The Opinion is This: That RESISTANCE may be Vsed, in case our Religion and Rights should be INVADED.

THE Arguments against it, are these: First, That the Christian Religion doth plainly forbid the Resistance of Authority. [Quaere, Who has Authority to Invade the Established Religion and Rights of the Nation? Is any one Impowered by the Laws to invade the Laws?]

Secondly, That though our Religion be Established by Law, which makes a difference between our Case and that of the Primitive Christians, yet in the same Law which Establishes our Religion, it is declared, That it is not lawful, upon a­ny pretence whatsoever, to take up Arms against the King or any Commissioned by him. [Neither doth this reach the Question, For the King can do no Wrong, nor in the second place, can he Commissionate any person to Invade the E­stablished Religion and Rights of the Kingdom; for a Commission of that kind is not a Commission in Law, it is null, and void, and nothing.] Besides that, there is a particular Law, declaring the Power of the Militia to be solely in the King. [To do what? To Invade the Established Religion and Rights of the Kingdom? If you read the whole Act you will find the direct contrary.] And that tyes the hands of Subjects, though the Law of Nature, and the general Rules of Scripture had left us at liberty; which I believe they do not, because the Government and Peace of Humane Society could not well subsist upon these Terms. [As if the Established Religion and Rights of a Nation, which are the very Ends of Government and of Humane Society, were Best Secured by being laid open to Invasion, and exposed for a Prey.]

Thirdly, This Opinion is contrary to the declared Doctrine of all Protestant Churches; and though some particular persons have taught otherwise, yet they have been contradicted herein, and condemned for it by the generality of Protestants. Whereas the following Testimonies will prove it to be no singular Opinion, but held by the most Eminent Protestants both at home and abroad: And [Page 2] they give such Reasons for their Opinion, as may at least excuse those persons who are of the same Perswasion, till such time as those Arguments are answer­ed, as well as the Opinion condemned.

To begin with Luther, with whom the Papists say Untruly our Religion began, but who was indeed a person, whom it pleased God to make the Great Restorer of Religion to this last Age of the World. Sleidan not only tells us, that he was of this opinion, but likewise how he came to be of it, when he had formerly held the contrary. The words are these: Sleid. Com. Lib. 8. Prius quàm foedus iniretur, in Concilium adhibiti fuerunt non Iureconsulti modo, sed Theologi quoque [...] Lutherus semper docuerat Magistratui non esse resistendum, & extabat ejus h [...] de re libellus: cùm autem in hâc deliberatione periti juris do­cerent Legibus esse permissum, resistere nonnunquam, & nunc in eum Casum, de quo Leges inter alia mentionem faciant, rem esse deductam ostenderent, Lutherus ingenuè prositetur, se Nescivisse hoc licere: Et quia Leges Politicas Evangeli­um non impugnet aut aboleat, uti semper docuerit, deinde, quoniam hoc tempore tam dubio tamque formidoloso multa possint accidere, sic ut non modo jus ipsum sed Conscientiae quoque vis atque necessitas arma nobis porrigat, Defensionis cau [...]à foedus iniri posse dicit, sive Caesar ipse, sive quis alius fortè bellum ejus nomine fa­ciat. Edito quoque scripto primum explicat, quàm fuerint in Augustae Comitiis obstinati Pontificii, deinde monet in universum omnes, ne Magistratui ad ejus­modi Bellum imperanti Militiam obtemperent. Doctrinae verò Pontificiae com­plures & gravissimos quidem recenset errores, quos ait ab illis propugnatum [...] qui se Castris illis adjungunt: quà quidem in re summum Nefas inesse dicit: Quan­ta sit etiam lux illata mentibus hominum hoc tempore per Evangelii cognitionem demonstrat, & à tam Impii belli societate temperandum esse docet. In English thus:

