Lazarus' sores licked; Or, AN ANSWER TO These three POSITIONS: 

I. That Christ paid Tribute to Caesar.  
II. That Caesar was an Usurper in Judea, and had only bare Possession, but no Right at all.  
III. That bare Possession, without any Right to a Throne, gives Title sufficient to the Usurper, and is ground sufficient for People to subject to that Usurper.    {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Matth. 22. 21. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Chrysost. Hom. 71. in Matth. 22. 
Printed at LONDON, Anno 1650.   

To the READER.  
IT is not (courteous Reader) with an heretical Independent, a Papist, or a proud prelatical Protestant, that I am to deal withal; but with a Presbyterian; and not with a loose, vain, weak but with a grave solid, judicious, and learned one; with such a one I undertake to grapple. I confess it is a bold attempt; and the Truth may suffer much under pretence of defending it. I have made it my profession to defend Truth (since I could grasp a Spea●) in Jonathan's Armour, more than with David's sling: but since I cannot now go in Jonathan's Armour, I have boldly taken up David's sling and from the brook of living water, have fetched smooth stones to sling at this Champion, who, like another Goliath challengeth all the world to answer him. Indeed the odds betwixt my Antagonist and myself are great; for, I am but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth. This is the first Field (of this kind) that ever I pitched; but he hath pitched many. He hath both the Hill and the wind of me in this field: for he hath many learned Authors who in some things support him; and he hath (which is all) the Times on his side: whereas I am alone in this controversy, like the Dove in the valley and shall be envied by the most that read my papers. Truly had he been a Papist, or an heretic, or one de crumenimulga turba, that had only writ to get money; had he not been a Presbyterian, and an eminent one, and by his open apostasy, and impudent defence of a dangerous error both in Cambridge and London▪ scandalised his profession reproached the Gospel, hardened the wicked, and perverted many; and grieved and made ashamed the rest of God's faithful people, who stand silent, as having nothing to say against those who reproach them with such foul apostasy, in so eminent a Presbyterian: I had altogother been silent as to this controversy; neither had I now done what I have done, but to rouse up the invincible pen of a most learned and pious Doctor, in case I am wronged, or the Truth by my weak defence wronged. The truth is, this fire was first kindled by him in my breast; who by making a question of it, set me to search whether ever Christ paid Tribute to Caesar. In searching, I found the contrary so clear, that, for the undeceiving of many of my misled friends, I have adventured it to the public view, in opposition to this relapsed Presbyterian Doctor, whose fall is so notorious, that it made M. John Goodwin kick at him in this Jeer, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Joh. 11. 11. As M. Goodwin uses the first part of our saviour's words to jeer his relapsed friend, so I shall use the latter part in charity, and say, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. I pray God I may: for I am sure he sleepeth a sinful sleep. M. John Goodwins jest, I perceive, is better than his earnest: for he speaks truth in jest, which he seldom doth in earnest.  
I know nothing better to rouse the Doctor, and recover him out of his swooning fit then to sprinkle some of his own holy-water in his face: 'tis no worse than he gave to the Earl of Manchester, in the Epistle Dedicatory before his book called The {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman},  
Christ (saith he) owns none as being of his side but those that are called, chosen, and faithful, Revel. 17. 14. Your Doctorship knows assuredly, and you need not be put in mind by me, that they who do wickedly against the Covenant, (whether God's, or man's) are such as are corrupted by flatteries. Neither is this without the bounds of your consideration, that [without understanding, Covenant-breakers] (Rom. 1. 13.) are joined together, in the same Catalogue of those that are given up [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}] to vile affections, Rom. 1. 26. and [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}] to a reprobate mind. To these his own words retorted on himself, I'll add but these of Chrysostom, Hom. 16. in Matth. 17. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; I have done: I hope no man will say that I bite him: if I do, 'tis with his own teeth, and he may thank himself.  
