The True Non-Conformist, Part 7 (2 of 3)

The True Non-Conformist · Part 7 (2 of 3)

p. 412I might here further adde, that you may not only observe the same patience and fruit of chastisements under the old, that is found under the new dispensation, but also read the grace and glory of their confessions and martyrdomes, in almost the same termes, wherein you go about to represente the sufferings under the Gospel as new and singular. Others were tortured not accepting deliverance, they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were s…ain with the sword, they wandered about in sheep-skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy. Pray Sir, who were they, or wherein is this account short of that, which you exhibite of Christians their rejoicing in sufferings, except in the vain excess of your superstitious festivals, viz. the dayes of the death of Martyrs, observed by the Church under the name of Natalitiae Mart…rum? But I have already sufficiently demonstrate both the folly and falshood of this your impertinent distinction: And the mixture of the cup of Gods Children, being clearly confirmed by the experience of all ages, your taxing of our mourning because of a broken Covenant, a profaned Sanctuary, and abounding wickedness and violence, as sinful repining, because of personal sufferings, notwithstanding that the joy and strength of the Lord hath been very conspicuous in our dying Witnesses, and our other Sufferers, doth plainly adde malice to your ignorance.

p. 413But in our complainings you reprehend both injustice and excess, and for injustice you tell us, That the reason thereof is only the alteration of the Law's and the Magistrat's denying to us further encouragement, and punishing us not for Conscience, since none hath suffered because he was for Presbytery, or against Episcopacy; but for unruly humors and practices. Sir, if our complainings and mournings, were according to their just causes, viz. our high handed Rebellion against God, unparalleled breach of Covenant, perjurious subversions and alterations of the Ordinances of God, aswel as the Laws of the Land, with the profanity, ignorance and violence, that have thence abounded and filled the whole Land, neither should I, or any of the fearers of the Lord, have eyes to write or read this my vindication. It is true, all this iniquity and mischief is introduced and established by form of Law, and thence you take the impudence to smooth it over, as if there were no more in it, then the alteration of Laws; nay, as if what before the Act & Law made were righteously refused out of conscience, after the accession of an humane injunction could not be forborn, but out of humor: And as if Conscience and Laws could not inte…ere, you go on to tell us, That the reason of our suffering is neither our adhering to Presbytery, nor our non… compliance with Episcopacy, but only our unruly humors and practices. But seing the colour of Law, which you p…etend, is indeed no relief of conscience, but the greatest aggravation of that Apostacie and persecution, whereof we complain, and that notwithstanding of any reproch wherewith you do slander it, the true cause of all our sufferings is none other then our stedfastness in the Oath of God, binding us to the maintenance of Presbytery, and extirpation of your Prelacy. And, p. 414lastly, seing that we bemoan no violence, either to death, banishment, bonds or spoile, which, the taking of your Declaration against the Covenant, would not certainly have prevented, the witness of our cause and sufferings, who is in Heaven, heareth, and will reprove your lies.

As for our excess, you say, We make complaints to to God, as if Heaven and Earth were mixed, and adapt all the lamentations of Ieremiah to our sorry matters, comparing the overthrow of Presbytery, to the Babylonish captivity: But oh that the causes of our grief were thorowly weighed, and the hainous…ess of our provocations, with the calamities come upon Gods House, Ordinances and Servants, laid in the balance together; certainly then, you should more regrete our defect, then now you mock at our excess: And in asmuch as sin is more grievous then judgment, and judgments spiritual, heavier then judgments temporal, Nay, Gospel Ordinances more precious, then these of the old dispensation, You would judge the overthrow of Presbytery visibly accompanied with breach of Covenant, and the rejecting and expelling of the Lords ministry, far more important, at least in these respects, (whatever other aggravations there might have been in that distress) then the Babylonish captivity.

To these objections you adde, Now, were your way what you imagine, you should rejoice that you are called to suffer for it, and not make such tragical complaints. Who ever heard such ridiculous discourse in such a serious purpose? Your N. C. doth only plead for a due concerning regard to the state of the Church, and the interests of Iesus Christ, you your self allow a fervent solicitude to God-ward, in behalf of His Glory and the good of His People: And we p. 415do not only propose for imitation the practice and exercise of Gods Servants, who, both of old & of late & in all times, have from the love & zeal of Gods Glory, made the desolation of Gods Sanctuary, the corrupting and removing of his Ordinances, with the persecutions of his People, matter of heavy complaint, and deep mourning, but do also, greatly rejoice in that grace and glory, whereby the Lord hath countenanced and beautified the tryals of particular sufferers amongst us, no lesse then these of any other his Martyrs upon record: And yet after you have confounded the complainings of the Lord's People of old, for the desolations of his Sanctuary with their concernment in their own private losses, and falsely, and vainly distinguished betwixt the duty and deportment of Gods People under the old and under the new dispensation, in order to afflictions, you say dully, without any connexion or regard to the mixtures of the cup of Gods People, Our way is not what we imagine, els we should rejoice, that we are called to suffer for it. But the Lord, who giveth us both strength and joy in our sufferings, doth also know and hear our mournings, and will reprove your mocking.

