<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-10-10</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Alexis Jakobson</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Proofed title page(s).
*Reviewed structure.
*Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, BYLINE, etc.).
*Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate.
*Checked for N=""s.
*Checked ^s.
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs.
*Checked for foreign, damage and missing-page GAPs, #, --.
*Checked for LBs, startqs / endqs, &abque;s, &abque;s, ABBRs, LETTERs and Qs.
*Checked for FIGUREs and decorated initials.
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there.
*Corrected <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s etc.
*Converted <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="[vendor name]".
*Revalidated.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A84287">
<STC T="W">E3865</STC>
<STC T="T">E597_12</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99862436</BIBNO>
<VID>114595</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P><HI>THE EXERCITATION ANSWERED, In the A&s;&s;ertions Following made good again&s;t it.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>1</HI> That the u&s;urpation pretended by the <HI>Ex|ercitator</HI> is really no u&s;urpation, by any thing that he hath &s;aid to prove it &s;uch.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>2</HI> That former Oaths in controver&s;ie oblige not again&s;t obedience to pre&s;ent Powers.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>3</HI> That obedience is due to Powers in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;i|on, though unlawfully enter'd.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<Q><P>Duobus modis aliquis e&s;t Tyrannus; uno, quia licet &s;it ver&egrave; Do|minus Reipublicae, inju&s;t&egrave; eam admini&s;trat. Ne&s;as e&s;t privatis i&s;ium interficere; at pro &s;ui defen&s;ione licet; &amp; Re&s;publica quoad capita convenire pote&s;t, &amp; deponere &amp; depo&s;itum punire.</P>
<P>Tyrannum &s;ecundo modo, quivis de Republica pote&s;t licit&egrave; inter|ficere ni&s;i ex ea interfectione major a mala Reipublicae immine|rent; nam tune contra Reipublicae charitatem peccaret illum in|terficiendo.</P>
<BIBL><HI>Molina de Ju&s;titia, Tract. 3. Di&s;p. 6.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<P>LONDON, <HI>Printed for</HI> John Wright <HI>at the Kings Head in the old Bailey. 1650.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<HEAD>THE EXERCITATION an&s;wered, in the ASSERTIONS following, made good again&s;t it.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. I.</HI> A ta&s;te of the Exercitator and Exercitation.</HEAD>
<P>_PUblique obedience to Powers ordained by God, next to immediate obedience to God him&s;elf ordaining tho&s;e Powers, is a <HI>Duty</HI> that &s;hould have the fir&s;t place in the heart, as it hath in the &s;econd Table of the <HI>Law,</HI> which the <HI>New Covenant</HI> writes in the heart. And therefore he that &s;hall break this Com|mandment of obedience (not one of the lea&s;t but greate&s;t Commandments) and &s;hall teach men &s;o, had need of a light within him to warrant both him&s;elf and his Do|ctrine, as cleer as the <HI>Meridian</HI> Sun; lea&s;t while he thinks to re&s;i&s;t the <HI>u&s;urpations</HI> of men, he indeed re&s;i&s;t the <HI>Ordi|nance</HI> of God.</P>
<P>They that favour the Doctrine of di&s;obedience to the pre&s;ent Powers, commend to us as the mo&s;t cleer and able if not irrefragable Di&s;cour&s;e upon that Subject, a Book intituled, <HI>An Exercitation &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The Author we mu&s;t profe&s;&s;e we know not, nor any
<PB N="2" REF="3">thing of his per&s;onall ability or integrity, but certainly if in other matters he have had the repute of one defe|ctive in neither, we are &s;ory we are inforc't to &s;ay that in this of the <HI>Exercitation,</HI> He hath &s;hewed a mi&s;erable want of both. To make this apparent, we &s;hall not need to tire the Reader or our &s;elves, to follow him in his wilde extravagancies, by a particular enumeration of his tedi|ous impertinencies and manife&s;t contradictions: It will &s;uffice (before we come by an examination of his <HI>foun|dation</HI> and groundworke, to &s;hake the main <HI>Pillars</HI> of his <HI>Phili&s;tine-Fabrick</HI>) that we premi&s;e a ta&s;te, and but a ta&s;te (for <HI>ex pede Herculem</HI>) of the &s;trength and candor of this &s;o much admired Piece.</P>
<P>The Title page runs, <HI>An Exercitation,</HI> &s;o we may ju&s;tly expect an accurate Tract; yet page 75. the <HI>Exercitator</HI> tels us, <HI>he hath not by him divers of the Books cited by the Au|thour whom he there undertakes to an&s;wer.</HI> Hath he not? it may be they are hard to be got; or it may be they are not worth the getting, who are they? let the Reader judge, <HI>Bucer, Peter Martyr, Calvin, Gualter &amp;c.</HI> the&s;e are the Authors that our learned <HI>Exercitator</HI> &s;aies he hath not by him; and have we not here a proper <HI>Exercitator,</HI> that thus like a fre&s;h-water Souldier enters the Li&s;ts without his Arms? But what want of Arms, where there is no want of con|fidence? for he proceeds magi&s;terially to tell the Reader (and he mu&s;t believe him <HI>gratis,</HI> without the lea&s;t &s;yllable of rea&s;on for it) that the Authors &s;ayings &s;et downe by his Antagoni&s;t reach not the ca&s;e at all. And comes he not learnedly off? The Reader need not &s;cruple to be|lieve him that he an&s;wers <HI>without booke.</HI> Such an an&s;wer were fitter for <HI>Solomon</HI>'s &s;luggard, <HI>Prov.</HI> 26.16. then an <HI>Exercitator.</HI> For &s;urely Replies of this nature need no great <HI>Exercitation,</HI> and are like to afford as little <HI>&s;atisfa|ction,</HI> unle&s;&s;e it be to &s;uch as are &s;o <HI>kind hearted</HI> to him, that they have before hand re&s;olved to believe him (or indeed any of his <HI>Bias</HI>) out of pure charity. But you will &s;ay, it may be, as he alleadges they were, &s;o they were indeed, impertinently quoted; and what need he trouble
<PB N="3" REF="3">him&s;elf with them, &s;o long as they &s;peak nothing to the purpo&s;e? How much to the purpo&s;e they &s;peak, let the Reader judge, when he &s;hal fir&s;t have heard the Po&s;ition to be prov'd, and afterward one or two in &s;tead of al the re&s;t, &s;peaking to it in his Antagoni&s;ts Quotation. <HI>The Author of the lawfulne&s;&s;e of obeying the pre&s;ent Government</HI> (with whom our <HI>Exercitator</HI> in the place in que&s;tion hath to deale) a&s;&s;erts that <HI>a Government unlawfully erected, may yet lawfully be obey'd;</HI> and the foundation upon which he builds his judgement in the Po&s;ition, is <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. For he argues that the Apo&s;tle writing to the Chri&s;tians of that age, gives them command to be &s;ubject to the Powers that then were, becau&s;e even tho&s;e Powers were of God, though (as our Author conceives) they were u&s;urp'd Powers, being either <HI>Claudius Cae&s;ar</HI> or <HI>Nero,</HI> both Romane Empe|rours; from whence he concludes that <HI>unlawfull</HI> Powers in point of <HI>Title,</HI> may <HI>lawfully</HI> be obey'd; and for proofe by way of te&s;timony of the godly reformed Divines con|curring in judgement with him&s;elf, cites <HI>Peter Martyr,</HI> page 8. in the&s;e words: <HI>It &s;hall not here be &s;crupulou&s;ly di&s;|puted,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Nihil h&icirc;c anxie di&s;putandum e&s;t, quo jure qu&acirc;ve injuri&acirc;, principes adepti|&s;int pote&s;tatem &s;uam. Illud po|tius agendum e&s;t, ut Magi|&s;tratus <HI>prae&s;en|tes</HI> revereamur. Haec enrm Epi|&s;tola &s;cribeba|tur, cum Ro|mant jam adepti e&s;&s;ent imperium orbis terrarum, quod eos <HI>per vim &s;cimus</HI> oc|cupa&s;&s;e, &amp; po&s;tea Imperatores artibus nihilo melioribus rerum &s;ummam ad &s;e pertrax|i&s;&s;e. Paulus tamen &s;ine omni exceptione praecipit, obediendum e&s;&s;e Magi&s;tratilus. <HI>Per. Martyr in Rom. 13.</HI></NOTE> <HI>by what right or by what wrong Princes have gotten their Power; this rather is to be done, that we reverence the PRE|SENT Magi&s;trates; for this Epi&s;tle was written when the Romanes had now gotten the Empire of the world, which we KNOW they did po&s;&s;e&s;&s;e by FORCE; and that afterward, the Emperours by Policies, nothing better, drew to them&s;elves an univer&s;all Power; yet</HI> Paul <HI>doth command that Magi&s;trates, without all exception, mu&s;t be obey'd.</HI> And now let the Rea|der judge, whither it be not &s;o far from being nothing, that indeed nothing can be more to the purpo&s;e; for who &s;ees not that he a&s;&s;erts the &s;elf &s;ame thing, and up|on the &s;ame ground with our <HI>Authour,</HI> without a hairs difference &s;ave in expre&s;&s;ion? And with him doe all the re&s;t agree; but <HI>Bucer</HI> is more full and peremptory upon the
<PB N="4" REF="4">point,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Quum igitur quaeritur cui pae|rendum, non e&s;t &s;pectandum qua|lis &s;it qui pote|&s;tatem exercer, nec quo jure vel injuri&acirc; quis po|te&s;tatem inva|&s;erit, quave ra|tione eam admi|ni&s;tret, &s;ed tantum &s;i pote&s;tatem haheat; &s;i enim quis pote&s;tate pollet, jam indubitatum e&s;t il|lum &agrave; Deo illam pote&s;tatem accepi&s;&s;e, unde &s;ine omni exceptione, illi te permittas oportet, &amp; pareas ex animo.</NOTE> expre&s;&s;ing him&s;elf in the&s;e termes: <HI>When a que|&s;tion is made whom we &s;hould obey, it mu&s;t not be lookt at what he is that exerci&s;es the power, or by what right or wrong he hath invaded the power, or in what manner he doth di&s;pen&s;e 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. Where|fore without all exception, thou mu&s;t yeeld thy &s;elf up to him, and heartily obey him.</HI></P>
<P>Tis therefore plain that the rea&s;on why the <HI>Exercitator</HI> makes &s;uch a &s;ory &s;hift to rid his hands of tho&s;e approv'd Divines, was not becau&s;e they &s;peak too little, but rather too much to the purpo&s;e; for being re&s;olv'd, right or wrong, to maintain his own conceit, he knew not how to decline the Authority of oppo&s;ites &s;o learned and judici|ous, and which no judicious man but him&s;elf would have &s;lighted, &s;ave by thus turning them out at the back door.</P>
<P>But again, though this <HI>Exercitator</HI> had wanted Books, (for he &s;aies he had not the Authours by him) he &s;hould not have wanted rea&s;on for overthrowing the Rea&s;ons that were alleadged to maintaine the Po&s;ition of Obedi|ence which him&s;elf did oppo&s;e. The Rea&s;ons of the Ca|&s;ui&s;ts, and particularly that of <HI>Salon,</HI> were at large ex|pre&s;&s;ed, &s;o that he needed not to be at charge for Bookes to finde them, being there found to his hands. But in|deed if many <HI>Exercitators</HI> were in this one, they cannot &s;tand under the weight of tho&s;e Rea&s;ons; and therefore he did wi&s;ely not to take the&s;e Gates of <HI>Azzah</HI> on his &s;houlders, being no <HI>Samp&s;on,</HI> lea&s;t he &s;hould &s;inke under the weight of them. But in the meane time, till they be &s;oundly an&s;wered, the Po&s;ition of obedience &s;tands &s;trong and un&s;haken, and his Di&s;cour&s;e doth fall (with <HI>Dagon</HI>) before it.</P>
<P>And yet our <HI>Exercitator &s;uperciliou&s;ly</HI> &s;aies (and he thinks it enough, though never &s;o apparently untrue, to &s;ay)
<PB N="5" REF="4"><HI>it reaches not the Ca&s;e at all.</HI> But to returne to our Exer|citation.</P>
<P>We are told in the Title Page, that the Di&s;cour&s;e is <HI>mode&s;tly and inoffen&s;ively manag'd,</HI> (mens con&s;ciences tell them what they &s;hould do, and their works tell us what they have done) <HI>by one &s;tudious of truth and peace.</HI> If he be &s;o good a <HI>&s;tudent,</HI> 'tis &s;trange he &s;hould be &s;o bad a <HI>profi|cient.</HI> For if we may make a better judgement of him by his <HI>works</HI> then his <HI>words,</HI> we doubt not but the Reader will finde him a very <HI>truant</HI> in the &s;tudy of <HI>truth,</HI> at lea&s;t in the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie, when it &s;hall be brought to the Touch-&s;tone. And for the <HI>peaceable and inoffen&s;ive mode&s;ty</HI> whereof he would be&s;peak him&s;elf an opinion, let but the <HI>heart and de&s;igne</HI> of the <HI>Exercitation</HI> be compar'd with the <HI>Quotations</HI> out of <HI>Fenner</HI> and <HI>Grotius</HI> confronting his &s;o candid profe&s;&s;ion, and they will &s;peak him far from the pretended temper of peace and an inoffen&s;ive mode&s;ty. The <HI>Exercitation</HI> endeavours (though in truth by argu|ments no le&s;&s;e fal&s;e then frivolous, and as injurious as ei|ther) to fix <HI>&V;&s;urpation</HI> upon the Parliament; and there|upon decries all obedience to them, and cries up di&s;obe|dience as meritorious in the hearts and affections of the people: the Quotations to adde more light and heat to the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, mu&s;t in&s;inuate, <HI>That any private per&s;on may lawfully kill an u&s;urper.</HI> Though in truth he puts a dan|gerous wrong upon the Reader, and indeed upon the Au|thours quoted, whil&s;t he racks their Tenet to &s;o evil an end, and brings forth their words upon the &s;tage by halves, without tho&s;e <HI>Cautions</HI> and <HI>Qualifications</HI> u&s;ually annext, and requi&s;ite to &s;o tender a point, whereof we have here given a ta&s;te.</P>
<P>One well skill'd in Ca&s;es of Con&s;cience &s;aies:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Id curare debet occi&s;or ita caut&egrave; &amp; con&s;ult&ograve; fa|cere, ut non pejores exitus &amp; &s;candula ex tali occi&s;ione &s;perentur. <HI>Sayr. Ca&s;. Con&s;. lib. 7. cap. 10. n. 4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>He that &s;hall kill a Tyrant, mu&s;t have a care that he do it with &s;uch cau|tion and wi&s;dom, as the killing it &s;elf give not cau&s;e to &s;eare that wor&s;e con&s;equences and &s;candals may follow thereupon.</HI></P>
<PB N="6" REF="5">
<P>And another of no mean e&s;teem for learning,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tyrannus Titu|lo, ut appella|tur, ad tempus e&s;t tolerandus; omnibus autem mediis &amp; re|mediis fru&s;tra tentaris e&s;t tollendus; &s;ed non ni&s;i ab ordinibus five Optimatibus. <HI>Al&s;t. Reg. Theol. cap. 23. Artic. 8.</HI></NOTE> and ci|ted by the <HI>Exercitator</HI> him&s;elf, &s;aies: <HI>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.</HI></P>
<P>And to &s;ee the fidelity of this Exercitator; even to that very &s;entence which him&s;elf out of the &s;ame Author hath cited page 74.<NOTE PLACE="marg">De hoc &amp;c. liceat illunn &egrave; medio tollere, &s;t quidem hoc faciat Autori|tate publica. <HI>Idem. Sy&s;t. Pol. &s;ec. cap. 12. Reg. 4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>De hoc</HI> &amp;c. there is annext this qualificati|on by him mo&s;t in juriou&s;ly omitted, <HI>That a private per&s;on in taking away a Tyrant, may not act but with publique Au|thority.</HI></P>
<P>Neither hath he dealt altogether faithfully with <HI>Fen|ner,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Dudl. Fenner Sacr. Theol c. <HI>13</HI> De polit. Civit. p. <HI>80.</HI></NOTE> as he that peru&s;es him will finde in the place cited, whither for brevities &s;ake I refer him.</P>
<P>But of all the re&s;t he hath mo&s;t palpably abus'd <HI>Groti|us.</HI> For after divers qualifications and cautions both pre|fixt and affixt by him, but omitted by the Exercitator, yea and &s;ome in the very &s;entence quoted,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Maxim&egrave; autem in re controver|&s;a judictum &s;ibi privatus &s;umere non debet, &s;ed POSSESSIO|NEM &s;equi. Sic tributum &s;olvi Cae&s;ari Chrt&s;tus jubebat, quia ejus imaginem nummus praeferebat, id e&s;t, quia in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ione erat imperii. <HI>Grotius, De jure pacis ac belli, lib. 1. c. 4. &sect;. 20.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Grotius</HI> thus concludes upon the whole matter: <HI>But mo&s;t certaine it is, that in a controverted ca&s;e no private per&s;on may pre&s;ume to make him&s;elf a Judge, but mu&s;t give way to POSSESSION. Thus Chri&s;t commanded that Tribute &s;hould be paid to</HI> Cae&s;ar, <HI>becau&s;e the money bore his Image, that is, becau&s;e he was in po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ion of the Empire.</HI></P>
<P>And what can the meaning of the Exercitation in all this be (charity it &s;elf being judge) but on the one &s;ide to blow the Trumpet to <HI>open Rebel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ion</HI> again&s;t the Autho|rity of Parliament in generall? and on the other &s;ide to &s;trengthen the hands of <HI>private a&s;&s;a&s;&s;ines</HI> again&s;t the lives
<PB N="7" REF="5">of the Members in particular? And is not this mode&s;tly and inoffen&s;ively manag'd? are not the&s;e the de&s;ignes of one &s;tudious of peace? 'Tis &s;trange the Exercitation it &s;elf &s;hould not blu&s;h, to pretend to a peaceable and inof|fen&s;ive mode&s;ty, whil&s;t it expo&s;es the blood of the Powers again&s;t whom it di&s;putes, to the lu&s;t of every bloody mi&s;|creant. And yet the Exercitators con&s;cience could not but tell him, that many if not mo&s;t of the Commons now &s;itting, po&s;&s;e&s;&s;e their &s;eats within tho&s;e walls by vir|tue of an Election <HI>unque&s;tionably,</HI> legall, and by the <HI>&s;an|ction</HI> of a Law to <HI>perpetuate</HI> them (till them&s;elves &s;hall con&s;ent to their own di&s;&s;olution) as <HI>unque&s;tionable.</HI> And therefore he might have con&s;idered (for being an Exerci|tator, &s;ure he could not be ignorant) that according to that generally known, and as genarally receiv'd Maxime, <HI>In re dubia tutior e&s;t conditio po&s;&s;identis;</HI> which might have taught him to forbeare &s;uch unchri&s;tian in&s;inuations in an affair of &s;o &s;olemne and &s;overaign concernment, both in religious and civil re&s;pects.</P>
