<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2007-09-27</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Elspeth Healey</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed text and corrected markup.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A86677">
<STC T="W">H326</STC>
<STC T="T">E615_19</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99862750</BIBNO>
<VID>114926</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>Lazarus's &s;ores licked; Or, AN ANSWER TO The&s;e three POSITIONS:
<LIST>
<ITEM>I. That Chri&s;t paid Tribute to <HI>Cae&s;ar.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>II. That <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> was an U&s;urper in <HI>Judea,</HI> and had onely bare Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, but no Right at all.</ITEM>
<ITEM>III. That bare Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, without any Right to a Throne, gives Title &s;ufficient to the U&s;urper, and is ground &s;ufficient for People to &s;ubject to that U&s;urper.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<Q><GAP DESC="foreign">, <BIBL><HI>Matth.</HI> 22. 21.</BIBL></Q>
<Q><GAP DESC="foreign">. <BIBL><HI>Chry&s;o&s;t.</HI> Hom. 71. in <HI>Matth.</HI> 22.</BIBL></Q>
<P>Printed at LONDON, <HI>Anno</HI> 1650.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To the READER.</HEAD>
<P>_IT is not (courteous Reader) with an Hereti|call Independent, a Papi&s;t, or a proud Prela|ticall Prote&s;tant, that I am to deale withall; but with a Presbyterian; and not with a loo&s;e, vaine, weak but with a grave &s;olid, judicious, and learned one; with &s;uch a one I undertake to grapple. I confe&s;s it is a bold attempt; and the Truth may &s;uffer much under pretence of defending it. I have made it my profe&s;&s;ion to defend Truth (&s;ince I could gra&s;p a Spea<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">) in <HI>Jonathans</HI> Ar|mour, more then with <HI>Davids</HI> &s;ling: but &s;ince I cannot now go in <HI>Jonathans</HI> Armour, I have boldly taken up <HI>Davids</HI> &s;ling and from the brook of <HI>living water,</HI> have fetcht &s;moothe &s;tones to &s;ling at this Champion, who, like another <HI>Goliah</HI> chalengeth all the world to an&s;wer him. Indeed the odds betwixt my Antagoni&s;t and my &s;elf are great; for, <HI>I am but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.</HI> This is the fir&s;t Field (of this kinde) that ever I pitched; but he hath pitched many. He hath both the <HI>Hill</HI> and the <HI>Winde</HI> of me in this field: for he hath many learned Authors who in &s;ome things &s;up|port him; and he hath (which is all) the Times on his &s;ide: where|as I am alone in this controver&s;ie, like the Dove in the valley and &s;hall be envied by the mo&s;t that read my papers. Truly had he been a Papi&s;t, or an Heretick, or one <HI>de crumenimulga turba,</HI> that had onely writ to get money; had he not been a Presbyterian, and an eminent one, and by his open Apo&s;tacie, and impudent defence of a danger|ous Errour both in <HI>Cambridge</HI> and <HI>London&punc;</HI> &s;candalized his profe&s;|&s;ion reproached the Go&s;pel, hardned the wicked, and perverted ma|ny; and grieved and made a&s;hamed the re&s;t of Gods faithful people, who &s;tand &s;ilent, as having nothing to &s;ay again&s;t tho&s;e who reproach them with &s;uch foule Apo&s;tacie, in &s;o eminent a Presbyterian: I had altogother been &s;ilent as to this Controver&s;ie; neither had I now done what I have done, but to rouze up the invincible pen of a mo&s;t learned and pious Doctor, in ca&s;e I am wronged, or the
<PB REF="3">
Truth by my weak defence wronged. The truth is, this fire was fir&s;t kindled by him in my bre&s;t; who by making a que&s;tion of it, &s;et me to &s;earch whether ever Chri&s;t payd Tribute to Cae&s;ar. In &s;earching, I found the contrary &s;o clear, that, for the undeceiving of many of my mi&s;led friends, I have adventured it to the publick view, in oppo|&s;ition to this relap&s;ed Presbyterian Doctor, who&s;e fall is &s;o notorious, that it made M. <HI>John Goodwin</HI> kick at him in this Jeer, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Joh. 11. 11.</HI> As M. <HI>Goodwin</HI> u&s;es the fir&s;t part of our Saviours words to jeere his relap&s;ed friend, &s;o I &s;hall u&s;e the latter part in charity, and &s;ay, <HI><GAP DESC="foreign">.</HI> I pray God I may: for I am &s;ure he &s;leepeth a &s;infull &s;leep. M. <HI>John Goodwins</HI> je&s;t, I perceive, is better then his earne&s;t: for he &s;peaks truth in je&s;t, which he &s;eldome doth in earne&s;t.</P>
<P>I know nothing better to rouze the Doctor, and recover him out of his &s;wouning fit then to &s;prinkle &s;ome of his own holy-water in his face: 'tis no wor&s;e then he gave to the Earl of <HI>Manche&s;ter, in the Epi&s;tle Dedicatory before his book called</HI> The <GAP DESC="foreign">,</P>
<P>Chri&s;t (&s;aith he) ownes none as being of his &s;ide but tho&s;e that are <HI>called, cho&s;en, and faithful,</HI> Revel. <HI>17. 14.</HI> Your Doctor&s;hip knowes a&s;&s;uredly, and you need not be put in mind by me, that they who do wickedly again&s;t the Covenant, (whether God's, or man's) are &s;uch as are corrupted by flatteries. Neither is this without the bounds of your con&s;ideration, that <HI>[without under&s;tanding, Cove|nant-breakers] (Rom. 1. 13.)</HI> are joyned together, in the &s;ame Cata|logue of tho&s;e that are given up <HI>[<GAP DESC="foreign">] to vile affecti|ons,</HI> Rom. <HI>1. 26.</HI> and [<GAP DESC="foreign">] <HI>to a reprobate minde.</HI> To the&s;e his own words retorted on him&s;elf, I'll add but the&s;e of <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tome,</HI> Hom. <HI>16.</HI> in <HI>Matth. 17.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; I have done: I hope no man will &s;ay that I bite him: if I do, tis with his own teeth, and he may thank him&s;elf.</P>
<P>The wor&s;t that the &s;harpe&s;t Cen&s;urer can &s;ay of me, is onely this, that I act the part of <HI>Dives</HI> his dogg in licking <HI>Lazarus</HI>'s &s;ores. If that be all, I &s;hall not refu&s;e the employment, &s;o be it I may lick them whole: for I dare pawn my &s;alvation upon it, that &s;uch &s;piritual &s;ores as <HI>Covenant-breaking&punc;</HI> and <HI>Apo&s;tacie</HI> from per&s;ecuted Truthes, being uncured, &s;hall &s;ooner depre&s;s <HI>Lazarus</HI> to the place where <HI>Dives</HI> is, then carry <HI>Lazarus</HI> into <HI>Abrahams</HI> bo&s;ome.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="discourse">
<PB N="1" REF="3">
<EPIGRAPH>
<BIBL>MATTH. 22. 19, 20, 21.</BIBL>
<Q>Shew me the tribute-money. And they brought him a peny. And he &s;aid unto them, Who&s;e is this image and &s;uper&s;cription? They &s;ay unto him Ce&s;ars. Then &s;aith he unto them, Render there|fore unto Ce&s;ar the things which are Ce&s;ars, and unto God, the things which are Gods.</Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
