ensnared and thereafter more cruelly persecute and oppressed not repeating what hath been said by others in their vindication I shall briefly run over what you here subjoin You say then That Separation being a tearing of the Body of Christ to forsake the unity of the Church when there is scarce a colour of pretence for it must be a great sin 'T is answered I will not stand to descant upon the nature and several degrees of Separation and how that non-conforming to and compliance with a prevalent backsliding partie in effect the worst of Separatists which is our present case is very different from the case of Separation from a Church formerly acknowledged and joined with nor love I to inquire how farre a mans entrie into the Ministrie by open perjury and violence and his profane and flagitious deportment therein notourly known may in the perturbed state of the Church supply the want of a declarative sentence making void his mission Nor lastly will I make use of your own plain laws viz. the Act anent the restitution of Bishops and the late Act of Supremacie whereby all Church-power mark it is made dependent upon and subordinat unto the Kings Supremacie to prove your Ministers to be but Court Curats But in this I am plain and confident that if the Prophets who by their lyes and lightness cause the people to erre and speak peace to such as despise the Lord and strengthen their hands who walk in the imagination of their own heart be not to be hearkened unto if we ought to bewarre and flee from false Prophets whose fruits of ungodliness as well as heresie as is clear from the context do discover them to be but ravening wolves destroying Souls under the sheeps cloathing of an exterior call and hypocritical composure if such who cause divisions and offences contraire to the received truth and who serve not our Lord Jesus but their own belly are to be avoided and lastly if these Destroyers and Offenders be the only persons guilty of all the Separation and other inconveniences which ensue then are your Curates as dignoscible by all or one or other of these characters as the night is by darkness justly yea necessarily to be disowned fled from and avoided and only chargeable with that schisme whereof you endeavour to make us guilty But you add That in a schismatical time-serving humour we come sometimes to Church to â—vite the punishment of Law but seldom that we may retain our interest with our partie that we hear some of you but not others that some go to Churches in the Countrey but not in the City and finally some join with you in the ordinary Worship of Prayer and praise yet will not join in the Eucharist which is but solemn praise Sir if you had been candid in this reflection in place of imputing this variety to humour and faction it would indeed have moved you to pity the strait of so many good people redacted to such a multiâ—arious perplexity which yet in its outward appearance is but light in comparison of these inward inquietudes wherewith the contraire workings of the fear of God love of truth abhorrencie of wickedness tenderness toward Authority respect to union and peace and fear of punishment do continually sollicite them If I might presume so farre upon your credite I could tell you that in my certain knowledge some have been against their Consciences forced by violence and spoill to hear your Curates who therefore have mourned many Moneths thereafter and certain of them even unto death That others whom the generality of your Curates did either offend or according to the Lords prediction Ier. 23. v. 33. after long triall not profite at all have searched by a choise to remedy the evill for that there are better and worse not only as to private but also as to Publick transgressions you groundlessly deny and lastly that some have prevailed with themselves to hear and join with you in prayer and praise who have yet still scrupled in their Consciences to communicate with you in that Sacrament which beside the adjunct of solemn praise is designedly institute to signify and confirme our communion in as well as our union with Christ from whom we have reason to apprehend that many of you according to Scripture-rules and the grounds which your conversations hold out are at great distance If then these things be so let it satisfy you in this point that as the Generality of the whole land would account it a great reliefe to be delivered of all your Tribe and many of the godly are convinced that your Ministery being neither of nor for our Lord Jesus is not to be owned so all these umbrages of compliance which you observe are only the effects of curiosity fear or some other humane frailty wherewith by you we can neither in Charity nor ingenuity be urged But you are so desireous to win us to this conformity of owning your Curates that you are willing to suppose them to be but Intruders occupying the places of our faithfull shepherds violently torn away and yet you argue that although the high priest-hood was in our Lords dayes violently invaded by the Romans and by them exposed to sale and those Symoniacks did also usurp thâ— right of others yet we find Cajaphas as high Priest Prophesâ—ing and our Saviour answering to his authoritative adjuration and though the Pharisees were wretched teachers and very guilty persons yet our Saviour saith hear them for they sit in Moses chair which you saâ— is unanswerable and was the doctrine of our own Teachers 'T is answered not to insist upon the particular and full answere already made by others for dissolving the apparent force of this objection it is to be considered 1. That as this argument doth proceed upon parallel instances and similitudes for the most part lame and unequal so the Jews their particular customes and observances in the examples adduced are to us so hid and unknown and the Jewish constitution in General of a Church and Nation joined in one special people unto God by virtue of a Divine Law for matters both Civil and Religious committed even in its Civil part to the custody and interpretation of their Religious Officers is so manifestly different from that of the Christian Church gathered in one out of all and every Nation only for things Religious without any alteration in their Civil State under Jesus Christ their Head and King and the Ministers by him sent forth that little light as to our present purpose can be thence concluded 2. That not only in the point of the Churches Ministerie but also in its worship and other ordinances to reason from the dispensations of Soveraigne Providence in the decline of Churches the lawfull compliance of good men with these Churches in owning them in things found and bearing with corruptions which they could not remedy and lastly from the Lords assistance and presence that never the less hath therein
