to the minde of God in his word or indeed to reason and common sence But hold a little why must those that are not be obey'd and those that are disobey'd Why because William the Conquerour had a lawfull calling from the people but the Commons in Parliament have none And yet the truth is it may with no lesse evidence then truth and as much as both of is possible be asserted that there is not that supream power this day under the Sun which hath so expresse and full a calling from the people the people in so full a latitude as the Commons of England in Parliament unlesse it be among the Macariens not long since brought to light by the discoveries of Raphael Hâ—â—â—deaeus But to return thither whence we digrest t is evident by every stroke and lineament of the powers which the Apostledescribes and limnes out to be obey'd that he meanes powers actually impowred and not a power actually dis-empowred and in that respect a meere Ens rationis And therefore if honour which compar'd with the fifth Commandment takes in the full latitude of obedience must in duty be given to those to whom the Apostle saies it is due and it be due by the Apostles Doctrine to the powers that ARE and ACT it followes t is impossible to cease from an Act that is from obedience to the present Covernment because Id tantum possumus quod jure possumus whatsoever is unlawfull is also in that respect impossible and therefore we may not disobey the present Government because the word commands to obey them neither can any Oath disoblige from this duty of obedience or oblige to the sin of disobedience for Rei illicitae nuâ—â—a obligatio To a sinfull thing as our Exercitator speakes there can be no Obligation So it remaines that our Authors argument was full and the Exercitators exception is nothing to the purpose There is yet one Objection behinde which clear'd cleares up this part of the controversie For t is urg'd that To obey Powers possest by wrong is to justifie the Possessâ—urs wrong and wrong the right of the dispossest and therefore such obedience can be no duty but a sin The answer is cleare Obedience doth indeed justifie that to which it is properly and formally given But the Obedience asserted is not so to be given either to the Act of Usurpation in entring or the person of the Usurper as entring by such an Act into the supreame Power But the truth is the obedience maintained is properly and formally to be given First to the Ordinance of God in the hand of the person actually entred Neither can it without manifest contradiction to the word of truth be deny'd that the Sword or supreame power which is actually a terrour to evill doers and a praise to them that doe well and therefore is not borne in vaine is truly the Ordinance of God And secondly obedience as t is asserted is properly and formally to be given to the person actually entred not as entring by Usurpation but as that person to whom the most High thinkes meete to give the Kingdome of men who by that soveraigne absolute and universall right which he claimes as sole Lord and maker of All givesit both from and to whomsoever he thinkes meete and who many times for causes best knowne to himselfe thinks meet both to give it from those who among men have an acknowledg'd right and to those who have no other right among men but what himselfe as the most High that rules in the Kingdome of men by vertue of his owne supreame and absolute right is pleased from his owne actuall gist and donation to confer upon them And this also is a truth so manifest from the word of truth in that 27. Chapter of Jeremy as nothing can be spoken with a more transcendent majesty both of evidence and authority For we all know concerning the Kingdome of Judabh that the unquestionable right as to man was solely in the house of David neither can we be ignorant that therefore as to man Nebuehadnezzar could have no right in the least to that Kingdome Yet the most High God having first premised verse 5. his absolute soverainty and soverain right by vertue of his bringing forth all things into their respective beings by the exerted arme of his Almighty power to the dispensation of all things according to his pleasure acquaints us with the pleasure of his dispensation concerning the Kingdome of Judah and with it all other Lands that sunke under the weight and force of the victorious Sword of the Babylonian King in these words vers 6. And now have I GIVEN all these Lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon my servant c. And in the processe a universall obedience is peremtorily commanded and disobedience threatned with severest chastisements From all which it is evident that God himselfe expresly both ownes the giving of power to those who have no Title in point of Right and both commands obedience and for bids disobedience to those who though God hath alwaies a designe above them possesse themselves of power by force and Usurpation And to the truth of this particular and the deduction of this truth from the grounds before us we have the testimony of Mr. Calvin with that fulnesse as more cannot be said Speaking of Nebuchadnezzar hesaies Now What manner of King Nebuchadnezzer was he that seekt Jerusalem Jam qualis ren faerit Nebu chadnezar is qui Jerusalem expugnavit satis scitur nempe strenuns aliorum invasor ac populator Cal. Inst lib. 4. Cap. 20. § 26. Videmus quantâ obedientia Dominus tetrum illum ferocemque tyrannum coli woluit non alia ratione nisi quia regnum obtainebat Ibid. § 27 Erustra objiciar quis mandatum illud fuisse Israelitis peeuliare Observandum enim est quâ ratione ipsum Dominus stabiliat Deiuli inquit Nebuchadnezari regnum quare servite ills vivite Cuicuno erge delatum fuisse regnum constalit ei serviendum esse ne dubitemas Atque semnlac in regium fastigium quempiam evehit Dominus testatam nobis facis suam voluntatem quod regnare illum velit is sufficiently known to wit a mighty Usurper and oen that made speile of others And after wards speaking to Jerem. 27. We see saies he with what great obedience the Lord would have that cruell and fierce Tyrant to be honoured for no other reason but because he was in possession of the Kingdome But that which follows exceeds what hath been said and is indeed as much as in the present case can be said In voine may any one Object that commandment of obedience was peculiar to the Israelites For the reason must be consider'd upon which the Lord grounds it I have given saies he the Kingdome to Nebuchadnezzer Wherefore serve ye him and live To whomsoever therefore the supreame Power shall appeare to be given let us never doubt but we must obey