<P>_FRom this Text the Doctor indeavoured to prove (as my &s;elfe and others under&s;tood him) that a King who hath true Title, and ju&s;t Right to the Throne, and is out of po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, may law|fully &s;ubject him&s;elf to an U&s;urper, who hath not title, but bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion: This he &s;aid was Chri&s;ts opinion, who in <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. in the Text above rehear&s;ed, acknowledgeth, by the penny which bare <HI>Cae&s;ars</HI> Image, that the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion was <HI>Cae&s;ars.</HI> He proved the other part, from Chri&s;ts practice, who being by right King of the Jewes, being of the Royal bloud, of the family of <HI>Judah,</HI> and Heir to the Crown; yet being out of po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, pays Tribute to <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> who had no right, but po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion onely.</P>
<P>That Chri&s;t paid Tribute to <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> he proves in <HI>Matth.</HI> 17. 24, 25, 26, 27. <HI>And when they were come to Capernaum, they that re|ceived the tribute-money, came to Peter, and &s;aid, Doth not your Ma&s;ter pay tribute? He &s;aith, Yes. And when he was come into the hou&s;e, Je&s;us prevented him, &s;aying, What thinke&s;t thou, Simon? of whom do the Kings of the earth take cu&s;tome or tribute? of their own children, or of &s;trangers? Peter &s;aith unto him, Of &s;trangers. Je&s;us &s;aith unto him, Then are the chil|dren free. Notwith&s;tanding, le&s;t we &s;hould offend them&punc; go thou to the Sea, and ca&s;t an hooke, and take up the fi&s;h that fir&s;t com|meth</HI>
<PB N="2" REF="4">
<HI>up: and when thou ha&s;t opened his mouth, thou &s;halt finde a peice of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.</HI> Now (&s;aith he) though <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. 19&punc; 20, 21, prove nothing but that <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> had the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, not the right; yet &s;ince in <HI>Matth.</HI> 17. 24, 25, it was the practice of Chri&s;t to pay Tribute to <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> it was al&s;o the opinion of Chri&s;t in <HI>Matth.</HI> 22, that Tribute ought to be paid to <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> an U&s;urper, who had po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, but no right, by tho&s;e that had right to the Crown, yet were out of po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion: and that be|cau&s;e the practice of Chri&s;t, and the opinion of Chri&s;t were one and the &s;ame; otherwi&s;e we &s;hould make a &s;trange Chri&s;t of him. But he did pay Tribute to <HI>Cae&s;ar (Mat.</HI> 17. 24, 25.) though he were by right King of the Jewes, but out of po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion. By this 'tis manife&s;t, that the Doctor holds the&s;e opinions; upon which he grounds his Di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. That Chri&s;t paid Tribute to <HI>Cae&s;ar.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. That <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> was an U&s;urper, one that had no right, but bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion onely of the Kingdome of <HI>Judea.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>3. That bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion without any right, is ground &s;ufficient for a|ny people to &s;ubject to that power.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Now becau&s;e I am re&s;olved to be briefe, I will avoid all ambages, and forthwith enter the li&s;t, and grapple with the Doctor, by denying every one of the&s;e Propo&s;itions: <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. Chri&s;t did never pay Tribute, nor give order to <HI>Peter</HI> to pay Tribute to <HI>Cae&s;ar.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. That <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> had more then bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the Kingdome of <HI>Judea.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>3. That bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, without any right, as it gives no true Title to any power, &s;o neither is it a &s;ufficient ground for any people to &s;ub|ject to &s;uch a power.
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. Chri&s;t did never pay or order any Tribute to be paid to <HI>Cae&s;aer.</HI> This I prove thus:</ITEM>
<ITEM>1. <HI>Argum.</HI> If the Scripture no where prove it, then there is no ground for me to believe it.
But the Scripture no where proves it. <HI>Ergo.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. <HI>Argum.</HI> If tho&s;e Scriptures alleaged for to prove Chri&s;ts pay|ing of Tribute prove the contrary; then I am bound to believe the contrary. But the&s;e Scriptures alleaged prove the contrary. <HI>Ergo.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P><PB N="3" REF="4">
The onely place alleadged to prove that Chri&s;t paid Tribute to <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> is <HI>Matth.</HI> 17. 24. 27. where the Collectors of the <HI>Didrachme</HI> came to <HI>Peter</HI> to demand it of him and his Ma&s;ter, in <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 27. Chri&s;t bids <HI>Peter</HI> pay a <HI>Stater</HI> for him&s;elf and Chri&s;t his Ma&s;ter; and he doth it. Now this, they &s;ay, was Tribute-money to <HI>Cae&s;ar.</HI> Not onely the Doctor, but many learned men are of this opinion. In the Margin of one Bible, I finde the&s;e words: <HI>This was an Attick Didrachme, which the Romans exacted after they had &s;ubdued Judea.</HI> So &s;aith <HI>Deodat</HI>'s. But <HI>Beza</HI> denies that: for, &s;aith he, <HI>Hoc postea factum;</HI> the Romans did not exact this money untill 75 yeeres after the birth of Chri&s;t. <HI>Jo&s;eph. de Bello Judaico, Lib.</HI> 7. <HI>Cap.</HI> 26. Therefore he refers it to <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. 17. where the word <HI>[Cen&s;us]</HI> he thinkes containes both the <HI>Didrachmes</HI> that Chri&s;t paid; which Taxe he conceives was a Taxe of <HI>Augu&s;tus,</HI> which he laid upon every head, becau&s;e <HI>Peter</HI> and Chri&s;t paid a certain &s;um. I do not know in any thing that <HI>Beza</HI> &s;tumbles and rambles &s;o much, as in this. He proves out of <HI>Jo&s;ephus,</HI> that the <HI>Didrachme</HI> was never paid away from the Temple untill 75 yeeres after Chri&s;ts birth; and therefore he conjectures 'twas &s;ome o|ther certaine Taxe laid upon every per&s;on by the Romans; but brings not the lea&s;t proofe for it out of Scripture or Hi&s;tory, that the Romans exacted the <HI>Didrachme.</HI> Some other learned men conjecture that <HI>Augu&s;tus</HI> exacted this <HI>Didrachme</HI> when <HI>Cirenius</HI> was Governour, <HI>Luke</HI> 2. 1. when all the world was taxed: but neither <HI>Dio, Chry&s;o|&s;tom&punc;</HI> nor <HI>Jo&s;ephus&punc;</HI> nor any other Hi&s;torian that ever I heard of, maketh mention that the <HI>Didrachme</HI> &s;hould be put upon every mans head. In|deed there were Surveys taken of the Grounds, and Mechanicks names taken, <HI>Luke</HI> 2. 1. <HI>&V;t di&s;criberetur totus terrarum orbis; id e&s;t, ut di&s;criptis omnium Civitatum capitibus intelligeretur, quae cuju&s;|que regionis, vrbis, familiae, domus, facultates e&s;&s;ent,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Beza;</HI> and <HI>Deodate</HI> is of the &s;ame opinion: but this is farre from proving that the Romans exacted the <HI>Didrachme</HI> of the Jewes.</P>
