unto the method of the Gospel and cannot possibly attain its end What shall be then said of your ensuing words Now judge but a little what it is to have a right apprehension of things since I have in a few plain words told you that which with much nicety swels among you to Volumes Really Sir if I may use the liberty of answering by you permitted I would say what a sad thing is it to have a wrong and conceited apprehension of things since you have in a few involved words in such a manner obscured and confounded a plain point of truth that notwithstanding of express Scripture-light yet it hath necessarily required a great many words clearly to unsold it There remaineth now to be considered the main reason whereby as you shut up so you would seem to enforce the opinion which we have heard and that is the necessity of a holy life which you say Your way of Iustification doth clearly declare as being that whereupon we shall be solemnly judged justified and absolved at the last day and afterward you add That it may correct the error of many carnall Christians who love well to hear of Salvation by the death of Christ provided they be bound to do nothing themselves that they may be saved 'T is answered 1. That there are many seeming Christians who have a name that they live and are dead who have and do delight in a form of knowledge but want the power of whose delusion the error which you mention may be a part is an old and true regret And yet the explication by you delivered being so many wayes unsound and peccant as we have heard cannot possibly be an antidote 2. As these carnal Christians pretending to lay hold on Jesus Christ for Righteousnesse and yet wholly neglecting the study of holiness are of all men the most sadly deceived and most wretched deceivers so your manner of Justification derogating from the holy Iustice of God and the perfect Righteousnesse of Jesus Christ flattering the natural mans pride to which of all vices we are most prone and seducing souls from the free Grace of the Gospel cannot be less dangerous and pernicious But 3. This your reason for departing from Justification by faith only as encouraging to licentiousness is so directly the objection which the Apostle Paul taketh notice of and fully answereth after his having declared the truth of Justification as by us professed that we are thereby exceedingly fortified The passage is thus the Apostle having shewed that it is by the Righteousnesse of Jesus Christ that the free Gift cometh upon all men to Iustification of life and that it is by the obedience of one that many are made righteous and summing up the whole matter that it is grace that reigneth through Righteousnesse unto eternal life by Iesus Christ our Lord he subjoineth What shall we say then shall we continow in sin that grace may abound Seing it is not by our works but of free grace through faith in the Righteousness of Jesus Christ that we are justified from sin shall we therefore in as much as sin commendeth grace and our good works availl not continow in sin that grace may abound The plain insinuation of what you object Now hear the Apostles answere both for us and himself 1. He saveth justification by faith only cannot encourage to sin because such as do thereby truely lay hold on Jesus Christ partake of his death and are made conformable thereto How shall they then that are dead to sin live any longer therein Sin may indeed remain but that they who through faith in his Death are planted in the likenesse thereof and become as crucified with him should live any longer in sin is not possible To the same purpose it is that the Apostle Iohn saith whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin and he cannot sin because he is born of God And yet if any false pretender should therefore say either that he cannot transgress or that his transgressions are no sins and so license himself unto wickedness he but deceiveth himself and the truth is not in him 2. Paul saith that Justification through faith importeth a more certain assurance of good works then any thing by you urged The necessity of good works which ye plead for is only that of a condition strict indeed as to its obligation but very uncertain if not desperat as to its cause and reall existence being previously required unto our acceptance by and being in Christ as I have already shewed whereas the Apostle tells us plainly that according to the truth of Justification by him and by us asserted the necessity of good works is causally certain depending upon such infallible causes that whereever true Faith is the study of holiness must necessarily ensue and where this is not the pretense of Faith and Justification thereby is but vain and groundlesse For seing by Faith the only requisite on our part for Justification we are not only dead indeed with Jesus Christ unto sin but planted
