WHen a Scholler of the lower forme doth offend, the Usher takes him into his hands for correction; And this Demurrer being of the lower forme, at least in regard of charity, I think I may make bold to bestow some chastisements, if not upon him, yet upon his faulty workes. The wisedome that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and without partiality. Therefore to be impure, unpeaceable, in­jurious and partiall; must be the wisedom from below, and brings him down to a very low forme, that is guil­ty therein.

This Demurrer wanting strength in his Arguments, or doubting of them, thinkes to fortifie his discourse, by laying scandalous and uncharitable suspitions, on the person of him that wrote for obedience; neither are they uncharitable only, but untrue; and such that upon the proofe of them: the Demurrer would hardly adventure a small summe of Money, though he thus easily adven­ture his soule: And yet he sayes he sees, (and because he saith so, his sinne remaines, for an untruth is never tru­ly seene) and without restitution, and reparation, hee cannot expect his sinne should be taken from him. He saith, He sees that it is a great snare to be possest of great estates by that power which can divest them, if they assist not their wicked designes; And that the Author he speaks of, is entangled in this snare, or else he would never under­take the Patronage of so bad a Cause. For answer; First, This man cannot possibly fetch any convincing proof, or demonstration of that which he saith, He sees; But fetches it wholly from uncharitablenesse; even a con­trariety to that charity which thinketh none evill. This 1 Cor. 13. is all, because the Author will not comply with this mans errors and party. And whereas he calls it a bad Cause, certainely it may be good still; for he hath very badly proved it to be bad. And why doth he not ac­cuse Calvin, and Bucer, and Paraeus, and Gualter, and Pe­ter Martyr, for maintaining a bad Cause, and doing it for a place of Profit. As for any designe, the whole life of the Author shewes him very cleare of designes; And for this, be it what designe it will be, he was no actor in it, but a spectator onely, untill he saw a Go­vernment set on foot, and that justice might be had this way, and no other. And then having a right to act, he [Page 3] beleeved that he might exercise it in just things; yea he beleeved that it was a duty, though the Government had been taken by designe, and force, that those who had taken it and excluded all other, should give Ju­stice; and if he asist in that which is good, and which should be sinne if it were not done; I thinke it goes be­yond the skill of this Demurrer, justly to charge that which is good, with Sinne and Guilt. Sure it is that he had the councell and consent of impartiall Authors, (and such are the dead, not interested in our affaires) even Authors to whom this Demurrer is but an Infant, especially if this discourse be the top of his strength, as it should be, or else he is false to his Cause. For a more weake, irresolute and unresolving paper, is seldome seene; for in it there are so many [perhaps] concer­ning the chiefe points in question, that he seemes un­resolved himselfe; and how can he then resolve others? But of this more in the conclusion; And now because his matter is weake, therefore his chiefe strength is laid upon scandalizing the Author; and so his best argument is his owne uncharitablenesse; I am therefore the lar­ger in this point to make a plaister proportionable to the large poyson of this serpentine Discourse, that bites the Heele, when it can not come to the Head. In the meane time he may learne to construe his Latin, by his owne actions in English, Scelere tuendum est scelus. That a false Doctrine must be maintained by false Slan­ders.

And now to make manifest that the Author is not so fixed to the world, as to maintaine a bad Cause, for a place of profit, let the Demurrer first know that this Author at the p [...]ssing of the selfe denying Ordinance, [Page 4] gave his vote clearely for the quitting of his place, and did verely thinke it gone, (whereof he gave very good testimony) but that it pleased the Houses, to declare it to be without the intention of the Ordinance. So it seemes he hath beene able to quit such a place for the good of the Publique. Secondly for the employments of the profits of his place. He hath so communicated them, amidst all these sales of Lands, and other oppor­tunities which are now going, that he hath not encreased his estate by purchase one five pounds per annum. But thirdly, with giving maintainance to poore Schollars' in Vniversities, fatherlesse and poore Children in Schooles, distressed persons of Ireland, poore in Westminster, Lon­don, and the Country, poore servants of the late King, poore distressed Widowes of Souldiers, and such to whom Arreares are due, and maintainance of Preach­ing; he hath gone beyond any for ought I know, that have five times his Estate. And for getting of reward or advancement by this worke, it is certaine he tooke a course to the contrary; for he was so farre from ac­quainting any that are eminent in power, and can give advancement, either with the worke, or with the Name of the Author, that he communicated them onely to one that transcribed it, whom he adjured to silence. And of this concealing, the Stationer for whom it was printed, can give some testimony. True it is that upon conference, which he had of this subject with some Per­sons, or by knowing his stile, some might adventure to put his name upon the worke, among which Mr. Mar­shall is one, who being present when the worke was communicated to one of the Authors nearest friends, in a close and concealed manner, and thereupon reading [Page 5] it, gave his judgement concerning the Name of the Au­thor, though he had never any hint of it by any notice from the Author.