page 1. with Hos 8.4 Wherefore if here we finde his foundation Sandy his whole edifice will sufficiently appeare to be ruinous To proceed then from the comparison of those two Scriptures he concludes page 66. That the former speakes of a legall the latter of an illegal Magistracie else they would be contradictory Wherein I am sure he is contradictory to his owne Doctrine as his owne Doctrine is contradictory to the truth and consequently needs no other Judge but his owne mouth to condeme it For first he is apparently contradictory to himselfs in that at the beginning he would have Usurpers to be but private persons Page 9. and Rom. 13. must be understood how universally soever spoken of a lagal Magistracy onely yet in conclusion he findes a distinction betweene a legall and illegall Magistracy But why you will say there may be a faire answer to all this the contradiction is onely in termes not in things in appeareance not truth by illegall Magistracy hee meanes no other then Usurpers Do's he meane Usurpers then clearely hee confutes as well as contradicts his owne Doctrine For if he doe as indeed he does here intend Ieroboam and his Successors whom as here so before in the entrance of his discourse he strongly proves to be Usurpers both by this very Scripture and the judgement of divers learned Divines upon the place then certainly the confused pile of the whole discourse like Babilon is fallen and we need no other prospect to behold its ruine then the light and advantage which the present Scripture will afford us For first whereas hee would make Usurpers no more but private persons who sees not that as himselfe here termes them Magistrates though as to their Title and entrance into the Magistracy they were illegall and Usurpers So this very Scripture which he brings to prove them Usurpers and their History in Scripture records them by the Name Title State and Dignity of the Kings and Princes of Israel And secondly whereas he would prove that obedience is not due to Usurpers because as our Exercitator would pretend they are no Magistrates who knowes not that those Usurping Princes were the Magistrates of Israel and Obadiah Eliah and divers other Prophets and Servanas of God gave obedience to them according yes to their Magistrates Lastly what doth he but Nodum in scirpo quaerere in setting the Scriptures mentioned at such a distance Seeing Hos 8.4 speakes expresly of Powers in fieri in their entrance concerning their making or setting up But Rom. 13 speakes of Powers in facto esse in possession and acting as Ministers for the good of mankinde from verse 1. to verse 7. And so we may helpe his memory for by his frequent contradictions he seemes to need it to untye this knot from his owne words Page 2. Where he tells us concerning Jeroboam and his Successors That the Event and effect that is or I know not what it is their actuall possession of Power and acting in a way of Government for the good of the soules subject was from God as how certainly the other negative part of the contra-distinction considered if he speake sence he must meane by ordination not permission onely but he saies the sinfull meanes by which it that is their actuall possession of Power was accomplished was not from God as how Surely if he speake reason reason will say not by ordination but permission onely As Jacobs actual obtaining of the blessing was that which God had ordained but his obtaining it by deceit was onely by divine permission And that the Reader may see that when we affirme that the person of Jeroboam as a Magistrate though not his practise as an Usurper was from a divine ordination and the power in his hand though an Usurper the Ordinance of God we speake not that which none else ever spake before if the judgement of Paraeus may be of any moment in the point no man can speake more expresly for speaking of Gods rending the Kingdome from Rebohoam and setting up the Kingdome of Israel in Jerohoam hus he delivers himselfe grounding his judgement upon * Nec fortuit ò aut hominnm ta tum concilio pe-fidia nec deo inscio aut invito sed ita volente ordinance illam 〈◊〉 Regni conâ—ituâ—i onem â—actam fuisse Historia saâ—â—a â—estaâ—uâ— 1 Reg. 11.31.35,37 1 Reg. 12.15.24 Parae in Rom. 13. Dub. 3. Ad. 1 the Scripture the sacred History doth testifie 1 Kin. 11.31 35 37. 1 Kin. 12 15 14. The constituton of a new Kingdome came not to passe either by accident or by the councell and treachery of men onely neither was it without the knowledge or against the will of God but because hee ordain'd and would have it so Can any thing be spoken more plaine from the expresse Text of Scripture which was also urg'd before in the preceding Chapter to prove that Government though in the hand of an Usurper is the Ordinance of God and therefore the person of the Usurper though not his sinfull entrance by Usurpation is by a divine ordination and so a Minister of God for our good which the Exercitator would denye T is cleare then and undenyable that the Exercitator hath laid in a â—â—lâ—e principle as the Corner-stone of his whole structure which being once shaken and remov'd the whole with its whole burthen like a ruinous building comes tumbling to the ground For if as hath already beene proved an Usurper in possession be a Magistrate though in respect of entrance illegall and if Government in his hand be as it hath beene prov'd to be the Ordinance of God then it followes beyond contradiction that the Apostle