cause as appropriat unto them by the reproach and mocking of their Adversaries As for after contests if any were among their own subdivisions they were no doubt the sad consequents of other evils wherewith it pleased the Lord that his own should be tried but if you think that for all the competition the Titles are still vacant I wish from my heart that both you and your partie may be thereby animat to put in and to shame and exclude all lowd Pretenders by reall demerite To this you subjoin another great Article that Our Ministers who complained of Bishops their medling in matters of State when the scene turned did therein absolutely Govern And to this challenge you make your N. C. returne the Popes Answere for his Usurpations viz that all was done in order to Religion on purpose that you may make the reply That the Pope and Presbiterians doe much agree in Politiques Sir waving the immodest terme of impudence and other arrant peccancies against truth where with you set forth your Modest representing of faults as yow are pleased to call it I returne shortly for answere this clear and certain position wherein I am sure we cannot disagree viz. that as the direction of Conscience appertains to the Pastoral charge so the Ministers of Gods Word ought both to advise exhort and warne thereanent according as in every occurrent the circumstances of the thing which make its season do thereto cleare their call and accesse This truth is evident in its own light whoever owneth Conscience the Word of God to be its Rule and its Ministers to be our Teachers and Guides cannot deny it All the difficâ—ltie is in the right performance the exceeding goodnesse and rare beautie of a word in season is no ordinary attainment because to every purpose there is time and judgement therefore the miserie of Man is great upon him If I should ascribe the exactnesse of this observance to our Ministers I should forget them to be Men but as to the instances which you alleage of their warnings given against the Engagement 1648 and all deeds directly relating to it And of their Ministeriall accession to a prudent exclusion in the year 1649 of such as had proven Unfaithfull their singular importance as to the very summe of the work of God hath been so signally comprobat by after events that if upon the matter you doe condemne these practises you in effect doe adjudge Ministers to absolute silence at least in opposition to State determinations whatever be the concernment of the Cause of God or good Conscience It were superfluous to mention the difference of Prelatick medlings or what are the Popes invasions the meanest capacitie may easily distinguish a Ministeriall advice in point of Conscience all either attribute to or assumed by Ministers in State or any other extrinsick affaire from these corrupt practises And with the same facility join Prelacie and Papacie in their common pride and usurpation You add a particular reason wherefore Ministers should not medle with war and matters of bloud because of its contrarietie to the Pastoral dutie which obligeth to feed and not to kill But as none hath been more guiltie of this Sanguinary medling then these who with most ceremony would appear to observe the letter of the Rule so considering what I have lately touched of your Clergie and who did principally direct the suppression and executions of the late Risers in Armes I am in the opinion you designed this reflection more for your own Lords then our Leaders but it is enough I agree with you fully that Pastors ought not to be Criminall Judges farre less instigators to war and bloud yet if in these matters you allow to Conscience any place they are no doubt Subjects proper both for Ministerial warning and advice For a conclusion of your charge ye surprise both your N. C. and me with a challenge of Superstition whereof you say wee are in many things guilty sed quis tulerit Gracchos de Seditione querentes Sir yee are not so wittie in this anticipation as yee trow for tho ye have taken the first word of fliting yet the successe is rather a foaming out your own shame then the fixing of that reproach upon us which was the mark ye yought to hit What Sir did ye dream by this device to terrifie your N. C. into a forbearance to charge you with the guilt of Superstition or did you think by this artifice to vindicat your partie and be avenged at once on these great Worthies who have so manifestly laid open unto the World the Superstition of the men of your Kidney and Gang that though they have travelled to Rome to fetch water to wash these spots and have put their invention upon the rack to palliat them with all imaginable pretenses yet the shame of their Nakednesse was so unfolded by these searching Seers that it could never be hid But Sir are ye in good earnest or have ye been in the foregoing lines so transported with rage in fighting against Defensive Armes and wresting the sword of just defence out of the hands of poor Innocent and oppressed Subjects that in this paroxysme ye have forgotten to be honest and rational at once Did you beleeve that you spoke truth when you represented us as such If I thought ye did and continued to doe so still I professe I am so litle your enemie that I would pitie you as one who walketh in the darknesse of gross delusion and knoweth not whether he goeth because the darkeness hath blinded his eyes But I would gladly know how ye make out the charge Ye did wisely only in one thing to condescend upon none of these many things wherein you say we are guilty of Superstition when ye make your charge good ye will be admired for your invention till then it will neither be shame nor reproach to the N. C. to be silent or laugh at the audacitie of such a Novice But to be serious with you Sir if ye would not take it amisse to be Catechized in the Chair doe ye understand what Superstition is that ye call us so Are we such to you in many things because in every thing we owne the Scriptures as the Rule of Faith and manners and assert that there is a sufficiency in these to make wise to Salvation and that without the wild mixture of humane inventions they are able to make the man of God perfect thorougly furnished unto every good work Is it because we own no Office-bearers in the house of God save such as are of his own appointment Is it because we judge the Episcopal Hierarchie Apocryphal and cannot acknowledge the Prelat and his juncto for the Courts and Officers of Jesus Christ Is it because we maintain that all things in the house of the God of Heaven ought to be done according to the will of the God of Heaven and because we stand fast in the libertie where with Christ hath made