Before the Princes and Cities entered into an Association, they took the Advice not only of Lawyers, but of Divines also. Now Luther had always taught, That the Magistrate might not be Resisted, and there was a little Book of his extant upon that subject. But when the Lawyers in this Consultation shewed, that Resistance was allowed by the Laws in some cases, and made it appear that the present Case was one of those whereof the Laws made men­tion, Luther ingeniously professed, that he did not know the lawfulness of it before, and now said, that being The Gospel doth not Bar nor Abolish the Laws of the State, as he had always taught; and furthermore, because in this uncer­tain and dangerous Time many things might so happen, that not only matter of Right, but also the force and necessity of Conscience might occasion us to Arm; therefore an Association might be entered into, to defend our selves, in case Caesar himself should make War upon us, or any one else in Caesar's name. He put forth a Book likewise, wherein he first shewed how obstinate the Pa­pists were in the Diet at Auspurgh, and then warned all men in general that they should not obey the Magistrate, if he raised the Militia for such a War. He reckoned up very many and very gross Errors of Popery, to shew those who sided with the Emperour, what things they would fight for, and conse­quently how great a wickedness it was: He shewed how much more Light [Page 3] than formerly men now had by the knowledge of the Gospel, and that they ought not to engage in so wicked a War.

There were seven Princes, and twenty four Protestant Cities, which entered into this Association, some of whose Arguments and Reasons for it, we have upon Record, in the following Books of the same Historian. The Saxon and the Lan [...]grave in their Declaration, 2 September, which was in answer to the Emperours, from his Camp at Ingolstadt, have these words: Sleid. Com. L. 18. Quid Caesari debeant Principes, quid invicem ipse praestare deb [...]at, abunde nobis constat: ut nos illi, sic ipse vicissim nobis obligatus est: quod autem indictae causâ nos Proscribit & omnibus possessionibus dejicere conatur, in eo juris vincu­lum dissolvit, quo clienti seu beneficiario devinctus est invicem patronus. Iam quod rebellionem nobis objicit, nihil est, & scit ipse, nobis injuriam fieri. We know very well what Duty the Princes owe to the Emperour, and what on the other side he himself ought to perform: We are mutually bound to one another. Now because he proscribes us without any Process of Law, and en­deavours to throw us out of all our Possessions, in so doing he breaks that bond of the Law, whereby a Lord and his Client or Beneficiary are bound to each other. As for his charging us with Rebellion, there is nothing at all in it, and he knows in his Conscience that we are wronged. And presently after, Quod si pactis stetisset atque decretis, nos etiam nostrum officium eramus facturi: sed quoniam ea violavit, & verò praecipua debetur Deo obedientia, sibi culpam ipse tribuat. Etenim quia Religioni molitur exitium atque libertati, causam prae­bet, cur ipsum oppugnemus bon [...] conscientià. Cum enim in eum Casum res de­vénit, licet resistere, sicut & sacris & prophanis Historiis demonstrari potest. Nam injusta vis minime Deum habet Authorem; nec alia ratione sumus ei devin­cti, quam si Conditiones, quibus est creatus Caesar, impleat. Now if he had stood to his former Compacts and Decrees, we also should have done our Duty; but because he has broken them, and besides, our Obedience is due to God in the first place, let him lay the blame upon himself. For being he endeavours the destruction of our Religion and Liberty, he gives us cause to oppose him with a Good Conscience. For in that case it is lawful to resist, as may be made appear both from sacred and prophane History. For unjust Violence is by no means the Ordinance of God; neither are we any otherwise bound to him, than upon performance of the Conditions, upon which he was made Emperour.

The City of Magdeburg likewise in their Writing, 24 March, and the Mi­nisters in April, to the same purpose, Sleid. Com. L. 22. Primo docent, neque divino neque humano jure se posse convinci Rebellionis. Postea demonstrant eos, qui contra se sumunt Arma, bellum ipsi Christo facere, &c. deinde facilè quivi [...] intelligit, quàm non liceat vim nobis inferre. They first shew, that they could not be proved guilty of Rebellion either by the Law of God, or the Law of Man. Then they demonstrate, that those who took up Arms against them, made War upon Christ himself, &c. And afterwards they say, Every body easily understands, how utterly unlawful it is to offer any Violence to us.

