A Combat Between Two Seconds

A Combat between two SECONDS, One for obeying the PRESENT GOVERNMENT; The other, the second part of a DEMURRER.

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

This Demurrer wanting strength in his Arguments, or doubting of them, thinks to fortify his discourse, by laying scandalous and uncharitable suspicions, on the person of him that wrote for obedience; neither are they uncharitable only, but untrue; and such that upon the proof of them: the Demurrer would hardly adventure a small sum of Money, though he thus easily adventure his soul: And yet he says he sees, (and because he saith so, his sin remains, for an untruth is never truly seen) and without restitution, and reparation, he cannot expect his sin should be taken from him. He saith, He sees that it is a great snare to be possessed of great estates by that power which can divest them, if they assist not their wicked designs; 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 uncharitableness; even a contrariety to that charity which thinketh none evil. This is all, because the Author will not comply with this man's errors and party. And whereas he calls it a bad Cause, certainly 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 Pareus, and Gwalther, and Peter Martyr, for maintaining a bad Cause, and doing it for a place of Profit. As for any design, the whole life of the Author shows him very clear of designs; And for this, be it what design it will be, he was no actor in it, but a spectator only, until 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 believed that he might exercise it in just things; yea he believed that it was a duty, though the Government had been taken by design, 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 sin if it were not done; I think it goes beyond the skill of this Demurrer, justly to charge that which is good, with Sin and Guilt. Sure it is that he had the council and consent of impartial Authors, (and such are the dead, not interested in our affairs) 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 weak, irresolute and unresolving paper, is seldom seen; for in it there are so many [perhaps] concerning the chief points in question, that he seems unresolved himself; and how can he then resolve others? But of this more in the conclusion; And now because his matter is weak, therefore his chief strength is laid upon scandalizing the Author; and so his best argument is his own uncharitableness; I am therefore the larger in this point to make a plaster proportionable to the large poison of this serpentine Discourse, that bites the Heele, when it cannot come to the Head. In the mean time he may learn to construe his Latin, by his own 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 maintain a bad Cause, for a place of profit, let the Demurrer first know that this Author at the p • ssing of the self denying Ordinance, gave his vote clearly for the quitting of his place, and did verily think 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 seems he hath been able to quit such a place for the good of the Public. 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 increased his estate by purchase one five pounds per annum. But thirdly, with giving maintenance to poor Scholars' in Universities, fatherless and poor Children in Schools, distressed persons of Ireland, poor in Westminster, London, and the Country, poor servants of the late King, poor distressed Widows of Soldiers, and such to whom Arreares are due, and maintenance 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 work, it is certain he took a course to the contrary; for he was so far from acquainting any that are eminent in power, and can give advancement, either with the work, or with the Name of the Author, that he communicated them only 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 style, some might adventure to put his name upon the work, among which Mr. Marshall is one, who being present when the work was communicated to one of the Authors nearest friends, in a close and concealed manner, and thereupon reading it, gave his judgment 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 self:

Whereas he saith, That he hears few rational conscientious men are satisfied with the Declaration of Parliament. It may be he converses with few men, so rational▪ and conscientious as to be free from partiality: But how unsatisfying soever it be believed, the Author took 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 business is near at an end. For the Author believes there is no probability in sight, and therefore it seems 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 himself better out of those, that as it seems have more knowledge and judgment to resolve then himself, and particularly that in this point of probability, and possession, and others of kin to it, he would look into Mr. Aschams discourse, and either believe it or confute it; It is strange that these men should swallow that work of many sheets, and strain at this single one; But indeed till that Book be answered, Calvin, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Gwalther, Pareus, 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 controversy between us, cannot be rejected as partial) the cause stands good, though the Demurrer in his bad language calls it bad, but leaves it good by his doubtful sayings, and his weak reasons.

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

And then with another [perhaps] he saith, That Judah knowing none of the Regal Seed surviving, [perhaps] Submitted to Athaliahs Government. A most frivolous, and ignorant [perhaps.] For besides that God had promised, that David's seed should not fail; Jehoiada the high Priest knew, there was one of that seed 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 Heir? But no such Doctrine appeared, but the daughter of Ahab, and Jezebel (very far from any Title to the Crown of Judah) was obeyed six years. 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 sister of Ahaziah the late King; And if so, was not her Title better then that of Athaliah a stranger?

Item, Pag. 3. He says, The Author concludes more then he undertook to prove. But would the Demurrer be offended, if a man promising to give him ten pounds, do make his gift twenty? And whereas he would gladly know, what difference between lawful and unlawful 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 poor honest man for charity, and to a thief for safety, is there no odds between an honest man, and a thief?