to the Arguments taken for ruling Elders from the exhortation to rule with diligence and the enumeration of Helps and Governments amongst other Gifts bestowed on the Church seeing they are not adduced as by themselves so convincingly concludent but as accessory to these other places whereby the distinct office being proved the promise and gift agreeable cannot but add a considerable light Your terming them Sandie foundations is as foolish as your calling Helps and Governments extraordinary giâ—ts is groundlesse But both your N. C. and I inquire what you say to that Scripture let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour Especially they who labour in the word and doctrine That here both the Preaching and ruling Elder are included in the word Elder as I hinted before and that a distinction is made of him who both Preaches and Rules from him that only Rules is manifest from the words and you are so far thereby convinced that you acknowledge the office controverted to be spoken of but you say the Text supposeth its beiâ—g but doth not bear its institution this is truely exact and strict it seems you remember not that although all that was ever pleaded in behalf of your Bishops and the faire likelikood for them which you would draw from the Angels of the Churches proceeds only upon a supposition of the thing in being Yet none of our side do redargue your arguing from that place only for want of an express institution Consider therefore Sir that if the being of our Elders office be in this Scripture supponed and commended its institution is also thereby supponed and commended and this nicety of yours is no evasion but adding that there are five or six glosses put on these words which you protest without any reason to be better then ours you give us your own thus Let such among you as are fixed to rule particular charges be doubly honoured but specially these Evangelists who medle not in rule but labour in word and doctrine Sir I am sorry that having plenty you have made choise of one so many wayes peccant as importing first that at the time of the writing of this Epistle there were Elders fixed to particular charges or Parishes within Ephesus whereof the contraire is most commonly and probably held 2. That either there were at the same time beside your fixed Elders unfixed Evangelists belonging properly to Ephesus or that the Apostle speaks here of these Catholick Evangelists who belonged not to Timothie's inspection but which is worst of all your Gloss plainly destroyes the Text for whereas Paul doth first deliver a General that all well-ruling Elders be doubly honoured and addes a speciall ampliation dâ— Natura regulae of the Nature of a Rule in favours of these who also Preach you expresly say that these Preachers medled not with rule and flatly deny them to be of the number of these well-ruling Elders which are to be honoured Next where the Text makes labouring in the word an additament to well ruling and therefore deserving a special allowance you preferre the sole merit of Preaching to the double deserving of both Preaching and well-ruling but I pursue your raveries too far the words are plain well-ruling Elders Preachers or not Preachers are to be doubly honoured but such who do both Preach and rule well have the preheminence Now whether or not you have shown our Elders to be ill grounded I leave it to your second thoughts But you proceed to surprize your N. C. with a how want you Deacons and then you tell him That we had indeed somewhat called Deacons but they were not Scripture-deacons for such were not Lay-persons but Ecclesiastick separate by imposition of hands for the function and so were to continow whereas we yearly altered our Elders and Deacons Sir though in this point you represent our Leaders as Deceivers Yet really I should be sorry that you were aswell known to be a calumniator as the Deacons used in our Churches are clearly found in our Bibles Their institution Acts 6. is plain specially vers 3. Wherefore Brethren look ye out among you seven men of honest report full of the holy Ghost and Wisdom whom we may appoint over this businesse viz. the dayly ministration and serving of tables From which Scripture our Practice of chosing honest approved men for the Ministration of Charity there meant and the serving of tables is so exactly copyed out that I cannot but admire your confidence But you say that Scripture Deacons were not Lay-persons but separate by imposition of hands If by separation you mean the solemn appointment and designation of Deacons and hold the same sufficient to make them Ecclesiastick our Deacons as well as these in the Text are indeed Ecclesiastick but if by separation you understand a totall and perpetual sequestration from secular medling as you cannot be ignorant that it was and is the wish of many worthies amongst us that the Church could have been served with such Elders and Deacons so seing inevitable neceâ—â—â—tie