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
their guilt or number that upon a considerate and impartiall review I am assured all the excess that can be qualified will not suffice to purge your objection of Cruelty against the publick courses of these times of plain Calumnie I say the Publick courses for as to the particular practises of private persons although the corruption inherent to the best and the many and rapid Temptations of times of division and wars do offer me large matter of Apologie yet I doe rather wish that the outbreakings which wee have seen and felt of the Lords holy jealousie may make both the Lovers of his work to remember their provocations and tremble before this holy Lord God who will be Sanctifyed in them that come nigh him And also the haters of his Name to consider how much more upon such he will be Glorifyed But you not content to pervert the Righteous wayes of God go about mainly to represent his Ministers as bloudy men rejoycing and obstinate in bloud certainly such a grievous and horrid accusation ought to have been evidently instructed but since it is impossible to imagine the least shadow of ground for it unlesse that sometimes his Servants either in the more eminent and signall appearances of Gods vengeance upon his bloudy and perfidious Adversaries have joined their praises with Heavens Alleluiahs for the manifestation of his true and righteous judgements or that when the Lord called to punish they have regreted an unseasonable and partial excesse of Lenitie Are not these arrows firebrands and death which you throw in your pretended meekness like to the symptomes of Madnesse And now Sir since you will have it so give me leave to manage the retortion for your N. C. You accuse our times of cruelty for forcing men to take the Covenant though in effect it was only to make them stand to an Oath whereby all were antecedently obliged but have not you and many of you such as formerly were very forward to presse it upon others Now without either reason given or repentance so much as pretended been most violent to have all men to renounce it I will not mention the exclusion of all Non-renouncers from Publick Trust and the first Arbitrary fining and remitting or abating upon condition of the Declaration Temptations not only unjust but no less powerful and a hundred fold more extensive then all the certifications execute upon simple Noncovenanters the very instances by you given shall also serve my turne Are not to concurre in the present Church-Government and to promise submission to Episcopacie certain reductive disclamations And yet you cannot deny that for the refusing of these things many hundred of Ministers have been thrust out and in such manner vexed and tossed with imprisonments banishments consinements and proclamations upon proclamations that if the Lord had not provided your mercie in sparing their Lives had been only the complement of your Cruelty It s true that Ministers are not made to sweare to Maintain the present Establishment but if they be required to break a former lawful and approven Oath where is the disparity As for the People you tell us they are desired to do nothing but live peaceably and join in worship And verily though this were all and though your Publick Peace were not so perverted as it cannot be subscribed unto and your Worship so polluted and profaned as may give too just occasion of scruple it were easie to demonstrate that such hath been the Rigor and violence of your Methods that it is a wonder that a hundred to one have not been thereby irritate to more unpeaceablenesse and greater desertion but because you have brought against us and our leaders the odious accusation of Bloud although I have already removed it yet in pursuance of the parallel I must further tell you that the Bloud of the former Times abstracting from its justice was in a manner the Bloud of War iâ— War but in your Times wee have seen over and above its injustice the bloud of War shed in Peace and that of such Persons for such Causes and with such Circumstances as time doth only increase and not diminish its astonishment next the tragedie of these poor harmlesse persons who by your insufferable insolencies and exactions were provoked to take Armes is yet recent I shal not resume particulars but I am confident their cause their number their condition and their rout being considered the tortures and bloudy executions that ensued not upon the chief Actors and instruments but upon the inferior yea meanest of these Innocents led out to the slaughter without choise are hardly to be matched what hand your Lords of the Clergie had in these things how suift their feet were to shed bloud and how Burnet the A. P. of Glasgow taught the Executioner to truss him up with a pulley who for weaknesse could not be otherwise execute and the Armie Officers commanded drums to be beaten to drown the Testimony of the Lords dying witnessess is well known Nay it is more then probable that if the King had not put a stop to that but cherie and these oppressions and barbarities wherewith the West was afterward aflicted your Prelats had not given over until that partie had been utterly cut off and that whole Countrey laid desolate for their