The worst that the sharpest Censurer can say of me, is only this, that I act the part of Dives his dog in licking Lazarus' sores. If that be all, I shall not refuse the employment, so be it I may lick them whole: for I dare pawn my salvation upon it, that such spiritual sores as Covenant-breaking▪ and apostasy from persecuted truths, being uncured, shall sooner depress Lazarus to the place where Dives is, then carry Lazarus into Abraham's bosom.   
MATTH. 22. 19, 20, 21. show me the tribute-money. And they brought him a penny. And he said unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God, the things which are God's. 
FRom this Text the Doctor endeavoured to prove (as myself and others understood him) that a King who hath true Title, and just Right to the Throne, and is out of possession, may lawfully subject himself to an Usurper, who hath not title, but bare possession: This he said was Christ's opinion, who in Matth. 22. in the Text above rehearsed, acknowledgeth, by the penny which bare Caesar's Image, that the possession was Caesar's. He proved the other part, from Christ's practice, who being by right King of the Jews, being of the Royal blood, of the family of Judah, and Heir to the Crown; yet being out of possession, pays Tribute to Caesar, who had no right, but possession only.  
That Christ paid Tribute to Caesar, he proves in Matth. 17. 24, 25, 26, 27. And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the tribute-money, came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the Kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them▪ go thou to the Sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up: and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. Now (saith he) though Matth. 22. 19▪ 20, 21, prove nothing but that Caesar had the possession, not the right; yet since in Matth. 17. 24, 25, it was the practice of Christ to pay Tribute to Caesar, it was also the opinion of Christ in Matth. 22, that Tribute ought to be paid to Caesar an Usurper, who had possession, but no right, by those that had right to the Crown, yet were out of possession: and that because the practice of Christ, and the opinion of Christ were one and the same; otherwise we should make a strange Christ of him. But he did pay Tribute to Caesar (Mat. 17. 24, 25.) though he were by right King of the Jews, but out of possession. By this 'tis manifest, that the Doctor holds these opinions; upon which he grounds his Discourse.  

1. That Christ paid Tribute to Caesar.  
2. That Caesar was an Usurper, one that had no right, but bare possession only of the kingdom of Judea.  
3. That bare possession without any right, is ground sufficient for any people to subject to that power.   
Now because I am resolved to be brief, I will avoid all ambages, and forthwith enter the list, and grapple with the Doctor, by denying every one of these Propositions: viz.  

1. Christ did never pay Tribute, nor give order to Peter to pay Tribute to Caesar.  
2. That Caesar had more than bare possession of the kingdom of Judea.  
3. That bare possession, without any right, as it gives no true Title to any power, so neither is it a sufficient ground for any people to subject to such a power. 

1. Christ did never pay or order any Tribute to be paid to Caesaer. This I prove thus:  
1. Argum. If the Scripture nowhere prove it, than there is no ground for me to believe it. But the Scripture nowhere proves it. Ergo.  
2. Argum. If those Scriptures alleged for to prove Christ's paying of Tribute prove the contrary; then I am bound to believe the contrary. But these Scriptures alleged prove the contrary. Ergo.     
The only place alleged to prove that Christ paid Tribute to Caesar, is Matth. 17. 24. 27. where the Collectors of the Didrachme came to Peter to demand it of him and his Master, in verse 27. Christ bids Peter pay a Stater for himself and Christ his Master; and he doth it. Now this, they say, was Tribute-money to Caesar. Not only the Doctor, but many learned men are of this opinion. In the Margin of one Bible, I find these words: This was an Attic Didrachme, which the Romans exacted after they had subdued Judea. So saith Deodat's. But Beza denies that: for, saith he, Hoc postea factum; the Romans did not exact this money until 75 years after the birth of Christ. Joseph. de Bello Judaico, Lib. 7. Cap. 26. Therefore he refers it to Matth. 22. 17. where the word [Census] he thinks contains both the Didrachmes that Christ paid; which tax he conceives was a tax of Augustus, which he laid upon every head, because Peter and Christ paid a certain sum. I do not know in any thing that Beza stumbles and rambles so much, as in this. He proves out of Josephus, that the Didrachme was never paid away from the Temple until 75 years after Christ's birth; and therefore he conjectures 'twas some other certain tax laid upon every person by the Romans; but brings not the least proof for it out of Scripture or History, that the Romans exacted the Didrachme. Some other learned men conjecture that Augustus exacted this Didrachme when Cirenius was governor, Luke 2. 1. when all the world was taxed: but neither Dio, Chrysostom▪ nor Josephus▪ nor any other Historian that ever I heard of, maketh mention that the Didrachme should be put upon every man's head. Indeed there were Surveys taken of the Grounds, and mechanics names taken, Luke 2. 1. Vt discriberetur totus terrarum orbis; id est, ut discriptis omnium Civitatum capitibus intelligeretur, quae cujusque regionis, vrbis, familiae, domus, facultates essent, saith Beza; and Deodate is of the same opinion: but this is far from proving that the Romans exacted the Didrachme of the Jews.  