through the want of an alâ—mony hath forced both our Church other reformed Churches which observe the same practice with ours to make use of such as they can get it is no commendable practice in you who are such a pretender to modestie and civility to cast up this lamented deâ—ect as our unpardonable blemish since it had become you rather who would be accounted a kindly child of the Church of Scotland to have overtured a way how the Church Patrimony whereby these Officers of the Church might have lived may be recovered from the Harpyes who devoure it now without remorse neither hath the after abuse of Deacons unto a preaching order used in the Roman Church any Scripture warrant as is clear from the Text and the rules therein expressed I grant we finde in Scripture Philip chosen a Deacon in the 6. chap and Preaching chap 8. vers 5. Acts and that it is probable that this and the like practices were there after made the occasion and colour of the formentioned abuse but if you suppose that the first Deacons did Preach by vertue of their institution you have no just ground for it in the word And Philips Preaching is so plainly annexed to an extraordinary dispensation or tacite mission to him and to many others upon the dispersion after Stephens Maâ—tyrdom insinuâ—te in the 4. vers of the 8. chap. that I doubt not but a second reading will convince you Next you add that Scripture Deacons were separate by imposition of hands for the â—unction I grant that was the manner of their first solemn dâ—signation but if the Chuch by reason of the Posterior abuse of which in probability the mistaking of this forme hath not been the lest cause or because of the reason formerly hinted viz. that because of the want of a competent maintainance they could not get such as would be totally and perpetually separaâ—ed foâ— that work hath thought fit notwithstanding
manifest from the Text Iohn 13. 4. c. where we finde that our Lord doth first wash his Disciples feet before he told them what he was a doing and then having done the act not simply significant by his appointment but of it self as the effect expressing the greatest humility as its cause he teaches them not a â—oâ—emne reiteration but the use in these words If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet ye also ought to wash on anothers feet If I have been among you as he that serveth so ought ye to serve one another for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you I have not shewed you humility in a figure to be repeated for your remembrance but by a solid practice taught you the like performance so that to turne this pattern unto a rite is in effect as far from our Lords purpose as the instruction of plaiâ— examples is preferable to that of Mystick representations which exposition is so true and sound that as this phansie of yours was never owned by the Church of Christ so it is most certain that whâ—re it hath been followed I mean by the Pope and this action hath been used as a rite it hath only been made a colour to the most prodigious and superlative pride that ever the sun beheld and thus I hope all men may see that the not using of this washing never again used for any thing we read by way of Sacrament or Ceremony either by our Lord or his Apostles and Churches is neither a difformity in us from the Scripture nor an argument for your irreligious laxenesse in things you call externals As for your Demand why in your Worship do you not Kiss one another with a holy Kiss seing it is no where commanded in worship as you seem boldly and ignorantly to suppose and the Christian manner of the thing in customary civility is only recommended by the Apostle as an allay of chastity and kindnesse in Civil rencounters the question is but a petulant extravagancie of your vain imagination Next you Enquire why do you not anoint the sick with oyl I answere though you addresse this demand to a N. C. yet it is evident that your conclusion of difformity to the Scripture pattern thence inferred is equally levelled against the whole Protestant Church wherein this Ceremony is univerâ—aâ—ly diâ—used and that not from your vain warrant of the Churches Authority in and over things expressly commanded as you judge this rite to be No this is a presumption so high and laxe that even the grossest Papists are unwilling to avouch it but the â—ound answere of all the Churches is that as the custome of Anointing might have been occasioned from an observance then in use in these parts where Anointings were much more ordinary then in our parts of the world so it is mentioned in the Scripture by the Apostle Iames not by way of Command but as the accustomed Symbole adhibite in the exercise of the Gift of healing which being then Ordinary in the Church is commanded to be applyed by the prayer of Faith whereunto the effect is solely reâ—erred and only with the formality of Anointing as being then customary in the like cases seing then that the Text runs clearly thus is any sick let him call the Elders and let them pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord and the prayer of saith shall save the sick And that the application of the extraordinary Gift of healing by prayer with the then usâ—all circumstance of Anointingâ— is here only enjoyned how can you make this Text binding as to the manner and circumstance when you cannot but acknowledge that the substance viz. the power of healing is ceased But having made your N. C. say That the Apostle promises recovery