Rom 13. speakes of such inclusively and therefore such in duty must be obey'd and cannot without sin be resisted which confutes the Exercitators Doctrine and confirmes the assertion of our Author What hath our Antagonist to say to the Contrary he would prove that Usurpers may be resisted and instances most absurdly in Chedorlaomer and his participants who never were possest of the Government of Sodom onely made an invasive War and tooks some Prisoners and who ever denyed that an invader or intruder in that action may be lawfully resisted or that to joyn with him in it were to be equally guilty but our assertion is not against residing au Usurper in the Act of intrusion but against resisting Government in the hand of an intruder when he is actually possest of it and so is the onely person left us by the providence of God to be his Minister to us for good in the dispensation of that Ordinance to whom wee may be the cleare and generall Dialect of the Scriptures conclude that the most High who gives the Kingdome of men to whom be thinkes meet hath now to the uttermost that were can judge thought meet to give it His other instances are as absur'd as the former for they speake onely of a resistance or rather indeed a defensive War manag'd
illi te permittas oportet pareas ex animo expressing himself in these termes When a question is made whom we should obey it must not be lookt at what he is that exercises the power or by what right or wrong he hath invaded the power or in what manner he doth dispense it but onely if be have a power For if any man doth excell in power it is now out of doubt that he received that power of God Wherefore without all exception thou must yeeld thy self up to him and heartily obey him T is therefore plain that the reason why the Exercitator makes such a sory shift to rid his hands of those approv'd Divines was not because they speak too little but rather too much to the purpose for being resolv'd right or wrong to maintain his own conceit he knew not how to decline the Authority of opposites so learned and judicious and which no judicious man but himself would have slighted save by thus turning them out at the back door But again though this Exercitator had wanted Books for he saies he had not the Authours by him he should not have wanted reason for overthrowing the Reasons that were alleadged to maintaine the Position of Obedience which himself did oppose The Reasons of the Casuists and particularly that of Salon were at large expressed so that he needed not to be at charge for Bookes to finde them being there found to his hands But indeed if many Exercitators were in this one they cannot stand under the weight of those Reasons and therefore he did wisely not to take these Gates of Azzah on his shoulders being no Sampson least he should sinke under the weight of them But in the meane time till they be soundly answered the Position of obedience stands strong and unshaken and his Discourse doth fall with Dagon before it And yet our Exercitator superciliously saies and he thinks it enough though never so apparently untrue to say it reaches not the Case at all But to returne to our Exercitation We are told in the Title Page that the Discourse is modestly and inoffensively manag'd mens consciences tell them what they should do and their works tell us what they have done by one studious of truth and peace If he be so good a student 't is strange he should be so bad a proficient For if we may make a better judgement of him by his works then his words we doubt not but the Reader will finde him a very truant in the study of truth at least in the present controversie when it shall be brought to the Touch-stone And for the peaceable and inoffensive modesty whereof he would bespeak himself an opinion let but the heart and designe of the Exercitation be compar'd with the Quotations out of Fenner and Grotius confronting his so candid profession and they will speak him far from the pretended temper of peace and an inoffensive modesty The Exercitation endeavours though in truth by arguments no lesse false then frivolous and as injurious as either to fix Vsurpation upon the Parliament and thereupon decries all obedience to them and cries up disobedience as meritorious in the hearts and affections of the people the Quotations to adde more light and heat to the businesse must insinuate That any private person may lawfully kill an usurper Though in truth he puts a dangerous wrong upon the Reader and indeed upon the Authours quoted whilst he racks their Tenet to so evil an end and brings forth their words upon the stage by halves without those Cautions and Qualifications usually annext and requisite to so tender a point whereof we have here given a taste One well skill'd in Cases of Conscience saies Id curare debet occisor ita cautè consultò facere ut non pejores exitus scandula ex tali occisione sperentur Sayr Cas Cons lib. 7. cap. 10. n. 4. He that shall kill a Tyrant must have a care that he do it with such caution and wisdom as the killing it self give not cause to seare that worse consequences and scandals may follow thereupon And another of no mean esteem for learning Tyrannus Titulo ut appellatur ad tempus est tolerandus omnibus autem mediis remediis frustra tentaris est tollendus sed non nisi ab ordinibus five Optimatibus Alst Reg. Theol. cap. 23. Artic. 8. and cited by the Exercitator himself saies That a Tyrant in Title as we call it is to be tolerated for a time but after all means and remedies tried in vain is to be taken away yet by no others then the States or chief Rulers And to see the fidelity of this Exercitator even to that very sentence which himself out of the same Author hath cited page 74. De hoc c. liceat illunn è medio tollere st quidem hoc faciat Autoritate publica Idem Syst Pol. sec cap. 12. Reg. 4. De hoc c. there is annext this qualification by him most in juriously omitted That a private person in taking away a Tyrant may not act but with publique Authority Neither hath he dealt altogether faithfully with Fenner Dudl Fenner Sacr. Theol c. 13 De polit Civit. p. 80. as he that peruses him will finde in the place cited whither for brevities sake I refer him But of all the rest he hath most palpably abus'd Grotius For after divers qualifications and cautions both prefixt and affixt by him but omitted by the Exercitator yea and some in the very sentence quoted Maximè autem in re controversa judictum sibi privatus sumere non debet sed POSSESSIONEM sequi Sic tributum solvi Caesari Chrtstus jubebat quia ejus imaginem nummus praeferebat id est quia in possessione erat imperii Grotius De jure pacis ac belli lib. 1. c. 4. §. 