cause I might further tell you of your other severities and how by your rigid exceptions and other ensnaring Acts not only the intended favour of the Kings Indemnity was corrupted but also its very designe and effect frustrat But what need of many words let the fervent aud conspiring desires of the 1659 and the more exâ—lting joyes of the 1660. with the many disappointments grievances and exactions that ensued together with the present Universal coolness dissatisfaction and distraction and unsetled condition of the Kingdom be considered and impartially searched into their proper cause and if Prelacie be not found the only marrer of our joy and quiet ferment of our distemper and moth of our Loyalty then rejoice yee in the Bishops and let them also rejoyce in you but if thus it be then c. Thus you have forced me to retaliat your provocation and I am more then wearied of the subject In the next place you taxe the N. C. of great hight and insolencie in assuming the big Names of the Godly Partie and the People of God and calling their way the cause and Kingdom of Christ. Sir if they did indeed contend for the Ministery and Ordinances of Christ And that for the vindication of his Power and Government over his Church and the Prospering of his pleasure I think truely they had good right to all these names but that they did vainly and arrogantly use them it is more then you have proven or I doe remember And really J am in the opinion that upon search it will be found that the Titles of the People of God and of the Godlie Partie were at first not so much assumed by the asserters of our
this matter would fall under the compasse of this crime However not to rake into this abysse of wickedness that Act of Supremacie giving to the King over all Persons Meetings and in all Causes of the Church all the power that Christ as head of the Church in these things hath or can acclame a piece of such desperat solly that I am assured that as he that sitteth in the Heaven doth laugh so shall he one day have all its contrivers and abettors in dirision in this I am very positive that according to the present legall establishment made in these matters to derive the power of your Courts from or connect the same with the power and headship of our Lord Jesus is utterly impossible That we then who as Ministers of the Gospel do take upon us and exercise no power save that which is our Lords cannot join and partake with your Meetings your self may judge But you say That all that is Divine in Discipline is that scandalous persons be noted and separated from worship but how this shall be administred can be no matter of Religion or of the concernment of Souls providing it be done 'T is answered to argue thus all that is Divine in Preaching is that the truth of the Gospel be declared but how this shall be performed can be no matter of Religion or of the concernment of Souls providing it be done would it not be false and weak reasoning 2. As your Providing it be done viz. rightly is a salvo whereby a man may as pertinently argue against all means whatsomever which certainly are nothing useful providing the end for which they are appointed be rightly done so this quality hath such an exigence even of these midses which you suppose to be of no import that it plainly subverts your Argument But 3. Your position that all that is Divine in Discipline is that scandalous persons be noted c. Is false in as much as this is no more clearly to be found in Scripture then the Persons and Officers therewith incharged are evidently thereby ordained yea this matter is so certain that there is scarce one place to be seen in Scripture for the warrant of Discipline which doth not with the same evidence hold out the persons intrusted with its administration And I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted unto them Feed Over-see Rule the slock are Commissions so full ordaining the persons as well as designing their work that I can hardly impute the laxeness of your reasoning to your oversight In the next place for as for your quibling with your N. C. anent the foolish answere which you put in his mouth it is altogether frivolous as shall be shewed in your 7. Dial. you urge That seing that Presbytries do by Divine right acclaime a power oâ— jurisdiction they ought to meet in these Courts let the Law call it what it will even as iâ— the King should abrogate all Laws for the worship of God and declare that all that assemble to worship God shall be understood to worship Mahomet and thereupon command all to meet though we meet not on that ground yet you hope we would sâ—ill meet to worship God how ever it be interpret 'T is answered If the jurisdiction competent to Presbyteries by Divine right were in these Courts your Argument might have some weight but seing they are not the former Presbyteries but new Courts set up as I have already declared no more deriving power from Jesus Christ then your late High-commission how can you think in reason that either the right and power of Presbyters or his Majesties call should oblige Ministers to com to the one more then the other For my part as I esteem it a less sin upon the Kings call to come to a Court of his own erecting then to abuse Christs warrant to the establishing of a Court as his which by its institution manifestly disowns him So I should sooner resolve upon the Kings command to meet in the High-Commission then by coming from the motive of our Lords warrant acknowledge your Exercises of the Brethren for his Courts which are so palpably setled upon the basis of another Authority As for your Similitude not to insist upon such claudicant Arguments it is like to the legs of the lame which are not equall but make it straight thus the King dissolves all Christian Churches and erects Mahometan Mosches charging all to repaire there to worship and declaring that he will account thâ—ir so doing a testimony of their compliance with the change by him made Now if one should stand up and for the perswading of just recusants