But you say, That our bitternesse against our enemies, looks nothing like the mildnesse of Christ or the primitive Sufferers. How long will you love vanity, and seek after leasing? That we approve not bitternesse against our persecutors upon any account, is our serious profession whereunto our practices ought to be conform: But with all, that we hate their way, pray that they may lay aside their opposition to the cause and people of God, otherwise, that such troublers were even cut off, and when God enables and calls, do stand up for the defence of the Gospell and our selves against evill doers, is so far from jarring with primitive precedents p. 516that both Scripture, Reason, and the practice of all times do allow it. And really Sir, when I consider these your discourses, so directly tending to the blunting nay extinguishing of all zeal for God, and the perswading of a stupid (not patient) endurance of all injuries, under the pretext of Christian Resignation, that wickedness and violence, so much at present prevailing, may the better be estabilished, as I cannot but regrete this point of your conformity to primitive examples, (not indeed these of Christians, but of their persecutors, who in the madnesse of their wickedness did often whe… their violence, and intende their cruelty to the persecuted by their scornful reciting of the gospell precepts to patient suffering); So, I must tell you my fears, that your pretendings to the serene and dove-like spirit, are only collours to palliat your deep deceit and malice.

But making your N. C. decline your instance of the primitive Christians with a vain scoff of your own suggesting, that far fowls have …air feathers, and appeal to the practice of late Reformers, as such who universally resisted the Magistrate, out of an exceding veneration, as you pretend to the same Reformers, you do undertake from undeniable evidence of History, to convince us of the falshood of that vulgar error, that the Reformation was carryed on by resistance. But here, in the entrance, you must give me leave, (though I acknowledge that you take no advantage from it) first to rectify your expression, that the Reformation in many places, where opposed by force, was maintained by resistance, Is that which we with as plain and full an evidence as can be instanced in any matter of fact, do very confidently assert: But that it was carried on by resistance, Is not only inconsistent, p. 417resistance sounding rather for the defence then the advance of any cause, or interest whatsomever) but according to the proper import of the phrase, carrying on, intimating force to have been the mean used to propogat Religion, very false and caluminous. 2. I must premise that when I reflect on your undertaking in this place, and there with compare that of Doctor Heylen in his Aërius redivivus, I can not but observe the deep deceit of Sathan's contradicting Methods for advancing one & the same error: for whereas to disprove the righteousnesse of Defensive Armes, in behalf of Religion, you go about to show that all the lawfull wars instanced on our part for our assertion, had their rise from an other cause; he, on the other hand, aiming at the same mark, is so far from referring these wares to any other cause, that in his fury against Presbytery, he chargeth all home upon the Reformed protestant Churches, as Religious rebellions, just as in an other case, viz: for one and the same design of destroying Conscience and making void the ordinances of God, we find the Devill the old Serpent winding him self in courses no less opposite: for while on the one hand Taylour standeth up for the liberty of prophesying, and Henrie More for his liberty of Conscience; And on the other Hobes and Parker do no less plead for the subjection of Conscience to the Magistrat's dictates; that both do joyntly point, though differently, the former by dissolute relaxing, and the later, by a wretched blindfolding and enslaving, to make void Conscience and all its obligation in these matters of God, which they would have to be Arbitrary, is evident as the Sun's light.

But passing these preliminaries, and without further prefacing upon the strange and selfe contradicting p. 418Arguments, whereby you go about to make an undenyable, nay generally on all sides an undenyed truth, a vulgar error, I come to examine your proofs. And first, you say, The Waldenses resisted not the King of France, as is clear in the History, notwithstanding of unparalleled persecutions, viz. 60000. killed in one town of Beziers, & 7000. Murdered at once in one Church. It is true that there were wars betwixt the Count of Montfort & the Count of Tholouse; but Tholouse was a P…er of France, and a vassal rather then a subject, besides he only …ought against Montfort, who was a bloudy Emissary of the Popes, not authorized by Philip then King of France, who only permitted his subjects to Arme in this war. So that here there was no resistance of subjects against their Soveraigne. A man would think, by the reading of this passage, that certainly all these thousands killed at Beziers, were in a submissive non-resistance persecuted to death by the Kings Authority, els to what purpose is their not resisting of the King, notwithstanding of their unparalleled persecutions by you mentioned? And what can the connexion import? For, if either they were not persecuted by the King, or not killed without resisance, it is evident, that the instance is altogether impertinent. And yet it is certain, that as this execution was indeed one of the funeste effects of the war, which you afterwards mention, and therefore not suffered without resistance; so, you your selfe, upon the same consideration, do deny the King's concurrence & there… by plainly subvert the insinuation here made of their submission, & discover your own absurdity. But that I may cleare the truth in this particular from your confusion & deceit; the matter of fact (as by all recorded) Is most clear, viz. that, that time being the very hour & power of darkness, wherein all the World wondered after the Pope, it was indeed by his instigation, and, p. 419in a manner, under his banner, viz. The Croisade, that this war was raised against the Waldenses; & consequently by him was the Count of Montfort nominate to the conduct thereof… and, for his better encouragement, had, by decree of Councel, the dominions of Tholouse gifted unto him. But as it is most apparent that the King, who not only permitted his Subjects to go to that war, but sent his Son to take the crosse in it, as you your self do alledge, and also allowed of the commission, and confirmed the Gift …ade to Simon, did therein concurre; So your denying thereof is both groundless and absurd… Groundless, because of the deeds of his concurrence mentioned and confirmed, by all the Histories of these wars, and by your selfe confessed; absurd, because if the King did not concurre, the example proves not your affirmation, viz. That the Waldenses did not resist the King of France notwithstanding they were grievously persecuted.