upon the anointing you turne to fight with your own shadow and tell him There is no such matter that the recovery is promised to prayer and also forgivenesse and seing we pray by all for their raising up and that they may be forgiven why do we not aswel anoint But what Logick can make out this consequence in as much as Anointing being there only spoken of as the concomitant rite used in the application of the Gift of healing it is manifest that without the existence and exercise of the Gift it self it is not now to be repeated and therefore though prayer be principally commanded as the speciall mean by which even the Gift of Miracles was actuate and made effectuall and to this day doth remain as the great one by which all the promises either for raising up or remission are drawen out unto effect yet thence to inferre that Anointing a peculiar solemnity in the Gift of healing should still continow notwitstanding the Gift it self be ceased is very absurd Now that Anointing was an Ordinary observance in the exercise of the Gift of healing you may read it clearly in the Disciples practice Mark 6. 13. And they Anointed with oil maâ— that â—â—re sick and healed them This being then the just and true account not only of our practice but also of that of the whole reformed Churches how vain and ridiculous are you to tell us that our pretense of Scripture is but to impose on women and simple people and all our persuasion grave nods and bigwords but leaving you to puff petulantly where you can prove nothing I proceed to your next demand who taught us the change of the Sabbath and you say we will read the Bible long â—re we finde it there which you think sufficiently proved when you tell us That the Churches meeting recorded to have been on the first day of the week saveth not that they antiquated the Saturnday as you are pleased very coursâ—y to speak and that of the Lords day sayeth yet less Sir for answere let me only tell you that by this your conceited slighting of Arguments which you cannot answere with your vain arguings against these things which you cannot disprove you have discovered to me the deep wisdom of Solomons contradictory-like advice answere a foolâ— and answere him not Prov. 26. 4 and 5. in so saâ—â—sâ—â—ying a reconciliation that remitting you for answere lest you be wise in your own conceit to the labouâ—s of these who have cleared this point above cavillation I â—orbear to make any further answere lest I should be like unto you Only I think it worth the observing how like the progresse of your dangerous Libertinisme is to that verdict of the Apostles 2. Tim. 3. 13. Your first sally was only against ruling Elders and Deacons the next attacques the very Discipline of Church your third endeavours to introduce the Superstition of Lent the Table Altar-wise the Surplice to corrupt the worship your fourth resolves the necessity of Baptisme and the Lords supper into the Churches arbitriment your fifth pleads for Extreame Unction or els a liberty and power to the Church above the
you shall make these things found in Ignatius consistent even with the strain of pure Religion and the truth of the Gospel let be to the Orthodoxie and Piety of Ignatius and the simplicity of his times then shall I cede to the Authority of these Letters Only in the mean time let me tell you that for all the pains that Hamond hath taken to assert their Faith the words above cited do savour so strongly of most gross and corrupt interpolation that not only I reject their Testimony as to the matter of Prelacie but do esteem even the passages that may be therein found for Presbyterie as to the Trallians be subject to the Presbyterie as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ The Presbyters are the Council of God and joint Assembly of the Apostlâ—s and such like of little or no value 2. You mention Cyprians time but hold I preceive your second Edition mends your first and this your practice like to that of your more innocent friend Mr. Coluin in his verses of giving us second Editions bearing additions without advertissment had indeed abused me If by accident I had not fallen in the review of my papers to make use of your second Copie and in this you tell us in the next place of the Apostolicall Canons a work of very venerable Antiquitie at least the first fiftie of them though perhaps none of the Apostles But first why say you Perhaps in a matter beyond all peradventure 2. Not to trouble you with Criticisms he who would be resolved anent the Authority of these Canons let him only read them And as I am confident he will be farre from thinking either the first 50 or the rest of them Apostolicall So I am certain the mention made in the 3. Can. of Sacrificium Altare Oleum in Candelabrum Incensum oblationis tempore a Sacrifice Altar oyl in the lamp and incense in the time of offering the 17. Can qui viduam duxit Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus esse non potest he who hath married a widow cannot be a Bishop or a Presbyter or a Deacon the 25. Can. Ex his qui caelibes in Clerum pervenerunt jubemus ut Lectores tantum cantores si velint nuptias contrahant Of Bachelors who hath entered into orders Readers only and Singers if they will may marrie the great and constant distinction therein made inter Clericum Laicum and the many other vanities therein to be found specially in the last part of them will easily render their venerable Antiquity of no moment in our present Controversie so that neither your 