But now to the Demurr it selfe:

Whereas he saith, That he heares few rationall consci­entious men are satisfied with the Declaration of Parlia­ment. It may be he converses with few men, so ration­all▪ and conscientious as to be free from partiality: But how unsatisfying soever it be beleeved, the Author tooke his ground upon a supposed unsatisfaction.

Whereas he saith, a people may [perhaps] lawfully o­bey a Government, when there is no probability of recove­ring their lost Government. If he would leave out this word [perhaps] wherewith he much troubles his Trea­tise, the businesse is neare at an end. For the Author be­leeves there is no probability in sight, and therefore it seemes he may have leave of the Demurrer, to approve of obedience to the present Government. And herein it is desired that this irresolute writer would resolve him­selfe better out of those, that as it seemes have more knowledge and judgement to resolve then himselfe, and particularly that in this point of probability, and possession, and others of kin to it, he would looke into Mr. Aschams discourse, and either beleeve it or confute it; It is strange that these men should swallow that worke of many sheets, and straine at this single one; But indeed till that Booke be answered, Calvin, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Gualter, Paraeus, confuted with the grounds and reasons of those judicious Casuists (who though of the Church of Rome, yet in these cases of justice, not in [Page 6] controversie betweene us, cannot be rejected as parti­all) the cause stands good, though the Demurrer in his bad language calls it bad, but leaves it good by his doubt­full sayings, and his weake reasons.

Pag. 3. He acknowledgeth, When an unlawfull power commands; a man, [perhaps] may obey; So [perhaps] the Doctrine of obeying unlawfull power may be true, and the Demurrer goes about to confute a Doctrine which himselfe confesseth may be true.

And then with another [perhaps] he saith, That Judah knowing none of the Regall Seed surviving, [perhaps] Submitted to Athaliahs Government. A most frivolous, and ignorant [perhaps.] For besides that God had promised, that Davids seed should not faile; 2 Chron. 21. 7. Jehoiada the high Priest knew, there was one of that seede alive: And why did not he preach this Demurrers Doctrine to the people, that they should not obey the present Tyrrant, and that by it they established Tyran­ny; betrayed the title of the just Heire? But no such 2 Chron. 22. Doctrine appeared, but the daughter of Ahab, and Jeza­bel (very farre from any Title to the Crown of Judah) was obeyed six yeares. Besides, see here the slightnes of this man, (whose Doctirne generally is a perhaps and adventure) doth not the very Text say, Jehosha­beth the high priests wife, was Daughter of Jehoram and 2 Chron. 22. 11. sister of Ahaziah the late King; And if so, was not her Ti­tle better then that of Athaliah a stranger?

Item, Pag. 3. He sayes, The Author concludes more then he undertook to prove. But would the Demurrer be of­fended, if a man promising to give him ten pounds, doe make his guift twenty? And whereas he would gladly know, what difference betweene lawfull and unlawfull [Page 7] powers, if both necessarliy must be obeyed; Here indeed by confessing his ignorance, he might deserve pardon, if it were not affected; For, he might know from the Casuists, that the one is given as to a person comman­ding by Right of Title. The other by an interpretative consent, and pro tali rerum statu, for [...]he preservation of the Common-Wealth; which is in such a state that it would otherwise be ruined. If I must give money to a poore honest man for charity, and to a thiefe for safe­ty, is there no odds betweene an honest man, and a thiefe?