[Page 4]So much for Luther himself and the League or Association, which compre­hended most, if not all the Churches of that Denomination. And Melan­cthon often inculcates all over his Writings the same Maxime of Luther, which indeed was St. Chrysostom's before them both: That the Gospel doth not Bar the Laws of the State; That it does not erect a new Government, but leaves the Government as it found it. And therefore where the Laws and Constitution of a Government allow of a Defence, the Gospel does so too. And in his Commentary on the Proverbs, upon those words of Solomon, Prov, 24. 2 [...], 22. My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change, (that is, joyn not with them who would change our Religion or Government) For their Calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruine of them both? He writes thus: Concedit autem Evangeli­um uti Legibus Politicis cum ratione congruentibus. Im [...] si talis Defensio non esset concessa, transformaretur Evangelium in doctrinam Politicam, & stabiliret Infinitam Tyrannidem. The Gospel allows us to make use of Politick Laws which are reasonable. Nay, if a lawful Defence were not allowed by the Gospel, the Gospel it self would be transformed into a State-Doctrine, and would establish infinite Tyranny. Or, as he says in another place, it would command infinite Slavery, which it does not. Non constituit Evangelium no­vas politias, quare nec infinitam Servitutem praecipit. 2 Artic. Symbol. Nicen. Sub Quaest. Hic autem quaeritur, utrùm Armis reprimendi sunt Tyranni, praeci­pientes ut faciamus contra mandata Dei? In his common places under the Title Vindicta, upon those words of our Saviour, He that takes the Sword, shall perish by the Sword. He says thus: Accipere Gladium, est non datum à Legibus stringere. Ergo qui vim injustam infert Accipit Gladium, è contra verò qui justâ Defensione utitur, non Accipit Gladium, sed stringit datum à Le­gibus. For a man to take the Sword, is to draw it when it is not put into his hands by the Laws. Therefore he who offers unjust Violence, Takes the Sword; but on the other hand, he who uses a just Defence, does not Take the Sword, but he draws a Sword which the Laws put into his hands. And to name no more places, in his Commentary on the 13 Rom. upon those words, Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for Con­science sake. Neque vero haec tantum pertinent ad Subditos, sed etiam ad Magi­stratum, qui cum [...]iunt Tyranni, non minùs dissipant Ordinationem Dei quàm Seditiosi. Ideo & ipsorum Conscientia sit rea, quia non obediunt Ordinationi Dei, id est, Legibus, quibus parere debent. Ideo Comminationes hic positae e­tiam ad ipsos pertinent. Itaque hujus mandati severitas moveat omnes, ne Vio­lationem Politici status putent esse leve peccatum. Neither do these words only concern the Subject, but also the Magistra [...]es themselves, who when they turn Tyrants, do overthrow the Ordinance of God no less than the Seditious. And therefore their Consciences are guilty too, because they obey not the Ordinance of God, that is, the Laws, which they ought to obey. There­fore the Threa [...]ings which are here set down, do pertain likewise to them. Let all persons therefore be moved, by the Severity of this Command, not to think the Violation of the Constitution, to be a light Sin.

[Page 5]And when I have quoted Zuinglius too, I have quoted the three first Re­formers. He therefore in his pious and friendly Admonition to the Repub­lick of the Switzers, discourses much of his Country's throwing off the Yoke of Oppression, and reckons that St. Paul was of the same mind, when he says, But if thou mayest be made Free, use it rather; which Eternal Counsel of God, our Valiant Ancestors following, with undaunted Courage, were blessed with wonderful Successes, &c. Pia. & amica Parensis ad Suitensium Remp. p. 156. Quo animo ipsum quoque Paulum dicere existimo, Si potes liber [...]ieri, [...] ­tere potius, 1 Cor. 7. Quod aeternum Dei Consilium Patres nostri fortissimi vi­ri infracto animo secuti, miris Victoriarum Successibus, ut Sempachii Nevellis, &c. Et paulo supra, Ipse Dominus Libertatis Author existit, & honestam Li­bertatem quaerentibus praesto est. But in his Opus Articulorum, Art. 40, 41, 42. he is the coldest Comforter, if not the most merciless Insulter, in the World, over a People that lies under Oppression: for he will not suffer them to Complain. He says, they Deserve what they Suffer, and a great deal more; they have no Wrong done them; and he bids them Perish with their Oppres­sor. They that list may see the place; where, amongst other things, they will find he says, That the dreadful Plagues that followed the Iews, Ier. 15. 3, 4. upon account of the Wickedness of Manasseth, and the bloud which he shed in Ierusalem, were most just Punishments, and deservedly inflicted upon that People, because they suffered him to do it, &c.