20. Grotius thus concludes upon the whole matter But most certaine it is that in a controverted case no private person may presume to make himself a Judge but must give way to POSSESSION Thus Christ commanded that Tribute should be paid to Caesar because the money bore his Image that is because he was in possession of the Empire And what can the meaning of the Exercitation in all this be charity it self being judge but on the one side to blow the Trumpet to open Rebelâ—ion against the Authority of Parliament in generall and on the other side to strengthen the hands of private assassines against the lives of the Members in particular And is not this modestly and inoffensively manag'd are not these the designes of one studious of peace 'T is strange the Exercitation it self should not blush to pretend to a peaceable and inoffensive modesty whilst it exposes the blood of the Powers against whom it disputes to the lust of every bloody miscreant And yet the Exercitators conscience could not but tell him that many if not most of the Commons now sitting possesse their seats within those walls
House now sitting is consenting to the force which is urg'd and so conclude that they are still a House notwithstanding the non-prosecution of the Authors of that force But to help both him and his friends out of this difficulty who may not perceive that wil that t is one thing to passe by and another thing to consent to a miscarriage the latter may not be done upon any consideration whatsoever the former not onely may but must be done upon many when the Reason of the State which our Author saies Fuller Ans pag. 25. the Law makes to residein both Houses joyntly by way of coordination and severally by way of supply shall think it fit And in this finall resolution of the States judgment the people he saies are to rest Ibid. pag. 1. But to give an unquestionable warrant to this distinction and the practice of the House of Commons upon it Mica 7.18 t is said of God himselfe that he passes by the transgressions of the remnant of his people and yet it were blasphemy to say that he is in the least consenting to them The Reader is desir'd 〈◊〉 notice that the misca iage here pretended is only supposd not granted and can there be a better president to warrant the Commons passing by a miscarriage without out being guilty of consenting to it rather then by calling for a strict account to sacrifice the peace and safety of the Commonwealth upon the service of those Priviledges which no man that hath his reason and a freedom to use it can deny to be intended in their own nature and by their first institution to be fences and ornaments for the good of the Common-wealth not firebrands of contention for its ruine Priviledges are servants to the good of the publike not Lords over it and therefore are to be respected in order to the publike good and in order to the publike good are to be neglected according as the Commons in Parliament whose they are either to use or not use and who in such cases as concerne their own priviledges are the only competent Judges shall determine Yea but for all this As they have with common approbation laid them aside in giving way that Members shall be subject to the suits of Creditors he saies that the House must be free for all to come to that their acts may be free and authoritative If he mean a freedom in respect of any Vote past within doors to exclude such as shall not conforme to the Orders of the House nothing can be more apparently untrue for the House as t is well known past severall Votes to exclude those that would not engage in the Vow and Covenant concerning the Lord Generall Essex and upon the Votes for the taking of the Selemn League and Covenant divers that before had sate in the House were actually excluded for refusall Yet I never heard of any no not of the persons excluded that thereupon deny'd the being and Authority of the House It is therefore unquestionable that the Commons in Parliament have a power to exclude such of their Members as shall not conform to the Votes and Orders of that House and yet neither themselves be ever the lesse free nor their acts any whit the lesse authoritative But secondly if he mean that all the Members must be free in respect of any restraint save what is put upon them by the Votes and Authority of the House t is absolutely answered so they are and let the Exercitator or any of his judgement prove the contrary if they can Again let it be granted that divers of the Members were sometimes under a force can that hinder those from sitting and being a House who never were either under or consenting to that force If it could t is desired the Exercitator would shew how the Commons were a House and their Acts authoritative when the late King had divers of their Members in prison in his Quarters for by his Doctrine if one Member be under a force it nulls the Authority of the House But who unlesse he wilfully shut his eyes canuot see the mountainous grossenesse of these absurdities Wherefore to conclude this particular Fuller Ans pag. 7. our Author in this case will tell him That an injury cannot take away a right which though in truth it never can yet according to our Exercitators principles it must if a force upon some of the Members could hinder the rest from being a House Lastly t is objected by the Exercitator That the Commons now sitting are not the major part