<P><HI>Cornelius &egrave; lapide</HI> is of opinion, that this <HI>Didrachme</HI> which <HI>Peter</HI> paid, was not <HI>&s;acrum</HI> but <HI>prophanum;</HI> and that it was paid to the Ro|mans: and he onely, endeavours to give rea&s;ons for this opinion; the one is from Chri&s;ts words to <HI>Peter, ver.</HI> 26. <HI>Of whom doth the Kings of the earth demand Tribute or Cu&s;tome?</HI> There the word <HI>Cen&s;um</HI> (&s;aith he) declares it to be not the money of the Sanctuary, but the Kings money, the Roman Tribute: for the word <HI>Cen&s;us</HI> is
<PB N="4" REF="5">
a Romane word, which &s;ignifies the E&s;timation or Valuing of goods.</P>
<P>But grant all that <HI>Cornelius &egrave; lapide</HI> &s;aith, his con&s;equence will not hold, that therefore that which <HI>Peter</HI> paid was money to <HI>Cae&s;ar;</HI> be|cau&s;e Chri&s;t, to &s;hew <HI>Peter</HI> how little rea&s;on they had to exact it from him, (who was born King of the Jewes, and was the naturall Son of <NOTE PLACE="marg">'Ei <GAP DESC="foreign">. Chry&s;o&s;t. in <HI>Mat.</HI> 17.</NOTE> the King of kings) puts an allu&s;ive que&s;tion to him, or, (as <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tome</HI> holds) propo&s;eth an argument, <HI>&agrave; minore ad majus,</HI> draw|ing it thus, from <HI>Peters</HI> Conce&s;&s;ion: If Kings of the earth do not exact Tribute from their naturall Sonnes, being of the Royall bloud (becau&s;e 'twas their Prerogative royall to receive;) then much le&s;s rea&s;on have the&s;e to demand this money of me, who am their King, and the naturall Son of the King of kings, to whom of right this Tri|bute belongs. (For this was no other money then the Shekel of the Sanctuary; and for that end it was gathered, and for that end it was paid, as we &s;hall prove anon.) So that <HI>Cornelius &egrave; lapide</HI>'s rea&s;on is invalid, unle&s;s he will al&s;o thence inferre, that Chri&s;t was of the Royall blood of the <HI>Cae&s;ars,</HI> and Chri&s;t drew the force of his rea&s;on from thence; which no man will affirm.</P>
<P>His other Argument is fal&s;e, which he grounds upon <HI>Jo&s;ephus, lib.</HI> 14. <HI>Antiq. cap.</HI> 8. where he &s;aith, after that <HI>Pompey</HI> had won the City Jeru&s;alem by conque&s;t, he &s;ubdued them to the Romans, and from that day exacted the <HI>Didrachme.</HI> Whereas <HI>Jo&s;ephus</HI> &s;peaks not one word of the <HI>Didrachme.</HI> He &s;aith, As for <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> he made it Tributary to the Romans, taking away from the Jewes tho&s;e Cities in <HI>Coelo&s;yria,</HI> which they had Conquered, and a&s;&s;igning them a proper and peculiar government. <HI>Pompey</HI> was &s;o farre from robbing the Temple of the <HI>Didrachme,</HI> that (&s;aith <HI>Jo&s;ephus</HI> in the &s;ame Book and Chapter) though he &s;aw the Table of Gold, and golden Candle-&s;tick, with di|vers other rare and precious things in the Temple, be&s;ides two thou|&s;and talents of &s;ilver there put; (through the reverence he had of God) he touched nothing of all which he &s;aw. So that <HI>&egrave; Lapide</HI>'s Rea&s;ons herein are both de&s;titute of &s;trength and truth; and therefore none at all.</P>
<P>I finde learned <HI>Weemes,</HI> and <HI>Godwin,</HI> no le&s;s learned in the Jewi&s;h Antiquities, both of this opinion, that Chri&s;t paid this <HI>Didrachme</HI> to <HI>Cae&s;ar:</HI> but neither of the&s;e learned men prove that <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> (in Chri&s;ts time of being on earth) exacted the halfe Shekel that was paid for|merly
<PB N="5" REF="5">
to the Temple; but a man may almo&s;t prove the contrary from their own words. To begin with Doctor <HI>Weemes,</HI> two things he ac|knowledgeth. 1. That <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> was exceeding favourable to the Jewes. 2. That the Phari&s;ees demanded this Tribute mony of <HI>Peter.</HI> Now if <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> was &s;o favourable to the Jewes, as that he granted them a free exerci&s;e of their Religion, he debarred them not from keeping the Sabbath, nor from circumci&s;ing their children, he neither tooke their <HI>Synedria,</HI> nor their <GAP DESC="foreign"> from them; is it probable that he would take away the money of the Temple, which was to repair it, and to &s;upply the Prie&s;ts wants, and &s;everal other holy u&s;es? Certainly he was no &s;uch favourer of the Jews, that would &s;tarve all their Prie&s;ts, and ruine their Temple; which <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> mu&s;t needs be guilty of, if he took away the money due to the Temple.</P>
<P N="2">2. But he &s;aith in another place, that the Phari&s;ees demanded this money of <HI>Peter;</HI> and I am prone to believe it. If then the Phari&s;ees gathered this, as 'tis mo&s;t probable they did, (for the Ma&s;ters of the Synagogue, from the Captivity in Babylon, gathered the half Shekel, which is the <HI>Didrachme,</HI> and &s;ent it to Jeru&s;alem to the high-prie&s;ts; and the Phari&s;ees were many of them Ma&s;ters of the Synagogue&punc; <HI>Luke</HI> 9. 43.) it is mo&s;t probable, then, that this money that they demanded, was money for the Temple, and that money which every one paid to the Temple according to the Law, <HI>Exod.</HI> 30. 13. This was &s;acred money, and this onely the Phari&s;ees would gather. As for <HI>Cae&s;ars</HI> Taxes, the Phari&s;ees abhorred &s;uch an unholy imployment; that was the office of the Publicans, to gather <HI>Cae&s;ars</HI> money: the Phari&s;ees were &s;o farre from gathering <HI>Cae&s;ars</HI> money that they abhorred a Publicans compa|ny, becau&s;e of his office: they would not dine with him, nor conver&s;e with him; but would even wa&s;h after they had gone thorow the mar|ket-place where the Publicans were conver&s;ant. And is it probable that the Phari&s;ees would take upon them the Publicans office, to gather <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> money? Thus far it &s;eems improbable, from M. <HI>Weemes</HI> his own Conce&s;&s;ions.</P>
<P>So <HI>Godwin</HI> i. e. acknowledgeth that what the Greek copie reads <GAP DESC="foreign">, the Syriac readeth <HI>duo zu<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">im.</HI> Now that <HI>zuz</HI> was an|&s;werable, &s;aith he to the Roman <HI>Denarie:</HI> &s;o that by his confe&s;&s;ion, there is as great difference betwixt the Roman penny which they &s;hew|ed to Chri&s;t, <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. 19. and the <HI>Didrachme</HI> which Chri&s;t paid. <HI>Matth.</HI> 17. as betwixt &s;even pence half-penny, and one &s;hilling and
<PB N="6" REF="6">
three pence; which any old man without &s;pectacles may di&s;cerne. M. <HI>Godwin</HI> therefore, to make his opinion hold, makes this di&s;tinction: There is (&s;aith he) the common penny; and the penny of the Sanctu|ary: the common penny that valued &s;even pence half-peny, was Ro|mane money; but the penny of the Sanctuary, that valued one &s;hilling three pence, he &s;aith <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> exacted. And brings for a proofe <HI>Jo&s;eph. lib.</HI> 7. <HI>de bello Judaico, cap.</HI> 26. which plainly proves that <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> never exacted it till above fourty yeeres after Chri&s;ts a&s;cen&s;ion; untill which time, the <HI>Didrachme</HI> was payd unto the Temple. So that that which he makes the ground of his argument, proves ju&s;t the con|trary.</P>
<P>Thus have I, out of their own mouthes, (who endeavour to prove that Chri&s;t did pay Tribute to <HI>Ce&s;ar)</HI> proved almo&s;t, if not altogether, the contrary.</P>