It was the misery of most of the Protestants in other Countries, as well as those in Germany, in the beginning of their Reformation, to fall under Oppression; particularly the French, Scotch, and Dutch Protestants: and it is well known they all Defended themselves, and used Resistance; which in Scotland ended in an Established Reformation; in Holland, ended in an absolute Freedom both from the Popish and Spanish Yoke; and in France, ended in a free Exercise of their Religion, but was soon interrupted by the true Popish Faith, and Friendship of a Massacre, so that they were forced to Fight all over again. I desire that it may be observed, That neither these Germans, Scotch, Dutch, nor French, in their first War, ever pretended that their Religion was Established by LAW, and thereby made a part of the Government of their Country, Which men by their Allegeance are bound to De­fend; but they used Resistance to repel the Violence which was done only to their Civil Rights, and to the Native Liberty of their Consciences. It were foolish Impertinence to cite the Authorities of those that were engaged in this Resistance; and it were endless to cite all the forreign Divines who lookt on, and applauded it, and called it The LORD's Battles: I suppose it will be more for every bodies satisfaction, to see what our own Bishops say to it, and whether they will own those men for Protestants, who were engaged in such Proceedings: For which purpose I shall set down the words of three of them, Bishop Iewell, Bishop Bilson, and Robert Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, men famous in this Church.

Bishop Iewel, in the Defence of his Apology, p. 16. hath these words: Nei­ther doth any of all these (Luther, Melancthon, &c.) te [...] the People to Rebal a­gainst [Page 6] their Printe, but only to Defend themselves by all lawful means against Oppression, as did David against King Saul: so do the Nobles in France at this day: They seek not to Kill, but to save their own Lives, as they have Protested by publick Writing to the World. As for us, we are Strangers unto their Case; they themselves are best acquainted with the Laws and Constitutions of their Coun­try; and therefore are best able to yield account of the Grounds and Reasons of their Doings.

Bishop Bilson, in his Book of the True Difference betwixt Christian Sub­jection, and Unchristian Rebellion, Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, being a Dialogue between Theophilus a Christian, and Philander a Jesuit, (so that Je­suits did not go for Christians in those days) does Justifie that Defence which both the French and Dutch made, upon Supposition that it was according to the Laws and Constitution of their Country, and permitted by them. Says the Jesuit, What their Laws permit, I know not; I am sure in the mean time they Resist. Theoph. And we, because we do not exactly know what their Laws permit, see no reason to condemn their Doings, without hearing their Answer. Phil. Think you their Laws permit them to Rebel? Theoph. I busie not myself in other mens Commonwealths, as you do; neither will I rashly pronounce all that Resist to be Rebels: Cases may fall out, even in Christian Kingdoms, where the People may plead their Right against the Prince, and not be charged with Re­bellion. Phil. As when, for Example? Theoph. If a Prince should go about to Subject his Kingdom to a forreign Realm, or change the Form of the Common­wealth from Imperie to Tyranny, or neglect the Laws established by common Con­sent of Prince and People, to execute his own Pleasure: In these, and other Cases which might be named, if the Nobles and Commons joyn together, to Defend their Ancient and Accustomed Liberties, Regiment, and Laws, they may not well be counted Rebels. Phil. You denied that, even now, when I did urge it. Theoph. I denied that Bishops had Authority to prescribe Conditions to Kings, when they Crowned them: but I never denied that the People might preserve the Foundati­on, Freedom, and Form of their Commonwealth, which they Foreprised when they first consented to have a King.

Bishop Abbot, in his Demonstratio Antichristi, Dedicated to King Iames, be­ing an Answer to Bellarmine, has a large Discourse about this matter. The occasion of it is this, Persecution of the Godly being one Mark of Antichrist; Bellarmine endeavours to shew, that this Mark did not belong to the Pope, nor Church of Rome, because they were not guilty of Persecuting, tho' there were then fresh instances of their Persecuting in Holland, in the Paris Mas­sacre, and other Slaughters of the Protestants. But says Bishop Abbot to Bel­larmine, Cap. 7. Sect. 5. You think you have wiped away all that Bloud with one word speaking, and by only saying, That the Protestants did not fall by a Persecution, but by a Civil War; and that many more of the Papists were Slain [...] than the Inquisitors had Burned, perhaps in an hundred Years. Nevertheless the Bishop still charges this Bloud upon the Papists, because the Protestants entred into this War meerly for their own Defence: In which, says he, if some of the Papists perished, how can they be accounted any other [Page 7] than the Authors both of their own Death, and of the Death of their Country-men too, being they took up Arms, either by the unjust Vsurpation of their Princes, or by the Lust of some Factious Men, against the Publick Faith, against Edicts and Covenants, against the Rights of their own Country, against the Prerogatives of the Nobles, against the Franchises and Priviledges of Towns and Cities?