40 but in effect the 38. Canon though it were more positive and expresse for your Prelatick preheminence nor your Synodicall injunction to the same purpose both posterior to the first Primitive purity are of any regard but 3. so wretched is the cause that you defend that even in your clearest evidences your partiality and hypocrisie is manifest You alledge the Apostolicall Canons in defence of your Prelatick Order and yet you consider not that the same Canons do not only condemn your Prelates But subvert their present constitution I shall not insist upon the 24. Canon Episcopus aut Presbyter in fornicatione aut perjurio deprehensus deponitor Let a Bishop or a Presbyter guilty ofsornication or perjury be deposed the 20. Episcopum aut Presbyterum qui fideles delinquentes quid ergo si Innocentes percutit terrorem ipsis hoc modo incutit deponi praecipimus We command that the Bishop or Presbyter who smiteth delinquents and so becometh a terrour unto them be deposed what then if they smite the innocent the 28â— 41. 53. 57 75. which I am most assured if observed would remove all the present Bishops and Curats in Scotland but the Canons I offer are the 4. Omnium aliorum Pomorum Primitiae Episcopo Presbyteris domum mittuntor Manifestum autem est quod Episcopus et Presbyteri inter Diaconos reliquos Clericos eas dividunt Let the first â—ruits of all others aples be sent home to the Bishop and Presbyters for it is Manifest that the Bishop and Presbyters divide them among the Deacons and the rest of the Clergie 33. Cujusque gentis Episcopos oportet scire quinam inter ipsos primus sit neque sine illius voluntate quicquam agere insolitum illa autem quemque prosetractâ—re quae ad Parochiam ejus loca ipsi subdita attinent sed neque ille citra omnium voluntatem aliquid facito 36. Bis in Anno Episcoporum celebrator Synodus pietatis inter se dogmata in disquistionem vocanto and 80. Dicimus quod non oporteat Episcopum aut Presbyterum publicis se adminiâ—â—rationibus immiscere sed vâ—care commodum se exhibere usibus Ecclesiasticis animum igitur inducito hoc non facere aut deponitor together with the obvious strain of the whole plainly insinuating the Bishop to be the person to whom the flock is principally and immediatly committed and who as the Primus Presbyter the first Presbyter ought chiefly to minde the charge In which Canons although I grant that their appears a precedencie of Order given to the Bishop over the Presbyters who in these times were many Ministers living in one City and Society having the charge in common among themselves and with and under their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the Church and Flock in their bounds and also to the first Bishop of a Province over his Coëpiscopi Yet I am sure your Prelatick power and Superiority acclaiming the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is no where thereby approved but rather condemned Your third Testimony you bring from Cyprian in whose time you say That the power of Bishops was well regulate and Setled and here knowing that he professeth That he would do nothing without the Clergie that he could do nothing without them nor take upon him alone Whereby the antient Prostasia and not your Prelacie is plainly and only held forth You insinuate as much as if he had afterward retracted this opinion and this you prove very pitifully 1. From his answere to one Rogatian a Bishop that he by his Episcopall vigour and Authority had power presently to punish a Deacon for an affront received which yet doth not at all seclude the Presbyters according to the Rule of the Canon Law Episcopus non potest judicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo Senioribus The Bishop cannot judge a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Synod and Eldersâ— 2. From this Censure of Hereticks and Schismaticks for proud contempt of their then Bishops which we do as little allow as you do 3. From a letter written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome after the Death of Fabian wherein they complain of the want of one to Moderate and with Authority and advice to take accompt of Matters whence you say that surely they thought little of Persbyters being equal in power to Bishops who
the Child which seing it meets not our Question you both objecte and answere to no purpose The next demand your N. C. makes is How then is Saul charged and his Children punished for killing the Gibeonites And to this you make a very pleasant return not unlike your answere made to our obligation of Allegeance viz Shat Saul is taxed for bloud and killing the Gibeonites who by the Lords ratiâ—ying the Princâ—s their Oath to them had got a right to their lives and not for perjurâ— against that Oath which the Princes swore Before I consider this answere let us first hear the Scripture 2 Sam. 21. 