Now before I proceed, for confirmation of what I have said both of the King's persecution and the Waldenses their resistance, take the following testimonies, viz. Hortatu Papae & Francorum Regis permissu, per univers…m Galliam, quam plurima armatorum millia crucem sumpserunt &c. Nec vero tantum permisisse Phil…ppum Regem hanc expeditionem; (quod plerique solum dicunt verum & ipsummet, suo nomine sumptiousque exemplum aliis prebentem, quindecem millia armatorum ad eam dedisse (…ipse namque aliis bellis detentus haud ire potuit ut cupiebat) asserit Gu…ielmus Brito, qui tunc vivebat &c. Bitteras, Urbem celebrem & copiosam, …ed prae caeteris haeresi infectam vi ceperunt & combusserunt, &c. 60 vel 70 mil… ia internecione delentur, atque intra ipsius Ecclesiam occisa septem millia; & quam multa castra & oppida, quâ vi quâ deditione Simon Montisfortis, Dux belli electus cepit; & quae Simon in hoc bello prestiterit, p. 420you may find at great length in the Historie Spond. ad ann. 1209 & sequentes, idem ad ann. 1227. Varia certamina, marteque vario inter Inbertum Bellojocensem istarum partium regium rectorem, & Raymundum Tholosanum haereticorum sive sectatorem sive fautorem, inita sunt: & anno 1228. sanctius atque illustrius rebus interea in Gallia sub strenuo & sancto Rege puero, ac foemina prudentissima regni Procuratrice procedentibus, dum ex una parte &c. & ex alia perduelles Religionis, vi & suasionibus manus dare coguntur &c. obsessa enim ab Imberto cum exercitu Regio Tholossa, &c. with many the like passages which may be seen in this Author, Innocentius tertius ad istam (Albigensium) haeresin extirpandam &c. arma in eos excitat, curam autem belli Leopoldo &c. & Simoni Comiti Montisfortis demandat, urbes vi captae erant Bitterae, &c. Item Francorum Regi instinctu Innocentii 3. Papae cum Albigensium haereticis negotium fuit: belli Dux Simon Montisfortis erat, Magdeb. Cent. 13. pag. 216, & 218. What then can be more evident, then that not only these Waldenses resisted their persecutors, though countenanced and authorized by the King; but that even though the King himself had been Dux belli, as his Son, by your own relation, was belli particeps, he had met with the same opposition. But you say, that 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 p. 421in 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 p. 422seem 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 whatso…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 resistance… 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 spec…al consequences, in favours of the Powers, from abused generalls, is but a politick improving of your lies unto base and selfish flattery.

p. 423Now 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.

p. 424The 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 p. 425the 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 p. 426his 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 P…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.

p. 427You add, Neither were the Protestants too well satisfied with the last Bohemian businesse. And it is very like, that the briskness of the first assaul… 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. Rushworth…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 …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, t…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 p. 428will 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 indirectly to insinuate, yet all your confidence durst not positively assert: But, that all men may see your disingenuous dealing, in this allegeance, it will not be amiss that we take a more exact account of it, in Sliedan's own words, where we find in his fourth Book, mense novembri, Ann. 1524. Ceperunt a suo domino Comite Luphio suevo dissidere homines rusticani, propter onera quibus gravari se nimium querebantur, idem & alii deinde vicini faciebant in suum quisque Magistratum. Here you may perceive that the liberty of the Gospel was not so much as pretended to be the quarrel, let be the chief quarrel; but that as oppression only and not Religion was the cause which they held out, so their too prompt and illegal resentment by way of violence, without the pressure of an extreme necessity, is that for which they are very justly censured. The next mention we have of them is in the same Book, the following year, Cujus verè primo per Sueviam, &c. altera fuit exorta tempestas Ordinis plebeii contra quosdam proceres Ecclesiasticos. p. 429jamque jurejurando ac fide data societatem coibant obducta causa, quasi & Euangelii veritatem tueri, & servitutem ab se profligare vellent: And the author adds, Magistratus quidem cognoscere de quaerimoniis ipsorum, & quod iniquum esset, emendare se velle dicebat; verum illi perseverabant, & eorum postulata, mox aliis communicata, passim novos incendebant motus. Which obstinacie and refusal was certainly unjust. Now what these postulata were, I need not repeate, in so far as they did only demand the liberty of the Gospel and the reliefe of their oppressions, all men will judge them reasonable; yea Luther, for all his vehemence against them, Yet upon these considerations, doth not only seriously admonish and reprehend the Princes for their persecution and tyranny, and tell them that, talis est vester dominatus, ut eum homines nec possi…t, nec velint, neque sane debeant ferre diutius, & cujus Deus aut per plebem, aut per novos hostes quos excitabit, poenam exposcet: But also concluds, that if neither the one nor the other party will abate and hearken to right counsels, se fore utriusque ruinae spectatorem: nesas enim utrinque versari, & bellum esse plebi contra principes ut in oppressores ipsorum, salutis atque doctrinae, magistratum invicem conflictari cum plebeiis ut cum latronibus, & iis, qui nomini Christiano contumeliam faciunt. But the casting reasons against these tumults, were, that in effect what was right in their demands was only speciously alledged, to palliat an unjust design of a licentious levelling liberty in all, and a more wicked ambition in their chief leaders and instigators, and that as carnal impatience and revenge, did give the rise to these stirs; so, their contagion and progress every where was carried on rather by an inconsiderate and fatal fury & rage then any shew of reason, or good conduct. Whence it is manifest, that these courses, being so plainly seditious, p. 430cannot be paralleled to the cases of defence by us mentioned.