<P>But we &s;hall now come to particulars, and fir&s;t to that of the <HI>pretended u&s;urpation,</HI> and we &s;hall ab&s;olve it in the in&s;uing Chapter.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. II.</HI> That the &V;&s;urpation pretended is really no &V;&s;urpation.</HEAD>
<P>THat the Commons of <HI>England</HI> a&s;&s;embled in Parlia|ment &s;hould be charg'd with U&s;urpation by any &s;in|gle per&s;on <HI>without doors,</HI> doubtle&s;&s;e in all rea&s;on cannot but &s;eem very <HI>irregular;</HI> and therefore it might well have become the <HI>Exercitator</HI> (whoever he be) by that Analo|gie of our Saviours words, of which he &s;peaks, <HI>pag.</HI> 3. mode&s;tly to have askt him&s;elf before he began this work, <HI>Who made him a Judge or a Rule-maker over the Commons in
<PB N="8" REF="6">Parliament?</HI> But 'tis ea&s;ier &s;ometimes to &s;ee a mote abroad then a beam at home. All that he &s;aies to the point of U|&s;urpation (and que&s;tionle&s;&s;e his zeal makes him omit no|thing that he can &s;ay) is comprehended in the fir&s;t Chap|ter, containing both the Charge and the grounds there|of, in the in&s;uing de&s;cription of U&s;urpation.</P>
<P><HI>&V;furpation</HI> (he &s;aies) <HI>is an intru&s;ion into the &s;eat of Autho|rity, a pre&s;uming to po&s;&s;e&s;&s;e and manage the place and power thereof, without a lawfull calling, right, or title thereunto.</HI></P>
<P>In the pro&s;ecution of this de&s;cription he tels us (though with much ado about nothing) that by <HI>Authority</HI> hee means that which is <HI>&s;upreme,</HI> and by a lawfull calling, <HI>a calling from the People;</HI> and this he &s;aies is &s;o <HI>e&s;&s;entiall</HI> to a humanely con&s;tituted Magi&s;tracy, that where it is, it makes a <HI>lawfull Magi&s;tracy;</HI> and the <HI>privation</HI> or want thereof makes <HI>&V;&s;urpation.</HI> Again tis confe&s;t by him&s;elf, <HI>pag.</HI> 5. that by <HI>the fundamentall Government of this Nation, the Commons in Parliament have a lawfull Title to &s;upremacy of power</HI> joyntly <HI>by way of</HI> coordination <HI>with the other coordinates there mentioned;</HI> and by con&s;equence it cannot be deny'd, <HI>that they have al&s;o a lawfull Title to &s;upremacy of power</HI> &s;everally <HI>by way of &s;upply without them.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Fuller An&s;. <HI>to D.</HI> Ferne. pag. <HI>1.</HI> Ibid. pag. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> For in this particular, the learned Author of the fuller an&s;wer to D. <HI>Ferne,</HI> will tell him that <HI>coardinata invicem &s;upplent,</HI> coordi|nates &s;upply each other. And he gives this rea&s;on after|wards, <HI>Becau&s;e in a coordinate and mixt Government, one parts refu&s;all exempts not the other from its duty, nor mu&s;t it defraud the whole of its &s;afety; &s;o it &s;hould fru&s;trate the very end of that its coordination, which is, &s;upply for the more &s;ecurity of its &s;afety.</HI> And he adds further in the &s;ame place, <HI>That in ca&s;e of the ab&s;ence and refu&s;all of the other parts in coordination the &s;upreme power of the whole is virtually in the part &s;upplying.</HI> Neither is it materiall if it be objected; that he &s;peaks of both Hou&s;es in the place la&s;t mentioned, for the rea&s;on in point of &s;afety is the &s;ame whether <HI>both</HI> or but <HI>one</HI> &s;upply, as was clear in the Votes again&s;t <HI>Hamiltons</HI> Army.</P>
<P>From all which grounds thus apparently deduc't from our Exercitators own Doctrine, tis evident that the man is contradictory to him&s;elf, whil&s;t he endeavours to bring
<PB N="9" REF="6">the Commons in Parliament within the compa&s;&s;e of U|&s;urpation, as exerci&s;ing the Supreme Power without a lawfull calling; whereas him&s;elf hath plainly confe&s;t that by way of coordination <HI>joyntly,</HI> and therefore <HI>&s;eve|rally</HI> al&s;o by way of &s;upply, they have a lawfull calling to the exerci&s;e of the Supreme Power. Whats objected to evade this palpable contradiction? Tis alleadg'd, <HI>That the Commons now &s;itting are not a Hou&s;e,</HI> and that's the onely <HI>&s;ubterfuge,</HI> the old and thredbare <HI>&s;hift</HI> of the late Kings Party, of which if we can but unca&s;e him, we &s;hall allow him (be&s;ides the whole crowd of his other impertinencies) the <HI>Apex, Zenith,</HI> and <HI>Culmen</HI> of his high|flown Rhetorick, with all the <HI>Poetica licentia</HI> of his tra|gicall <HI>American &s;cene;</HI> for we mu&s;t acknowledge he were an Exercitator that de&s;erv'd richly to be whipt, if he could not with &s;ome little hand&s;omne&s;&s;e at lea&s;t, &s;o tell his own tale, as to make it &s;erve his own turn.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t therefore if they be no hou&s;e, we would willingly know how they came to be none. We well know that once they were a Hou&s;e, and we know as well how they came to be a Hou&s;e; in a word, by a lawfull calling from the People (to u&s;e his owne expre&s;&s;ion) to <HI>con&s;titute</HI> them, and the &s;anction of a Law to <HI>continue</HI> them a Hou&s;e, till their own <HI>con&s;ent</HI> &s;hould di&s;&s;olve them; which till them|&s;elves &s;hall have declared to be pa&s;t, we cannot ea&s;ily be|lieve any other that &s;hall tell us of their di&s;&s;olution. Yea but they are no Hou&s;e, for he &s;aies <HI>they are under a force,</HI> and he proves it out of all cry, becau&s;e they are <HI>willing</HI> and <HI>con&s;enting</HI> to that force. Now in truth they de&s;erve to be pitti'd. What to be con&s;train'd to act again&s;t their wils with all their hearts!<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. Ethic. lib. <HI>3.</HI> cap. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> I dare &s;ay tis &s;uch a force as never men were under before them. He talks of an <HI>u&s;u-pation,</HI> but I am &s;ure here's a <HI>contradiction</HI> to the <HI>life.</HI> But be&s;ides the contradiction, how knows he they were con&s;enting? did they ever tell him &s;o? I am &s;ure they have told the world the contrary, as appears by their Me&s;&s;age to the Generall and Councell of Warre. It will be &s;aid, that was but a meere formality; and, if they did not con&s;ent
<PB N="10" REF="7">to the force, why did they not pro&s;ecute the Authors of it? I an&s;wer, By denying the con&s;equence; neither can the Exercitator, were he as able as his admirers do or po&s;&s;ibly can imagine him, ever prove, That to forbeare the pro&s;ecution <HI>ad &s;ummum jus</HI> of the Authors, is to con|&s;ent to the evil of an act. For in&s;tance, If a man remit a wilfull tre&s;pa&s;&s;e, that will beare action in Law to his Neighbour, doth he con&s;ent to the evil of that act? or to come a little nearer both to the Exercitator and the pre|&s;ent ca&s;e: When the Apprentices made a force upon the Hou&s;e, it was afterward mov'd in the Hou&s;e, whereof Mr. <HI>Pelham</HI> &s;ate Speaker, That the Authors of that force might be pro&s;ecuted, and carried in the <HI>negative,</HI> will the Exercitator &s;ay that the Hou&s;e then &s;itting was there|fore con&s;enting to the force, and con&s;equently was not a Hou&s;e? I am confident he loves them too well to think &s;o. Yet, <HI>Aut haec cum illis &s;unt habenda, aut illa cum his a|mittenda &s;unt,</HI> either he mu&s;t <HI>grant</HI> that the Hou&s;e then &s;it|ting was con&s;enting to the force then, and therefore was not a Hou&s;e, or <HI>deny</HI> that the Hou&s;e now &s;itting is <HI>con&s;ent|ing</HI> to the force which is urg'd, and &s;o conclude that <HI>they are &s;till a Hou&s;e,</HI> notwith&s;tanding the <HI>non-pro&s;ecution</HI> 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 tis one thing to <HI>pa&s;&s;e by,</HI> and another thing to <HI>con|&s;ent</HI> to a mi&s;carriage; the latter may not be done upon <HI>any</HI> con&s;ideration what&s;oever; the former not onely may, but mu&s;t be done upon <HI>many,</HI> when the Rea&s;on of the State (which our Author &s;aies,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Fuller An&s;. pag. <HI>25.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the Law makes to re&s;idein both Hou&s;es joyntly by way of coordination, and &s;everally by way of &s;upply</HI>) &s;hall think it fit. And <HI>in this finall re&s;olution of the States judgment the people</HI> (he &s;aies) <HI>are to re&s;t.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. pag. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> But to give an unque&s;tion|able warrant to this di&s;tinction and the practice of the Hou&s;e of Commons upon it,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mica 7.18.</NOTE> tis &s;aid of God him&s;elfe, that <HI>he pa&s;&s;es by the tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions of the remnant of his people,</HI> and yet it were bla&s;phemy to &s;ay that he is in the lea&s;t <HI>con|&s;enting</HI> to them;<NOTE PLACE="marg">The Reader is de|&s;ir'd <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> notice that the mi&s;ca iage here pretended is only &s;uppo&s;d not granted.</NOTE> and can there be a better pre&s;ident to warrant the Commons pa&s;&s;ing by a mi&s;carriage (with|out
<PB N="11" REF="7">out being guilty of con&s;enting to it) rather then by cal|ling for a &s;trict account to &s;acrifice the <HI>peace and &s;afety</HI> of the Commonwealth upon the &s;ervice of tho&s;e <HI>Priviledges,</HI> which no man that hath his rea&s;on and a freedom to u&s;e it can deny to be intended in their own <HI>nature</HI> and by their fir&s;t <HI>in&s;titution</HI> to be <HI>fences</HI> and <HI>ornaments</HI> for the <HI>good</HI> of the Common-wealth, not <HI>firebrands</HI> of contention for its <HI>ruine? Priviledges</HI> are <HI>&s;ervants</HI> to the good of the publike, not <HI>Lords</HI> over it, and therefore are to be <HI>re&s;pected</HI> in order to the publike good, and in order to the publike good are to be <HI>neglected,</HI> according as the Commons in Parlia|ment (who&s;e they are, either to <HI>u&s;e</HI> or <HI>not u&s;e,</HI> and who in &s;uch ca&s;es as concerne their own priviledges, are the only competent Judges) &s;hall determine. Yea but for all this,<NOTE PLACE="marg">As they have with common approbation laid them a&s;ide in giving way that Members &s;hall be &s;ub|ject to the &s;uits of Cre|ditors.</NOTE> he &s;aies that <HI>the Hou&s;e mu&s;t be free for all to come to, that their acts may be free and authoritative.</HI> If he mean a freedom in re&s;pect of any <HI>Vote</HI> pa&s;t within doors, to exclude &s;uch as &s;hall not conforme to the Orders of the Hou&s;e, nothing can be more apparently untrue; for the Hou&s;e, as tis well known, pa&s;t &s;everall Votes to exclude tho&s;e that would not engage in the <HI>Vow and Covenant</HI> concerning the Lord Generall <HI>E&s;&s;ex;</HI> and upon the Votes for the taking of <HI>the Selemn League and Covenant,</HI> divers that before had &s;ate in the Hou&s;e, were actually excluded for refu&s;all. Yet I never heard of any, no not of the per&s;ons excluded, that thereupon deny'd the <HI>being</HI> and <HI>Authority</HI> of the Hou&s;e. It is therefore unque&s;tionable, that the Commons in Parlia|ment have a power to exclude &s;uch of their Members as &s;hall not conform to the Votes and Orders of that Hou&s;e, and yet neither them&s;elves be ever the le&s;&s;e <HI>free,</HI> nor their acts any whit the le&s;&s;e <HI>authoritative.</HI> But &s;econdly, if he mean that all the Members mu&s;t be free in re&s;pect of any re&s;traint, &s;ave what is put upon them by the Votes and Authority of the Hou&s;e; tis ab&s;olutely an&s;wered &s;o, 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 &s;ometimes under a force, can that hinder tho&s;e from &s;itting and being a Hou&s;e,
<PB N="12" REF="8">who never were either <HI>under</HI> or <HI>con&s;enting</HI> to that force? If it could, tis de&s;ired the Exercitator would &s;hew how the Commons were a Hou&s;e, and their Acts authorita|tive, when the late King had divers of their Members in <HI>pri&s;on</HI> in his Quarters; for by his Doctrine if <HI>one</HI> Member be under a force, it <HI>nulls</HI> the Authority of the Hou&s;e. But who, unle&s;&s;e he wilfully &s;hut his eyes, canuot &s;ee the mountainous gro&s;&s;ene&s;&s;e of the&s;e ab&s;urdities? Wherefore to conclude this particular,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Fuller An&s;. pag. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> our Author in this ca&s;e will tell him, <HI>That an injury cannot take away a right;</HI> which though in truth it never can, yet according to our Exer|citators principles it mu&s;t, if a force upon &s;ome of the Members could hinder the re&s;t from being a Hou&s;e. La&s;t|ly, tis objected by the Exercitator, That the Commons now &s;itting <HI>are not the major part.</HI> And tis an&s;wered, What is that to the purpo&s;e, &s;o long as they are a Hou&s;e? what if the major part of the Commons had de&s;erted their tru&s;t, and gone to the late King, &s;hould that have hin|der'd tho&s;e that had &s;taid behinde and continued faithfull to their tru&s;t, from being a Hou&s;e? The contrary is ap|parent in the Lords, who while they &s;ate, were never lookt on as being ever the le&s;&s;e a Hou&s;e becau&s;e the <HI>greater</HI> part de&s;erted them, and were afterward ju&s;tly excluded the Hou&s;e by the far <HI>le&s;&s;er</HI> number of Lords &s;itting.</P>
<P>To conclude, the Exercitator acknowledges <HI>pag.</HI> 7. that if it could be made good, that the whole Nation had in the originall con&s;titution of Government com|mitted the &s;ole power to the Hou&s;e of Commons, there could be no U&s;urpation. 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 <HI>Nationall,</HI> mu&s;t fall un|der a <HI>per&s;onall</HI> con&s;ideration) hath committed the Su|preme power to the Hou&s;e of Commons <HI>joyntly,</HI> by way of coordination, and <HI>&s;olely</HI> by way of &s;upply; and there|fore by his own confe&s;&s;ion, they can never be concluded under u&s;urpation, as exerci&s;ing that power without a lawfull calling, for the exerci&s;e whereof they have by his own grounds a lawfull calling from the People.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="13" REF="8">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. III.</HI> That the Oathes objected oblige not again&s;t obedience to the pre&s;ent Government.</HEAD>
<P>THe A&s;&s;ertion that we are now to make good again&s;t the Exercitator, is, <HI>That the Oathes by him objected obliges not again&s;t obedience to the pre&s;ent Powers.</HI> To demon&s;trate this truth with as much brevity as per&s;picuity, we &s;hall fir&s;t lay down certaine generally receiv'd principles, by which as by &s;o many rules, we may evidently di&s;cerne in what ca&s;es, <HI>ex confe&s;&s;o,</HI> Oaths do not oblige. Secondly, we &s;hall examine and an&s;wer our <HI>Exercitators</HI> objections, why tho&s;e Rules &s;hould not take place in the Oaths in controver&s;ie. And a main rea&s;on inducing to the choyce of this method, is, becau&s;e truth and experience joyntly tells us, that of commenting on words and &s;entences in controverted Oaths there can never be an end. For the fancy of man being of &s;o various a working, and work|ing a variety, hardly can that word or &s;entence be pro|pounded, which it will not &s;crve and wier-draw to its owne &s;en&s;e, if it have not &s;ome clear and con&s;tant prin|ciples of truth, as a bright but unerring &s;tar, both to guide and fix it.</P>
<P>In the fir&s;t place therefore 'tis generally granted, as a Principle of truth that cannot be deny'd,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Dr. Sanders, Pral. 2. &sect;. 11.</HI> Juramentum non tollit obli|gationem prie|rem.</NOTE> <HI>That no Oath can &s;o oblige, as to take away the obligation of a former duty.</HI> The force by which all Oaths are &s;aid to binde, is <HI>con&s;tru|ctive</HI> onely, never <HI>de&s;tructive;</HI> they may impo&s;e a Duty where they finde none, or di&s;po&s;e of certain circum&s;tan|ces about the performance, but they cannot de&s;troy or <HI>take away</HI> a duty where they finde it.</P>
<P>As much with as much clearne&s;&s;e may be &s;aid concern|ing the Oaths in controver&s;le, and objected to ob&s;truct
<PB N="14" REF="9">our obedience to the pre&s;ent Government. Tis mo&s;t true, they had a <HI>con&s;tructive</HI> force to oblige according to their &s;everall <HI>limitations,</HI> to the former Government whil&s;t it did <HI>obtain;</HI> but as true it is, they never had, nor ever can have a <HI>de&s;tructive</HI> force to oblige to di&s;obedience, and di&s;oblige from obedience to all other Governments in the future actually obtaining. For tis evident, that by &s;uch a <HI>de&s;tructive</HI> force they &s;hould (which tis confe&s;t they can|not) <HI>take away</HI> the obligation of: a <HI>former duty,</HI> &s;eeing we are fir&s;t bound to obey <HI>all Government in gener all</HI> as the <HI>Ordinance of Ged,</HI> and &s;o by a <HI>Divine right;</HI> before we are bound to obey any <HI>forme</HI> of Government in particular, which is but the <HI>Ordinance of man,</HI> and &s;o onely by a <HI>hu|mane right.</HI> Tis ob&s;ervable, that the rea&s;on given why no Oath can take away the obligation of a former duty, is, becau&s;e an <HI>inferiour act</HI> of the per&s;on in <HI>duty</HI> oblig'd, can|not take away the <HI>&s;uperiour right</HI> of the per&s;on to whom the obligation is <HI>due.</HI> How much le&s;&s;e then can an infe|riour act of the <HI>Creature</HI> obliging him&s;elf by the Oaths in controver&s;ie, take away not the Superiour but <HI>Supreme Right</HI> of the Creator, by virtue of which he &s;tood obli|ged to God in <HI>duty</HI> to give obedience to all Government in generall, before he obliged him&s;elf to man to give obe|dience to the then obtaining <HI>forme</HI> of Government in par|ticular? Yet this <HI>Supreme Right</HI> of God, and the obliga|tion of duty in point of obedience to all Government in generall by virtue of that Right, mu&s;t actually be <HI>taken away,</HI> if upon the removall of the former Government and &s;ub&s;titution of another in its &s;tead, and both by that Divine hand which may and doth at plea&s;ure di&s;po&s;e of all Governments, the Oaths objected oblige again&s;t O|bedience, and inforce a non-&s;ubjection to the <HI>hand</HI> of God in the preceding change, and the <HI>Ordinance</HI> of God in the pre&s;ent Government. For whil&s;t they &s;till oblige to be &s;ubject to the Government that was but <HI>is not,</HI> and not to be &s;ubject to the Government that is, they indeed oblige to be &s;ubject to <HI>no Government,</HI> and con&s;equently to <HI>Anarchy</HI> and confu&s;ion. But &s;uch an Obligation mu&s;t