Sect. 6. Hic vero Politica res agitur, quid Principi juris per Leges, cujus­que Republicae Fundatrices promissum sit; utrum Potestatem habeat infinita [...] & nullo limite conclusam; an vero moderatam & sive Optimatum sive Popu­li arbitrio magis minusve temperatam. Romanus Imperator mero & absolu­to imperio Gentibus praesidebat, Arbitrio suo jubebat omnia, leges scripsit & re­scripsit, summam vitae necisque Potestatem habuit. Quare nullo praetextu Chri­stiani poterant vim illorum temporum arcere, vel injurias prohibere quibus vex­ati sunt. Illarum vero Nationum Principes quas commemoras, certos sibi fines constitutos habent; quibus ubi excedunt, licere sibi sentiunt Optimates vim in­justam depellere, & Iugum excutere, quo per nefas & contra Leges Oppressi sunt. Cujus rei Controvers [...]a non a Religione tantummodo, sed ab aliis Politicis negotiis exorta est. Itaque Rex Hispanus, qui non nisi Conventione & Pacto principatum habuit Provinciarum Belgicarum, ubi pacto stare desisteret, & contra datam fi­dem superbe ageret, ipse se exuisse principatu illo putabatur, ut nihil causae esset Provinci [...]s illis, quo minus se tu [...]ri Armis, & ambitiosam Tyrannidem avertere li­ceret. Galliarum Rex Majestatem habet Regni multo majorem, cui tamen pro Lege est, Bodin. Meth. Hist. Cap. 6. Principem contra Leges nihil posse, & rescriptis [...] ejus rationem nullam haberi debere, nisi aequitati perinde ac verita­ti Consentanea sint. Porro est etiam proceribus reliquisque Ordinibus suus Ho­nor & Dignitas, quam Regi violare nefas est. Quam quùm non ita pridem sen­serunt Heroes Regni illius novorum quorundam hominum factione gravissimè lae­sam qui sub obtentu Religionis ambitioni suae servientes, insano furore coelum ter­rae miscerent, & lamentabilem totius Regni calamitatem minitari viderentur (quippe omnia pro arbitrio suo facta infecta, rata irrita esse jubentes, & Edicta publico jure pro conservanda pace promu [...]gata, libitu suo frustrari non dubitantes) ceperunt illi quidem arma pro Regis & Regni suâque omnium libertate vindican­dâ, nec ferendum sibi putarunt, ut armata contra Leges paucorum hominum inso­lentia, Leges Divinas simul & Humanas intollerabili audacia proculearet. Pug­narunt ergo pro jure suo, non aliquo Ecclesiae privilegio, quo illa sibi integrum pu­tet armis se defendere, sed politicâ libertate, qua citra injuriam Principis, erdi­nem suum legibus constitutum adversus hostes conjuratos, non inferendo bellum sed populsando tueri licebar. Atque in hoc Causa eorum a Veteris Ecclesiae ratione distinguenda est, quae absque ullo juris sui titulo, mero imperii placito subjacebat. Quamdiu vero ita se res habuit, caedebantur, ut tu dicis, Christiani, non caede­bant; qui tamen sub Constantino Principe, jure publico armati, non tam caedeban­tur quam caedebant, & profligatis Tyrannis & Licinio, Iugum persecutionis a cer­vicibus Ecclesiae depulerunt. Pari ratione Ecclesia nostra, cum longo tempore sub Antichristo, nullis Secularibus praesidiis adjuta, duram servitutem serviisset, post­quam ex illis fluctibus, miserante Deo, eluctari jam & emergere caepisset, & legum aliquod praesidium stantibus ab illa principibus & optimatibus obtimusse [...], caepit ca­tenùs [Page 8] uti viribus suis & armata manu munitam edictis & legibus & privilegi­is ab importuna Tyrannorum oppressione vindicare. Quare Principes Galliae quorum interfuit providere ne publica libertas per injuriam opprimeretur, neve quae lege sancta esse debebant, surreptitiorum quorundam libidine pro irritis & nullis haberentur (qui usque adeo hostes republicae comperti sunt, ut signiferum illius seditionis Ducem Guisium Rex ipse Henricus, & si Religione cum eo consen­tiens, quia judicio agere non posset, repentino impetu confodiendum curaret) bel­lo injustam illam violentiam repellendam, & Ecclesiam non nisi juste armatam, pro ea quam lege habebat libertate conservanda, in aciem educendam censuerunt: ubi qui de tuis partibus, Bellarmine, ceciderunt, non injuria Persecutionis, sed justissimae Defensionis impetu perierunt.