But you say, they were fomented by some seditious Preachers, who pretended, the liberty of the Gospel for their chief quarrel? Thus you love deceitfully to insinuate where you cannot justly accuse. But because that Thomas Muncer, quiting first the truth, and then his station, did, under that general fa… pretext, with some others his associates, heeding their own delusions and dreams, and aspiring to enthusiasmes, become ringleaders to a mutinous rable, for the cutting off, of all Magistrats as wicked, and the destroying of propriety, Dare you thence infer, that the practices, which we defend, are of the same nature, And that the Lords Ministers amongst us were no better? Certainly your calumny not hardie enough to turn this oblique reflection unto a direct accusation, doth clearly enough evince its own falshood.

But you add, that Luther wrote again & again unto them, condemning what they did, as an excerable & cursed rebellion. It is answered, what Luther did write, first in answere to their appeal and demands, more soberly, by way of disswasive, and then upon their eruption unto hostility, more vehemently by way of incentive, to incite all, even private persons, by what somever manner of way, to repress and kill them, is extant on record. And …eing that I have already cleared, how widely the rising of these Rusticks, doth differ from the defensive risistances by us asserted, I am very free, upon the matter, to subscrive to his judgment. But because I confess his reasoning doth proceed upon the same grounds of subjecting to the Magistrate, not resisting of evill, and our Lords hindering of Peter to fight in his defence, p. 431which the men of your perswasion do commonly abuse, and are indeed handled by him in such a manner, as may seem to give you an apparent advantage, Yow must pardon me, for this my ingenuity, to use a sutable liberty, and tell you, first, that although Luther, in his first discourse doth make certain suppositions, viz, of the Magistrat's being intolerable for persecution and oppression, and that we suffered as atrocious injuries from him, as Peter and the rest of the Apostles did when our Lord was taken and led away from them; and even in such cases doth prohibite fighting; yet examine his words, & you will finde, that it is to restrain from revenge, and not to prohibite, that he there useth these passages. As for example, after having said, Sit Magistratus plane intolerabilis, he addeth, non tamen idcirco excitandi motus: Nec enim cujuslibet est coercere maleficia &c. And after having mentioned Christs commanding Peter to abstain from his defence, he subjoyneth, gravi latâ sententiâ in eos qui gladio …eriunt, hoc est, qui contempto Magistratu vindictam privatam exercent: So that albeit his words after the usual manner of dehortatives, do seem some what tending to the contrary extreme; yet his scope being fairly adverted to, as the surest rule of genuine interpretations, they ought not to be extended beyond the condemning of impatient revenge. 2. I say, that as all humane authorities are but accessory and not leading Arguments, And Luthers judgement in the matter of war, as in other things, was but progressive, and not at first thorowly enlightned; So although he had been more positive against us, at this time and upon this occasion, it ought not to stumble us; for as much as, in the first years of his Reformation, from which this war of the Boures was not far removed, Sleidan tells us, p. 432that he wrote not only that the Magistrat… was in no case to be resisted Lib. 8. But that to war against the Turk was to resist God; who useth him as a scourge to chasten us. Lib. 14. Both which he afterward, in his own manner, did retract and qualify as you shall hear. 3. Albeit the Boures their wars, were unjust, and seditious, as we have heard; yet that Luther in his arguing against them might, and did overstrain, beside the arguments already adduced, is easie to be gathered from his excessive vehemence, in his second writing, wherein, forgetting his main principle of appropriating the sword of justice and vengeance unto the Magistrate, he instigates even private persons to take vengeance on them, and (if you will understand it a right) to turn Phineases in the case, and this Sleidan sayes, ut nimis aerem et cruentum multi passim vituperabant. The next thing you alledge anent thir wars, Is that the Protestant Princes stirred up by Luther, did fight against the Boures and break them. And why not; seing their rising… specially that of Muncer, against which they took armes, was plainly seditious and rebellious? And thus we see, how that by laying down of false suppositions, you do only accumulat impertinencies. … But the best advice that I can give you, is that which your confidence blindly offereth unto your N. C. viz. not to hearken to the tatles of ignorant persons, but read the History it selfe and there you may both understand the truth, and the true estimat to be made of Luther's Papers.