As for his rejecting the interpretation of Rom. 13. First, he argues from a single late writer, but shewes not from him what the Text speakes against obeying a Ty­rant that wants right, but of a Tyrant that does wrong. For he writes that this Tyrant, is a Terrour to good workes: Now we know a Tyrant in Title may be an encouragement to good workes, and such there have beene.

It is commonly said that some of the best lawes were made under Richard the third. But Secondly against the Demurrer and his interpretation, are the judgement of these Pillers of the Church; who understand that this place affirmeth the present powers to be the Ordinance of God, and are to be obeyed. Thirdly, let one Greek word be [...] Power or Force, and the other [...] Authority or Magistracy; Though Nimrod by the former did obtaine the latter; Yet Paraeus sayes that his Authority gotten by power was of God. And so by vertue of that Text was to be obeyed; See that place, and others alleadged upon this very Text, by the Author in the last Edition, and they will abundantly overpoyse this single Doc­tors [Page 8] opinion, both by reasons and Authority.

Pag. 4. He comes to Caudius and Nero, And first saith, That the Apostle might meane it of [...]ny other p [...]wer abstract [...]dly from the Romanes. So that he will have the Apostle most impertinently, to tell the Romanes what obedience is to be given by others in another state, but not by them in their owne. Secondly, Let him remem­ber, that as Peter M [...]rtyr saith, the Romanes had now gotten the Empire of the world; And then what was the state, this Demurrer would have the Apostle to meane? Thirdly, He sayes nothing to Claudius, who was set up directly against the Councells and Resoluti­ons of the Senates: Neither was there following a free consent. But yet further, If the Souldiers set up a Go­vernour or Government, and a consent be so gotten, let this Demurrer talke with his learned Councell, and then speak out plainely, whether Votes gotten by or un­der force be valid. For in some cases they speake aloud they are not: Yet it seemes they are, when they may make for their turne. Fourthly, he speakes of succeed­ing upon Caesars Title: But was not that Title inter­rupted by a triumvirate? And had not Claudius a Sonne when the Souldiers made Nero his Successor? Doth not this man betray his maine businesse by yealding; That he who is not the Heire, may be a lawfull Successor, though an Heire be living?

To the obedience given anciently in this Kingdome and yet continued to lawes of usurpers, He answers ge­nerally with doubts, and supposes according to his irresu­lute manner, and ever and anon, comes in which the usuall burden of the Song; Oathes and Covenants with a paire of [perhaps.] And whereas he would lay this obedience on [Page 9] the darkenesse of the times by Topery; Certainely there were very good Lawyers in times of Popery, and in those point, Popery did not darken wherein it had no­thing to doe. Our present Lawyers fetch the maine ground of their profession, from Lawyers that were Papists, or in times of Popery. And it would be a weak and ridiculous answer at a Bar to say; That Br [...]cton, Fortescue, or Ploydon, were Papists, or under the darke­nesse of Popery, and therefore their Testimony must be rejected; and as little truth as law he shewes, in saying that these Lawes have beene ratified by succeeding Par­liaments, which he should have produced: [...]ut to Salve all, he concludes, that [perhaps] till then not to be judged valid in Law. But were they not held valid and obeyed by the Generation that made them? and that this man will not alow us to doe. But Secondly, let me answer him, that if he onely say [perhaps] they were not valid, he leaves roome for another to say [perhaps] they were valid, for one [perhaps] leaves roome for another.