<PB N="15" REF="9">needs be Null, becau&s;e as is evident from all that hath beene &s;aid, unlawfull and wicked.</P>
<P>Whats objected here by our Exercitator? he tells us page 46. <HI>All Authority hangs not upon the backe of V&s;urpati|on,</HI> &s;o he termes the pre&s;ent Government, and &s;aies <HI>this</HI> [the pre&s;ent Government] <HI>may come downe, and that</HI> [the former) <HI>recover it &s;elfe and &s;tand upright.</HI> To which we an&s;wer. Fir&s;t, It hath already been &s;hewed that if he have not contradicted the truth in his de&s;cription of V&s;urpa|tion, p. 1. he hath contradicted both him&s;elfe and the Truth, in the Application of it to the pre&s;ent Powers. To which we &s;hall onely adde, that among coordinate &s;tates and compeeres &s;uch as he hath confe&s;t, page 5. the pre&s;ent to have beene, there can be no advantage of right in point of Title, &s;ave what ari&s;es from the advantage of a <HI>better cau&s;e,</HI> the one &s;ide <HI>faithfully</HI> endeavouring accor|ding to tru&s;t, the <HI>&s;afety,</HI> and pro&s;perity of the Common|wealth; the other <HI>faithle&s;ly</HI> betraying tru&s;t and endea|vouring its <HI>ruine and de&s;truction;</HI> in which ca&s;e the Com|mon Tenet is, that the ju&s;t party hath <HI>&s;ufficient</HI> Title enough to &s;ave the Commonwealth, but the unju&s;t <HI>none</HI> to de&s;troy it, and therefore may ju&s;tly be depo&s;'d and pu|ni&s;ht by the other coordinate in &s;upremacy of Power. And certainly if in giving a Right judgement of the Me|rits of the pre&s;ent Cau&s;e, the <HI>intere&s;t</HI> of the <HI>reformed Re|ligion</HI> and the <HI>publique liberties</HI> of the Nation mu&s;t (as what el&s;e mu&s;t) by <HI>hone&s;t men</HI> be regarded, it cannot in rea&s;on be doubted, but al &s;uch wil unanimou&s;ly conclude, if the houre of temptation be not upon them, that the pre&s;ent powers haue &s;o farre the advantage of a better Cau&s;e, as the Cau&s;e of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is better then <HI>Antichri&s;ts,</HI> and the cau&s;e of <HI>Common liberty</HI> better then that of <HI>Tyranny.</HI> Neither is it probable that they will ever finde Cau&s;e to reienqui&s;h their judgements in this particular, untill our Exeroitator by a &s;econd and more &s;ound Exercitation &s;hall upon <HI>infallible</HI> evidence &s;ub&s;tantially and to <HI>&s;atis|faction</HI> demon&s;trate, that the bloody &amp; idolatrous <HI>Iri&s;h,</HI> are the be&s;t and mo&s;t cordiall in&s;truments to carry on the
<PB N="16" REF="10">worke of Reformation, and the intere&s;t of the <HI>true refor|med Religion;</HI> that prerogative Court-para&s;ites are the <HI>true&s;t</HI> Patriots and <HI>propere&s;t</HI> champions of the <HI>publique li|berty</HI> of the Nation; and in a word that Hamiltons Army howeverdi&s;claim'd by the Kirk, and all the truly religious of Scotland, invaded this Nation out of pure <HI>Zeale</HI> to the ends of the <HI>Covenant,</HI> and the intere&s;t of all truly religious Covenanters,</P>
<Q>At&abque; idem iungat vulpes &amp; mulgeat Hircos.</Q>
<P>But &s;econdly, to doe our Exercitator a courte&s;ie let it be &s;uppo&s;ed (becau&s;e he will needs have it &s;o) that the pretended u&s;urpation is reall; what then? will he then maintaine his ground any better, when he &s;hall lie at his own guard &amp; have the advantage to choo&s;e his own wea|pon? Let the Reader judge, <HI>&V;&s;urpation</HI> (he &s;aies) <HI>may &s;hortly fall.</HI> It may? yes, and it <HI>may not;</HI> it may not fall <HI>&s;hortly,</HI> not a <HI>long</HI> time, many <HI>yeares, ages, never;</HI> what then? certainly then either all authority mu&s;t hang on the backe of that which he is plea&s;ed to cal V &s;urpation, or el&s;e it mu&s;t all fall to the ground. For by the [may be] of our Exercitators Doctrine, there not only is no authoritie in England at pre&s;ent, but neither him&s;elfe nor any man el&s;e knowes, whither ever there will be any to the worlds end. And what is this but by one da&s;h of a ridiculous [may be] to &s;ubvert the Ordinance of God in Govern|ment and the Order of Mankinde in obedience to it? The <HI>fuller An&s;wer,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Fuller An&s;. pag. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> will teach him a better le&s;&s;en, who according to the truth tells us, <HI>that there be in all &s;ocietyes of men</HI> (and there&s;ore in the pre&s;ent among&s;t us) <HI>a go|vernment capable of its end, &s;afety, is out of que&s;tion Gods in|&s;titution and morall.</HI> Nay indeed he might have taught him&s;elfe a better le&s;&s;on; for while&s;t hee defines V&s;urpati|on, <HI>a pre&s;uming to po&s;&s;e&s;&s;e the &s;eat, and manage the power of the &s;upreame Authority,</HI> he acknowledges even under V&s;urpa|tion a <HI>&s;eat</HI> fixt, and an <HI>actuall</HI> Exerci&s;e of the &s;upreame Authority, by the fixure of which Seat we &s;ee the Nati|on
<PB N="17" REF="10">at pre&s;ent e&s;tabli&s;ht in <HI>Order,</HI> and by the influence of which <HI>Authority,</HI> publique ju&s;tice is fully admini&s;tred, both which being the ordinance of God, can no more be ta|ken away by any <HI>act</HI> or <HI>oath</HI> of man, then it could at fir&s;t have beene <HI>in&s;tituted</HI> by any other then a divine wi&s;edom, or could &s;ince have beene <HI>con&s;tantly</HI> maintained, otherwi&s;e, then by the <HI>powerfull,</HI> though <HI>&s;ecret</HI> influence of a Divine and Almighty hand.</P>
<P>And therefore we doubt not but to make it evident as the Day, that however the Exercitator <HI>pre&s;ume</HI> to make him|&s;elfe an accu&s;er of others for <HI>pre&s;uming</HI> to the &s;eat of Au|thority, there cannot ea&s;ily be found a more <HI>pre&s;umptu|ous V&s;urpation,</HI> then that whereof he &s;tands guilty, and obnoxious both to God and man. For whereas he char|ges mo&s;t untruly, and therefore mo&s;t ungratefully, tho&s;e to whom he owes his <HI>protection,</HI> with <HI>pre&s;uming</HI> to the &s;eat of Authority, him&s;elf, which is infinetely wor&s;e, <HI>pre|&s;umes</HI> to overthrow the very <HI>&s;eat</HI> of Authority, and fling the <HI>Authority it &s;elfe</HI> wholly out of the Nation, &s;o at once endeavouring to make void the <HI>&s;upreame Ordinance</HI> of God, for the Civil welfaire of man-kinde, and leave the Nation withont all <HI>Order</HI> or <HI>Government</HI> to be &s;wallowed up of <HI>Anarchy</HI> and <HI>confu&s;ion,</HI> and in this mo&s;t mi&s;erable e&s;tate mu&s;t the Nation by his <HI>irreligious</HI> [may be] continue even to the worlds end, unle&s;&s;e the publique enemy for whom he pleades, and upon who&s;e backe he makes all authority to hang, &s;hall be plea&s;ed to give leave that Gods Ordinance of Government may againe take place among us.</P>
<P>For the &s;econd, to an&s;wer him out of his own definiti|on of U&s;urpation: Fir&s;t, we mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h between the <HI>Act</HI> of Intru&s;ion, and the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> that makes the Intru&s;ion; Its granted that the <HI>Act</HI> of Intru&s;ion is not the <HI>Ordinance</HI> of God; but the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> of the intruder con&s;idered <HI>per &s;e,</HI> and in <HI>actuall po&s;&s;e&s;sion</HI> of the &s;upreame power, not onely may be, but certainely is the Ordinance of God; whil&s;t by God he is put into a capacity of being a <HI>Mini&s;ter</HI> (and accordingly acts) <HI>for the good</HI> of tho&s;e over whom the hand of God hath exalted him in place of higher power; although it be but for a time, and onely by way of per|mi&s;&s;ion
<PB N="18" REF="11">otherwi&s;e there mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily be a <HI>breach</HI> in that Golden Chaine of <HI>Order</HI> and <HI>Government</HI> which God hath <HI>ordained,</HI> to binde up man-kinde, from <HI>inevitably,</HI> and by our Exercitators [may be] <HI>irrecoverably</HI> falling into Anarchy and confu&s;ion upon <HI>every concu&s;&s;ion</HI> of State, and the <HI>frequent</HI> Revolutions of Governours and Governments, of which our own Nation hath not had the lea&s;t experi|ence. And upon tho&s;e grounds we even now mention'd, tis, that even they that allow a removall of a Per&s;on in po|wer without a Title, allow it onely in an <HI>orderly</HI> way, and in <HI>cleare</HI> and <HI>untroverted</HI> ca&s;es, and <HI>unquestionably</HI> condu|cing to the good of the Common-Wealth. Againe we mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h between the <HI>Act</HI> of Intru&s;ion, and the <HI>Au|thority</HI> or Supreame power; the former as was granted, before, is not, but the latter <HI>ever</HI> is the Ordinance of God. For the <HI>Seat</HI> of authority being from the beginning, fix|ed by the hand of the mo&s;t High; the <HI>authority</HI> or &s;upream Power annex'd to, and i&s;&s;uing out of that <HI>Seat,</HI> can never cea&s;e to be the Ordinance of God, by what hand &s;oever he is plea&s;ed to di&s;pence it, who may, and doth di&s;pence it by what hand he plea&s;es; and therefore it may not be <HI>re&s;i&s;ted</HI> in the hand of any whom him&s;elfe hath put in <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion,</HI> though by meanes <HI>extraordinary</HI> to us, without &s;in, and incurring the danger of receiving the damnati|on threatned by the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.2. Neither can the Obligation of any Oath what&s;oever, either <HI>invalidate</HI> a Duty, or <HI>inforce</HI> a &s;in in this particular.</P>
<P>But to come to a &s;econd principle, It's a rule beyond all exception,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Indubijs &s;equen|dum e&s;t partem tutiorem <HI>D. Sands. Prael. 2. &sect; 9.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>indoubtfull ca&s;es the &s;afer part is to be cho|&s;en.</HI> The doubt of which we are now &s;peaking, may be either concerning the <HI>Explication,</HI> or the <HI>Obligation</HI> of an Oath; and that part is in all doubts out of all contro|ver&s;ie the <HI>&s;afer,</HI> which hath <HI>nothing</HI> of <HI>Sin,</HI> and <HI>mo&s;t</HI> of <HI>Duty</HI> in it. The pre&s;ent doubt concerning the Oathes con|troverted, re&s;pects their <HI>Obligation,</HI> whether &s;uch as may ju&s;tly hinder obedience to the pre&s;ent Government; and it hath been a&s;&s;erted again&s;t the Exercitator, that the <HI>&s;a|fer part</HI> as including nothing of <HI>Sin,</HI> and mo&s;t of <HI>Duty,</HI> is
<PB N="19" REF="11">the <HI>Negative;</HI> that the Oathes objected, neither do nor can bind again&s;t obedience to the pre&s;ent Government. The rea&s;on is, becau&s;e its a <HI>&s;in</HI> again&s;t the <HI>fifth Command|ment</HI> implicitely, and expre&s;&s;ely again&s;t <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.1. to be under <HI>no Government;</HI> its con&s;equently a <HI>nece&s;&s;ary Duty</HI> to be under <HI>&s;ome,</HI> and no <HI>&s;in</HI> to be under <HI>any,</HI> becau&s;e all Go|vernment is the <HI>Ordinance</HI> of God, <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.1. If there|fore the Oathes in controver&s;ie &s;hould oblige again&s;t obe|dience to the pre&s;ent Government, they &s;hould binde from a nece&s;&s;ary <HI>Duty,</HI> to a manife&s;t <HI>Sin;</HI> but nothing can oblige unto <HI>Sinne,</HI> and therefore no Oath what&s;o|ever.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. If it be true that in doubtfull ca&s;es the <HI>&s;afer part</HI> is to be cho&s;en, tis as true that in all &s;uch ca&s;es,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In re dubia turi|or e&s;t pars po&s;|&s;identis.</NOTE> the <HI>party in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> is the <HI>&s;after part.</HI> But that which in the pre&s;ent Contorver&s;ie, puts the doubt out of all doubt, is that the <HI>party in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> have ever had at lea&s;t an equall Title, as coordinates (<HI>ex confe&s;&s;o</HI>) with their <HI>Competitors.</HI> And there|fore at pre&s;ent have a &s;uperiour, or rather indeed the <HI>on|ly</HI> Title, in regard of the ju&s;tne&s;s of their owne, and the unju&s;tne&s;s of the adver&s;e parties cau&s;e, unle&s;&s;e (as was &s;aid before) a confederacy with the bloody Iri&s;h, and Hamil|tons <HI>inva&s;ive</HI> Army mu&s;t be ju&s;tin'd as the <HI>ju&s;ter</HI> cau&s;e, and withall, as the <HI>&s;afer part.</HI></P>
<P>What eva&s;ion hath our Exercitator here to extricate him&s;elfe out of this difficulty? His old <HI>Tenedian</HI> axe &s;till.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> Vid Era&s;in. Chiliad.</NOTE> Fir&s;t, the <HI>pretended</HI> U&s;urpation, and then that <HI>&V;&s;urpation is not the Ordinance of God.</HI> For the fir&s;t we have an&s;wered it once and again in the preceding part of this di&s;cour&s;e; neither &s;hall we write after his Copy, in his frequent and tire&s;ome Tautologies; it were too great an affliction to the Reader to vexe him, <HI>u&s;&abque; ad nau&s;eam,</HI> with his <HI>Crambe his millies <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">cta.</HI></P>
<P>But the full pro&s;ecution of this will be proper in the third a&s;&s;ertion.</P>
<P>We come now to a third principle,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In juramento &s;emper jus &s;u|perioris intelli|gitur exceptum. <HI>2 Decret. 24 19</HI></NOTE> and it &s;peakes as the re&s;t <HI>ex confe&s;&s;o,</HI> (for we intend &s;uch onely) thus. <HI>In all Oathes what&s;oever the &s;uperiours right over the inferiour, is ever
<PB N="20" REF="12">under&s;tood to &s;tand excepted, as that which can never fall under their Obligation.</HI> Or (it may be) more plainely thus, No Oath of an <HI>inferiour,</HI> can binde again&s;t that <HI>Right</HI> of a <HI>Superiour,</HI> by which he hath a <HI>lawfull Power</HI> over him.</P>
<P>There are two <HI>Superiours,</HI> or rather indeed <HI>Suprems,</HI> that have a lawfull power over all men, by vertue of a <HI>Supreame Right,</HI> again&s;t which no Oath can oblige; in a word, <HI>God</HI> and the Common-Wealth. This <HI>Right</HI> of God to begin with it in the fir&s;t place, is not onely <HI>&s;upreame,</HI> but <HI>ab&s;olute,</HI> and therewithall univer&s;all, and extends over all men, in all things, by vertue whereof he claimes a <HI>lawfull power,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Job. 33.13.</NOTE> at plea&s;ure to di&s;po&s;e of all, rendering no man an account of his wayes; but certainely of all that he claimes a power to di&s;po&s;e, there is nothing wherein he is more peremptory, there is nothing which with a more high hand under the name of the Mo&s;t high, he a&s;|&s;erts unto him&s;elf with a more &s;overaigne maje&s;ty and <HI>ab&s;olute</HI> &s;overainty, then the &s;waying &s;troake in the King|dome of Men,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Dan. <HI>4.17.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> Hwnillimum ho|minem. <HI>Hier.</HI></NOTE> and an undoubted right to give it to whom&s;oever he will, and &s;et up over it the <HI>humble&s;t</HI> of men. When therefore the mo&s;t High actually puts downe one, and &s;ets up another Power, and &s;o by vertue of his &s;upreame ab&s;olute, and univer&s;all Right gives the Kingdome to whom&s;oever, <HI>HE,</HI> not <HI>WEE</HI> will, (for &s;uch a contra-di&s;tinction the &s;olmne inforcement of the words, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity inferre in the eye of any impar|tiall judge;) who can plead a Right again&s;t God? or what Oath &s;tand valid to <HI>invalidate</HI> his <HI>Right?</HI> E&s;peci|ally &s;eeing all <HI>inferiour</HI> Rights cea&s;e and determine (at lea&s;t <HI>pro tempore</HI>) upon the <HI>actuall</HI> entrance, and inter|po&s;ition of the <HI>Superiour;</HI> how much more &s;hall the <HI>in|feriour</HI> right of man be <HI>no right,</HI> when not a <HI>Superiour</HI> on|ly, which yet it &s;elfe might be &s;ubordinate and doubtfull, but the &s;upreame ab&s;olute and undoubted right of God, by an <HI>actuall</HI> and <HI>powerfull</HI> interpo&s;ition <HI>takes place?</HI> 'Tis &s;aid,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Si filius fami|lias jurel &s;e fac|turum aliquid in &s;elicitum; pa|ter autem rei</NOTE> that in ca&s;e a Sonne being under his Fathers power, &s;hall oblige him&s;elfe by an Oath, to an Act in it &s;elfe law|full;
<PB N="21" REF="12">and the Father being ignorant of the thing,<NOTE PLACE="marg">ignorus aliud ei faciendum im|peret, quod impe|diat id fieri quod juratum e&s;t, filius non tenetur jura|mento: quia lege divina na|turali tenerur parere imperio patris <HI>D. Sands Pral. 2. &sect; 10.</HI></NOTE> com|mand &s;omewhat el&s;e to bee done, that hinders the ac|compli&s;hment of what was &s;worne; the Oath of the Son is not obliging; becau&s;e by the law of God and Na|ture, he is bound to obey his Father. How much more then are the Sonnes of men oblig'd to <HI>obey</HI> the God both of that <HI>Law</HI> and <HI>Nature,</HI> the <HI>everla&s;ting Father,</HI> by &s;ub|jection to the powers that are, becau&s;e they are Ordai|ned of him: and how much le&s;&s;e can any Oath binde again&s;t Obedience to him by &s;uch &s;ubjection? Seeing all Oathes at their fir&s;t taking, are to take in the <HI>tacite</HI> condition of a <HI>&s;alva potestate juperioris,</HI> an exemption of the <HI>Superiours</HI> Right, much more of the Right of the mo&s;t high, by a <HI>&s;i deus permi&s;erit,</HI> if God &s;ay <HI>a men</HI> to the Oath taken.</P>