Cornelius è lapide is of opinion, that this Didrachme which Peter paid, was not sacrum but prophanum; and that it was paid to the Romans: and he only, endeavours to give reasons for this opinion; the one is from Christ's words to Peter, ver. 26. Of whom doth the Kings of the earth demand Tribute or custom? There the word Censum (saith he) declares it to be not the money of the Sanctuary, but the King's money, the Roman Tribute: for the word Census is a Roman word, which signifies the Estimation or Valuing of goods.  
But grant all that Cornelius è lapide saith, his consequence will not hold, that therefore that which Peter paid was money to Caesar; because Christ, to show Peter how little reason they had to exact it from him, (who was born King of the Jews, and was the natural Son of 
‛ Ei {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Chrysost. in Mat. 17.  the King of kings) puts an allusive question to him, or, (as Chrysostom holds) proposeth an argument, à minore ad majus, drawing it thus, from Peter's Concession: If Kings of the earth do not exact Tribute from their natural sons, being of the royal blood (because 'twas their Prerogative royal to receive;) then much less reason have these to demand this money of me, who am their King, and the natural Son of the King of kings, to whom of right this Tribute belongs. (For this was no other money than the Shekel of the Sanctuary; and for that end it was gathered, and for that end it was paid, as we shall prove anon.) So that Cornelius è lapide's reason is invalid, unless he will also thence infer, that Christ was of the royal blood of the Caesars, and Christ drew the force of his reason from thence; which no man will affirm.  
His other Argument is false, which he grounds upon Josephus, lib. 14. Antiq. cap. 8. where he saith, after that Pompey had won the City Jerusalem by conquest, he subdued them to the Romans, and from that day exacted the Didrachme. Whereas Josephus speaks not one word of the Didrachme. He saith, As for Jerusalem, he made it Tributary to the Romans, taking away from the Jews those Cities in Coelosyria, which they had Conquered, and assigning them a proper and peculiar government. Pompey was so far from robbing the Temple of the Didrachme, that (saith Josephus in the same Book and Chapter) though he saw the Table of Gold, and golden candlestiks, with divers other rare and precious things in the Temple, besides two thousand talents of silver there put; (through the reverence he had of God) he touched nothing of all which he saw. So that è Lapide's Reasons herein are both destitute of strength and truth; and therefore none at all.  
I find learned Weemes, and Godwin, no less learned in the Jewish Antiquities, both of this opinion, that Christ paid this Didrachme to Caesar: but neither of these learned men prove that Caesar (in Christ's time of being on earth) exacted the half Shekel that was paid formerly to the Temple; but a man may almost prove the contrary from their own words. To begin with Doctor Weemes, two things he acknowledgeth. 1. That Caesar was exceeding favourable to the Jews. 2. That the Pharisees demanded this Tribute money of Peter. Now if Caesar was so favourable to the Jews, as that he granted them a free exercise of their Religion, he debarred them not from keeping the Sabbath, nor from circumcising their children, he neither took their Synedria, nor their {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from them; is it probable that he would take away the money of the Temple, which was to repair it, and to supply the Priests wants, and several other holy uses? Certainly he was no such favourer of the Jews, that would starve all their Priests, and ruin their Temple; which Cesar must needs be guilty of, if he took away the money due to the Temple.  