Page 5. To the Testimonies of Divines and Casuists, And first to that of Azorius. He most discretly answers, That there was a tacite consent of all; And is there not such a one now, all men being taken for reasonable crea­tures. For it is supposed, every man as a rationall crea­ture should, and doth give his consent; But it is seene by his reasoning, that every man is not de facto a rati­onall man. To the reason of the Second, He with a [perhaps] saith, It is a Popish Nicety; But this a blunt answer to call all that Popery, which he c [...]n not answer. And if acute reasons of Pap [...]st, must be Popish Niceties, what will he leave for Protestants but Duncery? But in [Page 10] questions that concerne not Popery but Reason and Justice; why is the word Popish brought in, but to cast a blemish on that truth, which he cannot otherwise con­fute? In rationall things and not of Popish concern­ment, it is farre more satisfactory to heare a Papists wise reason then a Protestants folly. Besides, the terme of Popish, indeed doth rather give force to their Rea­sons then weaken them, when a Papist speakes against Popish Interest. And so doth this and other Spanish Authors, who speake herein against the Spanish and Popish interest in England, (under Queene Eliza­beth) and in Holland; So he useth the word Popish to his owne disadvantage. And now having added two Questions, he leaves the Matter in Question, under Questions. To Paraeus who saith, Vsurping Nimrods power was of God, and must be obeyed; He answers, He beleeves Nimrods Vsurpation was over a people not engaged by Oathes and Covenants. So here hath hee given up the maine Question it selfe, That usurped po­wer may be obeyed, if there be no Oathes and Cove­nants. Thus there remaines now no doubt of the maine position; But all the doubt is come to Oathes and Co­venants, so that we have nothing now to doe, but to cleare Oathes and Covenants. As for Bucers Testimony, he fesseth his blindnesse, that he sees not how it can be justi­fied, Neither doe I thinke he will ever see as long as the webb of prejudice and partiality covers his eyes. Yet in this blindnesse, he kicks and throwes at Bucer, because he hardly toucheth his Gall; and yet out of partiall love to Paraeus, he grants him the very same for Nimrod, which here he denies to Bucer. As for his obj [...]cting Iack [...]de against Bucer, why doth he not object also the [Page 11] usurpations of William Rufus, Henry the fourth, or Hen. the seventh, who not having right Titles to the Crown, might be encouraged, as well as Jack Cade? But the name of Iack Cade he thinks may serve for a stumbling block to a blind Reader, whereas he that seeth, will step over both that and the rest. This man no question hath heard, that God is the Lord of Heaven and Earth, and disposeth all things as he pleaseth; And if he please to give a people into the hands and power of such a one, (as he hath often done) will or can this man resist and overcome the highest? or will he resolve not to obey them whom God is resolved to set over him? If ever he Dan. 8. 18. 25. 35. be restored to his right reason with Nebuchadnezzar, he will confesse, That the most High doth rule in the King­dome of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men. Let him pitty, and not damne, the once famous, and now distressed, and op­pressed Churches in Greece, who lye under the weight of such base and heavy Vsurpations, and yet yeild obe­dience to Vsurpers. Besides, the ground of obedience being in regard of an authority, gotten by a prevaling Page 5. power; Is it to be thought, that any who have an ambiti­on to usurpe authority, and have power to get it, will if there were no such Doctrine, forbeare usurpation, or leave it when they have gotten it, and can keepe it by power? Againe doth not this objection lye against the Demurrers yeilding his purse to save his life? for doth not he here encourage a theefe to goe on in his thefts? But if he please, he may find an answer to both, that these consequences ratioanally come not from the ones gi­ving his purse for his personall safety, nor from the o­thers giving obedience for publique peace and quiet­nesse. [Page 12] As for his preferring of Sathan to Magistracy, When Paraus speakes so much of an Authority given from God to Sathan, in regard of power, as he did to Nimrod; I will not say this Demurrer [p [...]rhaps] will believe the one, and obey the other; But certainly he doth now in his false accusation (without any Pa­raeus) obey him that is the Accuser of the brethren.