<P>What &s;ayes our Exercitator to all this? <HI>God gives no power to <HI>&V;&s;urpers</HI> he &s;ayes; but &s;urely tis &s;afer to &s;ay with <HI>truth</HI> it &s;elfe, <HI>Joh.</HI> 18.11. They could have <HI>no power</HI> un|le&s;&s;e he <HI>gave</HI> it them. And tis certaine that our Saviour there &s;peakes of a <HI>juriciall</HI> Power, and to a Per&s;on that was an <HI>&V;&s;urper,</HI> if ever yet there were any. For our Sa|viour him&s;elfe (if we will receive the truth out of God|ly and judicious Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> mouth) was the true heire,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> Expo&s;. on the Epi&s;tle of <HI>Jude.</HI></NOTE> and had the onely title of Right to the Crowne and Kingdome of the Jewes. Be&s;ides, he mu&s;t either contra|dict him&s;elfe, and there-withall confe&s;&s;e the truth, or the Scripture in <HI>expre&s;s termes,</HI> and therin given his own opinion the fall, whil&s;t he denyes that God <HI>gives</HI> the Kingdome to <HI>&V;&s;urpers,</HI> who&s;e tis to <HI>give</HI> to whom&s;oever he will. For he nndertakes to prove <HI>Jereboam</HI> an U&s;urper, <HI>page</HI> 1. and yet he is not a&s;ham'd there to quote 1 <HI>King.</HI> 11. where at ver&s;e 31. The Lord the God of I&s;rael &s;ayes, <HI>Behold I wil rend the Kingdom out of theh and of</HI> Solomon, <HI>and GI&V;e ten Tribes unto thee.</HI> But our Exercitator not without manife&s;t wrong to the <HI>expre&s;&s;e</HI> Text &s;ayes; <HI>yea &s;uppo&s;e it a grant,</HI> As if when God had in termes &s;aid to <HI>Jeroboam, I will give;</HI> there were not &s;ufficient ground from the &s;ta|bility</HI> of every word that proceeds out of the mouth of
<PB N="22" REF="13">God, <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> to conclude a <HI>full Grant.</HI> But wee &s;hall not here anticipate that which wee intend hereafter more fully to di&s;cu&s;&s;e for the further confirmation of this par|ticular, when wee &s;hall come to the third a&s;&s;ertion, whi|ther for the pre&s;ent we mu&s;t &s;till referre the Reader. Only for a conclu&s;ion, take the late judgement of our owne Divines, with learned Mr. <HI>Diodati</HI>'s concurrent in an|&s;wer to the pre&s;ent Objection, in the&s;e words on <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.</P>
<P><HI>Ordained of God, that is in&s;tituted of God among man-kinde, to Rule and Governe men in Order as in Gods &s;tead. For God is the Author of this Order in the world: and all tho&s;e which attaine unto this equity or excellency, doe attaine unto it either by his manife&s;t will and approbation, when the meanes are ju&s;t and lawfull, or el&s;e by his &s;ecret providence, with permi&s;sion and toleration, when the meanes are unlawfull: and it is ju&s;t and equall that man &s;hould approve and tolerate that which God him&s;elfe approves and tolerates: and that he approves and tolerates, which wee cannot by any lawfull meanes apointed by him decline and avoid. All therefore who re&s;i&s;t authority, make war after a &s;ort with god him&s;elfe.</HI> Ann. on Rom. 13.1. Di|dati. ibid.</P>
<P>A Second <HI>Superiour,</HI> or to &s;peake more properly, a|mong things of an inferiour ranke under the mo&s;t high, <HI>Supreame,</HI> for <HI>&s;alus populi &s;uprema lex,</HI> is the <HI>Common-wealth, bonum publicum.</HI> Again&s;t the <HI>&s;overaigne</HI> Right of this; <HI>&s;upe|riour,</HI> and that lawfull power which it hath over us, no Oath can oblige, and con&s;equently not the Oathes pre|tended. This is no deny'd by the Exercitator him&s;elfe. For &s;peaking to this Argument urged again&s;t the Obli|gation of the pre&s;ent Oathes, by the Author of <HI>the law|fulne&s;&s;e of obeying &amp;c.</HI> He grants page 44. <HI>If the thing &s;worn &s;hall become privative of, or oppo&s;ite to the publike good, or wel|being of the Nation in its owne nature and nece&s;&s;arily, the Oath would be void; for to a &s;infull thing there can be no Obligation.</HI> But to a&s;&s;ume upon his owne conce&s;&s;ion in the premi&s;es, mo&s;t certaine it is, that where Order and good Govern|ment, publike ju&s;tice, and peace may be had, and &s;urely
<PB N="23" REF="13">it may be, nay it is generally had under the pre&s;ent Go|vernment, witne&s;&s;e all the publike &s;eates of Ju&s;tice in the Land, there to re&s;i&s;t the powers admini&s;tring this <HI>Order</HI> and <HI>Government,</HI> publike <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> and <HI>Peace,</HI> is as much in its owne <HI>nature,</HI> and as <HI>nece&s;&s;arily de&s;tructive</HI> to the <HI>publike good</HI> and <HI>wel-being</HI> of the Nation, as <HI>di&s;order</HI> and <HI>Anarehy</HI> is to <HI>Order,</HI> and <HI>Government,</HI> or <HI>war</HI> and <HI>con&s;u&s;ion</HI> to pub|like <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> and <HI>Peace;</HI> in a word, as much in its owne <HI>na|ture,</HI> and as <HI>nece&s;&s;arily privative</HI> of, and <HI>oppo&s;ite</HI> to the pub|like <HI>good</HI> and <HI>wel-being</HI> of the Nation, as the <HI>privation</HI> of, and <HI>oppo&s;ition</HI> to the proper immediate and nece&s;&s;ary <HI>meanes</HI> is in its owne <HI>nature,</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;arily privative</HI> of, and <HI>oppo&s;ite</HI> to the <HI>end</HI> it &s;elfe. Whereupon it follows evi|dently and undeniably, that to &s;uch a <HI>&s;infull re&s;i&s;tance</HI> of the Powers admini&s;tring, there can be no Obligation; and con&s;equently the Oathes objected in that re&s;pect are <HI>void</HI> by our Exercitators own <HI>conce&s;&s;ion.</HI> And to evince this yet more fully (if at lea&s;t there can be a fuller evicti|on) from his owne principles and expre&s;ions. <HI>We &s;ay on all hands</HI> &s;ayes our Exercitator) page 33. <HI>The King it for the Kingdome, as the meanes is for the end;</HI> and the &s;ame in effect we have from the mouth of a King, <HI>con|fe&s;&s;ing,</HI> and therewithall <HI>confirming</HI> this truth as a <HI>Royall Law,</HI> that the <HI>King</HI> is for the <HI>Common-wealth,</HI> and not the <HI>Common-wealth</HI> for the <HI>King;</HI> which granted,<NOTE PLACE="marg">King James.</NOTE> if <HI>Oathes</HI> and <HI>Duties</HI> (doe, as indeed they mu&s;t) oblige to re&s;pect things concern'd, according to their owne <HI>ranke</HI> and <HI>dig|nity;</HI> and the rule hold alwaies true, as indeed it can never faile, that <HI>finis quo ultimatior co influxu potentior,</HI> the highe&s;t <HI>end</HI> hath the &s;tronge&s;t <HI>influence;</HI> and to that <HI>end,</HI> (as our Fuller An&s;wer very fully) <HI>&s;till all other &s;ubordi|nate ends &s;tand but in the Office of meanes;</HI> 'tis cleare that as both the <HI>Oathes</HI> were for the <HI>King,</HI> and both <HI>King</HI> and <HI>Oathes</HI> for the <HI>Common-wealth,</HI> as &s;ubordinate <HI>meanes</HI> for the ultimate <HI>End;</HI> &s;o both the one and the other oblige onely as <HI>condueing,</HI> but neither the one nor the other can oblige as <HI>de&s;tructive</HI> to the <HI>Common-wealth,</HI> or <HI>bonum pub|licum;</HI> for &s;o the nature of the <HI>meanes,</HI> &s;hould be to <HI>de|stroy</HI>
<PB N="24" REF="14">the <HI>End,</HI> which is a contradiction in nature, &s;eeing the very <HI>e&s;&s;ence</HI> and <HI>intrin&s;ecall forme</HI> of the <HI>meanes,</HI> con&s;i&s;ts in this that they are <HI>apra nata ad finent,</HI> naturally <HI>conducing</HI> to the <HI>End,</HI> el&s;e they are but <HI>equivocally</HI> tearm'd <HI>meanes.</HI> In &s;umme then, we already have the <HI>meanes</HI> &s;ufficient (by experience) to the <HI>End;</HI> we have the <HI>end</HI> as the <HI>actuall</HI> fruit and effect of the&s;e <HI>meanes;</HI> and therefore if the Oathes objected doe oblige to <HI>de&s;troy</HI> tho&s;e mean<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s, and with them, the end by them already <HI>obtain'd;</HI> that is, if they oblige on the one &s;ide to <HI>&s;ubvert</HI> (and all <HI>di&s;obedience</HI> tends to <HI>&s;ubver&s;ion</HI>) that Order and Government, publike Ju&s;tice and Peace, which is at pre&s;ent in the Nation; and on the other &s;ide in its &s;tead to <HI>introduce</HI> di&s;order &amp; Anar|chy, War and con&s;u&s;ion which all di&s;obedience naturally tends to introduce; and all this upon pretonce to reob|tain other meanes, if at lea&s;t truly meanes, though &s;uch as according to the pre&s;ent po&s;ture of the parties concern'd, probably are never, or if ever to be obtain'd, threatning to prove <HI>de&s;tructive</HI> to the end it&s;elf: in &s;uch ca&s;e (and it can|not be deny'd but &s;uch is the pre&s;ent ca&s;e if impartially &s;tated) the Oathes objected apparently binde (if &s;aid to binde) to that which in its owne nature, and nece&s;&s;ari|ly is <HI>privative</HI> of, and <HI>oppo&s;ite</HI> to the <HI>publike good</HI> and <HI>wel|being</HI> of the Nation; and con&s;equently (the Exercita|tor him&s;elfe being Judge) they are to be pronounced <HI>void,</HI> for to a &s;infull thing there can be no Obligation. So it remaines that the true <HI>intent</HI> of the Oathes in contro|ver&s;ie, is finally lodg'd in the <HI>good</HI> of the Common|wealth; neither have they any force to the <HI>de&s;truction</HI> thereof, but mu&s;t needs be <HI>void</HI> if ever &s;o intended.</P>
<P>By this times tis hop'd, wee have &s;ufficiency <HI>expedited</HI> our &s;elves of the <HI>impeditive,</HI> which our Exercitator &s;aies will not be granted, and demon&s;trated the <HI>privative</HI> part of his di&s;tinction. Wee are now at lea&s;ure to heare what he &s;ayes further. That of the <HI>Gibeonites</HI> is no way per|tinent to the pre&s;ent ca&s;e, the inconvenience of that Oath being quite of another nature, bendes they were made <HI>&s;ervants,</HI> though there lives were &s;pan'd, which they acknowledged to be at themercy of the <HI>I&s;raelites,</HI> who
<PB N="25" REF="14">con&s;idering their &s;ervitude, were at no great lo&s;&s;e by them. But that their Oath was unlawfull <HI>Vr&s;ums</HI> flatly denies nay he po&s;itively affirmes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Non ideo &s;erva|tur <HI>Gibeonitis</HI> iuramen <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tum quod ad illum ob&s;tingantur &amp;c <HI>Vr&s;in.</HI> Cas. Tere. Pracept.</NOTE> <HI>they were not bound to keepe it.</HI> But to pa&s;&s;e over his impertinences, and come to his weakne&s;&s;e; here he tells us, and we had a glance at it before, <HI>hat all authority bangs no upon he back of &V;&s;orpation.</HI> NO? How comes he then to define it <HI>an intru&s;ion into the Seat of authority,</HI> and a <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ing</HI> and <HI>managing</HI> of the <HI>place</HI> and <HI>power</HI> thereof? So it &s;eemes though they intrude into the Seat, yet they are out of the Seat; and though they po&s;&s;e&s;&s; and manage the place and power, yet they neither po&s;&s;e&s;&s; nor manage the place and power of Authority; which is a meer contradiction, and &s;o mu&s;t needs be fal&s;e, becau&s;e no contradiction can be true. He is &s;o ingenuous afterwards as to grant the Doctrine of <HI>obedience,</HI> &s;o much better then his own of <HI>di&s;obedience,</HI> as that it will afford a <HI>little</HI> ju&s;tice, but his own <HI>non.</HI> Well but he &s;ales wee were not taught this Doctrine of obedience, <HI>when the Parlia|men began to &s;tand up, and waken the people to &s;hake off expi|lation and oppre&s;sion.</HI></P>
<P>Certainly when the Parliament began, wee were not taught by any, but &s;uch as pleaded for the cau&s;e of that <HI>expiration</HI> and <HI>oppre&s;&s;ion;</HI> whereof he &s;peakes, that the Com|mons in Parliament were no Hou&s;e, were u&s;urpers. And therefore tis plaine, that either this Exercitator from the beginning was one of the Common Enemies again&s;t whom wee Covenanted; or el&s;e contrary to the expre&s;&s;e Text of the Covenant in the fixt Article; hath made a <HI>defection</HI> to them, for the takes up their wea|pons and fights their Battels, however he would be thought a champion for he Covenant. Againe. I can|not but wonder at the ignorance of this &s;illy Objection; for had the <HI>Expilation</HI> which he takes of beene ten-fold more then was, no man that either had <HI>Knowledge</HI> or <HI>Con|&s;cience</HI> of what he taught, would have taught to have lifted up &s;o much as a finger again&s;t the <HI>Expilator,</HI> had we not had the <HI>impreame power</HI> of the Nation in peaceable and plenary <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion,</HI> to <HI>call</HI> us forth by <HI>Authority</HI> and <HI>Commi&s;&s;ion</HI> us into <HI>Order,</HI> and a cau&s;e <HI>unque&s;tionably</HI> ju&s;t to
<PB N="26" REF="15"><HI>ju&s;tifie</HI> tho&s;e Commi&s;&s;ions; nay, the War on the Parlia|ments &s;ide being <HI>defen&s;ive,</HI> not <HI>offen&s;ive,</HI> the end could ne|ver be the <HI>&s;ubver&s;ion</HI> of that Order and Government, publike ju&s;tice and peace which the Nation then actually enjoy'd, as our Exercitators end, though a pretender to be &s;tudi|ous of Peace, really is, but indeed by a defence le&s;&s;e nece&s;&s;ary then ju&s;t, to prevent the <HI>&s;ubver&s;ion</HI> of all the&s;e, <HI>apparently</HI> indeavour'd, by the <HI>actuall inva&s;ion</HI> of Delin|quents of all &s;orts and <HI>Sizes.</HI> The Doctrine of <HI>di&s;obedience</HI> then is <HI>peculiar</HI> to the Exercitator, and the re&s;t of the <HI>Parke,</HI> not as them&s;elves &s;ay of <HI>old Puritans,</HI> but what might more probably have beeene &s;aid, new <HI>Phari&s;ees,</HI> by the &s;elfe-a&s;&s;uming &s;til, had they not told us them&s;elves, that they were a company of godly Mini&s;ters. But <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">er|tainely for their new Doctrine of di&s;obedience, it hath no affinity, with that of the good <HI>old Puritans;</HI> but is as contrary to it, as light is to darkne&s;&s;e, as we &s;hall &s;hew hereafter in one of the mo&s;t eminent.</P>
<P>He tells us with great crye, and little wooll, that <HI>Righ|eou&s;ne&s;&s;e exalts a Nation, and the Throne is e&s;tabli&s;ht by righ|eou&s;ne&s;&s;e;</HI> what righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e? a <HI>Titular</HI> righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e without a <HI>Reall,</HI> nay with a <HI>Reall unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e?</HI> The truth is a <HI>Reall</HI> righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, may &s;ometimes e&s;tabli&s;h the Throne without a <HI>Tituler,</HI> but certainely a <HI>Tituler</HI> without a <HI>Reall,</HI> or with a <HI>Reall</HI> unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e never. We may &s;ay in &s;ome &s;ort, the coneatenations of provi|dence con&s;idered,<NOTE PLACE="marg">After noones preaching. Book of &s;ports. Innovations Ma&s;&s;e it &s;elfe.</NOTE> that if <HI>Saul</HI> had not raigned in <HI>unrigh|teou&s;ne&s;s, righteous David</HI> had never raigned. Had not <HI>unrigh|teou&s;ne&s;&s;e</HI> beene propagated through the Nation, by the <HI>publike &s;uppre&s;sion,</HI> and <HI>profanation</HI> of what was <HI>holy,</HI> and authorization of what was <HI>wicked</HI> and <HI>profane;</HI> and the almighty thereby provok't as 'twere <HI>to his face,</HI> po&s;&s;ibly the Exercitators Pen might have beene idle, or found a better imployment.</P>
<P><HI>&V;nder V&s;urpation</HI> (he &s;aies, meaning the pre&s;ent Go|vernment in the <HI>American</HI> tongue) <HI>we can expect no &s;ettle|ment.</HI> 'Tis granted, how can we, what need wee expect it? we have a &s;ettlement already, and <HI>Nthil appetit id quod habet.</HI> De&s;ire and expectation end, where fruition and
<PB N="27" REF="15">enjoyment begin. Well, but however, hee &s;aies, tis <HI>cer|taine</HI> to fall. <HI>Quod volumus facile credinues.</HI> Sure his cer|tainty is but from an uncertaine and &s;implicite faith, that hath its eye blinded by that ignorance which is the mother of his devotiton to his owne cau&s;e. No, for he &s;aies <HI>commotion is &s;ure in rea&s;onte follow.</HI> Sure enough from &s;uch <HI>turbulent</HI> rea&s;on as hee gives us in his Exercitation; for therein he doth what he can to prove him&s;elfe a Pro|phet, as true in his fal&s;e prediction, as fal&s;e in his untrue Doctrine: but &s;ure if the rea&s;ons for obedience be as tru|ly, as truth would have them followed, commotion in rea|&s;on can never follow. 'Tis &s;uch Doctrine as his owne without Religion, however pretending to rea&s;on, that rai&s;es the <HI>evill &s;pirit</HI> of Commotion, which the <HI>p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">e and peaceable wi&s;ed me that is from above,</HI> would &s;oon <HI>lay</HI> and bind up forever. But we &s;hall follow him no farther in the&s;e minute impertinences, but returne to the la&s;t prin|ciple, which we here intend to in&s;i&s;t on.</P>
<P>The ca&s;e of impo&s;&s;ibility is &s;o evident in it &s;elfe, and obvious to the meane&s;t capacity, as no &s;ooner can it be &s;aid, then a&s;&s;ented to, that <HI>no Oath can oblige to doe that which cannot be done.</HI> To this our Exercitator page 44. An&s;wers, <HI>All rea&s;onable men will grant &s;o far as impo&s;sbility lyes, and &s;o long as it continues, the Oath binds not; but this is not to our Authers puro&s;e, for to cea&s;e from an Act, that is, from obedience, to the pre&s;ent Government, can never bee im|po&s;sible.</HI></P>