<P>But to come more clo&s;e to the Argument, and to prove that the Scripture alleadged proveth not that Chri&s;t paid Tribute to <HI>Ce&s;ar.</HI> The Scripture alleadged is <HI>Matth.</HI> 17. 24. 27. In <HI>ver.</HI> 24, the gatherers of the Tribute came to <HI>Peter,</HI> and &s;ay, by way of Que&s;tion, <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>payeth not your Ma&s;ter the Didrach|me? Peter</HI> an&s;wers, Yes. And in <HI>ver.</HI> 27. Chri&s;t bids him look in the fir&s;t fi&s;hes mouth that came to the hook and therein he &s;hould finde a Stater; <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>thou &s;halt finde a Stater; that give for me and thee.</HI></P>
<P>Now I prove this was not paid as Tribute to <HI>Ce&s;ar,</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Becau&s;e this was Gods money, and none of <HI>Ce&s;ars.</HI> There was <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> money, and Gods money; both which Chri&s;t di&s;tingui&s;heth, in <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. 19, when the Phari&s;ees came to tempt him: he calls for a piece of money, <HI>numi&s;ma cen&s;us,</HI> the Roman Tribute-money: they brought him <HI>denarium,</HI> which had <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> Image on it. He &s;aith, <HI>Who&s;e Image and &s;uper&s;cription hath it?</HI> They &s;aid, <HI>Ce&s;ars.</HI> Then &s;aid he, <HI>Give unto Ce&s;ar the things that are Ce&s;ars, and unto God the things that are Gods.</HI> That money that had <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> Image and &s;uper&s;cription on it, weighed one <HI>Attick drachme:</HI> for (&s;aith <HI>Bu|daeus) Drachma Attica, &amp; denarius Romanus, eju&s;dem fuerunt ponderis &amp; praetii.</HI> The old Silver Denarie here mentioned was in value &s;even pence half-peny: This was <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> money; and Chri&s;t bids them to give <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> money unto <HI>Ce&s;ar.</HI></P>
<P>But there was Gods money, which was the Shekel. Now there was
<PB N="7" REF="6">
the full Shekel, which weighed four <HI>Drachmes;</HI> and this was the Stater which Chri&s;t paid for him&s;elf and <HI>Peter.</HI> Stater and Shekel are all one; onely the one is a Greek word, the other is an Hebrew word. Stater comes from <GAP DESC="foreign"> which &s;ignifies to weigh; and <GAP DESC="foreign"> in Hebrew &s;ignifies to weigh. And in 1. <HI>Sam.</HI> 9. 8, the Shekel and the Stater are one and the &s;ame: what the <HI>Hebrew</HI> reads Shekel, the <HI>Septuagint</HI> Tran&s;lates Stater. Now half this Stater or Sheke every &s;oule throughout I&s;rael, from twenty years old, was to pay to the Lord. The halfe of this Shekel made the <HI>Didrachme,</HI> which was as much money as the Roman tribute-money in weight. It was in value fifteen pence. (The Romane Tribute-money was in value but &s;even pence half-peny.) This had the Rod of <HI>Aaron</HI> on one &s;ide of it, and the Pot of <HI>Manna</HI> on the other &s;ide &s;tamped on it; and this was Gods money, and this Chri&s;t bids the Phari&s;ees give to God: Give that which was <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> money to <HI>Ce&s;ar;</HI> and that which was Gods mo|ney, to God. Now this <HI>Didrachme</HI> was none of <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> money; for it had not his &s;tamp on it, as <HI>Beza</HI> manife&s;ts: this money went to Gods hou&s;e; and for that end Chri&s;t paid it. And of this opinion is <HI>Baronius,</HI> and <HI>Franci&s;cus Lucas,</HI> and others (&s;aith <HI>Cornelius &egrave; lapi|de).</HI> This half Shekel (as <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> ob&s;erves) and the <HI>Didrach|me,</HI> are all one: and it was demanded of <HI>Peter,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> and was paid, for Chri&s;t and <HI>Peter;</HI> for Him&s;elf, as the fir&s;t-borne; and for <HI>Peter,</HI> as the fir&s;t and chiefe&s;t of the Apo&s;tles, or becau&s;e he was the fir&s;t-borne: for that money was Redemption-money that the Jews paid; it was Gods money, which was paid to God in remem|brance of their Redemption in <HI>Egypt,</HI> when God &s;lew all the fir&s;t-borne in <HI>Egypt:</HI> then he &s;aved <HI>I&s;rael;</HI> therefore the fir&s;t-born of <HI>I&s;|rael</HI> was God's Redemption, <HI>Numb.</HI> 3. 13. (the very Text that <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> grounds his Di&s;cour&s;e on:) which Cu&s;tome from that day continued among&s;t the Jews. So that <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> is far from conceiving that Chri&s;t paid that money as Tribute to <HI>Ce&s;ar.</HI></P>
<P>This half Shekel being Gods due by the Law, <HI>Exod.</HI> 30. 13, 16, and paid untill the Captivity&punc; and in the Captivity&punc; and afterwards, by every man in <HI>I&s;rael&punc;</HI> to the Temple; this having al&s;o the Stamp of the Sanctuary upon it <HI>viz.</HI> the Pot of <HI>Manna,</HI> and the Rod of <HI>Aaron;</HI> it being al&s;o in value as much more as <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> money; it cannot be imagined that this <HI>Didrachme,</HI> and that money, <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. 19. which they &s;hewed Chri&s;t, &s;hould be all one. It is mo&s;t improbable,
<PB N="8" REF="7">
for this rea&s;on; Becau&s;e in <HI>Matth.</HI> 17. 24. there they came and de|manded money at <HI>Capernaum</HI> of Chri&s;t, and he paid it. Now certain dayes after this at <HI>Jeru&s;alem;</HI> the Phari&s;ees brats <HI>(Matth.</HI> 22) came on purpo&s;e to intrap him with this Que&s;tion; <HI>Is it lawfull to pay Tribute to Ce&s;ar, or no?</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">&punc; &s;aith <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome, Hom.</HI> 17. in <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. the Phari&s;ees breathed out their fury a|gain&s;t Chri&s;t, in that que&s;tion. Now if Chri&s;t had paid Tribute be|fore to <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> at <HI>Capernaum,</HI> this que&s;tion had been out of doubt, and the Phari&s;ees device exceeding weak, in propo&s;ing that which he had put out of doubt before. Therefore 'tis probable that what Chri&s;t paid at <HI>Capernaum,</HI> was money to the Temple, and not Tribute to <HI>Ce|&s;ar</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Chry&s;o&s;t.</HI> Hom. 56. in Matth. 17.</NOTE>: for there they came not to tempt him, but to aske him, and to receive it.</P>
<P N="2">2. This money that Chri&s;t paid at <HI>Capernaum,</HI> could not be Tri|bute-money to <HI>Ce&s;ar,</HI> becau&s;e Chri&s;t was never taxed: he was never inrolled in <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> books that we read of; neither was there any rea|&s;on: for he had neither Hou&s;e, nor Land, nor Money. And what could <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> exact from him, who had nothing?</P>
<P N="3">3. If the money that Chri&s;t paid had been Tribute to <HI>Ce&s;ar,</HI> then <HI>Peter,</HI> who had a hou&s;e and family in <HI>Capernaum</HI> &s;hould have paid more then Chri&s;t, who had neither hou&s;e, nor family nor goods, nor any thing el&s;e of value: but Chri&s;t paid equally with <HI>Peter;</HI> which, according to the Roman Law had been mo&s;t unju&s;t; but, according to Gods Law <HI>(Exod.</HI> 30. 15.) was mo&s;t ju&s;t: for there the Rich was to give no more then the halfe &s;hekel, and the Poor was to give no le&s;&s;e; becau&s;e the Redemption of their &s;oules was a like pretious; therefore they paid alike, each man his halfe &s;hekel; which was here exactly paid by <HI>Peter,</HI> for him&s;elf, and his Ma&s;ter. He gave the Stater; which being divided equally into two, make ju&s;t the redemption-mo|ney, the half &s;hekel for each.</P>