But here we are fallen into a Political Question, How much Authority o­ver the Subjects was promised to the Prince by the Fundamental Laws of e­very State; whether he have a boundless and unlimited Power, or whether it be measured and adjusted, and more or less mixed with the Power and Authority of the Peers or People? The Government of the Roman Empe­rours heretosore was Absolute and Unmixed, they governed all at Pleasure, they made Laws, and they unmade them again, and had the Soveraign Pow­er of Life and Death: For which reason the Christians could with no pre­tence Resist the Violence of those Times, or Defend themselves against the Wrongs which were done to them. But the Princes of those Countries which you speak of, have certain Bounds set them, which when they pass, the Nobles think it lawful for them to Repel their unjust Violence, and to shake off the Yoke wherewith they are wickedly and illegally Oppressed. And thus the King of Spain, who had the Government of the Netherlands, only upon Com­position and Compact, when he did no longer stand to his Compact, and acted Insolently, contrary to the Faith which he had given, was thought to have devested himself of that Government; so that there was no reason, why those Provinces might not lawfully Defend themselves with Arms, and get rid of an Ambitious Tyranny. The King of France is much more Absolute, nevertheless this serves for a Law to him, That the Prince can do nothing con­trary to Law, and that his Edicts ought not to be regarded, unless they be agree­able to Equity as well as Truth. Besides, the Peers and the rest of the Estates have an Honour and Dignity belonging to them, which the King himself can­not Violate: Which, when the Nobles of that Kingdom were sensible was deep­ly wounded, by a Faction of some upstart Men, who served their own Ambi­tion, under a Cloak of Religion, turned all things upside down, and seemed to threaten miserable Calamity to the whole Kingdom, truly they took up Arms to Vindicate the King's and Kingdom's, and all their own Liberties, and thought it not fit to be endured, that the Insolence of a few Men, which was armed against the Laws, should trample upon all Laws, both Divine and Humane, with unsufferable Boldness. They fought therefore for their own Right, not by any Priviledge which the Church has to Defend itself with Arms, but by their Civil Liberty, whereby, without any wrong to the Prince, it was Lawful for them in a way of Defence, to maintain their Le­gal [Page 9] Establishment against their sworn Enemies. And herein their Case differed from that of the Primitive Church, which was Sub­ject to Absolute Imperial Will and Pleasure, without any Title to Rights of its own. Now, while their condition continu'd thus, The Christians, as you say, were killed, but did not kill; Notwithstanding, when under Constantine the Emperour, they were armed with a Pub­lick Right, They were rather for killing than being killed; and having Vanquished several Usurpers, and Licinius the Emperour, they threw off the Yoke of Persecution from the Neck of the Church.

In like manner our Church, when she had for a long time under­gone an hard Bondage under Antichrist, having had no Secular Pro­tection at all; after she had begun, by the Mercy of God, to get above Water, and to rise from under those Waves of Oppressi­on, and having by the Princes and Nobles standing by her, gained some Protection of the Laws, she began to use her own Power, as far as she had it, and when she was now fortified with Edicts, and Laws, and Priviledges, to Vindicate herself with Arms from the vexatious Oppression of Tyrants.

Wherefore the Nobles of France, who were concerned to provide that the Publick Liberty should not be oppressed by Wrong, nor those things which ought to have been Established by the Law, should be made Null and Void at the Pleasure of some few Forreigners crept in amongst them, thought fit to have that unjust Violence repel­led by a War, and thought fit likewise that the Church, which was no otherwise than justly Armed, for the Preserving that Liberty which she had by Law, should be drawn out into the Field: Where, those that fell on your side, Friend Bellarmine, did not perish by the Injury of a Persecution, but by the Stroke of a most just Defence.

But because it may be said, that these are private Men, which I grant to be true, though their Arguments seem to be of another nature, and look like the publick and common Reason of Mankind, therefore, to finish and perfect this business of Authorities, (with which, as some men are wholly led, so, I hope, others may be so far excused, as not to be haunted and tormented at a dying Hour, and tempted either to Despair, or die with a Lye in their Mouths.)