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

It is commonly said that some of the best laws were made under Richard the third. But Secondly against the Demurrer and his interpretation, are the judgment 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Power or Force, and the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Authority or Magistracy; Though Nimrod by the former did obtain the latter; Yet Pareus says that his Authority gotten by power was of God. And so by virtue of that Text was to be obeyed; See that place, and others alleged upon this very Text, by the Author in the last Edition, and they will abundantly overpoyse this single Doctors opinion, both by reasons and Authority.

Pag. 4. He comes to Caudius and Nero, And first saith, That the Apostle might mean it of • ny other p • wer abstract • dly from the Romans. So that he will have the Apostle most impertinently, to tell the Romans what obedience is to be given by others in another state, but not by them in their own. Secondly, Let him remember, that as Peter M • rtyr saith, the Romans had now gotten the Empire of the world; And then what was the state, this Demurrer would have the Apostle to mean? Thirdly, He says nothing to Claudius, who was set up directly against the Councils and Resolutions of the Senates: Neither was there following a free consent. But yet further, If the Soldiers set up a Governor or Government, and a consent be so gotten, let this Demurrer talk with his learned Council, and then speak out plainly, whether Votes gotten by or under force be valid. For in some cases they speak aloud they are not: Yet it seems they are, when they may make for their turn. Fourthly, he speaks of succeeding upon Caesar's Title: But was not that Title interrupted by a triumvirate? And had not Claudius a Son when the Soldiers made Nero his Successor? Doth not this man betray his main business by yealding; That he who is not the Heir, may be a lawful Successor, though an Heir be living?

To the obedience given anciently in this Kingdom and yet continued to laws of usurpers, He answers generally with doubts, and supposes according to his irresulute manner, and ever and anon, comes in which the usual burden of the Song; Oaths and Covenants with a pair of [perhaps.] And whereas he would lay this obedience on the darkness of the times by Topery; Certainly there were very good Lawyers in times of Popery, and in those point, Popery did not darken wherein it had nothing to do. Our present Lawyers fetch the main 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 darkness of Popery, and therefore their Testimony must be rejected; and as little truth as law he shows, in saying that these Laws have been 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 do. But Secondly, let me answer him, that if he only say [perhaps] they were not valid, he leaves room for another to say [perhaps] they were valid, for one [perhaps] leaves room 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 tacit 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 rational creature should, and doth give his consent; But it is seen by his reasoning, that every man is not de facto a rational 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 questions that concern 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 rational things and not of Popish concernment, it is far more satisfactory to hear a Papists wise reason then a Protestants folly. Besides, the term of Popish, indeed doth rather give force to their Reasons then weaken them, when a Papist speaks against Popish Interest. And so doth this and other Spanish Authors, who speak herein against the Spanish and Popish interest in England, (under Queen Elizabeth) and in Holland; So he useth the word Popish to his own disadvantage. And now having added two Questions, he leaves the Matter in Question, under Questions. To Pareus who saith, Vsurping Nimrods power was of God, and must be obeyed; He answers, He believes Nimrods Vsurpation was over a people not engaged by Oaths and Covenants. So here hath he given up the main Question it self, That usurped power may be obeyed, if there be no Oaths and Covenants. Thus there remains now no doubt of the main position; But all the doubt is come to Oaths and Covenants, so that we have nothing now to do, but to clear Oaths and Covenants. As for Bucer's Testimony, he fesseth his blindness, that he sees not how it can be justified, Neither do I think he will ever see as long as the webb of prejudice and partiality covers his eyes. Yet in this blindness, he kicks and throws at Bucer, because he hardly toucheth his Gall; and yet out of partial love to Pareus, he grants him the very same for Nimrod, which here he denies to Bucer. As for his obj • cting Jack •• de against Bucer, why doth he not object also the 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 Jack 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 be restored to his right reason with Nebuchadnezzar, he will confess, That the most High doth rule in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men. Let him pity, and not damn, the once famous, and now distressed, and oppressed Churches in Greece, who lie under the weight of such base and heavy Usurpations, and yet yield obedience to Usurpers. Besides, the ground of obedience being in regard of an authority, gotten by a prevaling power; Is it to be thought, that any who have an ambition to usurp authority, and have power to get it, will if there were no such Doctrine, forbear usurpation, or leave it when they have gotten it, and can keep it by power? Again doth not this objection lie against the Demurrers yielding his purse to save his life? for doth not he here encourage a thief to go 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 personal safety, nor from the others giving obedience for public peace and quietness. As for his preferring of Satan to Magistracy, When Paraus speaks so much of an Authority given from God to Satan, 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 Pareus) obey him that is the Accuser of the brethren.