<P N="4">4. If that money which Chri&s;t paid, had been Tribute-money to <HI>Ce&s;ar,</HI> then Chri&s;ts inference from <HI>Peters</HI> an&s;wer to his demands, <HI>Matth.</HI> 17. 25, had not been good: for if from <HI>Peters</HI> conce&s;&s;ions, Chri&s;t had argued thus: If the Kings of the earth demand not Tri|bute of their natural &s;ons, then I am free from paying tribute to <HI>Ce|&s;ar;</HI> this would not have followed unle&s;s we &s;hall make Chri&s;t of the family of the <HI>Ce&s;ars:</HI> Or if he had argued thus: I am of the family of the Kings of <HI>Inaah;</HI> I am heir to the Crown, therefore I am free
<PB N="9" REF="7">
from <HI>Ce&s;ars</HI> Tribute, which he hath laid upon <HI>Judea;</HI> this would not follow neither: for, in a Conque&s;t, the King's family is mo&s;t engaged to the Conqueror; and &s;o Chri&s;t could not have expected to be free from <HI>Cae&s;ar.</HI> But now to argue from the money paid to the Temple, to his Prorogative Royal, the Argument will hold: For, if the chil|dren of the Kings of the earth be free from Taxes, becau&s;e of their Pre|rogative Royal, then much more am I free from paying the half She|kel, being the Son of God, and the true King unto whom you pay your Redemption-money. In this &s;ence <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> under&s;tands it.</P>
<P N="5">5. It cannot be proved by any Hi&s;tory that ever <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> exacted, or that the Jews paid this <HI>Didrachme,</HI> until after the de&s;truction of Jeru|&s;alem by <HI>Ve&s;patian,</HI> which was above fourty yeers after Chri&s;ts a&s;|cen&s;ion. So that by this time I doubt not but the Reader may &s;atisfie him&s;elf, that the Scriptures alleadged to prove that Chri&s;t paid Tribute to <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> do not onely not prove the &s;ame, but prove the contrary.</P>
<P>The Doctor &s;aith (&s;econdly) that <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> was an U&s;urper and had no Right at all, but onely bare Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the Jews Kingdom: and this he proveth out of 1 <HI>Mac.</HI> 8. where the Jews made friend&s;hip, and joyn|ed in a&s;&s;ociation with the Romanes, not out of any intent to &s;ubject to them. But, to an&s;wer that, 'tis well known to every Hi&s;torian, that very many yeers after that League made betwixt the Romanes and the Jews, the Jews provoked <HI>Pompey</HI> to break the League. For when <HI>Hircanus</HI> and <HI>Ari&s;tobulus</HI> were in conte&s;t about the Kingdom and the Prie&s;thood, they referred the ending of the difference to <HI>Pompey,</HI> who gave the Kingdom and Prie&s;thood to <HI>Hircanus.</HI> Whereupon tho&s;e that favoured <HI>Ari&s;tobulus</HI> in Jeru&s;alem, re&s;i&s;ted <HI>Hircanus:</HI> whereupon began a Civil War, unto which <HI>Pompey</HI> was called, by <HI>Hircanus</HI> and his Party; who coming with an Army again&s;t Jeru&s;alem, be|&s;ieged it and took it by &s;torm; &s;ubduing the people, and making them Tributaries to Rome. And here began the Jews Tribute to the Romanes; they being brought, by a perfect Conque&s;t, to &s;ubmit to the Romanes.</P>
<P>But to view more &s;trictly every particular of the Doctor's <HI>The&s;is:</HI> He &s;aith, <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> was an U&s;urper. To that we an&s;wer, fir&s;t, If we con&s;ider the Office of <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, 'twas lawful becau&s;e his Office was Monarchical; and Monarchie was by God in&s;tituted from the Creation: for <HI>Adam,</HI> by in&s;titution, was Soveraign over Man, as well as the re&s;t of the creatures: <HI>Adam</HI> was &s;ubject onely to God. <HI>Adam,</HI>
<PB N="10" REF="8">
had he continued in Innocencie, though he &s;hould not have had <HI>domi|nium directum,</HI> or, as the School-men &s;ay&punc; <HI>dominium altum;</HI> yet he &s;hould have had <HI>dominium &s;ubordinatum,</HI> a &s;ubordinate rule to God over men. This was <HI>Adam</HI>'s doe after the Fall, by the fifth Com|mandment; which Law was implanted in <HI>Adam,</HI> and was <HI>ver|bum</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> in his heart. Now though <HI>Adam</HI> fell from this Law, and by that meanes lo&s;t all his ability to keep this Law, yet this Law thereby lo&s;t none of its &s;trength; it expected as much from <HI>Adam</HI> as before he fell and from all other men de&s;cending from <HI>Adam:</HI> &s;o that if the fifth Commandement were in force then, doubtle&s;s there was &s;ubject on required then; and this by right belonged to <HI>Adam,</HI> as the Elde&s;t man the fir&s;t man. This &s;ubjection to the elde&s;t, was Gods in&s;titution <HI>Gen.</HI> 4. 7. <HI>Caine</HI> was the Elde&s;t; he was a wicked man, whom God regarded not: <HI>Abel</HI> was the beloved of God, yet God would not take away <HI>Caines</HI> temporal right of dominion, but &s;aid, <HI>He (viz. Abel) &s;hall be &s;ubject to thee and thou &s;halt rule</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Tho&s;e that endeavour to read this text other|wi&s;e, offer violence to the Hebrew copie.</NOTE> <HI>over him.</HI> So that Monarchie is Gods in&s;titution: and per&s;onall evils in that Monarch, cannot exempt good men from &s;ubjection to them. Indeed, the world ran into Anarchy after the murther of <HI>Abel;</HI> but yet we &s;hall finde that God pre&s;erved Monarchie among&s;t his own people in the family of <HI>Seth,</HI> and &s;o to <HI>Noah,</HI> and from <HI>Noah</HI> to <HI>Abraham,</HI> and from <HI>Abraham</HI> untill the Church of God became ex|ceeding numerous: then God rai&s;ed up tho&s;e two great Ordinances of Magi&s;tracie and Mini&s;try to govern his people. <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Aaron</HI> both which &s;prung out of one fountain, 1 <HI>Chron.</HI> 33. 13. to &s;hew the near|ne&s;s that is betwixt Magi&s;tracie and Mini&s;try in the Church, they are as two plea&s;ant rivers ri&s;ing from one head and running one way in &s;everal &s;treams, for the protection and profit of the Church. From that day, till the de&s;truction of the Jewi&s;h Sate, (except when Gods heavie hand in judgment was upon them) they were governed by Monarchs. <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was a Monarch: for the twelve Tribes received the Law at his mouth; all other Officers in that State were appointed by him, and not imme|diately by God, as Mo&s;es was. From Judges, the State ro&s;e to Kings: when they came to Kings, they came to the top of their pro&s;perity; they came to the government that God had promi&s;ed to <HI>Abraham,</HI> and to that government which <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> prophe&s;ied of, and left directions for, <HI>Dut.</HI> 17. 14, 15, 18, 19.</P>
<P>'Tis true, God gave then their fir&s;t King in Anger, becau&s;e they
<PB N="11" REF="8">