<P>The impo&s;&s;ibility which the Exercitator denyes, and his oppo&s;ite affirmes, mu&s;t concerne either the <HI>Act</HI> to be perform'd, or the <HI>lawfulne&s;&s;e</HI> of the performance. If both the&s;e be prov'd again&s;t him, the Authors argument &s;tands good and the Exercitators exception again&s;t it falls to the ground. Now tis certaine as the pre&s;ent ca&s;e &s;tands, tis both <HI>impo&s;&s;ible</HI> to obey the former Powers, and <HI>unlaw|full</HI> to di&s;obey the pre&s;ent. The former cannot with the lea&s;t &s;hadow of rea&s;on be deny'd, and indeed the Exer|citator &s;eemes to grant it, whil&s;t he puts the whole &s;tre&s;&s;e of his an&s;wer upon a bare <HI>ce&s;&s;ation,</HI> or <HI>non-acting</HI> in obe|dience to the pre&s;ent Government. For tis plainely as
<PB N="28" REF="16">impo&s;&s;ible to give <HI>actuall</HI> obedience to any power there, where there is no power <HI>actually</HI> to command, as tis for <HI>Caius</HI> being in the evening at <HI>London,</HI> to meet <HI>Titius</HI> thenext morning at <HI>Venice;</HI> or it you will, as impo&s;&s;ible (to come nearer to the pre&s;ent ca&s;e) as 'tis for <HI>caius</HI> being in <HI>Eng|land,</HI> to yeeld &s;ubjection there to the &s;overaigne power of <HI>Titius</HI> being in <HI>Venice;</HI> when indeed others are <HI>actually</HI> and <HI>plenarily</HI> po&s;&s;e&s;t of the &s;overaigne power in <HI>England;</HI> and <HI>Titius</HI> hath <HI>actually</HI> no part in the &s;overaigne power there.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The Exercita|&s;aies as much, p 9.</NOTE> The rea&s;on is evident in the Axiome, <HI>Relata mutu&ograve; &s;e ponunt ac tellunt,</HI> Relatives (and &s;uch are &s;ove|rainty and &s;ubjection) &s;tand and fall together. Where there is no power to command, it mu&s;t needs bee impo&s;|&s;ible to obey, becau&s;e obedience properly pre&s;uppo&s;es a power commanding, and acommandment to be obey'd. The latter is as truely unlawfull, as the former appa|rently impo&s;&s;ible. For tis a &s;in again&s;t <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.7. Not <HI>to render honour, to whom honour is due;</HI> but honour is due to tho&s;e that <HI>receive tribute, for they are Gods Mini&s;ters, at|tending continually upon this very thing, v.</HI> 6. to tho&s;e that are <HI>Mini&s;ters under God for our good,</HI> and for <HI>vengeance and wrath to evil doers,</HI> and &s;o both actually <HI>beare the Sword,</HI> and beare it <HI>not in vaine v.</HI> 4. to tho&s;e that being actually <HI>Ru|lers,</HI> are <HI>a terrour to evill workes, and a prai&s;e to them that doe well, v.</HI> 3. In a word, to tho&s;e that are <HI>Ordained of God,</HI> and they are <HI>the Powers that are; For there is no power but of God, and the power that are, are ordained of God, v.</HI> 1. to tho&s;e honour is due. Can any thing be &s;poken more plain|ly for the duty of rendering honour to pre&s;ent powers? Let's &s;ee now our Exercitators Doctrine, how agreeable it is to this of the Apo&s;tle. Honour, he &s;aies, is not due to tho&s;e that are Gods Mini&s;ters continually attending, not to tho&s;e that receive tribute, not to tho&s;e that are Gods Mini&s;ters for vengeance and wrath to evill doers; not to tho&s;e that beare the Sword, and beare it not in vaine; not to tho&s;e that are Mini&s;ters under God for our good, not to tho&s;e that being actually Rulers, are a terrour to evill workes, and a prai&s;e to &s;uch as doe well; in a word,
<PB N="29" REF="16">not to the powers that are. To tho&s;e honour is not due No? to whom then? to tho&s;e, &s;aies our Exercitator, that are not Gods Mini&s;ters continually attending, receive not Tribute, are not Gods Mini&s;ters for wrath, beare not the Sword, are not Gods Mini&s;ters for good; not Rulers, not a terrour to the evill, not a prai&s;e to the good; finally to tho&s;e that <HI>ARE NOT,</HI> to tho&s;e ho|nour is due. To tho&s;e? why to tho&s;e? why? becau&s;e according to our Exercitators Doctrine, when the A|po&s;tle &s;aies the powers <HI>that are,</HI> are ordained of God, he meanes the powers that <HI>are not;</HI> and when he &s;aies, there is NO power but of God, his meaning is, there are <HI>&s;ome</HI> powers (&s;upream powers) that are not of God: la&s;tly, when he &s;aies, let EVERY &s;oul be &s;ubject, his mea|ning is, let <HI>&s;ome</HI> &s;oules <HI>not be &s;ubject.</HI> Can any thing be &s;poken more ridiculou&s;ly ab&s;ur'd in it &s;elf, more contra|dictorie to the word of God by his Apo&s;tle, to the minde of God in his word, or indeed to rea&s;on and common &s;ence? But hold a little, why mu&s;t tho&s;e that are not, be obey'd, and tho&s;e that are, di&s;obey'd? Why? be|cau&s;e <HI>William</HI> 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 le&s;&s;e evidence then truth, and as much as both of is po&s;&s;ible, be a&s;&s;erted, that there is not that &s;upream power this day under the Sun, which hath &s;o expre&s;&s;e and full a calling from the peo|ple; the people in &s;o full a latitude, as the Commons of <HI>England</HI> in Parliament; unle&s;&s;e it be among the <HI>Maca|riens,</HI> not long &s;ince brought to light by the di&s;coveries of <HI>Raphael, H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">deaeus.</HI> But to return thither whence we digre&s;t, tis evident by every &s;troke and lineament of the powers, which the Apo&s;tlede&s;cribes and limnes out to be obey'd, that he meanes powers <HI>actually</HI> impowred, and not a power <HI>actually</HI> di&s;-empowred, and in that re&s;pect, a <HI>meere Ens rationis.</HI> And therefore if honour (which compar'd with the fifth Commandment, takes in the full latitude of obedience) mu&s;t in duty be given to tho&s;e, to whom the Apo&s;tle &s;aies it is due, and it be due, by the A|po&s;tles
<PB N="30" REF="17">Doctrine, to the powers that ARE and ACT; it followes, tis impo&s;&s;ible to cea&s;e from an Act; that is, from obedience to the pre&s;ent Covernment, becau&s;e, <HI>Id tantum po&s;&s;umus quod jure po&s;&s;umus,</HI> what&s;oever is unlaw|full, is al&s;o in that re&s;pect impo&s;&s;ible, and therefore we may not di&s;obey the pre&s;ent Government, becau&s;e the word commands to obey them; neither can any Oath di&s;oblige from this duty of obedience, or oblige to the &s;in of di&s;obedience, for <HI>Rei illicitae nu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">a obligatio.</HI> To a &s;infull thing (as our Exercitator &s;peakes) there can be no Obligation. So it remaines, that our Authors ar|gument was full, and the Exercitators exception is no|thing to the purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>There is yet one Objection behinde, which clear'd, cleares up this part of the controver&s;ie. For tis urg'd, that <HI>To obey Powers po&s;&s;e&s;t by wrong, is to ju&s;tifie the Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">urs wrong, and wrong the right of the di&s;po&s;&s;e&s;t; and therefore &s;uch obedience can be no duty but a &s;in.</HI></P>
<P>The an&s;wer is cleare. Obedience doth indeed ju&s;tifie, that to which it is properly and <HI>formally</HI> given. But the Obedience a&s;&s;erted is not &s;o to be given, either to the <HI>Act</HI> of U&s;urpation in entring, or the per&s;on of the U&s;ur|per, <HI>as entring</HI> by &s;uch an <HI>Act</HI> into the &s;upreame Power. But the truth is, the obedience maintained, is properly and <HI>formally</HI> to be given: Fir&s;t, to the <HI>Ordinance</HI> of God in the hand of the per&s;on actually entred. Neither can it, without manife&s;t contradiction to the word of truth, be deny'd, that the Sword or &s;upreame power, which is actually a terrour to evill doers, and a prai&s;e to them that doe well, and therefore is not borne in vaine, is truly the Ordinance of God. And &s;econdly obedience (as tis a&s;&s;erted) is properly and <HI>formally</HI> to be given to the per&s;on <HI>actually</HI> entred; not as entring by U&s;urpati|on, but as that per&s;on to whom the mo&s;t High thinkes meete to give the Kingdome of men, who by that &s;ove|raigne ab&s;olute and univer&s;all right which he claimes as &s;ole Lord and maker of All; givesit both from, and to whom&s;oever he thinkes meete; and who many times for
<PB N="31" REF="17">cau&s;es be&s;t knowne to him&s;elfe, thinks meet, both to give it from tho&s;e who among men have an acknowledg'd right; and to tho&s;e who have no other right among men, but what him&s;elfe as the mo&s;t High, that rules in the Kingdome of men, by vertue of his owne &s;upreame and ab&s;olute right, is plea&s;ed from his owne <HI>actuall gi&s;t</HI> and donation to confer upon them. And this al&s;o is a truth &s;o manife&s;t from the word of truth, in that 27. Chapter of <HI>Jeremy;</HI> as nothing can be &s;poken with a more tran&s;cendent maje&s;ty, both of evidence and autho|rity. For we all know concerning the Kingdome of <HI>Ju|dabh,</HI> that the unque&s;tionable right, as to man was &s;olely in the hou&s;e of <HI>David:</HI> neither can we be ignorant, that therefore as to man, <HI>Nebuehadnezzar</HI> could have no right in the lea&s;t to that Kingdome. Yet the mo&s;t High God having fir&s;t premi&s;ed ver&s;e. 5. his ab&s;olute &s;overainty, and &s;overain right, (by vertue of his bringing forth all things, into their re&s;pective beings, by the exerted arme of his Almighty power) to the di&s;pen&s;ation of all things ac|cording to his plea&s;ure, acquaints us with the plea&s;ure of his di&s;pen&s;ation, concerning the Kingdome of <HI>Judah,</HI> and with it all other Lands that &s;unke under the weight and force of the victorious Sword of the Babylonian King, in the&s;e words ver&s;. 6. <HI>And now have</HI> I GIVEN <HI>all the&s;e Lands into the hands of</HI> Nebuchadnezzar <HI>the King of Babylon my &s;ervant &amp;c.</HI> And in the proce&s;&s;e, a univer&s;all obedience is peremtorily commanded, and di&s;obedience threatned with &s;evere&s;t cha&s;ti&s;ements. From all which it is evident, that God him&s;elfe expre&s;ly, both ownes the giving of power to tho&s;e who have no Title in point of Right; and both commands obedience, and for bids di&s;obedience to tho&s;e who (though God hath alwaies a de&s;igne above them) po&s;&s;e&s;&s;e them&s;elves of power by force and U&s;urpation. And to the truth of this parti|cular, and the deduction of this truth from the grounds before us, we have the te&s;timony of Mr. <HI>Calvin,</HI> with that fulne&s;&s;e as more cannot be &s;aid. Speaking of Nebuchad|nezzar, he&s;aies:</P>
<PB N="32" REF="18">
<P><HI>Now What manner of King</HI> Nebuchadnezzer <HI>was, he that &s;eekt</HI> Jeru&s;alem,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jam qualis ren faerit <HI>Nebu chadnezar,</HI> is qui <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> expugnavit, &s;a|tis &s;citur, nempe &s;trenuns alio|rum inva&s;or ac populator. <HI>Cal. In&s;t. lib. 4. Cap. 20. &sect; 26.</HI> Videmus quant&acirc; obedientia Do|minus tetrum il|lum ferocem&abque; tyrannum coli woluit, non alia ratione ni&s;i quia regnum obtaine|bat. <HI>Ibid. &sect; 27</HI> Eru&s;tra objiciar quis mandatum illud fui&s;&s;e I&s;raelitis peeuliare, Ob&s;ervandum enim e&s;t qu&acirc; ratione ip&s;um Do|minus &s;tabiliat; Deiuli, inquit, <HI>Nebuchadnezari</HI> regnum quare &s;ervite ills. &amp; vivite. Cui|cuno; erge delatum fui&s;&s;e regnum con&s;talit, ei &s;erviendum e&s;&s;e ne dubitemas. At&abque; &s;emnlac in regium fa&s;tigium quempiam evehit Dominus, te&s;tatam nobis facis &s;uam voluntatem, quod reg|nare illum velit.</NOTE> <HI>is &s;ufficiently known; to wit,</HI> a mighty U&s;ur|per, <HI>and oen that made &s;peile of others.</HI> And after wards &s;peaking to Jerem. 27. <HI>We &s;ee (&s;aies he) with what great obedience the Lord would have that cruell and fierce Tyrant to be honoured, for</HI> no <HI>other rea&s;on, but becau&s;e he was in</HI> po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion <HI>of the Kingdome.</HI> But that which follows, exceeds what hath been &s;aid, and is indeed as much as in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e can be &s;aid. <HI>In voine may any one Object,</HI> that <HI>command|ment [of obedience] was</HI> peculiar to the I&s;raelites. <HI>For the rea&s;on mu&s;t be con&s;ider'd upon which the Lord grounds it;</HI> I have given (&s;aies he) <HI>the Kingdome to</HI> Nebuchadnezzer. <HI>Where|fore &s;erve ye him, and live. To whom&s;oever therefore the &s;u|preame Power &s;hall appeare to be given; let us never doubt but we mu&s;t obey him. Seeing as &s;oon as the Lord rai&s;es any per&s;on to a &s;tate of &s;overainty, he gives us to know tis his expre&s;&s;e</HI> will <HI>that &s;uch a one have the Government.</HI></P>
<P>Upon he whole, the conclu&s;ion will bee evident in its owne light, and fairely untye the knot of the pre&s;ent Ob|jection. For, to give obedience to the Ordinance of God, can never ju&s;tifie the di&s;order of man; neither can a &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the &s;upreame right of God, be in any &s;ort an injury to the &s;ubordinate right of man. Which gran|ted (as it cannot be deny'd) the obedience a&s;&s;erted can never be a <HI>Sin,</HI> but continues &s;tilll a <HI>Duty,</HI> again&s;t which no Oath hath power to oblige. And thus far &s;hall &s;uf|fice to have a&s;&s;erted this Truth, that <HI>The Oathes objected oblige not again&s;t Obedience to pre&s;ent Powers.</HI></P>
<P>But before we proceed to the third A&s;&s;ertion, although (as we &s;aid in the beginning) our intention is not to en|ter into a <HI>Logomachie,</HI> or word-wrangle with the Exer|citator, wherein to give him his due, it mu&s;t be confe&s;t he hath de&s;erv'd very well of the whole frye of School-boyes,
<PB N="33" REF="18">and given them much light into their true <HI>Syntaxis</HI> (as he &s;peakes page 48.) in his large and exqui&s;ite Com|ments upon the Pronouns and Conjunctions Copulative, and di&s;iunctive; <HI>Him</HI> and <HI>Them,</HI> and <HI>Her,</HI> and <HI>Their,</HI> and <HI>His,</HI> and <HI>Her,</HI> and <HI>Or,</HI> and <HI>And</HI> &amp;c. Shewing him&s;elfe a mo&s;t profound Grammatica&s;ter: Yet &s;eeing his impotence cannot thinke it &s;elfe con&s;picuous enough in it &s;elfe, without being injurious to others; we cannot but take notice and give the Reader a &s;hort account of his injuri|ous, though impotent in&s;inuation repeated (according to his u&s;uall veine of Tautologies) thrice over (Page 18.43, 52.) again&s;t the Author of <HI>The law&s;ulne&s;&s;e of obey|ing</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>It is to be admired</HI> (he &s;aies) <HI>That the Author &s;hould be|gin with a generall Deliberative</HI> [It were good to be con|&s;idered &amp;c.] <HI>And yet end with onely a particular in&s;tance in one of the Oathes to be con&s;idered.</HI></P>
<P>Admiration (tis u&s;ually &s;aid) is the childe of Igno|rance; and tis true (if ever) here of our learned Exercita|tors double, if not treble ignorance, in re&s;pect both of the pre&s;ent ground of his admiration, and his mi&s;take a|bout the meaning, both of the Author and Oath.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, what nece&s;&s;ity is, there I pray, that he that propounds matter worthy of generall con&s;ideration to others, mu&s;t therefore him&s;elfe enter into a particular enumeration of particulars? As if hee that &s;hould &s;ay, it were good to con&s;ider, whether the &s;o much applauded Exercitation bee not a piece that de&s;erves better to bee exploded, and in&s;tance onely in page 88. where the Ex|ercitator be&s;ides his falfifying the Hi&s;tory alleg'd, and with it the truth it &s;elfe, &s;hewes him&s;elfe after all his di&s;cour&s;e about true <HI>Syntaxis,</HI> unable to con&s;true his own Latin; &s;hould yet bee bound to follow him in a particular inve&s;tigation of his perplext impertinencies, from his fir&s;t entrance into his <HI>Amercian</HI> de&s;erts, Page 5. to Page 88. before mentioned, which &s;huts up his idle Exercitation. Obut he &s;aies, <HI>The Author &s;eemes to fa&s;ten on that in&s;tance, becau&s;e he thoughthim&s;elfe be&s;t able to loo&s;en
<PB N="34" REF="19">its Obligation.</HI> A piece of di&s;cretion i'le a&s;&s;ure you, of which if the Exercitator had beene guilty, he had never undertaken to loo&s;en &s;oules from &s;ubjection to the powers that are, by endeavouring to fa&s;ten on them the Do|ctrine of di&s;obedience, though he were faine to &s;neake into <HI>America</HI> to fetch it. But <HI>he leaves the judgement of the Authors performance</HI> to the Reader; and &s;o &s;hall wee of his.</P>
<P>But fir&s;t hee falls into another fit of Admiration. What's the matter! He admires, <HI>Seeing the Author ac|counts Oathes &s;acred Bonds and reverend Obligements; how he feared not to u&s;e &s;uch enforcement, to the cleare letter of &s;o tender and &s;acred a thing. Bona verba!</HI> If (before we di&s;mi&s;&s;e the Exercitator) we finde not him&s;elfe really guilty of an <HI>enforcement</HI> to learned <HI>Paraeus,</HI> not much better (for the nature of enforcement is the &s;ame, however the &s;ub|ject differ) then that which is here but pretended, and that too without the lea&s;t ground given by our Author, but meerely taken from his owne ignorance, and ham|mered out into the deformed piece of perjury in the charge, upon the black forge of his owne mi&s;take; we &s;hall allow him to fall into a third fit of Admiration. In the meane time whil&s;t he endeavours wrongfully to fa&s;ten on our Author, an interpretation begotten (like <HI>Ixion's</HI> Centaures) on the Cloud of his owne mi&s;-ap|prehen&s;ion, what doth be but create a fault, that he may not want an accu&s;ation, though he bring him&s;elfe with|in the guilt of <HI>bearing fal&s;e witne&s;&s;e</HI> again&s;t his Neighbour by it, which (as he &s;peakes) borders upon <HI>Perjury;</HI> and &s;urely is not very agreeable to that Hyperbolcall Cha|racter of the Exercitator, held forth in the glorious bu&s;h of the Epi&s;tle to the Reader.</P>