Page 6. He findes himselfe in a straight when either he must obey, or else bring confusion to a Common Wealth. But not to obey he is resolved, and therefore by beg­ging the question, or rather granting it to himselfe, he breakes through. He saith, It is a sinne to obey; where­as this very argument of confusion is brought to s [...]ew, that it is not sinne but a duty; And in Nimrods case, and else where (with a perhaps) he grants it lawfull. And for his consequences of not recovering from Bondage, let him give me the same leave he takes to say, He must not do evill that good may come thereof; He must not disobey to avoid these consequences: But the grand Case (though the little Case will not) very fairely acknowledgeth; That where lawfull and unlawfull are in question, conve­nience, and inconvenience must keepe silence. Neither are these consequences so neare, and certaine, as the con­fusion by disobeying. Besides, there have beene often remedies for such consequences; for often, usur­pations having been upon this very Crowne, they have often been removed. And Ferdinando King of Naples, leaving his people (upon the very ground, and position of the Author opposed by the Demurrer) to obey the French, who had the present power over them, yet the French afterward were expulsed. That of the Masters mate he can neither answer, nor suffer. He saith, His [Page 13] Right must not be acknowledged; whereas there is no such thing in the question, but whether his commands should be obeyed for the safety of the Ship. And then according to his use, he helps his lame answer over the stile, with Oathes and Covenants; with are another businesse. Yet neither is here a withdrawing from a blessed union, but a preservation of the Common-Wealth from destruction, which by being destroyed can hardly preserve the blessed union; yet here somewhat bountifully, He justifies (with his usuall perhaps) those that are forced to prosecute sutes under the present C [...]urts. Yea, He consents to the power that there manageth the lawes with a distinction: But doe not all his objections of breaking Oathes, allowing usurped power, and ac­cessarie post factum, come in now against himselfe? For if the Judges have no Authority as well as power, doth not this submission incourage, approve and abet an u­surped Authority? And what satisfaction can this give to any man, with a quiet conscience to enjoy that which they decree to him? No more then if a Neigh­bour meeting two that have a suite in law, should pro­nounce the law to be for one, and against the other; should that one satisfie his conscience in taking the o­thers estate into his poss [...]ssion? Therefore if he will use the word justifie with sence and reason, he must allow an Authroity, which in a case of usurpation is grounded on a tacite and interpretative consent; He would have all joyne together in disobeying, and that indeed is the de­signe: But first, that is unprofitable; yea, in being over power'd, it is impossible to any good effect, because thus joyning, it will bring indeed a disjoyning, taking away all justice, and order, give up all to power, and so bring [Page 14] confusion to the whole. And could not the Papists whom he accuseth of nicetie, have found out this grosse answer, in the time of Queene Elizabeth? yet they never urged it, and therefore were more reformed in the Doctrine of obedience, then this Demurrer.

And having walked through his discourse, with Oathes continually in his mouth, now he is come to the right place of using them; for all this while his use of them hath beene but generally a granting of the questi­on, for upon the matter it speakes this, that if it were not for Oathes, obedience were due. But to say that the Kings person cannot dye, is a matter of Mirth, or if you will of Non-sense; especially to be put into this Oath; for it amounts to this, that I sweare to preserve the Kings person, which needes no preservation, be­cause it cannot dye; As for the clause of preserving the Priviledges of Parliament, and Liberties of the Subjects; which is the maine force, and little else said by him; I first desire an answer of this question: Did this objector urge this Oath out of any Pulpit or Presse, with this Vehemencie and Iteration against the breach of Privi­ledges by the Prentises? or was it so prest against those that sate some dayes, and for ought apeares, would have sate till this day, if they had power, while many of the Members were driven away? And here, upon this occa­sion let the Demurrer know, that though the combin­ation which managed that breach, were said to have many score thousands in that engagement to abet it, and were confident of prevailing, or else would never have undertaken it; yet the Author (though hearing this) did not for any place of profit apply himselfe to that party, but (as by many witnesses can be proved) [Page 15] resolved to leave both his place, and any place in the Kingdome, and began a journey to goe out of both; But that God wrought a change. And indeed I cannot blame him, if it were abominable to him to live under such a Government, it being one of the highest Curses; The rule of Children, and one of the basest Vassalages to be ruled Esa. 3. 4. by them: And yet upon their Rule and Law-making did this engagement, Act and proceed; Yea, the House it self; yet Oathes then not preached as now. So by a second experiment it apperes, he could part from a place of pro­fit, if he saw reason for it.

But if we looke to the Oath it selfe, doth the Oath The words of the Co­venat are these, wee shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy in our severall vocati­ons, ende­vor with our estates and lives mutually to preserve the Rights and Privi­ledges of the Parlia­ments, and Liberties of the peo­ple, &c. bind us actually to preserve the Priviledges of Parlia­ment, or onely to endeavour to preserve them? For actu­ally to preserve them, may be, and is often out of our power, and then we should sweare to doe that which is impossible for us to performe. If this Demurrer had re­ceived a summe of money, and had sworne that he would indeavor to preserve it safe for the owner; but a Robber takes this summe by force from him, or will kill him, if he doe not deliver it; is this man guilty of Perju­ry, if having sincerely intended, and endeavoured to pre­serve it, yet in these cases he part from the money?