Page 6. He finds himself 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 himself, he breaks through. He saith, It is a sin to obey; whereas this very argument of confusion is brought to s • ew, that it is not sin but a duty; And in Nimrods case, and else where (with a perhaps) he grants it lawful. And for his consequences of not recovering from Bondage, let him give me the same leave he takes to say, He must not do evil that good may come thereof; He must not disobey to avoid these consequences: But the grand Case (though the little Case will not) very fairly acknowledgeth; That where lawful and unlawful are in question, convenience, and inconvenience must keep silence. Neither are these consequences so near, and certain, as the confusion by disobeying. Besides, there have been often remedies for such consequences; for often, usurpations having been upon this very Crown, 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 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 style, with Oaths and Covenants; with are another business. 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 usual perhaps) those that are forced to prosecute suits under the present C • urts. Yea, He consents to the power that there manageth the laws with a distinction: But do not all his objections of breaking Oaths, allowing usurped power, and accessory post factum, come in now against himself? For if the Judges have no Authority as well as power, doth not this submission encourage, 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 Neighbor meeting two that have a suite in law, should pronounce the law to be for one, and against the other; should that one satisfy his conscience in taking the others estate into his poss • ssion? Therefore if he will use the word justify with sense and reason, he must allow an Authroity, which in a case of usurpation is grounded on a tacit and interpretative consent; He would have all join together in disobeying, and that indeed is the design: But first, that is unprofitable; yea, in being over power'd, it is impossible to any good effect, because thus joining, it will bring indeed a disjoining, taking away all justice, and order, give up all to power, and so bring confusion to the whole. And could not the Papists whom he accuseth of nicetie, have found out this gross answer, in the time of Queen 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 Oaths continually in his mouth, now he is come to the right place of using them; for all this while his use of them hath been but generally a granting of the question, for upon the matter it speaks this, that if it were not for Oaths, obedience were due. But to say that the Kings person cannot die, 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 swear to preserve the Kings person, which needs no preservation, because it cannot die; As for the clause of preserving the Privileges of Parliament, and Liberties of the Subjects; which is the main 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 Press, with this Vehemencie and Iteration against the breach of Privileges by the Prentises? or was it so pressed against those that sat some days, and for ought apeares, would have sat 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 himself to that party, but (as by many witnesses can be proved) resolved to leave both his place, and any place in the Kingdom, and began a journey to go 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 by them: And yet upon their Rule and Law-making did this engagement, Act and proceed; Yea, the House itself; yet Oaths 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 look to the Oath it self, doth the Oath bind us actually to preserve the Privileges of Parliament, or only to endeavor to preserve them? For actually to preserve them, may be, and is often out of our power, and then we should swear to do that which is impossible for us to perform. If this Demurrer had received a sum of money, and had sworn that he would endeavor to preserve it safe for the owner; but a Robber takes this sum by force from him, or will kill him, if he do not deliver it; is this man guilty of Perjury, if having sincerely intended, and endeavored 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 keep privileges 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 laws? Breifely, if obedience be a duty in regard of Common good, (which is the general Tenet held forth by Divines, and Casuists) how doth an Oath bind to the breach of a duty, or to the destruction of the Common-Wealth, which indeed was made for the preservation of it? And let the Demurrer say ingenuously whether he thinks 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 Heir is already a Successor, and yet complains that some keep the Heir from being a Successor; and after (not by a Popish nicety, but a Popish absurdity) he maintains the incestuous Title of Queen Mary, and calls her Hei • e to the Crown. And herewith another [perhaps] He speaks 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 been excused by reason of Age in point of attendance, and so the Demurrer having taken back to himself his own uncharitableness, and untruth, (for perhaps cannot make that to have been true, which whatsoever happen was not true) he hath nothing left to help him, but confession and amendment.

But to draw to an end, I wish that this Demurrer would so far know himself, that he is most unfit for dealing in controversies; being most irresolute in himself, and therefore unfit to resolve others: He hath at his back both a wall, and a back-door, when he is beaten out of the m • ine question, then he runs to the wall, but ill daw bed of Oaths and Covenants; and when he is pressed not only by Arguments, but his own conscience to confess the Truth, he leaves open a back door called [perhaps] to shift himself out: But let him know that at this door the position which he opposeth may get out also. For example; among many [perhaps] he saith thus: A people may [perhaps] lawfully 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 unlawful power commands lawful 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 breaks out of the mouth of their conscience, and then they put a Muzell called [perhaps] upon it, that it may not speak plain. What is this, but to imprison the truth in unrighteousness, 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 go, and at last fall into the Ditch? Let him see the truth himself, before he undertake to teach others. Let him receive the Truth fully, and that shall make him fully free. Free from error, free from uncharitableness, and slanders, the fruits of it. Let him not out of prejudice against the Truth, and the Author that maintains it, make War against Calvin, Bucer, Pareus, Gwalther, Peter Martyr; and if he have Charity to forgive them, let him enlarge it a little to forgive the Author also, that says after, and with them. But indeed there is little cause for him to give, but much to receive forgiveness. For in his Title, having called himself 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 own Name, by gross evidences, showing 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 untruths. And this I charge upon his Conscience, wishing that the worm of guilt may never leave biting, until by Remorse it work Repentance, and by Repentaece Forgiveness.