2. But he saith in another place, that the Pharisees demanded this money of Peter; and I am prone to believe it. If then the Pharisees gathered this, as 'tis most probable they did, (for the Masters of the Synagogue, from the Captivity in Babylon, gathered the half Shekel, which is the Didrachme, and sent it to Jerusalem to the high-priests; and the Pharisees were many of them Masters of the Synagogue▪ Luke 9 43.) it is most probable, then, that this money that they demanded, was money for the Temple, and that money which every one paid to the Temple according to the Law, Exod. 30. 13. This was sacred money, and this only the Pharisees would gather. As for Caesar's Taxes, the Pharisees abhorred such an unholy employment; that was the office of the Publicans, to gather Caesar's money: the Pharisees were so far from gathering Caesar's money that they abhorred a Publicans company, because of his office: they would not dine with him, nor converse with him; but would even wash after they had gone thorough the marketplace where the Publicans were conversant. And is it probable that the Pharisees would take upon them the Publicans office, to gather Caesar's money? Thus far it seems improbable, from M. Weemes his own Concessions.  
So Godwin i. e. acknowledgeth that what the Greek copy reads {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Syriac readeth duo zu●im. Now that zuz was answerable, saith he to the Roman denary: so that by his confession, there is as great difference betwixt the Roman penny which they showed to Christ, Matth. 22. 19 and the Didrachme which Christ paid. Matth. 17. as betwixt seven pence halfpenny, and one shilling and three pence; which any old man without spectacles may discern. M. Godwin therefore, to make his opinion hold, makes this distinction: There is (saith he) the common penny; and the penny of the Sanctuary: the common penny that valued seven pence halfpenny, was Roman money; but the penny of the Sanctuary, that valued one shilling three pence, he saith Cesar exacted. And brings for a proof Joseph. lib. 7. de bello Judaico, cap. 26. which plainly proves that Cesar never exacted it till above forty years after Christ's ascension; until which time, the Didrachme was paid unto the Temple. So that that which he makes the ground of his argument, proves just the contrary.  
Thus have I, out of their own mouths, (who endeavour to prove that Christ did pay Tribute to Cesar) proved almost, if not altogether, the contrary.  
But to come more close to the Argument, and to prove that the Scripture alleged proveth not that Christ paid Tribute to Cesar. The Scripture alleged is Matth. 17. 24. 27. In ver. 24, the gatherers of the Tribute came to Peter, and say, by way of Question, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; payeth not your Master the Didrachme? Peter answers, Yes. And in ver. 27. Christ bids him look in the first fishes mouth that came to the hook and therein he should find a Stater; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, thou shalt find a Stater; that give for me and thee.  
Now I prove this was not paid as Tribute to Cesar,  
1. Because this was God's money, and none of Caesar's. There was Caesar's money, and God's money; both which Christ distinguisheth, in Matth. 22. 19, when the Pharisees came to tempt him: he calls for a piece of money, numisma census, the Roman Tribute-money: they brought him denarium, which had Caesar's Image on it. He saith, Whose Image and superscription hath it? They said, Caesar's. Then said he, Give unto Cesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. That money that had Caesar's Image and superscription on it, weighed one Attic drachma: for (saith Budaeus) Drachma Attica, & denarius Romanus, ejusdem fuerunt ponderis & praetii. The old Silver denary here mentioned was in value seven pence halfpenny: This was Caesar's money; and Christ bids them to give Caesar's money unto Cesar.  