In the next place you tell us, That upon the invasion and combination of the Duke of Brunswick & others against the Lutherans, the Duke of Saxon the Lantgrave of Hesse, & other Princes and free cities met at Smalcald to unite among themselves: but Luther was dissatisfied until that from the Bulla aurea, and other constitutions p. 433of the Empire, it was shewed him, that it was lawful for them to defend themselves. Whereupon he consenting, they entered into that famous league. To this you add, and every one knows, the princes of the Empyre are Soveraigns within themselves, And that the Emperour is only the head of the union. From all which, it seems, you would infer, that though this be an instance of inferiour Princes standing to their own defence, upon the account of Religion, against their Superiour; yet it can not warrant people to resist their Soveraign: But here let me reminde you first, of your own undertaking, which was to convince us of the falshood of that vulgar error, that the Reformation was carried on or mantained by resistance: Now, whether this passage of the Smalcaldick league doth answere your designe, or not, I appeal to your second thoughts: You present your selfe in the proposal, as if you were to prove, that the Reformers were altogether for suffering, and not at all for resistance according to the misconstructions that you make of the practice of the primitive Christians; And yet when you come to this instance, all your offer is a politick consideration de facto, incident, which neither as to Gospel-rules, or antient precedents, by you commonly abused, is of the least moment, as I have already shewed. 2. Although the provocation, which you mention, to the Smalcaldick League, viz. the invasion & combination of the D. of Brunswick & others against their neighbour protestants, do signify nothing in your behalfe, but be altogether proper and agreeable to the nature of defence, which we do maintain; yet, seing it is not so consonant to truth, in matter of fact, and that the true and genuine rise and progress of that League do much more illustrate p. 434our assertion, you must give me leave to note your inadvertency, in asmuch as we finde that the league of Smalcald was both proposed and entered into, long before the opposition of Brunswick and the confederacy of Norimberg, whereby it was fortified. And as to the first beginning of the league at Smalcald, we have it, in the year 1526. At Spire, where the D. of Saxon, and the Langrave calling the Commissioners of certain Cities, tell them quoniam ipsis charam esse videant Evangelii Doctrinam, & vero quid Episcopi moliantur, atque pontificii non sit obscurum, deliberare sese dicunt num qua societas atque …aedus iniri possit, ut, si quem hujus causa periclitari contingat, mutua subministrentur auxilia &c. Thereafter when several Princes and Cities had first protested against the second Decretum Spirense, and, by many meetings and other previous transactions, had prepared the thing, in the year 1530. these protestants meet at Smalcald, atque faederis concipiunt formulam, non quidem offendendi quemquam, sed sui defendendi causa, & huic continuo Principes subscripserunt, &c. Quod foedus postea Anno 1535. In annos decem renovatur; whereas it was in the year 1538. and after the Popish Princes and Bishops had leagued together at Norimberg, against the Protestants, that we find Henricum Brunswicensem totum ad rumpendum ocium publicum spectantem, & in hoc incumbentem, ut belli fieret initium adversus Protestantes. And it was in the year 1542. that, Ob vexatas Goslariam & Brunswicum Smalcal. Foederis Civitates Saxo & Langravius communi sociorum nomine bellum ei faciunt, clear arguments of your mistake. But, by all these and many other passages incident in these times, it is evident, that the principles of the then protestants did maintain the lawfulness of resistance, no less against p. 435persecution for Religion, then against any other injurie. I might here adde the league made in the 1529. By the Argentinenses cum Tigurinis, Bernatibus, & Basiliensibus for mutual defence in case of invasion for Religion, and that other, made the following year, upon the same grounds by the Langrave with the same Cities, but I forbear to insist on examples so obvious and frequent.

As for what you say of Luther's Dissatisfaction, until that Lawyers shewed him, how that, by the bulla aurea and other Constitutions of the Empyre, it was lawful for them to de end themselves; That which I find in Sleidan to this purpose is, that Luther had ever taught that the Magistrate was not to be resisted: but when in this deliberation, Lawyers did shew, that the lawes did sometimes permit resistance; and that now matters were stated in one of these excepted cases, He ingenuously professeth, that he knew not this to be lawful. And because the Gospel doth not impugne or abolish politick lawes, and also because, in that so doubtful and dangerous a time, many things might fall out, so… that not only Law, but the very force and necessity of conscience, might make us take armes, He concluds, that a League for defence might be entered into. Now, whether this passage do more favour your design, or our assertion, is very discernible, if we consider, first, that there is no mention here of the bulla aurea, which though it do indeed contain the rights, liberties, priviledges and Dignities of the Princes and States of the Empyre; yet beareth no permission of resistance referable to this case. 2. The laws here spoken of sometime permitting resistance, are, no doubt, no other then these ordinary exceptions founded in the law of nature, whereby the laws of subjection and submission, flowing from the inferior law p. 436of 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 p. 437patience 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 unrestrain…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 faulted… 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 p. 438certainly, 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. 'Tis 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 p. 439Pope, 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 by the Protestant and Popish Cantons, with many other letters and declarations, is but one evidence, and that irrefragable, against you. What impudence is this then whereinto you are hardened?

p. 440But the Electors of Cullen amd the Palatine both Protestants lay neuters. And what then? Do we not know how rare a things it is, in a time of danger, for all concerned to unite even in the most uncontroverted duties? Beside, the Elector of Cullen was then recently deposed and excommunicate, and his people (specially his principal Clergie) and he at great variance, for the Reformation by him intended. And the Palatine inclining to favoure, & in effect aiding the Princes with 400 horse, was by the evil success of the war forced to retreat and excuse himselfe.

Next you adde, That the Elector of Brandenburg and Maurice of Saxe armed for the Emperour. And I grant, That Albertus & Ioannes Brandenburgici quanquam erant religionis, & Ioannes quidem etiam foederis Protestantium, tamen quod Caesar, non propter R…ligionem, sed quorundam rebellionis ulciscendae causa, bellu… sucsipi diceret, suam illi operam addixisse. But as their resting upon Caesar's assertion and promise, for the security of Religion, was, by all the circumstances of that war, declared to be but an emptie pretext; so Iohn's breach of faith, in this his ingagement, can as little be denyed, as his relation of Son in law to Henrie of Brunswick, then detained captive by the Langrave, seemes to have been his great motive. However it is certain, that the Elector of Br…ndenburg, for whom it is like, that, in your heedless way, you take one of his above mentioned Brothers, did stand off neuter, endeavouring rather to mediate, as the History testifies, and we may see by his interposing betwixt the Elector of Saxe and Maurice, at the seige of Lipsick. As for Maurice, his part, it was indeed foulest, and deservedly condemned by all equal Judges. But seeing you can adduce p. 441no other argume…ts for your pretended vindication, then undeniable wrong and perfidy, the truth and righteousness of that defensive war, on the Princes their part, against the Emperour needeth not my further patrociny. And yet, As if you had said something to purpose, you have the boldness to conclude in these words, So you may see what piti…ul His…orians they are who alledge the precedent of Germany. O os durum! Who would not Laugh at such excessive confidence, above the excuse of all possible ignorance?