&s;ought him unlawfully, in murmuring again&s;t their lawfull Magi&s;trate <HI>Samuel</HI> and de&s;iring a King for unlawfull ends, and not patiently waiting Gods lei&s;ure. This King God took away in his wrath, and cut off his family: but God cho&s;e him another King, <HI>David</HI> by name, and e&s;tabli&s;hed his family in the Throne of <HI>Judah,</HI> untill the carrying away of the King and People into Captivity. By which 'tis manife&s;t, 'twas not the office of a King that God gave in anger, but the per&s;on of a King that God gave in Anger. Kingly government continued for fourteen generations in <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> unmoved, in the fa|mily of <HI>Dauid:</HI> neither the Church nor State of I&s;rael were &s;ettled, untill Kingly government was e&s;tabli&s;hed; and then the Arke was brought to a &s;ettled place, and a Temple erected for Gods wor&s;hip. By all which, and much more that might be &s;aid, 'tis evident, that Mo|narchy is <HI>jure divino;</HI> and therefore the office of <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> as Monarchi|cal &s;imply con&s;idered, was not u&s;urped, but lawfull.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> But the Doctor &s;aith that <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> had no right, but bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion onely of the Kingdome of <HI>Judea,</HI></P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> To that we an&s;wer very briefly and plainly not medling with learned <HI>Grotius,</HI> or tho&s;e other Di&s;cour&s;es of learned men, but u&s;ing this plain di&s;tinction of right in general; There is a Natural, a Provi|dential, and a Civil right.</P>
<P N="1">1. A Natural right <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> could not have, unle&s;s he could prove a &s;ucce&s;&s;ion from <HI>Noah;</HI> which were ridiculous to think. Be&s;ides, he got his power by violence; and therfore 'twas not any natural right that he had to be Emperour.</P>
<P N="2">2. There is a Providential right, which is by Gods permi&s;&s;ion: this <HI>Ce|&s;ar</HI> had: for God &s;uffered him to &s;ubdue the We&s;t and after that to over|throw the Ea&s;tern Armies that came again&s;t him: he overthrew <HI>Pompey</HI> him&s;elf and &s;o made him&s;elf Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or of the mo&s;t of <HI>Pompeys</HI> Victories in the Ea&s;t Yea, this right Traitors and U&s;urpers have to the Thrones that they po&s;&s;e&s;s: this right a Slave (through Gods ju&s;t judgment on a Nation) may have to the Throne: for not a Sparrow falls to the ground without Gods permi&s;&s;ion. This right both lawfull Kings and U&s;urpers have to the Thrones they po&s;&s;e&s;s. <HI>Athaliah,</HI> that mur|therer of the Royal family&punc; had onely this Providential right, which &s;he made appear onely by po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion. But this right gives not ju&s;t Title, nor can expect any &s;ubjection meerely upon that and no other right: and the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e when Providential right cro&s;&s;eth Ci|vil
<PB N="12" REF="9">
and Natural right, here a man is not bound to follow providence, but to guide him&s;elf by Moral and Divine precepts: for divine precepts are perpetual &s;tanding laws, by which the actions of men ought to be guided: but Providential acts were never ordained for lawes or rules by which men &s;hould walk; and therefore to &s;uch a right there is no &s;ubjection due: for Providential right may be given by God to the to the vile&s;t per&s;on, in judgment to a nation on purpo&s;e to try them, that &s;o, by &s;uch divil-wor&s;hip and unlawful &s;ubjection that nation may fill up the mea&s;ure of their iniquity, and God may de&s;troy both them and their Governours. We &s;ee this dreadful en&s;ample written on the ten Tribes backes, in bloudy Characters.</P>
<P N="3">3. There is a Civill right, which in divers re&s;pects may be either humane or divine. As for example: <HI>Caine</HI> had a Civill right of domination; this civill right, it was in re&s;pect of its original, and the Author of it, divine: for God had ordered it &s;o: but as de&s;cending from <HI>Adam</HI> the Monarch of the world, he had a right by &s;ucce&s;&s;ion; which right we call humane right.</P>
<P>Now a humane right is either by Succe&s;&s;ion or Conque&s;t, or Com|pact. To be briefe, we affirme that <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> had an humane right by conque&s;t, over the Kingdome of Judea. That I call an humane right, by conque&s;t, which brings the whole Community, by an over-awing power, to promi&s;e &s;ubjection to, and owne the Authority of the Con|queror; whereupon the Conqueror promi&s;eth them protection. This gives the Conqueror a humane right and title: for he holds his title <HI>ju|re gentium &amp; conce&s;&s;u gentium.</HI> The Learned well ob&s;erve there are five &s;orts of Subjects: 1. <HI>Subjecti naturae.</HI> 2. <HI>Subjecti affectio|num.</HI> 3. <HI>Subjecti fortunae.</HI> 4. <HI>Subjecti belli.</HI> 5. <HI>Subjecti ex com|pact.</HI> The Jewes were <HI>Subjecti belli,</HI> to <HI>Nebuchadnezzar,</HI> who by Conque&s;t &s;ubdued <HI>Zedekiah,</HI> and made him take an Oath of Allegi|ance not to rebell again&s;t him; the breaking of that Oath was rebelli|on, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 36. 13. Here <HI>Nebuchadnezzar</HI>'s Conque&s;t gave him a humane right; otherwi&s;e there could be no rebellion again&s;t him. Now I prove the Jews were either <HI>&s;ubjecti affectionum, &s;ubjecti belli,</HI> or <HI>&s;ubjecti ex compacto,</HI> or all, to <HI>Ce&s;ar,</HI> by this Argument, If the chief Prie&s;ts and the people owned no other King then <HI>Ce&s;ar;</HI> then <HI>Ce&s;ar,</HI> by the con&s;ent of the Prie&s;ts and people, was their King, and they his &s;ubjects: But the chiefe Prie&s;ts and the people owned none for their King but <HI>Ce&s;ar, John</HI> 19. 12. the Jewes cried out, <HI>If thou let this</HI>
<PB N="13" REF="9">
<HI>man go, thou art not Ce&s;ars friend. Who&s;oever maketh him&s;elf a King&punc; &s;peaketh again&s;t Ce&s;ar.</HI> Ver. 14. <HI>Pilate &s;aith, Behold your King.</HI> Ver. 15. <HI>the chief Prie&s;ts an&s;wered, We have no King but Ce&s;ar.</HI> Now I would faine know of the Doctor, what more <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> could de&s;ire to make him King of the Jewes by humane right, then the con&s;ent of the high Prie&s;ts and the people. So that <HI>Ce&s;ar</HI> had more then bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion: for he had as much humane right as both the chiefe Prie&s;ts and the people could give him.</P>
<P N="3">3. The la&s;t po&s;ition of the Doctor's we contradict, by affir|ming, that bare Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion without Right gives no true Title to any Power; neither is it ground for any people to &s;ubject to &s;uch a power. This my Po&s;ition hath been already proved, by more learned Pens; therefore the le&s;s &s;hall be &s;aid at this time; onely we'll &s;tate what <HI>bare po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> meanes rightly, by putting a right Ca&s;e.</P>