<P>Wherefore of &s;how the true intent of our Author, and with all the untrue, charge of this Accu&s;er; Our Author (as we can &s;peake from &s;ome that have rea&s;on to know) never intended the pre&s;ent Powers, as the Succe&s;&s;ours in the Oath, at the Exercitator ingorantly, or maliciou&s;ly, or both (let him take his choice) mi&s;takes him; his
<PB N="35" REF="19">intention in truth (and his di&s;cour&s;e te&s;tifies as much) was onely to inforce a <HI>Dilemma,</HI> upon tho&s;e that argue for the Obligation of the Oath. For he rea&s;ons, that if Heires and Succe&s;&s;ors mu&s;t, (as the Exercitator and all that are of his judgement, &s;ay they mu&s;t,) be under|&s;tood of the &s;ame per&s;ons, the Obligation of the Oath mu&s;t needs cea&s;E upon &s;uch a juncture of affaires, where|in neither the Succe&s;&s;ors are Heires, nor the Heires Suc|ce&s;&s;ors. And to take off the Objection of a Succe&s;&s;ion in <HI>Right,</HI> though not in <HI>Fact;</HI> He &s;hew'd that that word u&s;ually is, and therefore truly mu&s;t (as indeed it mu&s;t) be under&s;tood in the Oath of <HI>actual</HI> Succe&s;&s;ours; un|le&s;&s;e a Nation may bee Governed by, and give obedience to a meere <HI>Ens rationis;</HI> for a Succe&s;&s;or in right onely, though never &s;o truely in right, as &s;uch, is &s;uch or no better. Behold the &s;trength of the perjurious ac|cu&s;ation, or more truly the weakne&s;&s;e of the injurious ac|cu&s;er, after all tho&s;e &s;olmne aggravations, in which hee hath dre&s;t up his accu&s;ation, and his grave advice to the Author upon it; whereas indeed had him&s;elfe beene &s;o well advi&s;ed, as he &s;hould have been, he never had laid &s;o heavy a charge upon &s;o light, or in truth, no ground, on a per&s;on of whom he confe&s;&s;es to have receav'd &s;o <HI>faire a Character</HI> from the worthy Author of the <HI>religious De|murrer.</HI> And now after his threefold attempt on the word <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors,</HI> to wound the reputation of our Author, becau&s;e here (at lea&s;t) hee thought he had met with a <HI>Flaw,</HI> what is all he hath gained, &s;ave onely a fuller con|firmation, both of our Authors integrity, and the truth a&s;&s;erted by him, and a further di&s;covery both of the weakne&s;&s;e of his cau&s;e, and the greatne&s;&s;e of his little good-will towards our Author?</P>
<Q>&mdash; Fragili quaerens illidere dentem, Offendit &s;olido.</Q>
<P>But &s;eeing he talkes of an Enforcement to the cleare letter of the Oath (though indeed the true &s;ence of an
<PB N="36" REF="20">Oath, more then of the Scripture it &s;elfe, is not alwaies to be finally determined by the Letter) what will he &s;ay, if it be prov'd again&s;t him&s;elfe, that he is truly guilty of the enforcement, untruly charg'd by him on our Author? may he not then ju&s;tly bee &s;truck into a wor&s;e fit then any of the former, not of Admiration, but a&s;toni&s;hment? Yet peradventure this is not a thing altogether impo&s;&s;ible nay po&s;&s;ibly it may be done in very few words. Wherefore though we a&s;&s;ert nothing Magi&s;terially, yet to meet with our Exercitator in the &s;ame path which him&s;elfe hath chalk tout, we &s;hall commend the &s;equele to the &s;eri|ous and impartiall confideration and judgement of the Reader.</P>
<P>Out of his owne mouth &s;hall wee judge our Exercita|tor. For page. 48. He tells us, that by Succe&s;&s;ion in the Oath, mu&s;t be intended heires <HI>in Succe&s;&s;ion.</HI> It followes then, that by his owne confe&s;&s;ion, the Oath obliges not to Heires <HI>out of Succe&s;&s;ion.</HI> And indeed herein he &s;peakes rea&s;on, though afterwards he is &s;o unhappy, as to con|tradict both rea&s;on and him&s;elfe, when hee lights upon it; for he would have tho&s;e termed Succe&s;&s;ors which doe not actually &s;ucceed, which may be with as much pro|priety of &s;peech (for Oathes &s;ure doe not u&s;e to &s;peake in <HI>Tropes</HI>) as <HI>Mons</HI> may be &s;aid <HI>&agrave; movendo.</HI> He pretends that our Authors interpretation borders upon perjury; but I am &s;ure his owne both borders upon it, and falls into the very bo&s;ome of non-&s;ence. No he &s;aies, for there is a &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in Right, as well as in Fact. What then? A &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in Right, and not in Fact, is not bet|ter then no &s;ucce&s;&s;ion to the Nation. Doth the Oath binde to <HI>actual Obedience</HI> to a per&s;on that is not an <HI>actuall Succe&s;&s;or?</HI> An evident impo&s;sibility to give actuall obedience to a per&s;on that doth not actually &s;uicceed.</P>
<P><HI>Incidit in Scillam</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>But he hath yet another &s;tring to his Bow. For hee &s;aies the Oath of Supremacy binds to a <HI>lawfull</HI> Succe&s;|&s;or.
<PB N="37" REF="20">Much to the purpo&s;e. How can he be a lawfull Succe&s;&s;or that (as K.) doth not &s;ucceed at all? <HI>Non entis nul|lo &s;unt accidentia.</HI> But the truth is, it had been good this Author had under&s;tood the true &s;tate of the Oath of Sa|premacy, before he had adventured upon it. To doe that hee &s;hould have con&s;ulted with 5. <HI>Eliz.</HI> and that would have conducted him to an Injunction, in the premonition to which Injunction, hee would have found that this Oath was to bee interpreted and taken In this &s;ence <HI>viz. To exnelude all forraigne Iuri&s;diction.</HI> And &s;o he might have &s;par'd his Logick and Rhetoricke both, concerning this Oath, which as is wholly unconcerned in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e; for here is no que&s;tion about <HI>Forraigne jui&s;diction.</HI> But to omit this and pro|ceed; what if by the lawes of the Land, a Succe&s;&s;or, <HI>in Fact,</HI> be a <HI>lawfull</HI> Succe&s;&s;or, at lea&s;t untill he be <HI>lawfully rmov'd,</HI> hath hee any whit advantaged him&s;elfe by the word <HI>Lawfull?</HI> Yet that &s;o it is, &s;eemes to be very cleare in the ca&s;e of <HI>H.</HI> 7. If we will receive the verdict of the Sages of the Law, the company of Judges a&s;&s;embled in the Exchequer Chamber upon it, even when his Per&s;on was actually under an attaindour of Trea&s;on, and be|fore the Parliament confer'd that right which the Ex|ercitator contradicting him&s;elfe (as wee &s;hall &s;hew el&s;e|where) would pretend; Heart their words as they are gi|ven us by the Lord <HI>Verulam; It was</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>with</HI> una|nimous con&s;ent <HI>re&s;olved, That the Crowne takes away all</HI> de|fects <HI>and &s;tops in blood; from the time the</HI> King <HI>did</HI> a&s;&s;ume <HI>the Crowne, the Fountaine was cleared, and all attaindours and corruptions of blood di&s;charged.</HI> What can be more plaine?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bacon <HI>H. 7.</HI> page 13.</NOTE> From the time he a&s;&s;um'd the Crowne, that is, after his <HI>actuall po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> of &s;overainty and <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion</HI> to the former King, although his Title had before beene condemned by Parliament in <HI>H.</HI> 6. and the Succe&s;&s;ion <HI>in right,</HI> were then in the Lady <HI>Elizibeth,</HI> yet the Succe&s;&s;our <HI>in fact</HI> is unanimou&s;y acknowledged a <HI>lawfull</HI> Succe&s;&s;or in the &s;overainty. Againe, It was (&s;aies our Author) agreed and re&s;olv'd by the &s;ame Judges, and their Re&s;olutions
<PB N="38" REF="21">were accordingly follow'd by the Parliament then fit|ting; <HI>That the Knights and Burge&s;&s;es &s;hould forbeare to come into the Hou&s;e, till a Law were pa&s;t for the rever&s;all of tho&s;e attainders,</HI> under which he had &s;aid before divers of them were, for a acting again&s;t, <HI>R.</HI> 3. whom all the world ac|knowledges to have been an U&s;urper. Where, be&s;ide the confutation of the Exercitators Doctrine, page 7. That, the Hou&s;e mu&s;t bee free for all to come to, that their Acts may be free and authoritative; It is worth the Readers mo&s;t &s;erious ob&s;ervation, that by the opinion of the Judges generally a&s;&s;embled, an attainder may be brought in for Trea&s;on again&s;t an <HI>&V;&s;urper,</HI> and &s;tands good in Law,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Nota,</HI> Diciair &amp; non negaiur quod proditione facta tempore <HI>H.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">qui fuit u&s;ur|per del Crowne le partie &s;era ar+raigne de ceau tempore <HI>E. 4.</HI> vel bujus modi, per compa&s;&s;ant le more regis po|et e&s;&s;e pune tem|pere alterius, Regi: Comment que l'un &s;uet &V;&s;urp.</P>
<P><HI>Brook, Grand Abrigement Tit. Trea&s;on.</HI></P></NOTE> untill by cour&s;e of Law it be rever&s;t, though the U&s;urper him&s;elf were remov'd. Which proves clearely, that Trea&s;on is truly Trea&s;on by the Law of the Land, though committed again&s;t an U&s;urper. And to this <HI>Brooke,</HI> gives a full and cleare te&s;timony; for <HI>Note,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>It is affirmed beyond contradiction, that for trea&s;on committed in the time of</HI> H. 6. <HI>who was an &V;&s;urper of the Crowne, the partie &s;hall be arraigned thereof in the time of</HI> Edw. 4. <HI>Or &s;uch a per&s;on may be puni&s;ht in the time of an other King, for compa&s;&s;ing the death of a King that was an &V;&s;urper.</HI> By all which it is cleare, that a Succe&s;&s;or <HI>in Fact,</HI> by the Law of the Land, is a <HI>lawfull</HI> Succe&s;&s;or, untill lawfully re|mov'd. And that pa&s;&s;age concerning <HI>H.</HI> 6. is very re|markable. For when <HI>Richard Duke</HI> of <HI>Yorke,</HI> had Seated him&s;elfe in the Chaire of State in the Lords hou&s;e in Parliament, and there laid claime to the Crowne, and made good his claime and Title to the Parliament, tis &s;aid, <HI>VVhen the Lords and Commons there a&s;&s;embled, had with mature deliberation and good advice,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Marting Hi&s;to|ry of the Kings and Queens of <HI>Engl. pag. 258.</HI></NOTE> <HI>&s;oundly debated on this im|portant bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, it was by them all enacted, that King</HI> H. <HI>&s;hould &s;o long as he lived, retaine the name and honour of a King</HI> &amp;c. So great re&s;pect had our Ance&s;tours to Succe&s;&s;ors in Fact, even where the Succe&s;&s;or in Right, and of eminent worth and abilities was pre&s;ent, and claiming, and had judgement al&s;o given on his &s;ide. And upon the ground in Law before mentioned, was the Statute of 11.
<PB N="39" REF="21"><HI>H.</HI> 7. Enacted, which frees from the guilt of Trea&s;on, for adhering to Succe&s;&s;ors in Fact. But the Exercitation e&s;pies yet another advantage in the Oath, by which hee makes account ea&s;ily to elude all this; for he &s;aies the &s;ucce&s;sion is to <HI>a Crown and Dignity,</HI> but <HI>that is aboli&s;h;</HI> and therefore the Succe&s;&s;ors which he pretends our Author pleads for, can never be tho&s;e intended in the Oath. Is it indeed abo|li&s;ht? How then can the Succe&s;&s;or which he pleads for, bee the Succe&s;&s;or in the Oath, more then they? nay how can he indeed be either Succe&s;&s;or or Heire? Hee that is either Heire or Succe&s;&s;or to that which is a aboli&s;h, is &s;uch to that which is not; hee that is &s;uch to that which is not, is &s;uch to that which is indeed nothing; much good do it him, both with his Heire and Succe&s;&s;or-&s;hip; the man hath fairely confuted him&s;elfe. But then againe, doth he know what the Crowne and Dignity he talkes on, is? Doth its e&s;&s;ence con&s;i&s;t in a <HI>Name</HI> or <HI>Thing?</HI> If in a Name, There is no body de&s;ires much to take it from him, pro|vided he be contented with that onely. If it con&s;i&s;t in a Thing, then the name is onely chang'd, the thing &s;till re|maines, and &s;o they of whom our Author (as he would pretend) &s;peakes, may be the Succe&s;&s;ors in the Oath, not|with&s;tanding what he Objects to the contrary, concer|ning the aboli&s;hing of the Crowne and Dignity. Yet againe he &s;ales, the Oath intends by Heires and Succe&s;|&s;ors the <HI>Jame Per&s;ons,</HI> which he goes about to prove, too ridiculou&s;ly to neede an an&s;wer, and adds, <HI>admit them divers, and the Oath will import a contradiction.</HI> For he &s;aies, had the per&s;ons beene divers, it mu&s;t have beene <HI>Heires</HI> [or] not [and] <HI>Succe&s;&s;ors.</HI> Right. For you know in a Lea&s;e, we mu&s;t not &s;ay Executors, Admini&s;trators [and] A&s;signes, but [or] A&s;signes, unle&s;&s;e A&s;signes meane the &s;ame per&s;ons, with Executors and Admini&s;trators, el&s;e it will imply a contradiction. Where's his true <HI>Syn|taxis</HI> now? will not every Scrivener tell him that this de|&s;erves the <HI>Ferula?</HI> Againe, admit them divers, and the Oath will import a contradiction. A very weake excepti|on,
<PB N="40" REF="22">but a &s;trong contradiction to the truth, and therein a reall inforcement to the cleare Letter of the Oath; his over-ha&s;ty zeale making him truely fall into that very crime, which he had before wrongfully charg'd on our Author. For why I pray, may we not &s;wear to performe the duty of the Oath, to divers &s;orts of per&s;ons, at divers times obtaining, and without a contradiction; &s;eeing both cannot obtain at once, if the words beare adifferent &s;ignification? And that their &s;ignification is indeed differ|ent, The Exercitator him&s;elf cannot deny, whil&s;t he grants the word [Succe&s;&s;ours] even in the pre&s;ent Oath to bee a <HI>Terme in Law,</HI> Page 50. For every <HI>Pui&s;ne</HI> will tell him that hath but read the fir&s;t Chapter in <HI>Littleton,</HI> that words that make a <HI>different e&s;tate</HI> in Law, mu&s;t in Law have a <HI>different &s;ignification.</HI> Be&s;ides rea&s;on it &s;elfe will dictate, that they were at fir&s;t intended <HI>different.</HI> For the Oath being made by the Kingdome in Parliament, was intended to make provi&s;ion for the Kingdome, as well as the King; (and not for the King, without the Kingdome, as the Exercitator &s;ondly imagines) in ca&s;e the line obtaining &s;hould faile, or upon other emergen|cies whatever that might in&s;ue. To conclude this parti|cular; our Author to &s;hew the ordinary acception of the word Succe&s;&s;or, bids aske the que&s;tion, who was Succe&s;|&s;our to <HI>W.</HI> Conqueror. The Exercitator takes him up very Magi&s;terially and &s;aies, <HI>tis fallaciou&s;ly propounded.</HI> Rightly, he &s;aies, 'twill be this, <HI>Who is to bee his Maje&s;ties Succe&s;&s;our?</HI> But &s;urely hee hath not more fallaciou&s;ly, then fooli&s;hly propounded a que&s;tion, which Fryer <HI>Ba|cons</HI> head would hardly have beene able to an&s;wer him. For if it mu&s;t be under&s;tood, as he tells us he intends it, <HI>Of the &s;uture time, and a thing to be done in it;</HI> He that &s;hall give a true an&s;wer to the que&s;tion &s;o propounded, and &s;o under&s;tood, mu&s;t either an&s;wer by <HI>in&s;piration,</HI> or confe&s;&s;e that our learned Exercitator hath clearely put him to a <HI>non-plns.</HI></P>
<P>Before we conclude this Chapter, we cannot but ta&s;te
<PB N="41" REF="22">of one more di&s;h of Objections &s;erv'd in (as indeed it is &s;omewhat a homely o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e) our of a Homily. For hee tells us the Homily is fully and flatly again&s;t Subjects <HI>re|moving or di&s;po&s;ing</HI> (&s;ure it &s;hould bee depo&s;ing) their Princes upon any pretence what&s;oever. This Homily he &s;aies is part of the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>Eng|land;</HI> and this Doctrine of the Church of <HI>Eng|land</HI> hee &s;aies, wee are bound by Prote&s;tation to main|taine; and this &s;ticks very much with him, for he knowes not how the contrary can &s;tand with the Prote&s;tation. Well, for this once I &s;hall undertake with his owne, and the helpe of the Fuller An&s;wer to be his <HI>Oedipus.</HI> I an|&s;wer therefore, If he plea&s;e to call it to minde, he may re|member he told us, that in his <HI>America</HI> the Hou&s;e of Commons, were coordinate with the <HI>American</HI> Prince; now if he doe not under&s;tand his owne Termes, the Ful|ler An&s;wer will tell him, that where there is a <HI>Coordina|tion,</HI> there is no <HI>Subordination,</HI> but <HI>Subjects</HI> are <HI>Subordi|nate;</HI> therefore he addes, that all the Members <HI>Collectine</HI> in their Hou&s;e, are not Subjects. Againe, our Exercita|tor makes his coordinate Commons, the <HI>Fundament Us</HI> of his <HI>American</HI> Government. And in this ca&s;e the Fuller An&s;wer will tell him againe, <HI>Fundamentalls</HI> admit not of <HI>higher</HI> and <HI>lower;</HI> all foundations are <HI>principall</HI> alike, there can be therefore no &s;ubjection. So it is not much mate|riall, whether his Homily be part of the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England</HI> or no, for the practi&s;e in <HI>America,</HI> is not contrary to the Doctrine in <HI>England.</HI> But certain|ly &s;ome that have rea&s;on to know, &s;ay that tho&s;e Homi|lies are no part of the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>Eng|land:</HI> and that the Articles give them onely this Te&s;ti|mony, that they containe whol&s;ome Doctrine, and &s;u|table to their times. But enough, if not too much of this we ha&s;ten to our third A&s;&s;ertion.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="42" REF="23">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. IIII.</HI> That obedience is due to Powers in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, though unlawfully entred.</HEAD>
<P>IN an&s;wering the Arguments, from the Oathes object|ed in the former Chapter, again&s;t obedience to pre|&s;ent Powers, when &s;uppo&s;'d to bee unlawfully entred; there was frequent cau&s;e to demon&s;trate the Duty of &s;uch obedience, which properly &s;hould have beene the worke of the pre&s;ent A&s;&s;ertion, wherefore having as to the point in hand already &s;poken &s;o much, &s;o much the le&s;&s;e will need now to be added.</P>