And t is answered What is that to the purpose so long as they are a House what if the major part of the Commons had deserted their trust and gone to the late King should that have hinder'd those that had staid behinde and continued faithfull to their trust from being a House The contrary is apparent in the Lords who while they sate were never lookt on as being ever the lesse a House because the greater part deserted them and were afterward justly excluded the House by the far lesser number of Lords sitting To conclude the Exercitator acknowledges pag. 7. that if it could be made good that the whole Nation had in the originall constitution of Government committed the sole power to the House of Commons there could be no Usurpation Now it is as apparent as the light by his own grounds that the whole Nation for the Lords if they fall not under a Nationall must fall under a personall consideration hath committed the Supreme power to the House of Commons joyntly by way of coordination and solely by way of supply and therefore by his own confession they can never be concluded under usurpation as exercising that power without a lawfull calling for the exercise whereof they have by his own grounds a lawfull calling from the People CHAP. III. That the Oathes objected oblige not against obedience to the present Government THe Assertion that we are now to make good against the Exercitator is That the Oathes by him objected obliges not against obedience to the present Powers To demonstrate this truth with as much brevity as perspicuity we shall first lay down certaine generally receiv'd principles by which as by so many rules we may evidently discerne in what cases ex confesso Oaths do not oblige Secondly we shall examine and answer our Exercitators objections why those Rules should not take place in the Oaths in controversie And a main reason inducing to the choyce of this method is because truth and experience joyntly tells us that of commenting on words and sentences in controverted Oaths there can never be an end For the fancy of man being of so various a working and working a variety hardly can that word or sentence be propounded which it will not scrve and wier-draw to its owne sense if it have not some clear and constant principles of truth as a bright but unerring star both to guide and fix
him Seeing as soon as the Lord raises any person to a state of soverainty he gives us to know t is his expresse will that such a one have the Government Upon he whole the conclusion will bee evident in its owne light and fairely untye the knot of the present Objection For to give obedience to the Ordinance of God can never justifie the disorder of man neither can a submission to the supreame right of God be in any sort an injury to the subordinate right of man Which granted as it cannot be deny'd the obedience asserted can never be a Sin but continues stilll a Duty against which no Oath hath power to oblige And thus far shall suffice to have asserted this Truth that The Oathes objected oblige not against Obedience to present Powers But before we proceed to the third Assertion although as we said in the beginning our intention is not to enter into a Logomachie or word-wrangle with the Exercitator wherein to give him his due it must be confest he hath deserv'd very well of the whole frye of School-boyes and given them much light into their true Syntaxis as he speakes page 48. in his large and exquisite Comments upon the Pronouns and Conjunctions Copulative and disiunctive Him and Them and Her and Their and His and Her and Or and And c. Shewing himselfe a most profound Grammaticaster Yet seeing his impotence cannot thinke it selfe conspicuous enough in it selfe without being injurious to others we cannot but take notice and give the Reader a short account of his injurious though impotent insinuation repeated according to his usuall veine of Tautologies thrice over Page 18.43 52. against the Author of The lawsulnesse of obeying c. It is to be admired he saies That the Author should begin with a generall Deliberative It were good to be considered c. And yet end with onely a particular instance in one of the Oathes to be considered Admiration t is usually said is the childe of Ignorance and t is true if ever here of our learned Exercitators double if not treble ignorance in respect both of the present ground of his admiration and his mistake about the meaning both of the Author and Oath For first what necessity is there I pray that he that propounds matter worthy of generall consideration to others must therefore himselfe enter into a particular enumeration of particulars As if hee that should say it were good to consider whether the so much applauded Exercitation bee not a piece that deserves better to bee exploded and instance onely in page 88. where the Exercitator besides his falfifying the History alleg'd and with it the truth it selfe shewes himselfe after all his discourse about true Syntaxis unable to construe his own Latin should yet bee bound to follow him in a particular investigation of his perplext impertinencies from his first entrance into his Amercian deserts Page 5. to Page 88. before mentioned which shuts up his idle Exercitation Obut he saies The Author seemes to fasten on that instance because he thoughthimselfe best able to loosen its Obligation A piece of discretion I 'le assure you of which if the Exercitator had beene guilty he had never undertaken to loosen soules from subjection to the powers that are by endeavouring to fasten on them the Doctrine of disobedience though he were faine to sneake into America to fetch it But he leaves the judgement of the Authors performance to the Reader and so shall wee of his But first hee falls into another fit of Admiration What 's the matter He admires Seeing the Author accounts Oathes sacred Bonds and reverend Obligements how he feared not to use such enforcement to the cleare letter of so tender and sacred a thing Bona verba If before we dismisse the Exercitator we finde not himselfe