say that they may safely go there and worship God without either owning of Mahomet or regarding the construction may be made of it Pray Sir how would you understand it And what ever you or any reasonable man think should be the practice or Christians in this case I am content the N. C. be thereby judged I confesse the termes of the Similitude are hard But remember they are of your own choosing and my work is only to make them just to conclude therefore it is not Mens interpretation or mis-interpretation although in many cases these homologations whereby either Enemies may be hardened or friends stumbled require also a very weighty consideration that we regard in this matter but the reall state of things whereby as Christ's power is ejected forth of your Courts So the Divine jurisdiction of Presbyters cannot possibly therein have place To this you subjoin that suppose Episcopacie were Tyrannie and Bishops were Tyrannes in the Church Why ought you not to submit to them as well as you did to the late Tyrannes in the State It is answered if I did think there were any Emphasis more then the strain of your discourse in this your urging Our submission to the late Usurpers I could tell you that though the cases were parallel as they are not all the submission made by us to Oliver would not make out your inference And that it is Your and not Our submission which only can serve your turn I need not mention that Mr. Sharp Now of St. Andrews was the first if not the only Minister in Scotland that took the Tender and thereby deserting his Fellow-prisoners procured his own liberty Nor how the late introductors of Episcopacie were most or many of them such as by subscriving the Tender abjuring the King and the like compliances had wholly deboshed their Consciences unto the perfidious re-establishing of your abjured Prelacie whereas the tenacious honesty of the faithfull of the Land was both then and is now accounted their bigotrie and folly But to the purpose 1. If Bishops had only been intruded upon Presbytries as they were in former times it is not questioned but Faithfull Presbyters not Outed of their possession founded on Divine right might have continued the same with a due Testimony and opposition
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
and many excellent qualities of our deceased Prince and the dutie I owe the now King nothing else could refuge you from the full returnes of a just resentment Passing therefore the many horrid Blasphemies Lies and Reproaches wherewith your Clergie during these unhappie wars did not cease continually to proscind the Cause and People of God more precious to him then all the Monarchs on Earth and did most instantly labour to render both detestably hateful unto the Prince until they brought all to ruine I shall in a few sober words vindicat the Lords servants from all these umbragesâ— and appearances whereby you endeavour to set off your reproach That the late King by evil Counsel specially that of unconscionable and ungrate Prelats wickedly abusing for their own ends a Conscientious Prince unto a fatal obstinacie was precipitat into many grosse errours of Government such as an excessive indulgence to Papists illegâ—ll and violent exactions many unusuall and high attempts against fundamental Laws and Liberties a strange connivance at the Irish Rebellion and at length a bloudy and pertinacious war against his Parliaments his greatest and best friends and Counsellours it was not the invention of evil affected men or Ministers as you alleage but the sad evidence of plain deeds and the unanimous verdict of these most capable and proper to discern Now if in this state of things the Lords Ministers favouring his righteous Cause did endeavour by a true representation both to avert the People from and animat them against evil courses destructive to Religion and Right wherein are they to be reprehended You say they charged the King with all But know you not that as whatever passed upon the Kings side did beare the impresse of his Name and Authority so they did continually charge the guilt and wickednesse of all mostly upon bad Counsel praying the Lord uncessantly with much tendernesse to the Kings Person that the Wicked might be removed from about the Throne that so it might have been established And as to what you alleage That contraire to Humanity and Christianity they did Persecute the memory of that Prince after his death and that with the hight of insolencie and barbaritie in the presence of his Son who now reigneth It is a calumnie which you are not able to justify It s true they wished and moved the King to repent of his accession to and mourne for the opposition to the work of God violence and bloud wherein his Father was unhappily engaged and from which the Throne except by serious Repentance will never be purged If this be the Inhumane Insolent and Barbarous raking into his ashes which you lay to their charge you remember little and fear lesse the jealousie of God who â—isiteth the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth Generation Neither doe you consider that the stain of Bloud is such specially upon a Throne that the unfeigned teares even of the Author do not wash it away Ezrah and Nehemiah mourned and repented for the Provocation of Kings and Princes many Ages past without the least reflection upon their memories Seeing therefore that the practises whereupon you found these high accusations were altogether consonant to the Word of God and the Principles then acknowledged both by King and People and to which in Conscience we do and must still adhere doth not your apparent bearing with us in the main and yet so virulently inveighing against a clear dependencie manifestly discover more then an inveterate malice As to our Ministers their manner of reproving sin you say they reproved not in secret but triumphed in the Pulpit without controll and against absents and that either out of Malice or ostentation Thus the tumor raised by the poison of your last calumnie doth