In the last place I shall shew, that the whole Church of England, in several Convocations, have Justified the Protestants in those De­fences, and not only maintained in Words, the Justice of their Re­sistance, but, which is more, they laid down their Purses to help them; and charged themselves deeply with Taxes, in consideration of Queen Elizabeth's great Charges and Expences in Assisting them: as you may see in the Preambles of the Clergy's Subsidy Acts in that Reign.

Quinto Elizabethae, Cap. 24. Among other Considerations, for which [Page 10] the Clergy give their Subsidy of Six Shillings in the Pound, they have these words: ‘And, finally, pondering the inestimable Charges sustained by Your Highness, as well of late days in reducing the Realm of Scotland to Unity and Concord, as also in procuring, as much as in Your Highness lieth, by all kind of Godly and Pru­dent Means, the abating of all Hostility and Persecution within the Realm of France, practised and used against the professors of God's Holy Gospel, and True Religion.’ The first thing in this Passage is the Queen's Assistance of the Scotish Nobility in their Reformati­on, wherein they were opposed by the Queen of Scots, who brought French Forces into Scotland, which is set down at large in our Chro­nicles, Stow, p. 640. The Temporalty, in their Subsidy Act, at the same time, Cap. 27. call this Assistance, ‘The Princely and Upright Preservation of the Liberty of the next Realm and Nation of Scot­land from imminent Captivity and Desolation.’ The other thing is the Godly and Prudent Means for abating Hostility and Persecution within the Realm of France. Now History will inform us, Stow, p. 650. That those Means were the Forces sent under Dudley Earl of Warwick, to Newhaven, to Assist the French Protestants who were then in Arms. We have some Men who would find another Name for it, and would call this the Abetting of a Rebellion; but the whole Bishops and Clergy, in Convocation, call it, The use of Godly and Prudent Means to abate Hostility and Persecution, practised and used against the Professors of GOD's Holy Gospel, and True Religion: For so likewise they call a parcel of Men, who neither Professed nor Pra­ctised the Modern Religion of Non-resistance.

Again, the Clergy grant another Subsidy, 35 Eliz. cap. 12. in consideration of her Majesties Charges, ‘In the provident and needful Prevention of such intended Attempts, as tended to the Extirpation of the sincere Profession of the Gospel, both here and elsewhere.’ The Temporalties Subsidy-Act at the same time will explain this to us, in these Reasons for their Tax, Cap. 13. ‘Besides the great and perpetual Honour which it hath pleased God to give your Majesty abroad, in making you the principal Support of all Just and Religious Causes against Usurpers, — Besides the great Succours in France and Flanders, which we do conceive to be most Honourable, in regard of the Ancient Leagues, the Justice and Equity of their Causes.’ And to the same purpose again the Temporalty, 39 Eliz. Cap. 27. ‘This Land is become since your Majesties Happy days, both a Port, and Haven of Re­fuge, for distressed States and Kingdoms, and a Rock and Bulwark of Opposition against the Tyrannies and ambitious Attempts of Mighty and Usurping Potentates.’

Neither are the Clergy in their Subsidy-Act, 43 Eliz. Cap. 17. at [Page 11] all behind them, either with their Money or Acknowledgements. ‘For who hath or should have a livelier Sence, or better Remem­brance of your Majesties Princely Courage and Constancy in Ad­vancing and Protecting the free Profession of the Gospel, within and without your Majesties Dominions, than your Clergy?’

So that if the French and Dutch Protestants were Rebels in their Resistance, then the Church of England quite through Queen Eliza­beth's Reign, by their Assisting of them, involved themselves in the same guilt. For it had been utterly Unlawful, and a horrid Sin to assist Subjects in the Violation of their Duty and Allegiance, and to aid them in Resisting the Ordinance of God. But this being too absurd to be believed of Confessors, and men who had hazarded their Lives for the Protestant Religion, it is plain that they held Resistance to be lawful in these Cases. And they have declared their Opinion in this matter, where it was fit to be declared, in Acts of Parliament, though it be not to be found in their Catechism. So that if they who hold the same Opinion be in an Error, they have erred with their Fa­thers, they have erred with the Church of England, and they have erred in good Company.



LONDON: Printed for I. Watts, at the Angel in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1689.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.