really guilty of an enforcement to learned Paraeus not much better for the nature of enforcement is the same however the subject differ then that which is here but pretended and that too without the least ground given by our Author but meerely taken from his owne ignorance and hammered out into the deformed piece of perjury in the charge upon the black forge of his owne mistake we shall allow him to fall into a third fit of Admiration In the meane time whilst he endeavours wrongfully to fasten on our Author an interpretation begotten like Ixion's Centaures on the Cloud of his owne mis-apprehension what doth be but create a fault that he may not want an accusation though he bring himselfe within the guilt of bearing false witnesse against his Neighbour by it which as he speakes borders upon Perjury and surely is not very agreeable to that Hyperbolcall Character of the Exercitator held forth in the glorious bush of the Epistle to the Reader Wherefore of show the true intent of our Author and with all the untrue charge of this Accuser Our Author as we can speake from some that have reason to know never intended the present Powers as the Successours in the Oath at the Exercitator ingorantly or maliciously or both let him take his choice mistakes him his intention in truth and his discourse testifies as much was onely to inforce a Dilemma upon those that argue for the Obligation of the Oath For he reasons that if Heires and Successors must as the Exercitator and all that are of his judgement say they must be understood of the same persons the Obligation of the Oath must needs ceasE upon such a juncture of affaires wherein neither the Successors are Heires nor the Heires Successors And to take off the Objection of a Succession in Right though not in Fact He shew'd that that word usually is and therefore truly must as indeed it must be understood in the Oath of actual Successours unlesse a Nation may bee Governed by and give obedience to a meere Ens rationis for a Successor in right onely though never so truely in right as such is such or no better Behold the strength of the perjurious accusation or more truly the weaknesse of the injurious accuser after all those solmne aggravations in which hee hath drest up his accusation and his grave advice to the Author upon it whereas indeed had himselfe beene so well advised as he should have been he never had laid so heavy a charge upon so light or in truth no ground on a person of whom he confesses to have receav'd so faire a Character from the worthy Author of the religious Demurrer And now after his threefold attempt on the word Successors to wound the reputation of our Author because here at least hee thought he had met with a Flaw what is all he hath gained save onely a fuller confirmation both of our Authors integrity and the truth asserted by him and a further discovery both of the weaknesse of his cause and the greatnesse of his little good-will towards our Author Fragili quaerens illidere dentem Offendit solido But seeing he talkes of
person and no more witnesse our Exercitator and therefore hath no power to call a Parliament And now let the Reader judge upon the whole whether ever there were such a Felo de se as is this wretched discourse of our Exercitator or whether instead of correcting one he hath not shew'd himselfe a thing meerly made up of a heap of mistakes But to proceed he tells us page 74 75. That the Author of The lawfulnesse of obeying c. hath but halfe quoted Paraeus as well as impertinently and that according to Paraeus unjustly gotten power is not of God in regard of the person or man owning it and consequenly not to be obey'd by verue of Rom. 13. To doe the Exercitator right Nec refert quibus medijs vel artibus Nimrod Jeroboam aut alij regra sibi pa-averint Nam aliud est potestas que à deo est aliud acquisitio usus potestaus que indisserens alià s legitima alià s illegitina Parae 〈◊〉 Rom. 13. we shall take his owne whole quotation of Paraeus and then let the most partiall Judge whether he hath not done Paraeus and the Author quoting him and herein the Reader and himselfe worng in forcing a sence upon Paraeus so much at enmity with his words Paraeus saies It matters not by what meanes Nimrod Jeroboam or others got Kingdoms to themselves for the power which is of God is one thing the getting and use of the power is another which is indifferent sometimes lawfull sometimes unlawfull And againe dubijs whether both Paraeus and the Exercitator himself refers us so the fuller explication of this place We must discern betwixt the power which is EVER of God and betwixt the getting and use of the power Discernendum test inter potesta em que semper à Deo est inter à cquisitionem usurpationem que quod homines saepe est injustissima non à Deo sed ad hominem affectibus Statnae Malitia Idem Ibid. which as to men is often most unjust not of God but of mens lusts and Satans malice Wherefore to examine the true sence of the premises and compare them with the Exercitators deduction It matters not saies Paraeus by what meanes or craft Nimrod Jeroboam or others what others Our Exercitator shall answer other Vsurper for such he hath prov'd Jeroboam more then once besides such get Kingdoms to themselves by craft c. Again It matters not saies Paraeus in what respect matters in not Reason and truth shal answer in respect of their Authority to command and the Subjects Duty to obey For in the words immediately foregoing he was proving that Civil power is the Ordinance of God and addes although in the hand of Nimrod or Jeroboam as he expresly affirmes concerning the former Ad. 2. De Nimrodo And concerning the latter as expresly Ad 1 Hos 8.4 Lastly it matters not saies Paraeus Why matters it not Why because the Power howsoever and by whomsoever got is EVER of God and consequently from him derives its Authority to command and for him requires our duty to obey and thus to eye God in our obedience is to obey according to Rom. 13.5 For Conscience sake in the judgement of Paraeus with whom the