<P>We'll &s;uppo&s;e that <HI>Eutopia</HI>'s Kingdome is governed by a King, who&s;e power is mea&s;ured by the Lawes of his Kingdome, which are the rules of government: tho&s;e Lawes are made not by the King alone, but by a Convention of to E&s;tates who are joyned in equal power with the King in making a Law: for tho&s;e two E&s;tates have Negative voices (which is their grand priviledge) equal with the King: In this re&s;pect there is no Subordination in the three E&s;tates &s;itting; for they are concau&s;es of the &s;ame effect; which admits not of Subordi|nation. Yet this King is <HI>Principium, Caput, &amp; Finis Parliamen|ti:</HI> for he is <HI>Primus motor:</HI> he is created by none, nor cho&s;en by none; but he creates the Lords, who make one of the two E&s;tates which he a&s;&s;embles to him to make a Law: and the other, by vertue onely of the Kings Writs &amp; Summons, are inabled to be cho&s;en by the People, and &s;ent up to the place mentioned in the King's Summons, there to con&s;ult <HI>de arduis Regni.</HI> This King hath power to con|tinue or to di&s;&s;olve a Parliament when he plea&s;eth; but this power he inve&s;ts his Parliament with: which done, He and the Parliament differ; whereupon the King for&s;akes his Parliament; which by Law he cannot do, the Parliament &s;itting; for neither of the three E&s;tates can depart upon any pretence from the other two, withoutt he joynt con&s;ent of the whole: if either do, the other two will act, <HI>pro+tempore,</HI> as if the third were pre&s;ent; becau&s;e otherwi&s;e, through the ob&s;tinacie of one, the whole would run to ruine, by rea&s;on of the
<PB N="14" REF="10">
third's ab&s;ence. This difference at la&s;t breakes into a Civil War be|twixt the King and the two E&s;tates: whereupon nece&s;&s;ity inforceth the two E&s;tates to lay hold on the Kings Sword, the <HI>Militia,</HI> which was the Kings undoubted Right; and the Parliament could not have touched it, had the King continued with them. The King complains that the Parliament takes away his right; the Parliament &s;ay the King's mi&s;taken, and mi&s;led by evil Popi&s;h Councel; who under pretence of e&s;tabli&s;hing him, &s;eeke his ruine, and the ruine of Religi|on, and the Parliament: they prote&s;t they intend not to take it from him, but &s;ecure it for him; which they may do, in time of &s;uch appa|rent danger: and to &s;hew their Loyalty, they voluntarily enter into a Solemn League and Covenant, to defend Religion, Lawes, Parlia|ments, and the Kings Per&s;on, again&s;t Papi&s;ts on the one hand, and Sectarians on the other hand. After they have thrown down the Papi&s;ts party, who were the King and Parliaments Enemies on the one hand, up &s;tarts a Subtile Politick Religious Hypocrite, who by undermining and &s;upplanting his betters, gets at la&s;t to have the pow|er of the whole <HI>Militia</HI> of the Kingdome in his hands: which, when he hath it, contrary to his former Oathes, Vows, Prote&s;tations, and Covenant, all which he &s;olemnly took in publicke, he lays violent hands on the King, allures by promi&s;es, and terrifies by threats the two E&s;tates, who hereupon are divided: the timerous and guilty party flie to this Hypocrite, who pre&s;ently ingageth them to live and die with him: which done, by the power of his Sword he removes tho&s;e that did oppo&s;e him, and puts in his own party, who vote what he commands them. This done, he claps up the King clo&s;e pri&s;oner, and then puts on his party to inforce him to re&s;igne his pow|er: which the whole Kingdome &s;eeing, ri&s;e up in Armes again&s;t this Traiterous Hypocrite, and divert Him and his and party from pro|ceeding in their intended de&s;igne. Whereupon the two E&s;tates a&s;|&s;emble, and &s;it freely, and vote a Treaty with the King. The King yeelds to it, and &s;ignes the Propo&s;itions; e&s;pecially the&s;e three. 1. <HI>To root out Popery.</HI> 2. <HI>To establi&s;h the Protestant Religion.</HI> 3. <HI>To give the power of the Militia to the Parliament.</HI> This the two E&s;tates vote to be &s;ufficient ground for the &s;etling of the Kingdomes Peace. Hereupon this a&s;piring Hypocritical Traytor, per&s;orce, pulls down tho&s;e that voted this, and &s;ets up againe his
<PB N="5" REF="10">
own party, which were formerly ingaged to him. Whereupon the &s;ecluded Members make this Prote&s;t: <HI>We the Knights, Commons, and Burge&s;&s;es of the Parliament, above a hundred in number, being forcibly &s;eized on and, kept by violence from &s;itting in the Hou&s;e, do, in our owne, and the names of the Counties for which we &s;erve, prote&s;t, to the Kingdome, that (&s;ince the exe|crable force upon our Per&s;ons, again&s;t our Ordinances and Com|mands) all Acts or Votes, made or to be made during our re|&s;traint, are null and void: and all A&s;&s;i&s;tants or Abettors in the &s;ame Trea&s;onable armed violence, are hereby proclaimed open Enemies, and profe&s;&s;ed Perverters of the Kingdomes Priviledges.</HI></P>
<P>Thus the third E&s;tate prote&s;teth: notwith&s;tanding the pact party in the third E&s;tate of the Kingdome of <HI>Eutopia</HI> &s;its by the power of the a&s;piring Trayterous Hypocrite, who hath the power of the <HI>Militia</HI> thorowout the Kingdom into his hands: the&s;e few proceed in their exorbitant and illegal cour&s;es, to de&s;troy the chiefe of the three E&s;tates; and for this end, de&s;ire the &s;aid E&s;tate of Lords to joyne with them; which by the law of Nature they cannot do: for neither of the three E&s;tates are capable of being attached as E&s;tates: for, then two might joyne together to de&s;troy any one of the three; and &s;o the Government mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily, by its own power, be con|founded. The Lords reject the motion: hereupon this pact party, by the power of the Sword, which now was wholly theirs, clap a Lock and a Guard upon the doore of the Hou&s;e of the &s;econd E&s;tate of Lords; and forthwith dubb them&s;elves Kings, by voting the&s;e three Votes. 1. <HI>That the People are the original of ju&s;t Power.</HI> 2. <HI>That the Commons are the Supreame power of the Nation.</HI> 3. <HI>That what&s;oever is declared by the Hou&s;e of Com|mons to be Law, hath the force of a Law.</HI> Again&s;t this the Hou&s;e of Lords, who are the &s;econd E&s;tate in the Government of the King|dome, prote&s;t; as al&s;o again&s;t their violence in &s;ecluding them from &s;itting in the Parliament.</P>
<P>This pact party proceed by their owne power, and erect a Court, and appoint the men who &s;hall &s;it, judge and condemne the King, who is the fir&s;t E&s;tate; who, upon the Scaffold where they behead him, prote&s;teth, that <HI>would he have yeelded to have given away his power, he needed not to have come there; but for the Go|vernment,</HI>
<PB N="16" REF="11">
<HI>Lawes, and Liberties of the Kingdome, he there died a Martyr.</HI></P>
<P>Now in &s;uch a Ca&s;e, where a whole Kingdome is ingaged by Oathes, Vows, Prote&s;tations, and Covenants, to defend their lawfull Governours and Government all the dayes of their life; if &s;uch a par|ty &s;hall ari&s;e, and, contrary to their Vows, Oathes, Prote&s;tations and Covenants, ri&s;e up again&s;t, overthrow, impri&s;on, behead, and over|top the three E&s;tates, all which three never re&s;igned the lea&s;t of their power, but all three openly prote&s;ted again&s;t them as publike enemies to the Kingdome, and Traytors; I &s;ay, in &s;uch a ca&s;e, notwith&s;tand|ing that party be in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, and have &s;uppre&s;&s;ed the ancient Go|vernment of the Kingdome, yet this gives them no ju&s;t Title to the Government; neither doth it di&s;engage people from their former Oaths to the ancient Government, nor oblige the People to &s;ubject to the U&s;urper. For if this &s;hould be true, that an U&s;urper that hath no right, but being in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, ought therefore to be &s;ubjected to, then this mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily follow, that all re&s;i&s;tance made again&s;t an U&s;urper, is Trea&s;on or Rebelion; and then the Prie&s;ts, and the Cap|taines, and People, in 2 <HI>King.</HI> 11. who depo&s;ed <HI>Athaliah</HI> the U&s;ur|per, and &s;et up the lawfull heire the Kings Son&punc; in her &s;tead, rebelled: but the Scripture doth not affirme anywhere that they were Rebels, or Traytors, nor dares any &s;ober-minded man affirme it.</P>