<P>The Exercitator page 64. acknowledges, <HI>The lawful|ne&s;&s;e of obeying</HI> &amp;c. hath of all others, &s;poken mo&s;t for the obedience to be maintained; and upon that account tels us, he intends to &s;peake mo&s;t again&s;t what was by him &s;poken. We &s;hall herein follow the path which he hath thus trod out to us, and if we doe but make good our Authors part again&s;t his Antagoni&s;t, wee &s;hall de|feate his maine Battell by his owne confe&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t taske he undertakes, is, to prove that the A|po&s;tle in the place urg'd by our Author, (<HI>Rom.</HI> 13.) can onely bee under&s;tood of a <HI>lawfull</HI> Magi&s;tracy, and to make that good, compares it (as he had done before, in laying his foundation page 1.) with <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 8.4. Where|fore if here we finde his foundation <HI>Sandy,</HI> his whole edi|fice will &s;ufficiently appeare to be <HI>ruinous</HI> To proceed then, from the compari&s;on of tho&s;e two Scriptures he con|cludes page 66. That the former &s;peakes of a <HI>legall,</HI> the latter of an <HI>illegal</HI> Magi&s;tracie, el&s;e they would be <HI>con|tradictory.</HI> Wherein I am &s;ure he is contradictory to his owne Doctrine, as his owne Doctrine is contradictory
<PB N="43" REF="23">to the truth, and con&s;equently needs no other Judge, but his owne mouth to condeme it. For fir&s;t, he is ap|parently contradictory to him&s;elfs, in that at the be|ginning, he would have U&s;urpers to be <HI>but private per&s;ons,</HI> Page 9. and <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. mu&s;t be under&s;tood (how uni|ver&s;ally &s;oever &s;poken) of a <HI>lagal</HI> Magi&s;tracy <HI>onely;</HI> yet in conclu&s;ion, he findes a di&s;tinction betweene a <HI>legall</HI> and <HI>illegall</HI> Magi&s;tracy. But why? you will &s;ay there may be a faire an&s;wer to all this; the contradiction is onely in termes, not in things, in appeareance, not truth; by ille|gall Magi&s;tracy, hee meanes no other then U&s;urpers. Do's he meane U&s;urpers? then clearely hee confutes, as well as contradicts his owne Doctrine. For if he doe (as indeed he does) here intend <HI>Ieroboam</HI> and his Succe&s;&s;ors, whom as here, &s;o before in the entrance of his di&s;cour&s;e, he &s;trongly proves to be U&s;urpers, both by this very Scripture, and the judgement of divers lear|ned Divines upon the place; then certainly the confu|&s;ed pile of the whole di&s;cour&s;e, like Babilon is fallen; and we need no other pro&s;pect to behold its ruine, then the light and advantage which the pre&s;ent Scripture will afford us. For fir&s;t, whereas hee would make U&s;urpers <HI>no more but private per&s;ons,</HI> who &s;ees not that as him&s;elfe here termes them Magi&s;trates, though as to their Title and entrance into the Magi&s;tracy, they were <HI>illegall</HI> and U&s;ur|pers: So this very Scripture which he brings to prove them U&s;urpers; and their Hi&s;tory in Scripture records them by the Name, Title, State, and Dignity, of the Kings and Princes of I&s;rael? And &s;econdly, whereas he would prove that obedience is not due to U&s;urpers, becau&s;e as our Exercitator would pretend they are <HI>no Ma|gi&s;trates;</HI> who knowes not that tho&s;e U&s;urping Princes were the Magi&s;trates of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> and <HI>Obadiah, Eliah,</HI> and divers other Prophets and Servanas of God gave obe|dience to them according yes to their Magi&s;trates? La&s;t|ly, what doth he but <HI>Nodum in &s;cirpo quaerere,</HI> in &s;etting the Scriptures, mentioned at &s;uch a di&s;tance? Seeing
<PB N="44" REF="24"><HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 8.4. &s;peakes <HI>expre&s;ly</HI> of Powers, <HI>in fieri</HI> in their <HI>en|trance,</HI> concerning their <HI>making</HI> or <HI>&s;etting</HI> up. But <HI>Rom.</HI> 13 &s;peakes of Powers <HI>in facto e&s;&s;e,</HI> in <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> and <HI>acting,</HI> as <HI>Mini&s;ters</HI> for the good of mankinde, from ver&s;e 1. to ver&s;e 7. And &s;o we may helpe his memory, for by his frequent contradictions he &s;eemes to need it, to untye this knot from his owne words, Page 2. Where he tells us concerning <HI>Jeroboam</HI> and his Succe&s;&s;ors, That the <HI>Event</HI> and effect, that is (or I know not what it is) their <HI>actuall po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> of Power, and <HI>acting</HI> in a way of Government, for the good of the &s;oules &s;ubject, <HI>was from God;</HI> as how? certainly the other negative part of the contra-di&s;tinction con&s;idered, if he &s;peake &s;ence he mu&s;t meane, by <HI>ordination,</HI> not <HI>permi&s;&s;ion onely:</HI> but (he &s;aies) the <HI>&s;infull meanes by which it,</HI> that is, their actuall po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;ion of Power <HI>was accompli&s;hed, was not from God;</HI> as how? Surely, if he &s;peake rea&s;on, rea&s;on will &s;ay, not by <HI>or|dination,</HI> but <HI>permi&s;&s;ion onely.</HI> As <HI>Jacobs</HI> actual <HI>obtaining</HI> of the ble&s;sing, was that which God had <HI>ordained;</HI> but his obtaining it by <HI>deceit,</HI> was onely by divine <HI>permi&s;&s;ion.</HI> And that the Reader may &s;ee, that when we affirme that the per&s;on of <HI>Jeroboam</HI> as a Magi&s;trate, though not his practi&s;e as an U&s;urper, was from a <HI>divine ordination,</HI> and the power in his hand, though an U&s;urper, <HI>the Ordinance of God;</HI> we &s;peake not that which none el&s;e ever &s;pake before; if the judgement of <HI>Paraeus</HI> may be of any mo|ment in the point, no man can &s;peake more expre&s;ly; for &s;peaking of Gods rending the Kingdome from <HI>Rebo|hoam,</HI> and &s;etting up the Kingdome of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> in <HI>Jerohoam;</HI> hus he delivers him&s;elfe, grounding his judgement up|on<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Nec fortuit &ograve; aut hominnm ta tum concilio &amp; pe-fidia, nec deo in&s;cio aut invito, &s;ed ita volente &amp; ordi|nance illam <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> Regni con<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">itu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i onem <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">actam fu|i&s;&s;e, Hi&s;toria &s;a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">a <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;ta<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, <HI>1 Reg. 11.31.35,37. 1 Reg. 12.15.24, Parae.</HI> in <HI>Rom. 13. Dub. 3. Ad. 1</HI></NOTE> the Scripture, <HI>the &s;acred Hi&s;tory doth te&s;tifie,</HI> 1 Kin. 11.31, 35, 37. 1 <HI>Kin.</HI> 12 15, 14. <HI>The con&s;tituton of a new Kingdome, came not to pa&s;&s;e either by accident, or by the councell and treachery of men onely; neither was it without the knowledge, or again&s;t the will of God, but becau&s;e hee ordain'd and would have it &s;o.</HI></P>
<P>Can any thing be &s;poken more plaine from the ex|pre&s;&s;e
<PB N="45" REF="24">Text of Scripture, which was al&s;o urg'd before in the preceding Chapter, to prove, that Government though in the hand of an U&s;urper, is the Ordinance of God? and therefore the per&s;on of the U&s;urper, though not his &s;infull entrance by U&s;urpation, is by a divine ordination; and &s;o a Mini&s;ter of God for our good, which the Exercitator would denye. Tis cleare then and undenyable, that the Exercitator hath laid in a <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">e principle, as the Corner-&s;tone of his whole &s;tructure, which being once &s;haken and remov'd, the whole with its whole burthen, like a ruinous building, comes tum|bling to the ground. For if (as hath already beene proved) an U&s;urper in po&s;&s;e&s;sion be a Magi&s;trate, though in re&s;pect 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 Apo&s;tle, <HI>Rom</HI> 13. &s;peakes of &s;uch inclu&s;ively; and there|fore &s;uch in duty mu&s;t be obey'd, and cannot without &s;in be re&s;i&s;ted, which confutes the Exercitators Doctrine, and confirmes the a&s;&s;ertion of our Author.</P>
<P>What hath our Antagoni&s;t to &s;ay to the Contrary? he would prove that U&s;urpers may be re&s;i&s;ted; and in|&s;tances mo&s;t ab&s;urdly, in <HI>Chedorlaomer</HI> and his partici|pants, who never were po&s;&s;e&s;t of the Government of <HI>So|dom,</HI> onely made an inva&s;ive War, and tooks &s;ome Pri|&s;oners; and who ever denyed that an invader or intru|der, in that action may be lawfully re&s;i&s;ted or that to joyn with him in it, were to be equally guilty; but our a&s;&s;er|tion is not again&s;t re&s;iding au U&s;urper in the Act of in|tru&s;ion, but again&s;t re&s;i&s;ting Government in the hand of an intruder, when he is actually po&s;&s;e&s;t of it, and &s;o is the onely per&s;on left us by the providence of God, to be his Mini&s;ter to us for good, in the di&s;pen&s;ation of that Ordinance, to whom wee may be the cleare and generall Dialect of the Scriptures conclude, that the mo&s;t High, who gives the Kingdome of men to whom be thinkes meet, hath now (to the uttermo&s;t that were can judge) thought meet to give it.</P>
<PB N="44" REF="25">
<P>His other in&s;tances are as ab&s;ur'd as the former, for they &s;peake onely of a re&s;i&s;tance, or rather indeed a de|fen&s;ive War manag'd by publike and &s;upreame Magi|&s;trates, and tho&s;e too, all per&s;ons of an <HI>extraordinary</HI> Call, excepting the <HI>Maccabees;</HI> whereas if he would have &s;poken to the purpo&s;e, he mu&s;t have given an in&s;tance from Scripture, of &s;ome private Saint, re&s;i&s;ting a publike Magi&s;trate obtaining, upon pretence, that in his judgement the Title of the Magi&s;trate was not good; but that indeed is a taske too hard for the whole Tribe of Exercitators. In the meane time he hath &s;ufficiently confuted him&s;elfe in the in&s;tance concerning <HI>Athaliah,</HI> for &s;eeing the Text fares expre&s;ly, <HI>Athaliah</HI> reigned &s;ix yeares, and all men know there can be no raigning without Subjection, it followes, private per&s;ons mu&s;t be &s;ubject to U&s;urpers in po&s;&s;e&s;sion. Againe, whereas <HI>Jehoiada</HI> and tho&s;e Rulers over hundreds, &s;tirr'd not for <HI>Joa&s;h</HI> his Right, till the end of &s;ix yeares; nor then neither, but with &s;uch caution as prevented the embroyling of the Common-Wealth, it's cleare that publike per&s;ons and chiefe Magi&s;trates, may not remove an U&s;urper, in the mo&s;t cleare and un|controverted ca&s;e, with danger and di&s;turbance to the Common-Wealth. And la&s;tly, whereas tis &s;aid <HI>Athaliah</HI> reigned; tis evident that the Seripture &s;peakes of U&s;ur|pers in po&s;&s;e&s;sion, as of Magi&s;trates, and not private per&s;ons.</P>
<P>But he urges, <HI>a lawfull calling from the People, is e&s;|&s;entiall to a Magi&s;trate.</HI> It is an&s;wered. Fir&s;t, few King|domes in <HI>Europe</HI> have beene &s;o begun, or indeed other|wi&s;e then by conque&s;t; and if a con&s;ent of the people come after, what is that but an effect of force? And here|in is briefly, but clearely an&s;wered, all that hee hath &s;aid for the lawfull calling of his Romane Emperours; for what <HI>Tully</HI> (cited by him&s;elfe) &s;aies of one, may with the &s;ame truth be &s;aid concerning all the re&s;t, <HI>He had</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Attulerat jam liberae civitati, partim meru, partim patien|tia, con&s;uetudi|nem &s;erviendi. <HI>Cicero in M.A Philip. 2. Orar.</HI></NOTE> <HI>now reduced the Citie</HI> [of Rome] <HI>from a &s;tate of libertie, to a cu&s;tome of &s;ervitude, partly by feare, and partly by &s;uffering.</HI>
<PB N="45" REF="25">To which adde that notable te&s;timony of <HI>Tacitus,</HI> con|cerning <HI>Tiberius</HI> out of his owne mouth. <HI>It is recorded</HI> (&s;aies <HI>Tacitus</HI>) <HI>That</HI> Tiberius <HI>as often as he went out of the Senate, was wont to u&s;e expre&s;&s;ions aloud in Greeke,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Memorae prodi|tur, Tiberum, quoties curia egrederetur, gre|cis verbis in bunc modum ele|qui, &s;elitum, OHO MINES AD SERVI|TVIEM PA|RATOS! &s;cili|cet etiam illum, qui libertatem publicam nollet, tamprojectae &s;er|vient ium pati|entiae taedehat. <HI>Tacit. An. l. 3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and to this effect: O men prepared for &s;ervitude! the trnth is, though him|&s;elfe were again&s;t publike Libertie, yet hee loath'd at their ba&s;e patience, in &s;ubmitting them&s;elves to &s;ervitude.</HI> Behold his owne Con&s;cience condemning him of V&s;urpation upon the publike libertie; and yet the Exercitator is not a|&s;ham'd to inforce a Title upon him, though therein he op|po&s;e him&s;elfe to the generally received judgement of the mo&s;t approved writers of all &s;orts, as were ea&s;ie to &s;hew, if time would give leave.</P>
<P>But Secondly, what if it were granted, that the e&s;&s;ence of a particular per&s;ons call to the office of Magi&s;tracy, is &s;uch as the Exercitator would have it, yet the e&s;&s;ence of Magi&s;tracy it &s;elfe, con&s;i&s;ts not in this call, and may therefore &s;ub&s;i&s;t without it; neither can the di&s;order of man, in the manner or circum&s;tance about the per&s;on admini&s;tring, make the matter or &s;ub&s;tance of the Or|dinance of God of none effect, no more then the entring into the office of a high Prie&s;t among the Jewes, by waies corrupt and unwarantable, did null and make void the Office &s;elfe, Or to give an in&s;tance of our owne clear and unque&s;tionable; tis well knowne that per&s;ons un|duly cho&s;en Members of Parliament, have properly no Right to fit and Vote in the Hou&s;e; yet their Votes are never the le&s;&s;e valid, in any Act of the &s;upream Legi&s;la|tive power, though afterwards the undune&s;&s;e of the electi|on be prov'd, and the per&s;ons di&s;charged from further fitting in the Hou&s;e. The like may be &s;aid concerning V&s;urping Princes of this Nation, who&s;e Acts in Law &s;tand good at this day, and have a great influence into the pre&s;ent Policie among us.</P>
<P>But here the Exercitator replies, <HI>thereis a mi&s;take in this argument,</HI> for though tho&s;e V&s;urping Princes <HI>entred by force, or otherwi&s;e unlawfully; yet they had the concurrent or
<PB N="46" REF="26">&s;ub&s;equent con&s;ent of Parliaments.</HI> Was ever man more gro&s;ly mi&s;taken, that would pretend him&s;elfe an <HI>Ari&s;tar|chus</HI> over the mi&s;takes of others? For fir&s;t what power, by his owne grounds hath one that enters by force, or otherwi&s;e unlawfully, (that is, an V&s;urper) to call a Parliament? an U&s;urper (if him&s;elfe &s;ay true) is no more but a private per&s;on; and if a private per&s;on by force, or otherwi&s;e unlawfully call a Parliament; what is that Parliament but an effect of that force, and unlaw|full Act, and therefore it &s;elfe unlawfull? for the effect followes the nature of the cau&s;e. Nay &s;econdly, what power (by his owne grounds) hath a Parliament how|ever call'd to give away the right from him, hat hath it, to him that hath none? <HI>The people</HI> (or the Exercita|tor is mi&s;t ken) <HI>have no power to give their Con&s;ent, be|ing preing aged to a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">he<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">s right;</HI> nay their con&s;ent (un|le&s;&s;e the Exercitator be fill, in a mi&s;take) is void and null, and a Parliament (he tells us) hath no power but what the people give them. But thirdly, granting Par|liaments &s;o call'd as hath been &s;aid, lawfull; and the u&s;urping Prince <HI>legally inve&s;ted</HI> (as the grand corrector of mi&s;takes &s;peaks) by tho&s;e Parliaments, and granting (which is al&s;o his owne) that the Prince mu&s;t have no hand in conferring any thing to his owne Title, for that were (as he &s;aies) a &s;elfe-created Titles, when all is pa&s;t, the wor&s;t, is to come for the Exercitater; for from the premi&s;es, it will inevitably follow. Fir&s;t, that the &s;u|preame power is originally properly, and onely in the Hou&s;e of Commons, for they onely are the repre&s;enta|tives, and by con&s;equence the tru&s;tees of the people, and therefore they onely can give a Prince a legall Title; be|cau&s;e (if our Exercitator be not mi&s;taken in his very foundation) a lawfull calling from the people, is e&s;&s;en|tiall to a Magi&s;trate rightly con&s;tituted. Secondly, it follows clearely, that the &s;upreame power is &s;o ab&s;olutly in the Hou&s;e of Commons, that they may without wrong take the Kingly authority from him, that had the right
<PB N="47" REF="26">and give both right and it to him that had none. 3ly. It cannot be deny'd, but if they have (as by the premi&s;es the mo&s;t have) an ob&s;olute power to take the Kingly authority from whom, and give it to whom they thinke meete; they have al&s;o a power, when they &s;hall thinke meete, to re&s;erve the exerci&s;e thereof to them&s;elves; if they &s;hall judge it meete for the good of the Re|pre&s;entees, otherwi&s;e they &s;hould be unfaithfull to their tru&s;t. La&s;tly it followes, that the Commons &s;it not by ve<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tue of the Princes call, but their owne right; for an U&s;urper (as tis confe&s;t &s;uch were the Princes in que&s;tion, at the time of the calling) is but a private per&s;on; and no more (witne&s;&s;e our Exercitator) and therefore hath no power to call a Parliament. And now let the Rea|der judge upon the whole, whether ever there were &s;uch a <HI>Felo de &s;e,</HI> as is this wretched di&s;cour&s;e of our Exercita|tor: or whether in&s;tead of correcting one, he hath not &s;hew'd him&s;elfe a thing meerly made up of a heap of mi&s;takes.</P>
<P>But to proceed, he tells us page 74 75. That the Au|thor of <HI>The lawfulne&s;&s;e of obeying</HI> &amp;c. <HI>hath but halfe quoted</HI> Paraeus, <HI>as well as impertinently;</HI> and that, according to Paraeus, <HI>unju&s;tly gotten power is not of God, in regard of the per&s;on, or man owning it, and con&s;equenly not to be obey'd, by verue of</HI> Rom. 13.</P>