Annotations of our owne divines concurre And yet our learned Exercitator saies but Sure he sees not what he saies Paraeus in your place speakes nothing pro or con of obedience to Vsurpers when notwithstanding having travel'd some then lines further toward the end of that Paragraph forgeting that hee had said in the beginning so treacherous is his memory that Paraeus speakes nothing against obedience to Vsurpers he tells us from the latter quotation which himselfe as well as Paraeus makes interpretative to she former he tells us most grosly contradicting himself and the truth That Paraeus is against obedience to Vsurpers by vertue of Rom. 13. Non quecunque per vim vel dolum acquiruntur cum sint per se bona cessant esse dâ— Deo Dissere nendum est enim interjus dei quod in res bonas nun quam amittis à quibuscunque teneantur teneantur inter judicia dei puibus bona sua sic distribuit ut in eorum acqui suione usu vitium hominum aliquando concurrere permittat c. Sic igitur de acquisitione etiam imperiorem regnorum quoe Perce quae Greci quae Romani iujustice fere bellis oppressionibas acquisiuerunt est judicandum Parae in Rom. 13. Once more and we have done Paraeus saies Things that are good in themselves cease not to be from God bowever gotten by force or fraud For we must discerne betwixt the right of God which he never loose in good things by whomsoever and howsoever possest and betwixt the judgements of God by which he distributes his good things so as he sometimes suffers the vitiousnesse men to concur in the getting and use of them c. Thus thereforo are we to judge of the getting even of Empiers and Kingdomes which the Persians which the Grecians which the Romans got for the most part by unjust wars and oppressions And accordingly Ad 2. De. Nimrodo not far before the words cited by the Exercitator himself Paraeus saies However Nimrod were an oppressor and Tyrant yet it follows not that HIS power was not of God Yet nor modest Exercitator blushes not to affirme that Paraeus saies unjustly gotten Power is not of God in regard of the person or man owning it Could any thing be spaken more apparantly untrue in it self by one that professes himselfe studious of truth more injurious beyond all modesty both to Paraeus and the Author quoting him by an Exercitator pretending to modesty yet if he had answered without booke againe it had beene tollerable But to accuse his Antagonist of a partiall and imperninent quotation and yet himself after a profest consultation with Paraeus to use such enforcement to the cleare letter of the Author in the fairest language that can be given it t is not faire To conclude t is observable here that whilest Paraeus maintaines the Authority of Nimrod and Jeroboam to be of God he neither takes away Usurpation from them nor gives them a right Title And accordingly Salon after he had fully and undeniably prov'd the Duty of obeying the just commands of an Usurper yet councels the Usurper to leave his Vsurpation and to get the expresse consent of the people It is not necessary therefore as the Exercitator would infer that a tacite consent of the people to obey take away Vsurpation For the consent can justifie no further then it goes and it goes no further in this case then to give Authority to the Usurpers just commands for the present good of the Common-wealth And upon this ground t is that the Law gives Authority to a Lord of Mâ—nnour though a Disseisor to hold a Court and the Tenants may sweare Fealty to him and doe him service yet neither justifie the Disseisors
Tide nor wrong the Title of the Disseised There is therefore a Tacite and Interpretative consent of the people which our Author truly asserts and the Exercitator in vaine denyes when as reason wills they consent that the Power which is peaceably possest should Governe pro tempore rather then that confution and Warre should destroy the Common-Wealth And such a consent is sufficient to constitute such a Magistrate Wherefore having made good our Assertion against such Objections in the Exercitation as are any way materiall We shall professedly omit the rest Only we cannot but take notice of the wretched folly and vanitie of his empty challenge Page 75 wherein as he tacitly grants the whole cause so he doth it in expresse words to any understanding Reader For it obedience be substantially as already it hath been prov'd a Duty all Circummstantial Objections vanish as a mist before the Sun And now for a conclusion that our Exercitator may end as ill as he began he goes about to make good the Title of the Romanes to the Kingdome of Judaea even against the Title of the House of David and of the great Son of David Christ himself who as Mr. Perkins acknowledges was right Heire to the Crowne and Kingdome of the Jewes And to bring this to passe he leapes over the Beames of Massy and mighty Arguments that lye in his way and takes up little Motes and Strawes to binde up this forg'd Title First He passes by the whole Title of the House of David and that great promise That there should not want a man to set on his Throne Secondly He takes no notice how the Maccabees came by the Kingdome which was by force and power when there was another King a Successor of Alexander even of that beast in Daniel whose Kingdome was devided into four parts yet the Exercitators party condemnes this if now a Title be thus gotten by Subjects Thirdly He said nothing of the point whether the High Priest were capable of a Crown and could bear at once on his head both a Crown and Mitre wherein some say he was a patterne of Anti-Christ Fourthly He observes not that there was a Covenant of peace and agreement made in the Temple and bound with Oathes and confirmed by mutuall embracings betweene Hircanus and Aristobulus that Arisâ—â—bulus should command the Kingdome and this was done in the sight of all the People Fifthly He gives no proofe that Hircanus having given away the Kingdome before could give it after to Pompey nor thâ—t a King at all can give away a Kingdome without his Kingdomes consent