But there was God's money, which was the Shekel. Now there was the full Shekel, which weighed four drachmas; and this was the Stater which Christ paid for himself and Peter. Stater and Shekel are all one; only the one is a Greek word, the other is an Hebrew word. Stater comes from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which signifies to weigh; and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Hebrew signifies to weigh. And in 1. Sam. 9 8, the Shekel and the Stater are one and the same: what the Hebrew reads Shekel, the Septuagint Translates Stater. Now half this Stater or Sheke every soul throughout Israel, from twenty years old, was to pay to the Lord. The half of this Shekel made the Didrachme, which was as much money as the Roman tribute-money in weight. It was in value fifteen pence. (The Roman Tribute-money was in value but seven pence halfpenny.) This had the Rod of Aaron on one side of it, and the Pot of Manna on the other side stamped on it; and this was God's money, and this Christ bids the Pharisees give to God: Give that which was Caesar's money to Cesar; and that which was God's money, to God. Now this Didrachme was none of Caesar's money; for it had not his stamp on it, as Beza manifests: this money went to God's house; and for that end Christ paid it. And of this opinion is Baronius, and Franciscus Lucas, and others (saith Cornelius è lapide). This half Shekel (as Chrysostom observes) and the Didrachme, are all one: and it was demanded of Peter, saith Chrysostom, and was paid, for Christ and Peter; for Himself, as the firstborn; and for Peter, as the first and chiefest of the Apostles, or because he was the firstborn: for that money was Redemption-money that the Jews paid; it was God's money, which was paid to God in remembrance of their Redemption in Egypt, when God slew all the firstborn in Egypt: then he saved Israel; therefore the first-born of Israel was God's Redemption, Numb. 3. 13. (the very Text that Chrysostom grounds his Discourse on:) which custom from that day continued amongst the Jews. So that Chrysostom is far from conceiving that Christ paid that money as Tribute to Cesar.  
This half Shekel being God's due by the Law, Exod. 30. 13, 16, and paid until the Captivity▪ and in the Captivity▪ and afterwards, by every man in Israel▪ to the Temple; this having also the Stamp of the Sanctuary upon it viz. the Pot of Manna, and the Rod of Aaron; it being also in value as much more as Caesar's money; it cannot be imagined that this Didrachme, and that money, Matth. 22. 19 which they showed Christ, should be all one. It is most improbable, for this reason; Because in Matth. 17. 24. there they came and demanded money at Capernaum of Christ, and he paid it. Now certain days after this at Jerusalem; the Pharisees brats (Matth. 22) came on purpose to entrap him with this Question; Is it lawful to pay Tribute to Cesar, or no? {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪ saith Chrysostom, Hom. 17. in Matth. 22. the Pharisees breathed out their fury against Christ, in that question. Now if Christ had paid Tribute before to Cesar at Capernaum, this question had been out of doubt, and the Pharisees device exceeding weak, in proposing that which he had put out of doubt before. Therefore 'tis probable that what Christ paid at Capernaum, was money to the Temple, and not Tribute to Cesar 
a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Chrysost. Hom. 56. in Matth. 17. : for there they came not to tempt him, but to ask him, and to receive it.  
2. This money that Christ paid at Capernaum, could not be Tribute-money to Cesar, because Christ was never taxed: he was never enrolled in Caesar's books that we read of; neither was there any reason: for he had neither House, nor Land, nor Money. And what could Cesar exact from him, who had nothing?  
3. If the money that Christ paid had been Tribute to Cesar, than Peter, who had a house and family in Capernaum should have paid more than Christ, who had neither house, nor family nor goods, nor any thing else of value: but Christ paid equally with Peter; which, according to the Roman Law had been most unjust; but, according to God's Law (Exod. 30. 15.) was most just: for there the Rich was to give no more than the half shekel, and the Poor was to give no less; because the Redemption of their souls was a like precious; therefore they paid alike, each man his half shekel; which was here exactly paid by Peter, for himself, and his Master. He gave the Stater; which being divided equally into two, make just the redemption-money, the half shekel for each.  