still swell and you forget that you your self are vainly triumphing in Print against a Mock-adversarie But as you cannot verifie that ordinarely or allowedly secret reproof was omitted where there appeared reason and accesse for it so I am confident your allegeance hath no better ground then that Ministers for the strengthning of the Lords people did freely hold out the Apostacie and wickednesse of his declared Enemies for whom such a reproofe had been but in vain intended In the next place you tell us that the Sermons of our Ministers were no Extraordinary things Sir I will not compare I am no lover of Extraordinary things but I heartily wish that such Preaching were now more Ordinary to believe and therefore to speak though with speach contemptible is certainly infinitly more gracefull then to speak even Seraphickly and in practise to counter-act There is a Foolishnesse of Preaching commended by Paul above the wisdom of man Whether you would value it as an Ordinary or Extraordinary thing I know not But this Epithet of Extraordinary which you seeme to desiderat is very little consonant to Luthers Opinion Hi sunt optimi ad Populum Concâ—onatâ—res qui pueriliter populariter quà m simpliâ—issime docent These are the best Preachers unto the People who teach in a plain homely and most simple way You adde that their Sermons were half stuffed with Publick Matters nothing concerning Souls Why do you Hyperbolizâ— so widely in prejudice of Truth You know publick Matters were not medled with but in a clear exigence and if some did exceed others were defective and these were the infirmities of both but you tell us That these things concerne not Souls This is a touch of your Convenient Religion Pray Sir are Publick Maters transacted without private mens accession or in this accession hath Conscience no concernment Nay are not the solid practises of Christianity such as the contempt of the World for the most part most necessaire and conspicuous in Wrestling with and overcoming the great and frequent temptation of a publick sinful course But O the rare temper of this New device that both inwardly elevats to the highest Spiritual abstractions and outwardly smooths to a most easie temporizing complyance You say further that the solid Practises of Christianity were scarce â—ver named and that vertue was little Preached by us and far lesse Practised but why do you make so little Conscience of truth Your often touching upon this string with the presumption of Common ingenuity which I have and desire to retain for all men have made me apply to all conjectures to find out your ground for this allegance but in the end I see it is a plain forgerie The Lord knows that I am far from boasting of former Practises but that in this so visible a change attending the present Establishment from the Generall restraint and aw of Sin that before did oblige even the most profligat unto a seeming conformity unto these confessed aboundings of all manner of profanitie which do now fill the Land you should have the confidence to sayâ— that vertue was by us little Preached and far lesse Practised is that which I am sure these of your own way
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
against unlawfull usurpations conforme to the old practice of Gods Servants among us in the like case but seing in the late revolution not only Presbytries were broken and discontinowed but the very foundations razed a new foundation of the Kings Supremacie laid and a new superstructure thereon built Our compliance now as you require it would not be an act of Submission but a plain partaking in this wickedness 2. The case of mens usurpation in the State is so vastly different from that of your usurpations in the Church that it greatly alters the latitude of these submissions which you go about to equiparat for though in Civils the aspiring and usurpation of wicked men be a hainous transgression before God Yet such is the nature and condition of the Kingdoms of the Earth in themselves mutable and at the disposal of the most high who ruleth therein and giveth them to whomsoever he will and setteth up over them sometime the basest of men that the attaining thereto becometh such a providentiall title as may sufficiently warrant not only necessary submission and obedience in things lawfull but even these other acts of seeming compliance that do directly acknowledge the Usurper to be in titulo providing that they proceed no further either to anticipate Divine Providence in the establishment or homologate the wickedness of the usurpation If of this you have any doubt I remit you to Scripture-practice the customes of all Nations the opinion of most Casuists and Reason it self whereby the taking and exercising of inferior offices under undeniable Usurpers is most certainly confirmed And this is plainly the case both of State-usurpations and of the largeness of that submission which it admittes Now as for Church-usurpations the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus not being mutable and perishing like unto the Kingdoms of this world but his dominion of it self extra Commercium as Lawyers speak of things not acquirable and by Divine decree an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed As it is therefore incapable of all acquisition and his Crown such whereunto however the great ones of the Earth may bandie together and boast themselves against it neither violence nor possession can intitle So in case of a pretended usurpation though Providence may order a passive submission yet most certain it is that in this case where there neither is nor can be any title all deeds so much as of simple recognizance are utterly unlawful And therefore albeit that under the late Usurpation it was Lawfull to partake in the capacity of inferior Magistracie of that power whereunto the Usurper had in providence attained yet in the case of our present Church-usurpation to acknowledge it in the least by partaking of a jurisdiction founded in the pretended Supremacie and