<P>I &s;hall &s;ay no more but this, (becau&s;e I am unwilling to exceed or be tedious upon this Di&s;cour&s;e) that he that &s;hall affirme, that Obe|dience is due to an U&s;urper, becau&s;e he is in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the Throne, affirmes that, which, 1. Iscontrary to the Law of God; 2. To the Law of Nature; 3. He maintains a damnable &s;in.</P>
<P N="1">1. He oppo&s;eth the Law of God: for the fifth Commandment injoynes every man, <HI>Honour thy Father and thy Mother.</HI> Now an U&s;urper is he that depo&s;eth and murthereth my Civil Father; and I am no more bound to obey him, then the natural Son is bound to ob|&s;erve him who murthers his Father, on purpo&s;e to take po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of his family and e&s;tate: nor no more, then the Apo&s;tles were bound to obey <HI>Judas</HI> becau&s;e he betrayed his Ma&s;ter; though he &s;hould have got Chri&s;ts Coat on after he had murthered him.</P>
<P>Againe, 'Tis contrary to that Commandment, <HI>Thou &s;halt not &s;teal:</HI> for he that gives to an U&s;urper, that which is due to his law|full
<PB N="17" REF="11">
Magi&s;trate, plainly robbs his Magi&s;trate of his due. S. <HI>Paul</HI> injoynes the Romans to pay <HI>Tribute to whom Tribute is due:</HI> but no Tribute is due, no nor Honour, to an U&s;urper, one that hath nei|ther Humane nor Divine right. Indeed many times people have been forced to pay Tribute to an U&s;urper, and to &s;it &s;ilent under the Ty|ranny of U&s;urpers: but a forced &s;ubjection is &s;o far from being an argument that &s;ubjection is due, that it proves the contrary.</P>
<P>'Tis contrary to that Command, <HI>Thou &s;halt not beare fal&s;e witne&s;&s;e again&s;t thy neighbour:</HI> for in &s;ubjecting voluntarily to an U&s;urper, the lawful Magi&s;trate is &s;landered as a Tyrant and an U&s;urper, and the Tyrant and U&s;urper is honoured as a lawful Ma|gi&s;trate.</P>
<P>'Tis al&s;o contrary to that Commandment, <HI>Thou &s;halt not kill:</HI> for in &s;etting up and wor&s;hipping the U&s;urper, the Authority, Honour, and Maje&s;tie of the lawfull Magi&s;trate is &s;tifled, and killed; and, as <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> &s;aith, <HI>He that goeth about to de&s;troy a King, as much as in him lies indeavours to dethrone God: for Kings are Gods repre&s;entatives on earth.</HI> But I &s;hall bring the Fathers, anon, within the Ordinance of &s;peaking Trea&s;on.</P>
<P N="2">2. 'Tis contrary to the law of Nature: for Ju&s;tice which is the Queene of Nature's Laws, bids me <HI>Suum cuique tribuere,</HI> give to every one his due. It forbids me to give that to the Servant which is due to the Ma&s;ter; it forbids me to &s;et the Foot where the Head &s;hould be, and the Head where the Foot &s;hould be. <HI>Solomon</HI> ob&s;erved this as a great evil which he &s;aw; <HI>Princes on foot, and Servants on hor&s;eback.</HI> If that were &s;o great an evil, what would he have &s;aid, if he had &s;een Princes heads on the block, and their &s;worn &s;ervants, yea, tho&s;e that were &s;carce <HI>worthy to eat with the doggs of their flock,</HI> judging and condemning their Ma&s;ters heads to be cut off! This &s;in is &s;o much again&s;t the light of Nature, that the Ravens of the field &s;hall pick out his eyes that is &s;o pre&s;umptious as to behold &s;uch iniquity with approbation. But this &s;in and great evil, even again&s;t Nature, are they guilty of, who &s;hall yeeld &s;ub|jection and obedience to tho&s;e who are &s;uch U&s;urpers; ina&s;much as they allow of all their actions, and ju&s;tifie their authority.</P>
<P N="3">3. 'Tis a damnable &s;in to &s;ubject to U&s;urpers, who have no Right but bare Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion; becau&s;e, they that &s;o &s;ubject them&s;elves, <HI>re&s;i&s;t</HI>
<PB N="18" REF="12">
<HI>the powers that are ordained of God,</HI> Rom. 13. 2. <HI>and they that re|&s;i&s;t, &s;hall receive to them&s;elves damnation.</HI> Now he that &s;ubjects to an U&s;urper, who in the &s;ight of all the world, hath, by Trea&s;on again&s;t the Higher Powers, got po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the Throne, con&s;ents to, and allowes of the evil of the U&s;urper, and &s;o comes into the &s;ame condemnation with him. If under the Law, <HI>(Lev.</HI> 20. 9.) <HI>He that cur&s;ed his Father was &s;urely to be put to death;</HI> of how much greater judgement is he worthy, who &s;hall crucifie his Civil Parents, the Parents of the Kingdome; who &s;hall pre&s;ume to make, by his Rebellion and Trea&s;on, a whole Kingdome Fatherle&s;&s;e! This &s;inne of Rebellion is &s;o abominable, that in one place 'tis put in the ballance with Witch-craft, to &s;hew that Witches and Rebels, as they are two abominable parties in a Kingdome, &s;o they are fitte&s;t to be linked together: They are fit Companions; the one renounceth his Allegiance to God, and the other renounceth his Allegiance to Gods Vicegerent, to his Soveraigne. In <HI>Deuteronom.</HI> 27. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 16. the &s;econd Cur&s;e to which all the People were to &s;ay <HI>Amen,</HI> was this; <HI>Cur&s;ed be he that &s;etteth light by his Father and Mother:</HI> This is put next to the Cur&s;e of the Idolater, to &s;hew, that Rebellion again&s;t a lawful Magi&s;trate, is next to Rebellion again&s;t the Sacred Ma|je&s;ty of God him&s;elfe.</P>
<P>Now if Rebellion be &s;o great &s;inne in tho&s;e that act it, How much greater is their &s;inne that &s;et up &s;uch Rebels in the Throne, and, by &s;ubjecting to them, give them the Honour due to tho&s;e they murthered and dethroned! If God doth &s;ay, <HI>Thou &s;halt not &s;uffer a Murtherer to live;</HI> that God &s;aith, Thou &s;halt not exalt and magnifie that Murtherer.</P>
<P>I &s;hall conclude all, with <HI>Revel.</HI> 13. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 4. where Chri&s;t him&s;elfe &s;tiles tho&s;e that &s;ubject to an u&s;urped power, <HI>Wor&s;hippers of the Dragon. Ver&s;.</HI> 1. The Bea&s;t of the Sea, that is, a Bea&s;t ri&s;ing out of the Church; that is, &s;ay learned Interpreters, the Government by Popes. <HI>Ver&s;.</HI> 2. The Popes got to their greatne&s;&s;e by Subtilty, and Murther, and Trea&s;on; by dethro|ning their lawfull Ma&s;ters, the Roman Emperours. <HI>Ver&s;.</HI> 3. All the World wondered after this Bea&s;t; that is, the greate&s;t part of the We&s;tern Empire &s;ubjected to the Pope; and this
<PB N="19" REF="12">
&s;ubjection to the Pope, that Grand U&s;urper, is called, <HI>(Ver&s;.</HI> 4.) Devil-wor&s;hip; And they wor&s;hipped the Dragon; and why the Dragon? Becau&s;e he gave power to the Bea&s;t. U&s;urpers have not the power from God, but from the Devil; and he that &s;ubjects to an U&s;urper, &s;ubjects to the Devil.</P>
<P>Now as for that man that dares pre&s;ume to preach for &s;ub|jection to U&s;urpers, and bring our ble&s;&s;ed Lord and Saviour for an example, I pity that man, and wi&s;h him hearty and &s;peedy repentance, before that God whom he hath bla&s;phemed by a ly, fall upon him.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