The fourth instance which you go about to cleare, is that of Sweden, and you say, That King Gustavus, with the States of that Kingdome, did in the Year 1524. peaceably receive the Reformation, and who would not wish that Religion and Reformation might have had the same fate every where, Neither were there any broils about it, till after seventy years, that Sigismond King of Polland, the Son of their former King, and therefore by them acknowledged, though a Papist, was by force entering the Kingdome, resolving to root out the Protestant Religion: Whereupon they deposed him; no strange thing in the Sweedish History, that being before an Elective Crown, and but newly then become hereditary, and the States still retaining the supreme Authority. Sir, I must confess, that this is a passage, whereunto I can make no reply; your undertaking was to convince us, by undeniable evidence of History, of the falshood of that vu…gar error, That the Reformation was carried on (that is maintained as, I have before shewed) by resistance; and here you give us an instance of a Kingdome, not only resisting, but deposing their King, because of his invading of Religion: Which, in place of a vindication, is a full and plain concession: For, as to what you insinuate, that that p. 442Crown had been a little before Elective, I told you, upon the instance of Boheme, that though it had been even for the time Elective, yet it could not make for you, much less when you acknowledge that then (for, as for your own or the Printers escape, referring the change to the Year 1644. I urge it not) it was become successive. And where you alledge, that the States did still retain the Supreme Authority, if you understand it otherwayes then according to that power and priviledge which appertains to our Parliaments, it is only your own fiction. But you, subjoyne that, If this serve not to vindicat the Sweds, at least, the Reformation was not introduced by wars among them. And pray Sir, who of us did ever defend such a practice? To introduce, and to maintain, are things so different, that they can not be fairly confounded. The last shift you make is, That the actions of that state were never looked upon as a precedent to others: But, if so, why then do you mention them, and if they be indeed a precedent, certainly it is hard to determine, whether you be more false in your general assertion anent the establishing of the Reformation, or ridiculous in this part of your vindication.

The fift instance you mention, is, That Denmark received the Reformation peaceably. But seing this hypothese excluds the question controverted, anent the maintenance of Religion by armes, not casible without the antecedent violence, It is evident, that it is rather transiently then pertinently by you adduced.

The sixt instance is tabled by your N. C. thus, But you cannot deny there was force used in Helvetia and Geneve. A…d to this you answere both in the manner and termes of your accustomed vanity, That this p. 443shewes, what a superficial Reader of History your N. C. is. And then you tell us, T…at Zurich received the Reformation peaceably, but being maligned by the other Cantons, and by them injured, at the Popes instigation, it broke out into a civil war, purely defensive upon Zuriches part, Likeas the Cantons are not subject to one another, but free States only united in a League. It is answered, that here, upon the account of Religion, there was force used in Helvetia is clear from your own narration. How then do you taxe your N. C. for this allegeance, as a superficial Reader of History? As for that, that it was used by one associat against another, and not by subjects against their superior, it is only accidental from the condition of these Cantons, & the other circumstances of that war. And seing, that neither the Gospel, nor Reason, do lay any special restraint upon subjects, in case of their Superiors intolerable persecution because of Religion, as I have already shewed, this precedent is no small confirmation of the practices by us maintained. 2. I must tell you further, that this war, on Zuriches part, was not so purely defensive, as you give it out, in asmuch as it is certain from Sleidan. 4. and 8. Books, that the provoking injuries were, for the most part, committed upon their citizens without their territories, and the first act of hostility, by the interclusion of passages, was done by these of Zurich, so that, although their guards were indeed surprised; yet dating the war from the hostile interclusion, it appears rather to have been assertive then purely defensive. 3. The advantage, which this example doth give us, is the more observable, from that preface they make to their expostulation, emitted to their confederats in these words. Christus, inquiunt, unam ferienti maxillam jubet alteram p. 444quoque preberi feriendam, hanc eius doctrinam sequ…ti, multa profecto toleravimus & patienter quidem: Nunc autem quando nullus est injuriarum finis, aut modus, cogimur ad illud confugere quod Christus usurpavit, &, si malè quid egimus, doceri petimus illud atque demonstrari, &c. Whereby understanding the patience; which our Lord enjoynes, according to its just exigence and measure, and, by a very exact and sound observation, holding out how in a continued tract of injuries the duty of patience may at length cease, and the liberty of defence then take place, they plainly reject these abusive inferences of absolute subjection, or rather stupidity, in the cause of Religion, which men, assured by their indiffe…encie in these matters against the temptation and hazard, would thence inferre. 4. When you remembred the practice of the Suitzers, in the point of Reformation, how came you to forgett Basile, Where you may finde (Sleid. l. 6) that after the Reformation was in a manner established, the Papists nevertheless did prosecute their own designe, until the citizens thereby provoked, assemble and supplicate the Senate, that certain of their number, countenancers of the popish preachers, might be removed; Which being refused, they make an other Assembly and Supplication & quamvis sine armis, … non tamen tam demisse quàm antea, whereupon the Senate returning a second displeasing answere, and the people being more offended, because of the apprehended usurpation of a few, they openly declare that they would take a course, not for Religion (viz. simply and only) but for the vindication of their own right: And so they instantly take armes, And the same day, one of them casting down a certain statue, they suddenly take the occasion to throw down all the idolls and statues within the city making p. 445answere to such, who came from the Senate to compose the matter, that what the Senate had been advising upon, for three years, they would perfect in one hour, that idols might no more be the cause of contention. Upon which the Senate grants th…m all their desire, removing the suspected Senators, abolishing the Messe, and settling the reformed Religion. In which passage, subjects their maintaining and asserting of the Reformation by armes, against… their superiors, is so evident, that it is very easie to conjecture the reason of your silence and omission. It is true the people do mention the vindication of their right, and not religion, as the immediate cause of their taking armes: But seing their meaning is plain enough, that their just demands in behalf of Religion were in such a manner refused, as not only their common right, but their special priviledges were injured; and seing, in the progress, the cause of Religion was by them most directly intended and pursued, it is manifest above exception, that, as it was the occasion, so the Reformation of Religion, was the principal motive and end of all this stir.