<P>To doe the Exercitator right,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nec refert qui|bus medijs vel artibus <HI>Nimrod Jeroboam</HI> aut alij regra &s;ibi pa-averint. Nam aliud e&s;t pote&s;tas que &agrave; deo e&s;t, aliud acqui&s;itio &amp; u&s;us pote&s;ta|us, que indi&s;|&s;erens, ali&agrave;s le|gitima, ali&agrave;s il|legitina, <HI>Parae.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>Rom. 13.</HI></NOTE> we &s;hall take his owne whole quotation of <HI>Paraeus;</HI> and then let the mo&s;t parti|all Judge, whether he hath not done <HI>Paraeus,</HI> and the Author quoting him; and herein the Reader and him|&s;elfe worng, in forcing a &s;ence upon <HI>Paraeus,</HI> &s;o much at enmity with his words. Paraeus &s;aies, <HI>It matters not by what meanes</HI> Nimrod, Jeroboam, <HI>or others got Kingdoms to them&s;elves; for the power which is of God is one thing, the getting and u&s;e of the power is another, which is indifferent, &s;ometimes lawfull, &s;ometimes unlawfull.</HI> And againe, <HI>dubijs,</HI> whether both <HI>Paraeus</HI> and the Exercitator him&s;elf, refers us &s;o the fuller explication of this place: <HI>We mu&s;t di&s;cern betwixt the power which is</HI> EVER <HI>of God, and be|twixt
<PB N="48" REF="27">the getting and u&s;e of the power,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Di&s;cernendum te&s;t inter pote&s;ta em que &s;emper &agrave; Deo e&s;t, &amp; inter &agrave;cqui&s;itionem &amp; u&s;urpationem, que quod homi|nes &s;aepe e&s;t in|ju&s;ti&s;&s;ima, non &agrave; Deo, &s;ed ad ho|minem affecti|bus &amp; Statnae Malitia. <HI>Idem. Ibid.</HI></NOTE> <HI>which as to men is often mo&s;t unju&s;t, not of God, but of mens lu&s;ts, and Satans malice.</HI> Wherefore to examine the true &s;ence of the premi&s;es, and compare them with the Exercitators deduction. <HI>It matters not</HI> (&s;aies Paraeus) <HI>by what meanes or craft</HI> Nimrod. Jeroboam <HI>or others:</HI> what others? Our Exercitator &s;hall an&s;wer other <HI>&V;&s;urper;</HI> for &s;uch he hath prov'd <HI>Jeroboam</HI> more then once, be&s;ides, &s;uch get Kingdoms to them|&s;elves by <HI>craft</HI> &amp;c. Again, <HI>It matters not,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Paraeus,</HI> in what re&s;pect matters in not? Rea&s;on and truth &s;hal an&s;wer in re&s;pect of their <HI>Authority</HI> to command, and the Sub|jects <HI>Duty</HI> to obey. For in the words immediately fore|going; he was proving that <HI>Civil power</HI> is the <HI>Ordinance</HI> of God, and addes, although in the hand of <HI>Nimrod,</HI> or <HI>Je|roboam,</HI> as he expre&s;ly affirmes, concerning the former <HI>Ad.</HI> 2. <HI>De Nimrodo.</HI> And concerning the latter, as expre&s;ly <HI>Ad</HI> 1 <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 8.4. La&s;tly, it matters not, &s;aies <HI>Paraeus:</HI> Why matters it not? Why? becau&s;e the Power how&s;oever, and by whom&s;oever got, is EVER of God, and con|&s;equently 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 <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.5. For Con&s;cience &s;ake, in the judgement of <HI>Paraeus,</HI> with whom the Annotations of our owne divines concurre. And yet our learned Exercitator &s;aies but Sure he &s;ees not what he &s;aies) Paraeus <HI>in your place &s;peakes nothing</HI> pro <HI>or</HI> con <HI>of obedience to &V;&s;urpers;</HI> when notwith&s;tanding having travel'd &s;ome then lines further toward the end of that Paragraph, forgeting that hee had &s;aid in the be|ginning, (&s;o treacherous is his memory) that <HI>Pa|raeus</HI> &s;peakes nothing again&s;t obedience to V&s;urpers, he tells us (from the latter quotation, which him&s;elfe as well as <HI>Paraeus</HI> makes interpretative to &s;he former) he tells us (mo&s;t gro&s;ly contradicting him&s;elf, and the truth) That Paraeus <HI>is again&s;t obedience to &V;&s;urpers, by ver|tue of</HI> Rom. 13.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Non quecun&abque; per vim vel do|lum acquiruntur cum &s;int per &s;e bona, ce&s;&s;ant e&s;&s;e d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Deo. Di&s;&s;ere nendum e&s;t enim interjus dei quod in res bonas nun quam amittis, &agrave; quibuscun&abque; teneantur: &amp; teneantur; &amp; inter judicia dei puibus bona &s;ua &s;ic di&s;tribuit, ut in eorum acqui &s;uione &amp; u&s;u vitium homi|num aliquando concurrere per|mittat <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Sic igitur de ac|qui&s;itione etiam imperiorem &amp; regnorum, quoe Perce, quae Gre|ci, quae Roma|ni, iuju&s;tice fe|re bellis &amp; op|pre&s;&s;ionibas ac|qui&s;iuerunt, e&s;t judicandum. <HI>Parae.</HI> in <HI>Rom. 13.</HI></P></NOTE> Once more and we have done. Paraeus &s;aies: <HI>Things that are good in them&s;elves, cea&s;e not to be from
<PB N="43" REF="27">God, bowever gotten by force or fraud. For we mu&s;t di&s;cerne betwixt the right of God, which he never loo&s;e in good things, by whom&s;oever, and how&s;oever po&s;&s;e&s;t: and betwixt the judge|ments of God, by which he di&s;tributes his good things &s;o, as he &s;ometimes &s;uffers the vitiou&s;ne&s;&s;e men to concur in the getting and u&s;e of them</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Thus thereforo are we to judge of the get|ting, even of Empiers and Kingdomes, which the</HI> Per&s;ians, <HI>which the</HI> Grecians, <HI>which the</HI> Romans <HI>got, for the most part, by unjust wars and oppre&s;&s;ions.</HI> And accordingly, <HI>Ad</HI> 2. <HI>De. Nimrodo,</HI> not far before the words cited by the Exercita|tor him&s;elf, Paraeus &s;aies, <HI>However Nimrod were an oppre&s;&s;or and Tyrant, yet it follows not, that HIS power was not of God:</HI> Yet nor mode&s;t Exercitator blu&s;hes not to affirme that Paraeus &s;aies, <HI>unju&s;tly gotten Power is not of God, in re|gard of the per&s;on, or man owning it.</HI> Could any thing be &s;paken more apparantly, untrue in it &s;elf, by one that profe&s;&s;es him&s;elfe &s;tudious of truth? more injurious be|yond all mode&s;ty, both to <HI>Paraeus,</HI> and the Author quo|ting him, by an Exercitator pretending to mode&s;ty? yet if he had an&s;wered without booke againe, it had beene tollerable. But to accu&s;e his Antagoni&s;t of a partiall and imperninent quotation; and yet him&s;elf after a profe&s;t con&s;ultation with <HI>Paraeus,</HI> to u&s;e &s;uch enforcement, to the cleare letter of the Author, in the faire&s;t language that can be given it, tis not faire.</P>
<P>To conclude, tis ob&s;ervable here, that while&s;t <HI>Paraeus</HI> maintaines the Authority of <HI>Nimrod</HI> and <HI>Jeroboam</HI> to be of God; he neither takes away U&s;urpation from them, nor gives them a right Title. And accordingly <HI>Salon,</HI> after he had fully and undeniably prov'd the Duty of obeying the ju&s;t commands of an U&s;urper, yet coun|cels the U&s;urper to leave his V&s;urpation, and to get the expre&s;&s;e con&s;ent of the people. It is not nece&s;&s;ary there|fore (as the Exercitator would infer) that a tacite con|&s;ent of the people to obey, take away V&s;urpation. For the con&s;ent can ju&s;tifie no further then it goes, and it goes no further (in this ca&s;e) then to give Authority
<PB N="50" REF="28">to the U&s;urpers ju&s;t commands, for the pre&s;ent good of the Common-wealth. And upon this ground, tis that the Law gives Authority to a Lord of M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nnour, though a <HI>Di&s;&s;ei&s;or,</HI> to hold a Court, and the Tenants may &s;weare <HI>Fealty</HI> to him, and doe him &s;ervice, yet nei|ther ju&s;tifie the Di&s;&s;ei&s;ors Tide, nor wrong the Title of the Di&s;&s;ei&s;ed.</P>
<P>There is therefore a <HI>Tacite,</HI> and <HI>Interpretative</HI> con&s;ent of the people (which our Author truly a&s;&s;erts, and the Exercitator in vaine denyes) when (as rea&s;on wills) they con&s;ent that the Power which is peaceably po&s;&s;e&s;t &s;hould Governe <HI>pro tempore,</HI> rather then that confution and Warre &s;hould de&s;troy the Common-Wealth. And &s;uch a con&s;ent is &s;ufficient to con&s;titute &s;uch a Magi|&s;trate. Wherefore having made good our A&s;&s;ertion a|gain&s;t &s;uch Objections in the Exercitation, as are any way materiall; We &s;hall profe&s;&s;edly omit the re&s;t. On|ly we cannot but take notice of the wretched folly, and vanitie of his empty challenge Page 75 wherein as he tacitly grants the whole cau&s;e; &s;o he doth it in expre&s;&s;e words to any under&s;tanding Reader. For it obedi|ence be &s;ub&s;tantially (as already it hath been) prov'd a Duty; all Circumm&s;tantial Objections vani&s;h as a mi&s;t before the Sun.</P>
<P>And now for a conclu&s;ion, (that our Exercitator may end as ill as he began) he goes about to make good the Title of the <HI>Romanes,</HI> to the Kingdome of <HI>Judaea,</HI> even again&s;t the Title of the Hou&s;e of <HI>David,</HI> and of the great Son of <HI>David;</HI> Chri&s;t him&s;elf, who, as Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> acknow|ledges, was right Heire to the Crowne, and Kingdome of the Jewes. And to bring this to pa&s;&s;e, he leapes over the Beames of Ma&s;&s;y, and mighty Arguments that lye in his way, and takes up little Motes, and Strawes to binde up this forg'd Title.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, He pa&s;&s;es by the whole Title of the Hou&s;e of <HI>David,</HI> and that great promi&s;e, <HI>That there &s;hould not want a man to &s;et on his Throne.</HI></P>
<PB N="51" REF="28">
<P>Secondly, He takes no notice, how the <HI>Maccabees</HI> came by the Kingdome, which was by force and power; when there was another King a Succe&s;&s;or of <HI>Alexander,</HI> even of that bea&s;t in <HI>Daniel,</HI> who&s;e Kingdome was devided in|to four parts, yet the Exercitators party condemnes this, if now a Title be thus gotten by Subjects.</P>
<P>Thirdly, He &s;aid nothing of the point, whether the High Prie&s;t were capable of a Crown, and could bear at once on his head, both a Crown and Mitre; wherein, &s;ome &s;ay, he was a patterne of Anti-Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Fourthly, He ob&s;erves not, that there was a Cove|nant of peace and agreement made in the Temple, and bound with Oathes, and confirmed by mutuall em|bracings, betweene <HI>Hircanus</HI> and <HI>Ari&s;tobulus;</HI> that <HI>Ari&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">|bulus</HI> &s;hould command the Kingdome; and this was done in the &s;ight of all the People.</P>
<P>Fifthly, He gives no proofe that <HI>Hircanus</HI> having given away the Kingdome before, could give it after to <HI>Pompey;</HI> nor th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t a King at all can give away a Kingdome, with|out his Kingdomes con&s;ent. Yea, he cannot prove that he did it: yet this is one of the motes with which h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">inds up <HI>Pompeyes</HI> Title; becau&s;e <HI>Hircmus,</HI> whoin his opinion, had the better Title (though perchance none at all) untreated him to come to helpe him, and to judge the controver&s;ie betweene him and his Brother: And a &s;econd is this, as if <HI>Pompey</HI> had got the good will of the people, to give the Kingdome to him; whereas him&s;elf &s;aith but this, that <HI>Pompey, after he had taken</HI> Jeru&s;alem, <HI>did rather by good turnes then terrors conciliate the People to him&s;elfe,</HI> Now this &s;peakes, what <HI>Pompey</HI> did to plea&s;e the people, not what the people did to him; much le&s;&s;e that they gave up the Kingdome to him, which they would have given to none. For the truth is, <HI>Io&s;ephus</HI> &s;aith; <HI>That all the whole Nation</HI> [marke the words ALL and WHOLE] <HI>were again&s;t
<PB N="32" REF="29">both</HI> Hircanus <HI>and</HI> Ari&s;tobulus, <HI>for bringing them under the &s;ervitude of a Kingdome; For they &s;aid, their Cu&s;tom was to be Governed by Gods High Prie&s;t.</HI> But I hope <HI>Pompey</HI> was no Prie&s;t, and therefore they did not chu&s;e him for their Governour.</P>
<P>And for the words of <HI>Antipater</HI> concerning <HI>An|tigonus,</HI> when he craved a&s;&s;i&s;tance from <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> they are very untruly alleaged, they being thus in the author: <HI>He,</HI> that is <HI>Antigonus, craved not mainten|ance for that he wanted, but that he might rai&s;e a rebellion among the</HI> Jewes; <HI>and again&s;t them who &s;hould be&s;tow any thing upon him;</HI> that is again&s;t <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> if he &s;hould give him any reliefe. But the Exercitators Latin,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> <HI>Non propter inopiam de&s;iderare facultatem &s;ed ut in eos qui dedi&s;&s;ent Iudaeorum &s;e|ditiones accenderet,</HI> is thus con&s;trued by him. <HI>He &s;ought not reliefe of</HI> Cae&s;ar, <HI>becau&s;e he was poore; but that he might kindle jewi&s;h &s;editions, again&s;t the&s;e had made a dedition of them&s;elves.</HI> Behold, the foundation of a Kingdome laid upon a fal&s;e con|&s;truction of Latin. But is it not a de&s;perate bold|ne&s;&s;e, that this man &s;hould take upon him to be a writer, who cannot con&s;true his own Latin; yea that he &s;hould put his Latin in the Margent, to &s;hame his owne engli&s;h, e&s;pecially there being an engli&s;h Tran&s;lation, that might have taught him to con&s;true it? But to be &s;hort, the &s;tory is truly thus, <HI>Hircanus</HI> living quietly after the forementioned Agreement, between him and his Brother, was con|tinually provok't by <HI>Antipater,</HI> (the Father of <HI>He|rod</HI>) to &s;tirre for the Kingdome; to which at la&s;t yeilding, and <HI>Pompey</HI> being in tho&s;e parts, they &s;ent to <HI>Pompey</HI> concerning their differences, who
<PB N="53" REF="29">gave them audience, and promi&s;ed to came into their Country, to determine their differences, and told them, that in the meane time, they &s;hould live in peace.</P>
<P>But <HI>Ari&s;tobul us</HI> &s;tirring to make him&s;elf &s;trong, <HI>Pompey</HI> comes up and takes Jeru&s;alem and Ari|&s;tobulous al&s;o, And theu commits the Prie&s;t-hood to Hireanus, and now &s;ee the goodly Title of the Romanes in the words of Jo&s;ephus, <HI>thus Hireanus and Arri&s;trbulous through their di&s;&s;entions and evil broyles were the cau&s;e of that &s;ervitude and mi&s;ery</HI> [not that voluntary &s;ubjection he &s;peakes of] <HI>that fell upon the Jewes. For we have lo&s;t our liberty and bin &s;ubdued by the Romanes.</HI> Behold and exellent Ti|tle of the Romanes. Two Brothers being at odds, &s;trive one with another, and de&s;ire Pompety to be an Umpier of their controver&s;ies, 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 again&s;t the other, and conquers him; who (as the Author &s;aies) had the wor&s;e Title. Therefore by beating him, he got a good Title to the Romanes; ju&s;t as if when the Nation de&s;ired helpe of the Scots again&s;t a Malignant party, the Scots prevaling again&s;t that party might get a good Title to this whole King|dome; or becau&s;e the Scots de&s;ired the Lievtenant Generall of England, to come for their a&s;&s;i&s;tance into their County again&s;t the Malignant party there; he might thereupon, or thereby have got|ten for the Engli&s;h a good Title to Scotland. So upon the whole, the Romanes had no other Title but meere Conque&s;t; as <HI>Salon,</HI> and many others
<PB N="54" REF="30">do truly affirme, we &s;hall now conclude with the re&s;olution of an holy, impartiall, and reverend Author, and Author of our owne above all excep|tion; as he wrote before the&s;e times of excepti|ons; hear what he &s;aies, concerning the validity of the commands of an u&s;urped Power and the duty of obeying them.</P>
</DIV2>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><P><HI>The fault of the worker is when an action of a lawfull calling is done by one that is not called law|fully, now then when the fault of an action is not in the worke it &s;elfe, but in the per&s;on that worketh is; it is not to be reputed a nullity, neither to be re|ver&s;ed as nothing, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>This doctrine is agreed upon by the common con&s;ent of Divines, as al&s;o by the Lawes, and orders, of Kingdomes, as may appeare plainely in particular.</HI> Augu&s;tus Cae&s;ar <HI>a Romane Emperour inv<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ded the Kingdome of the Jewes, and brought it into a Pro|vince: and thus was he made King of the Jewes, not by lawfull meanes, but by intru&s;ion. For all this the Actions done, and the Commandments given by him, were reputed Commandments of a King, not rever&s;ed by any Jew, but obeyed of all. For when he gave Commandment, that all the world; yea the Jewes &s;hould he taxed, they yeelded them&s;elves to this Commandment; yea righteous</HI> Jo&s;eph, <HI>and</HI> Mary <HI>went to their owne Town to be taxed, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>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 how&s;o|ever the workers &s;ins, in his unlawfull entrance, and in that regard is not to be approved, yet the Actions in the calling, to which he is en<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">red, are the Acti|ons
<PB N="55" REF="30">of that calling; For though he be called ami&s;&s;e, yet he &s;tands 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 nul|lities, whereas if there be any calling, though entrance <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">e b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">dly made, it doth not make the Action void. And who&s;oever denieth this ground of truth over-turneth the Regiments of Kingdomes, Churches, States, and &s;ocieties what&s;oever.</HI></P></Q>
<BIBL>Perkins Treati&s;e of callings, Page, 742.</BIBL>
</EPIGRAPH>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