2. Now the Gibeonites were not of Israel but of the Amorites and the Children of Israel had sworne unto them and Saul sought to stay them c. Wherefore David said to the Gibeonites what shall I do for you do not these words clearly intimate that the injury done them was contraire to that former Oath whereby they were secured To this you say The Oath is only here mentioned to reminde the Reader of the former History but doth not at all say that the Oath was still binding But if the words be set down to reminde the Reader certainly it is in order to some apposite purpose and the blind account that you make is scarce worthy of your self let be the Scriptures of Truth Next what can be more evident then that the Oath is first mentioned to shew their right thence derived and Saul's injury being thereto subjoyned it is manifest that for his breach thereby incurred a reparation for an attonement is offered and seing the Scripture saith enough if it say not expressly that the Oath was still binding it seems only to be omitted because in that Age there was none who doubted much less of your opinionâ— to deny it Now as to your answer I must take notice of what you seem to insinuat that the Gibeonites were spared not by reason of their Covenant made with the Princes but by the Lords ratisying of it whereby they became to be excepted from the rest of the devoted Canaanites But Pray Sir do you not in so supposing conâ—adict your Fellow-brother the Surveyer of Naphtaly who ranteth as you use to do against his Adveâ—sary the Author of the Apologetical Relation who asserted the same which you here suppose 2. You speak of a ratification of this Oath of the Princes by virtue of which abstracted from the Oath these Gibeonites were spared which you would do well to explain and cleare Seing then you cannot but grant that the Gibeonites were spared and enjoyed their lives by the right of that peace sworne unto them my next reply is most evident viz. that your answere alledging Saul's killing the Gibeonites to have been cruell and bloudy against their Right but not perfidious against that Oath and Covenant whereby their Right was granted can no more be said of Saul then it might have been said of the Princes who at first swore if so be they had the very next hour brocken their Oath and destroyed these whom they had saved it being a truth most certain that as every violation of Faith is an injurious invasion of that right which was thereby secured so it is impossible for a right arising from a Contract or Covenant to subsist unless its cause do still stand be repute to be in force You add that Saul is taxed of bloud and not of perjury A poor shift But I have already shewed him to be noted for both bloudy deceitfull are of too near a conjunction to allow of your negative inference of the exclusion of the other because one only expressed And now Sir I have ended this point only let me say it without vanitie that as I judge your folly in this last discourse to be such as no sober man could lightly fall into without a judicial desertion so I am confident if there be any ingenuity in you the return which I justly make you of the Epilogue which in this place you so vainly use will cover you with blushes viz. Thus I have taken more pains then was needfull to shew the ridiculous fondnesse of your absurd notion viz. That Children can not be bound by their Fathers Oath and have said more to disprove it then ever you will be able to answere What follows in this Dialogue is a meere rapsodie of railing and in the first place to decline your N C. too pungent demand that for all you have said you cannot deny but the Covenant binds these who tooke it you make a hydeous noise of that Little noise which you say we made in breaking it in some things viz. In our silence and not declaring against the Apostacy Tyranny and Perjury of the Usurpers and in our faint giving over to Pray for the King Sir contemning your calumny I answere were not the Usurpers sufficiently opposed in their evill courses while there was hope And is this all you can say that the Lord having broken us and brought us under their feet in the humbling sense of his dreadful displeasure we did not madly declaime against such to warn whom after their rejecting of our brotherly admonition the Lord did not further require us We love not to vye with you or any other either in stedfastness in the Covenant or faitfulnes to the King in these confused and calamitous times but of this one thing I am most confident that his Majesty was more obliged to the Covenant and these who to this day adhere to it for the continuance of his remembrance both with God and men in the dayes of his Exile and in disposing to and preparing the way of his return then to all the present high and false pretenders who are not ashamed in their flattering impudence to averre that the most notorious and base acts of Compliance whereof they were then guilty were yet the effects of a pure and constant loyalty As for the thundering you say was in your Pulpits against your course before we were silenced and is at this day in our Conventicles is it not enough that you mock at the warnings of the Lords Servants whom for no other cause then true Zeal for God and tender Love to your Souls and just indignation at your sin you have beaten and expelled but you must also thereto add falshood in your alledgeance anent what you call Conventicles and insolent insulting over our undeniable short-coming in due admonition after his Majesties Restitution whereunto an excessive desire by faireness and moderation to stop the precipitant current of your late defection did too generally tempt us before we were ejected but the Lord hears and regardsâ— You tell us in the next place That the Tyrann's cruelty did formerly terrify us and now we presume upon the King's clemencie If I had ever professed the hundred part of that respect for Oliver that the Chief of your way did I would say and say it truely that what ever he was
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
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
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