not derived from Christ to which neither the events of of Providence nor immemoriable possession can give the least shadow of title is altogether unlawfull Thus I have unfolded to you the disparity that invalidates your Argument and have also granted the passive submission which Providence and Christian patience do alwayes recommend If the grounds here insinuate do not so easily engage you assent when you shall add thereto these certain truths 1. That in Civils though the manner of purchasing may be in many cases injurious and unlawful yet it may be sufficient to acquire the dominion 2. That whereever the length of time or prescription may superinduce a Right there even from the beginning naked possesion is quasi titulus qui pro suo possidet potest usucapere 3. That although Lawyers speak of certain vitia that in private rights hinder definite prescription Yet all Polititians grant that immemorial possession or even that of three ages is sufficient to confirme over any people the most violent usurpation And lastly that on the other hand our Lords Throne and Scepter are everlasting and such as can never be moved I doubt not but all your difficulties will evanish You proceed to say that our Ministers are content to Preach and quite Discipline a part of their Rights why may they not aswell exercise Discipline though not with a full liberty 'T is answered 1. As I have already told you that to sit in your Courts is not at all to exercise Christs Discipline but a pretended power dependent upon another head so you do not truely accuse our Ministers of quiting Discipline it is well known that in so farre as is permitted they do not separate Doctrine and Discipline which our Lord hes conjoined And if full liberty be not permitted and they necessitat to acquiesce to what the Powers will allow it is very disingenuous in you to misconstrue this force which they suffer unto a voluntaire quiting 2. Though by the manner of your proposing the objection you would have us to believe that the cases are parallel and that in the case urged as well as in that instanced there is only a restraint laid upon a more full liberty yet the disparity is most manifest in this that in the matter of Preaching without the exercise of Discipline we are by force debarred from doing full dutie in which case the doing of a part permitted cannot be censured whereas in the compliance you require the very act is sinful and is therefore and not because we are denied a more full liberty very justly by us refused but having vainly concluded upon the poor arguments which we have heard our Ministers to be Peevish and made your pitiful N. C. confess himself non-plust by his general pretence of Conscience You ask him what he can pretend for the peoples withdrawing from your Churches since there is only a small alteration made in point of Government 'T is answered if all the matter be a small alteration in point of Government it had farre better become that charitable healing and free spirit whereunto you so often pretend to have reflected thus since the change lately made by its previoâ—s perjury and subsequent deluge of profanity the desolating of Churches and dispersing of Shepherds and flockes the disquieting and vexing of thousands unquestionably Godly and Loyal the fiering and filling all the corners of the Land with contention and discontent the burdening of a Countrey formerly exhausted and now expecting relief with heavie impositions and strange exactions And lastly the necessary and worst result of all these evils the provocking the Lord to Anger and rendering his Majesties Government less comfortable and desireable hath occasioned so great a perturbation and yet is in it self and imports so small a matter why do not our King and Nobles consider for what the Land perisheth Wherefore do not all men bend their knees and pour out their prayers to God and the King that so seen destructive and easily remedied a cause may be removed but seing for all your sparingness in passing judgment yet you cease not scornfully to censure a poor people needlessly and unchristianly by you
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
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
of Nations are by all Lawyers held in some cases to be restricted And though I grant that many Casuists do require to the lawfulness of subjects their resistance beside the justice of the cause the concurring of inferior Magistrates yet that the same grounds with better consequence do also allow to the people by themselves inferior Magistrates either joining with the supreme oppressor or deserting their dutie the right of defence is the opinion of the more judicious Nay seing it is most certain as I have often touched that there are certain atrocious injuries which do force even from the most rigid royalist a particular exception in favors of single persons thereby attacqued it is evident that all this controversie is more in hypothesi then in thesi 3. If it be remembred what were Luther's mistakes in his younger years in the matters of war resistance withall that beside the information of Lawyers he had a further and a most important reflection upon the force and necessity of conscience in times of uncertainty and danger it must of necessity be acknowledged that this passage is not meerly a politick discovery whereof before he was ignorant but a manifest retractation of former mistakes I have already hinted how absurdly the Scriptures for not resisting of evill and for subjection to Powers are abused by Court-flatterers to a special prohibition of all resistance from Christians persecuted for conscience sake against their oppressing Princes Only for sooth because their unconcernedness in Religion doth sufficiently secure them from the consequence whereas it is clear as the Sun-light that the same Scripture-rules do make no distinction from what cause let be from what person the injurie doth descend but equally and indefinitly enjoyn patience and submission in their exigence and season ' without the least prejudice to these other rules of righteousness whereby aswell in the case of persecution for Religion as of injurious invasions upon other accounts the persons invaded when in an otherwise unrestrainâ—d capacity are warranted to resistance in their own defence And for this it may suffice though there were no more that Luther tells us that he ever taught that the Gospel doth not impugne or abolish politick laws much less then the fundamental laws of nature to which all politick laws do cede But what he further addes of a force and necessity of conscience thereby joyning the obligation to the right of defensive resistance is certainly a ground which if it were here pertinent I could improve to more then I have hitherto asserted But you say that every one knowes that the Princes are Soveraigns within themselves and the Emperour is only the head of the union How doth this blinde Confident medle without understanding That the constitution of the Empyre is purely feudal the Emperour Liege-lord and all the Princes feudataires recognoscing him and subject to the imperial Chamber where they have been often doomed and for faultedâ— Is a thing most obvious What do you then bable of united Soverraigns and Soveraigns within themselves By which dialect of discourse and a fair descent a Majori ad Minus you or any other private person may quo ad his reserved rights and liberties be termed a Soveraigne within himself We know that by concession they have large priviledges and that most of the regalia appertain to them but are they therefore Soveraignes Or is the Emperour only the head of the union Beside how will you make thir things quadrat to the Hanse-townes and free Cities who certainly for all their immunities and priviledges are immediatly and directly subject to the Emperour and yet have often ingaged in these defensive leagues and wars against him Thus I answere you in your folly But pray Sir do you think that ever our Lord commanded or the Gospel meant that though the poor people may not defend themselves when persecute for Religion yet great men their superiors though subject to the Supreme may Or if you be more rational can you imagine that an oppressed people upon any account with the concurse of inferior rulers may defensively resist their Soveraign to whom all are subject and that the same people no more but rather less subject to these inferior then all are to the Supreme may not as lawfully upon the like provocation defend themselves against both the Supreme Inferror joyning in an oppressive combination Specially seing it is most certain that as the Supreme hath all his power from the peoples suffrage and consent so the Inferior doth wholly and precariously for the most part subsist by his grant But I proceed you say As for the war that afterwards followed betwixt Charles the 5 th the Duke of Saxe besides that the Duke was free to defend himselfe as I have told Charles the 5 th declared it was not for Religion he fought 'T is answered for the freedom of the Duke of Saxe that it was no greater in this case then the people may acclaime in the like as also that if the Duke of Saxe his war was lawful upon the account of injuries for other causes then that of of Religion Religion doth only aggravat and not alter the case I have already cleared But what a pitiful allegeance is this that Charles the fift forsooth declared it was not for Religion he fought Whereas first by the league betwixt him and the Pope it is expressely convented That wherefore many years Germany had continued in great errors for which the Councel of Trent was called and set down And that these of the Smalcald confederacy did reject the same therefore the Pope and Caesar for the Glory of God and safety of that People have transacted that Caesar levy an army against Iuny next and by force of armes reduce these Refusers of the Council and Defenders of errors into the old Religion and obedience of the holy See 2. The Duke of Saxe and the Langrave writ to him to disswade him closing that when ever they should understand his pretended causes for that war they would so answere ut quivis intelligat injuriam nobis fieri te Romani Antichristi ac impii Concilii Tridentini impulsu bellum hoc suscipere ut Euangelii Doctrina Germaniae libertas opprimatur nec ullam aliam subesse causam docebimus 3. They at the same time emit a publick vindication for themselves proving by unanswerable arguments that Religion was the only cause of that war And should not you be ashamed to obtrude to us Caesar's groundless and calumnious assertion against both the Princes their declaration and reasons 4. The very letters written by Caesar to the Argentinenses and other Protestant Cities wherein accusing the Princes of Rebellion and Oppression under the pretext of Religion he really maketh out nothing together with their answer wherein all his pretensions are taken off nay Sleidan's whole sevententh Book containing the Pop's Bull his letters to the Helvetii the distinct returnes made to Caesar's demands
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
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
