Report and Answer

...proclaim him a vassal, which time will tell. Concerning the Duke of Bouillon Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, a prominent French Protestant and ally of the Palatinate, the Compiler The anonymous author of the pro-Imperial attack gets stuck on specific details original: in specialibus, just as he previously accused the United The Protestant Union, a coalition of German Protestant states on page 21. He will never, in all eternity, prove that anything was negotiated by the Palatinate with the aforementioned Duke to the detriment of the Imperial Majesty or the Holy Roman Empire.

He also mixes in the Crown of England King James I here and casts suspicion upon it, as if something had been handled with them against the Imperial Majesty, which the reader should well note. For further down in various places in the Chancery The Anhaltine Chancery, the pro-Imperial document this text is refuting (such as pages 305, 306, 307, and also page 334, in the section "Under this" etc.), he will find that the King of England is praised and commended because he did not wish to approve the counsels original: consilia of the United and the Elector Palatine, especially in the Bohemian affairs. From this, the reader will easily conclude: That no faith should be placed in one who alleges contradictions. original: Quòd contraria alleganti fides non ſit habenda

On the aforementioned page 36, at the section "Upon the current" etc., the Compiler begins to deduce what was practiced against the current Imperial Majesty Ferdinand II, and makes his entrance regarding what supposedly happened during the Election Day The Imperial Election of 1619 in Frankfurt to prevent the election. Here it must be considered that even if the Author had specifically proven something proper in this case (though he remains only in generalities original: in generalibus), such things still cannot be cited as plots original: Practiken against a Roman Emperor, because at that time His Imperial Majesty had not yet attained the Imperial Crown, nor was he the head of the Empire.

The nonsense original: nuzæ, likely from the Latin nugae regarding the commemorative medal original: Schawpfennig, a show-coin or medal often used for propaganda minted at Nuremberg, mentioned on page 37, has been sufficiently refuted in the Mystery of Iniquity original: Myſterio iniquitatis, a reference to a polemical work defending the Protestant cause, Consideration 26, to which the reader is referred. What he mentions on the same page regarding the recruitment by the well-known Potentate’s Likely referring again to King James I of England ambassador is for the said Potentate to answer for, and not the United or the Electorate of the Palatinate.

And yet, one can see from what the Compiler himself alleges on page 37, section "Item at the fourth" etc. and the following page, that on the side of the Palatinate and the well-known Potentate, they did not resort to such desperate counsels and extremes original: deſperata conſilia vnd extrema † that they would have considered it impossible or unfeasible to reach a peace and settlement, which serves not a little to their reputation. And what sort of excess or crime would it have been if the well-known Potentate, as a mediator and negotiator alongside others, had been nominated and brought into the pacification? But how is one to please the Compiler and his party? On the one hand, he taxes the United, and especially the Palatinate and its counselors, as if they had no desire for peace. On the other side—