As for Geneve, you say; the Bishop fled from it out of a pannick fear, when the Reformation was received. And 'tis true the History saves, that upon the change, Episcopus atque Clerus irati discesserunt ab urbe. But is it then pertinent for you to observe, that no force was used where there was no provocation. But you subjoine, that Geneve was a free Town, neither subject to the Bishop, nor the duke of Savoy. And no doubt you give this caveat for that war, which, you know, was made against them, in the year 1534. By the duke of Savoy, adjutus ab ejus urbis Episcopo, vel potius instigatus partim ob Evangelii pro…essionem, partim aliis p. 446de causis. But, seing although Geneve was a free Town, yet it had a considerable dependence upon the Bishop, and though it had not, yet the instance is no less concludent for us, then that of the war of Zurich, I will not insist in any longer reply.

The seventh instance, you also adduce by your N. C. Questioning what you say to the war in the Netherlands. To which you answere, that you say still they fought not for Religion: And that they fought not for Religion, that is, to propagate it by Armes you are in the right: But that persecution for Religion, carried on by the making of new Bishops, the Inquisition, and bloody Edicts, was the principal cause of all these wars, Historians on both sides, such as Bentivoglio, Strada, Grotius, Grimstoun and his Authours do so fully attest, that your confidence is to me admirable. But you say, Papists and Protestants did jointl… concurr in it. It is answered, 1. That the cause of these wars being complexe, the Spaniard endeavouring no less to subvert the liberties of these Provinces, then to extirpate the Reformed Religion, it is nothing strange, that there should have been a joint concurrence i… the opposition. Specially seing, 2. even the persecution at that time, practised upon the Protestants in these Countries by the Spaniards strangers, was so tyrannous, ragefull and pernicious, that many of their Compatriots, though otherwise not of their Religion, were yet induced to favoure their cause. But 3. As it was the spreading of the Reformed Religion in these parts, that first gave the Spaniard occasion to exercise tyranny, and, by violating and subverting their Liberties, to designe an uniforme royalty over all his Dominions; So it is unquestionable, that Religion and the cruelty practised upon its Professors, p. 447were the originall and principal cause of that war as the Apology, set out by the Protestants, after their first defeat, in the end of the Regency of Margaret, doth fully witness. And here I might tell you of the joynt supplications and confederacies made about that time by these of that Religion for their own preservation, and also the concessions made to them in that behalf; But the History is so large in this matter, that it were superfluous in this place to be more particular: And therefore I say 4. That although in the beginning, the mixed designe of the extirpation of Religion mainly intended, and of the erecting of an uniforme Monarchy assumed through the occasion thereof, carrying along a manifest and most injurious violation of all rights, liberties and priviledges, did at first ingage even Papists in the resistance; yet it is most certain, that the principal cause of the war, viz, Religion, more and more prevailing, of the Flamings themselves there were few, save Protestants, that took part on the defensive side. And as for the French or others, who joyned afterwards upon a clear ground of interest, it belongeth not unto the present consideration.

You adde, that Egmond & Horn beheaded, by the D of Alve, as the chief instruments in it, died both Papists. 'Tis answered, Egmond and Horn plainly accused of having joined to the confederats against the inquisition, & for remisness in the maintenance of the Romish Religion, were very early cut off, even in the first fermenting, as it were of these tumults, before the ensuing war was formed; but, however, certain it is, that although they professed and practised mainly for the liberty of their Countrey against tyranny, yet they greatly favoured the persecute protestants, and also much inclined to their way, as is clear from their very p. 448accusation, and also from the manner of their death, specially Horn's, who, for all Grotius his saying, that they were execute, post sacra romano ritu peracta; yet, at first refused to confess to the Bishop of Ypre, saving that he had confessed himselfe unto God. What then doth this allegeance, destitute of reason and little favoured by truth, avail you?