Thirdly, is the giving of all to confusion by disobedi­ence, the way to keepe priviledges of Parliament, and liberties of the people; or rather the way to loose both Parliament and Liberties, and to give up all to a popular confusion, or to a Military power to be ruled by force, and not by lawes? Breifely, if obedience be a duty in regard of Common good, (which is the generall Tenet held forth by Divines, and Casuists) how doth an Oath binde to the breach of a duty, or to the destruction of [Page 16] the Common-Wealth, which indeed was made for the preservation of it? And let the De­murrer say ingenuously whether he thinkes that such a destructive sense was the meaning of the Oath, and so Or­dinarily understood by the Givers or Takers.

And now Page 8. He goes about to prove that the Heire is already a Successor, and yet complaines that some keepe the Heire from being a Successor; and after (not by a Popish nicety, but a Popish absurdity) he maintaines the incestuous Title of Queene Mary, and calls her Hei [...]e to the Crowne. And herewith another [perhaps] He speakes that which is uncharitable with it, and untrue without it; and nothing but want of charity would have spoken an untruth in a scandalous manner, though with a [perhaps.] For the Gent. hath beene excused by rea­son of Age in point of attendance, and so the Demurrer having taken back to himselfe his owne uncharitable­nesse, and untruth, (for perhaps cannot make that to have bin true, which whatsoever happen was not true) he hath nothing left to helpe him, but confession and a­mendment.

But to draw to an end, I wish that this Demurrer would so farre know himselfe, that he is most unfit for dealing in controversies; being most irresolute in him­selfe, and therefore unfit to resolve others: He hath at his back both a wall, and a back-doore, when he is bea­ten out of the m [...]ine question, then he runs to the wall, but ill daw bed of Oathes and Covenants; and when he is prest not onely by Arguments, but his owne consci­ence to confesse the Truth, he leaves open a back doore call'd [perhaps] to shift himselfe out: But let him know that at this doore the position which he oppo­seth [Page 17] may get out also. For example; among many [perhaps] he saith thus: A people may [perhaps] law­fully Page 2. obey a Government, when there is no proba­bility of recovering their lost Government. Here if it be inferred, that there is no probability of recovering, He hath left a [perhaps] to get out of the conclusion. But his opposer will tell him that with the same [perhaps] his position may be true and escape also. So Page 3. When an unlawfull power commands lawfull things, a man [perhaps] may obey: If so, Then [perhaps] the Author affirming the same thing, may have said true: And if so, why is this party so angry and uncharitable, without a [perhaps] for that with [perhaps] may be true? But thus it falls out, when men are resolved to fight with a truth that stares in their faces; the truth breakes out of the mouth of their conscience, and then they put a Muzell called [perhaps] upon it, that it may not speake plaine. What is this, but to imprison the truth in unrighteousnesse, to leave people in doubt, whom they undertake to resolve, by blind gui­ding of the blind, to leave them in the Darke, that they may not know where nor whether to goe, and at last fall into the Ditch? Let him see the truth himselfe, be­fore he undertake to teach others. Let him receive the Truth fully, and that shall make him fully free. Free from error, free from uncharitablenesse, and slanders, the fruits of it. Let him not out of prejudice against the Truth, and the Author that maintaines it, make Warre against Calvin, Bucer, Paraeus, Gualter, Peter Martyr; and if he have Charity to forgive them, let him enlarge it a little to forgive the Author also, that sayes after, and with them. But indeed there is little [Page 18] cause for him to give, but much to receive forgivenesse. For in his Title, having called himselfe a lover of Truth and Peace, even in the very face of that Title, and in the same Page; he is not ashamed to utter such untrue scan­dals, that he confutes his owne Name, by grosse eviden­ces, shewing that he loves neither truth nor peace. And whereas sundry other persons that have written on this Subject, have dealt like men of Religion and Reason, answering Matter with Matter, Reason with Reason; This Demurrers tongue being set on fire of Hell, an­swers Matter and Reason with Scandalous untruthes. And this I charge upon his Conscience, wishing that the worme of guilt may never leave biting, untill by Re­morse it worke Repentance, and by Repentaece For­givenesse.