Yea he cannot prove that he did it yet this is one of the motes with which hâ—â—inds up Pompeyes Title because Hircmus whoin his opinion had the better Title though perchance none at all untreated him to come to helpe him and to judge the controversie betweene him and his Brother And a second is this as if Pompey had got the good will of the people to give the Kingdome to him whereas himself saith but this that Pompey after he had taken Jerusalem did rather by good turnes then terrors conciliate the People to himselfe Now this speakes what Pompey did to please the people not what the people did to him much lesse that they gave up the Kingdome to him which they would have given to none For the truth is Iosephus saith That all the whole Nation marke the words ALL and WHOLE were against both Hircanus and Aristobulus for bringing them under the servitude of a Kingdome For they said their Custom was to be Governed by Gods High Priest But I hope Pompey was no Priest and therefore they did not chuse him for their Governour And for the words of Antipater concerning Antigonus when he craved assistance from Caesar they are very untruly alleaged they being thus in the author He that is Antigonus craved not maintenance for that he wanted but that he might raise a rebellion among the Jewes and against them who should bestow any thing upon him that is against Caesar if he should give him any reliefe But the Exercitators Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non propter inopiam desiderare facultatem sed ut in eos qui dedissent Iudaeorum seditiones accenderet is thus construed by him He sought not reliefe of Caesar because he was poore but that he might kindle jewish seditions against these had made a dedition of themselves Behold the foundation of a Kingdome laid upon a false construction of Latin But is it not a desperate boldnesse that this man should take upon him to be a writer who cannot construe his own Latin yea that he should put his Latin in the Margent to shame his owne english especially there being an english Translation that might have taught him to construe it But to be short the story is truly thus Hircanus living quietly after the forementioned Agreement between him and his Brother was continually provok't by Antipater the Father of Herod to stirre for the Kingdome to which at last yeilding and Pompey being in those parts they sent to Pompey concerning their differences who gave them audience and promised to came into their Country to determine their differences and told them that in the meane time they should live in peace But Aristobul us stirring to make himself strong Pompey comes up and takes Jerusalem and Aristobulous also And theu commits the Priest-hood to Hireanus and now see the goodly Title of the Romanes in the words of Josephus thus Hireanus and Arristrbulous through their dissentions and evil broyles were the cause of that servitude and misery not that voluntary subjection he speakes of that fell upon the Jewes For we have lost our liberty and bin subdued by the Romanes Behold and exellent Title of the Romanes Two Brothers being at odds strive one with another and desire Pompety to be an Umpier of their controversies therefore the Romanes by this have a Title to the Crowne of Judaea or againe the two Brothers being at odds Pompey comes in to helpe one against the other and conquers him who as the Author saies had the worse Title Therefore by beating him he got a good Title to the Romanes just as if when the Nation desired helpe of the Scots against a Malignant party the Scots prevaling against that party might get a good Title to this whole Kingdome or because the Scots desired the Lievtenant Generall of England to come for their assistance into their County against the Malignant party there he might thereupon or thereby have gotten for the English a good Title to Scotland So upon the whole the Romanes had no other Title but meere Conquest as Salon and many others do truly affirme we shall now conclude with the resolution of an holy impartiall and reverend Author and Author of our owne above all exception as he wrote before these times of exceptions hear what he saies concerning the validity of the commands of an usurped Power and the duty of obeying them The fault of the worker is when an action of a lawfull calling is done by one that is not called lawfully now then when the fault of an action is not in the worke it selfe but in the person that worketh is it is not to be reputed a nullity neither to be reversed as nothing c. This doctrine is agreed upon by the common consent of Divines as also by the Lawes and orders of Kingdomes as may appeare plainely in particular Augustus Caesar a Romane Emperour invâ—ded the Kingdome of the Jewes and brought it into a Province and thus was he made King of the Jewes not by lawfull meanes but by intrusion For all this the Actions done and the Commandments given by him were reputed Commandments of a King not reversed by any Jew but obeyed of all For when he gave Commandment that all the world yea the Jewes should he taxed they yeelded themselves to this Commandment yea righteous Joseph and Mary went to their owne Town to be taxed c. VVhereby it is manifest that if there be no fault in the worke the defective calling of the worker doth not make a mullity of the Action done For howsoever the workers sins in his unlawfull entrance and in that regard is not to be approved yet the Actions in the calling to which he is enâ—red are the Actions of that calling For though he be called amisse yet he stands in the roome of one lawfully called And we are to make difference betwixt him that is called though unlawfully and him that hath no calling at all For the Actions done without calling are indeed nullities whereas if there be any calling though entrance â—e bâ—dly made it doth not make the Action void And whosoever denieth this ground of truth over-turneth the Regiments of Kingdomes Churches States and societies whatsoever Perkins Treatise of callings Page 742. FINIS