Your next argument is, that the States by a Placaet declared it scandalous, to say they fought for Religion. Sir, I wish you had given us the words, at least the date of that Placaet: For, sure I am, that in what termes soever, the Estates in policie might think fit to declare and publish the cause of these wars, and to assigne for the same rather the invasion of liberties and priviledges, which was the effect of the Spanish persecution, then Religion, which was the more remote cause; yet whoever reflects upon their first beginnings will finde that it was after this manner. The Flamings receiving the light of the Gospel, & being therefore sore vexed by long and cruel persecutions, the same upon the succession of Philip to his Father Charles, are by the Spainards much intended, and a resolution being taken, to root out the Protestants, new Bishops are created, the Spanish Inquisition is threatned, and many terrible edicts emitted, by which courses, not only in themselves wicked, but also contrary to the priviledges, and destructive of the liberties of that, people, many tumults and confusions were in all parts occasioned, untill at length the Nobles do confederate for resistance, and mutual assistance and relief; in consequence whereof, they petition the Regent, and applications are made to the King, when in the meane time, on a suddain, these of the Religion seeing no success that way, keep their meetings and assemblies openly, assuming armes for their own defence p. 449aggainst suddain violence, and by the meaner sort of the people, images and idols are as with a whirl-winde (quales olim saepe motus Iudeorum erant which is Grotius his remark) thrown down almost in all places. These things make the Regent more easie towards the Protestants, and force her to remit bygons, and indulge their Preachers: but the Lords retearing to their respective charges, for rendering the concessions effectual, and being terrified by the reports of the King's implacable displeasure, betake themselves to divided Councels, whereupon the Regent resiles from the agreement, renewes the persecution, levies new forces, imposeth new oaths, and the Spainards, supposing the whole people one way or other to have been involved in the late tumults, conceive them, as guiltie of rebellion, to have forfaulted their former liberties, and to be become obnoxious to an absolute domination. This being the condition of matters when the Duke d'Alva was named to the government, the Prince of Orange & Brederode, both Protestants, retire. Brederod his forces of the same Religion resist and are beaten, and many shift for themselves: then the Duke arriving fills all places in a moment with tyranny and persecution, putting to death many Lords and Gentlemen, and many thousands beside, because of the former confederacie, and upon the account of their Religion: And the Prince of Orange, being cited and not compearing, his Estate and Lands ar seised on, and thereafter takking armes by the perswasion of the banished, and declaring to the world both the injuries done unto him, and that he was of the Religion, he is once and again beaten; so that there remained no opposition to the Duk's rage & violence, save what was made by a few, escaped from the former defeats given p. 450to the Protestants, who made war in the Princes name, partly by piracie at sea, and partly from woods and forests, against Priests only and Officers of justice. In this deplorable estate, under most insolent tyrannie and violent persecution, these poor Countries remain, untill the Earl vander Marke with his Protestants or sea Gueux, as they were then called, surpriseth the Town of Breill, after which Flussing and several other townes in Zealand and Holland, refuse spanish garisons, and being Protestants revolt to the Prince of Orange, who having implored the aid of all Protestant Princes, after a successess enterprise for the succour of his Brother Ludovick at Mons, and a proclamation emitted, declaring the cause of his ingagement to be for relief of these Countreys form Alva's tyranny, and from the crueltie and oppression of his proclamations, edicts, taxes, and imposts, cometh unto Holland, from which time the war for Religion and liberty, proceedeth thorow many and various accidents, and both are in all places equally restored. This is the plain and true and account of the rise of these wars, at which period, even Grotius, who, of all the writters of that History, doth most decline and wave the cause of Religion as an ingredient in the quarrel, noteth, Religionis causa primi talibus caeptis sociaverant Smalcaldico faedere Germani, post quos Galli proceres plurimis etiam Scriptis disseruerant non peccare, in fas obsequii minores potestates qui invito quàmvis principe divina ac publica jura, vitam que innocentium, si necesse …oret, armis defenderent, &c. And a little after, romanae ceremoniae ejectae templis, &c. Whether or not then persecution for Religion appears to have been the cause of these wars, let all impartial men judge.

p. 451But you tell us, that the true ground of the quarrel, as we may read in all the Histories, was that their Prince was not an absolute Soveraign, but limited in his power and that by expresse compact, they might use force if he transgressed his limits, as he notoriously did. Sir, for the true and proper ground of the war I have alreadie clearly narrated it, from the best Historians: that which you point at here, is rather a justification of their resistance from the right and capacity whereunto their Prince was astricted. But 1. You cannot deny that persecution for Religion, whereby they were injured both in their special priviledges, and common and natural rights and liberties, was the provoking cause of these wars; and consequently that Religion no more then other interests, doth not forbid to subjects necessary defence and resistance against their Superiors. 2. For all the vaine talke that you and your fellowes make against us for allowing to the people a discretive judgement, anent their Princes actings, yet you not only suppose and approve it, in these of the Netherlands, in order to their Prince, but stick not to vent your aime, in saying that the King did most notoriously and tyrannically pass his limits. 3. Though we should urge this instance no further then you allow it; yet it stil remaines a very agreeable precedent for justifying our late courses, it being certain, that not only the rights and priviledges of both Kingdomes were violate, but that the undoubted priviledges of Parliament, and the resticted nature of the Kings soveraignity over us, did give us as good and sufficient a warrand for the oppositions then made, as upon this head can be alledged and instructed by these of the Netherlands. And really, when I reflect upon the particular case of the late warres betwixt the King and p. 452Parliament, 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. But… 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 p. 453of 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, p. 454shall 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 you… 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, p. 455but 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 p. 456unsatisfying, 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 censu…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, p. 457whoever 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, p. 458clearly 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 Logick… 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 p. 459but 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 in…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.