John his base râ—signation exercise over England a particular authority that after the Reformation and the shaking of the papal voke the Oath of Supremacie was brought in to exclude all forraign Iurisdiction and reinstate the King is his Civill Authority That Henrie the 8th did indeed set up a Civill Papacie but the Reformation of England was never dated from his breach with Rome that the Oath of supremacie was never designed to take away the Churches intrinseck Power or to make the power of Ordination of giving Sacraments or of Discipline to flow from the King that however because the generality of the words might suggest scruples they are explained in an Act of Parliament of Q. Elizabeth and in one of the 29. Articles and morefully by B. Usher with King Iames approbation And lastly since we have this oath from England none ought to scruple the words being sufficiently plain and the English meaning ours This is the full and clear account which you promise But who knows not these poor and insignificant pretenses King Iohn's resignation was indeed so base that by all disinterested it was ever held to be invalid and in after times scarce ever mentioned let be pleaded It is therefore the Pop's general tyrannie and what it was and whether abolished in these Kingdomes or in effect only transferred from him to the Prince that we are here to consider And I think I may take it for granted that you judge the Pope's exorbitant usurpation specially his assumming to himselfe not an external assisting oversight which we grant to be the proper right of Princes but by way of an intrinseck and direct power the sole and uncontrolable care of the Church her ministry and ministers with his arrogating an architectonick power in the ordering of Gods Worship so that in all Ecclesiastick meetings and matters therein proposed he may enact what canons he pleases to be parts of the Papal tyranny not only as in him but in all men under our Lord Jesus Christ unwarrantable and antichristian nay some of these are points of so high a nature that the greater part even of the members of the Romish Church do reclaim against them Now questionlesse if this power be to the Pope unlawful and incompetent all secular persons and Princes are therefore much more excluded in asmuch as the Pope being at least in shew a Church-man and according to the hypothese even of your Hierarchy the first Bishop of the westerne if not of the whole Church he is fortified by certain seeming pretenses of which the clame of civil Princes is wholly destitute To come then to our purpose that after the Reformation the Popish yoke not only as to the particulars above mentioned but also as to his forreign Jurisdiction unlawfully usurped over Church-men in civills to the prejudice of the King's Soveraignity was righteously shaken off and the King re-instated in his Civil authority over all Persons and also in all Causes in so far as they are committed to his royal direction and tuition is not at all denyed If that matters had here sisted and upon the abolition of the Papal domination the things of God and of Caesar had been equally restored who could have gain-said it But that on the contrary by the Pop's exclusion and in place of this righteous restitution the King under pretence of the vindication of his own Supremacy did procure to himself a very formal and full translation of what the Pope had not only usurped from him but arrogate from God specially in the things above-specified both the occasion of this change and the manner how this Supremacy hath since been exercised do aboundantly declare And for clearing the occasion it may be remembred 1. That the Peter-pence called in the beginning the King's almes imposed by on Ina King of the West Saxons was discharged by Act of Parliament in the reigne of Edward the Third and the contention anent the exemption of Church-men from the King's Courts most hotly agitate in the reigâ—es of Henry Second and King Iohn was composed many years before the dayes of Henry the Eight So that neither that exaction nor this old debate and far less King Iohn's most invalide resignation not worth the naming could be the cause of King Henry his acclaiming the Supremacy 2. The only motive that we find in History whereby Henry was instigat to reject the Pope and to declare himself to be supreme in causes Ecclesiastick aswell as civil was his purpose of divorce from Queen Katharine wherein finding himself abused by the Pope and his Legates their delayes he discharges all appeals to Rome appointing them to be made from the Comissary to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop and from the Archbishop to the King and is thereafter first called by the Clergy and then declared by the Parliament to be Supreme head of the Church in liew of the Pope whose authority was abrogat by the same Act These things then being certain and you your selfe acknowledging that King Henry did set up a civil Papacy It is easy to determine that this change was not a bare exclusion but a plain translation of the Popes usurped power We know the Reformation of England was never dated from that breach with the Bishop of Rome But what then Can you deny that this was both the rise and establishment of the Supremacy which being transmitted to Edvard the sixth and then renounced by Queen Mary and again restored to the Pope was by Queen Elizabeth reassumed and so continueth untill this day It is true that after the breaking up of the more clear light of Reformation whereby not only Rom's Superstition bot also the Popes usurpation and tyranny in many things was upon better reasons rejected and especially after the succession of Queen Elizabeth to whose Sexe the former title of headship for all the smoothings that had been before used was nevertheless construed not to be so agreeable Many explications were adhibite for qualifying the Supremacy both in answer to the opposition of Papists and for removing the offence of the Protestant Churches But the truth is these explications though more sound in their grounds yet in their explication were nothing conclusive as to the present debate and their Authors arguing for the Supremacy from the examples of reforming Kings and Emperours acting not by vertue of an assumed prerogative but only from that extraordinary power which the necessity of the end upon the failzour of other midses doth measure out to Princes first and to others also if in a competent capacity did rather infer the justification of the work then conclude the approbation of the Supremacy notwithstanding it was therein imployed Nay while by these their reasonings they went about from such extraordinary interpositions only warranted by the exigence of necessity and the rectitude of the work thereby effectuat to establish to the Prince a constant setled authority properly conversant about these matters the argument is far more