4. If that money which Christ paid, had been Tribute-money to Cesar, than Christ's inference from Peter's answer to his demands, Matth. 17. 25, had not been good: for if from Peter's concessions, Christ had argued thus: If the Kings of the earth demand not Tribute of their natural sons, than I am free from paying tribute to Cesar; this would not have followed unless we shall make Christ of the family of the Caesar's: Or if he had argued thus: I am of the family of the Kings of Inaah; I am heir to the Crown, therefore I am free from Caesar's Tribute, which he hath laid upon Judea; this would not follow neither: for, in a Conquest, the King's family is most engaged to the Conqueror; and so Christ could not have expected to be free from Caesar. But now to argue from the money paid to the Temple, to his Prorogative Royal, the Argument will hold: For, if the children of the Kings of the earth be free from Taxes, because of their Prerogative Royal, then much more am I free from paying the half Shekel, being the Son of God, and the true King unto whom you pay your Redemption-money. In this sense Chrysostom understands it.  
5. It cannot be proved by any History that ever Caesar exacted, or that the Jews paid this Didrachme, until after the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian, which was above forty years after Christ's ascension. So that by this time I doubt not but the Reader may satisfy himself, that the Scriptures alleged to prove that Christ paid Tribute to Cesar do not only not prove the same, but prove the contrary.  
The Doctor saith (secondly) that Cesar was an Usurper and had no Right at all, but only bare Possession of the Jews Kingdom: and this he proveth out of 1 Mac. 8. where the Jews made friendship, and joined in association with the Romans, not out of any intent to subject to them. But, to answer that, 'tis well known to every Historian, that very many years after that League made betwixt the Romans and the Jews, the Jews provoked Pompey to break the League. For when Hircanus and Aristobulus were in contest about the Kingdom and the Priesthood, they referred the ending of the difference to Pompey, who gave the Kingdom and Priesthood to Hircanus. Whereupon those that favoured Aristobulus in Jerusalem, resisted Hircanus: whereupon began a Civil War, unto which Pompey was called, by Hircanus and his Party; who coming with an Army against Jerusalem, besieged it and took it by storm; subduing the people, and making them Tributaries to Rome. And here began the Jews Tribute to the Romans; they being brought, by a perfect Conquest, to submit to the Romans.  
But to view more strictly every particular of the Doctor's Thesis: He saith, Cesar was an Usurper. To that we answer, first, If we consider the Office of Cesar {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 'twas lawful because his Office was Monarchical; and monarchy was by God instituted from the Creation: for Adam, by institution, was sovereign over Man, as well as the rest of the creatures: Adam was subject only to God. Adam, had he continued in innocency, though he should not have had dominium directum, or, as the schoolmen say▪ dominium altum; yet he should have had dominium subordinatum, a subordinate rule to God over men. This was Adam's do after the Fall, by the fifth Commandment; which Law was implanted in Adam, and was verbum {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in his heart. Now though Adam fell from this Law, and by that means lost all his ability to keep this Law, yet this Law thereby lost none of its strength; it expected as much from Adam as before he fell and from all other men descending from Adam: so that if the fifth commandment were in force then, doubtless there was subject on required then; and this by right belonged to Adam, as the Eldest man the first man. This subjection to the eldest, was God's institution Gen. 4. 7. Cain was the Eldest; he was a wicked man, whom God regarded not: Abel was the beloved of God, yet God would not take away Cain's temporal right of dominion, but said, He (viz. Abel) shall be subject to thee and thou shalt rule 
Those that endeavour to read this text otherwise, offer violence to the Hebrew copy.  over him. So that monarchy is God's institution: and personal evils in that Monarch, cannot exempt good men from subjection to them. Indeed, the world ran into Anarchy after the murder of Abel; but yet we shall find that God preserved monarchy amongst his own people in the family of Seth, and so to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham until the Church of God became exceeding numerous: then God raised up those two great Ordinances of magistracy and Ministry to govern his people. Moses and Aaron both which sprung out of one fountain, 1 Chron. 33. 13. to show the nearness that is betwixt magistracy and Ministry in the Church, they are as two pleasant rivers rising from one head and running one way in several streams, for the protection and profit of the Church. From that day, till the destruction of the Jewish sat, (except when God's heavy hand in judgement was upon them) they were governed by Monarchs. Moses was a Monarch: for the twelve Tribes received the Law at his mouth; all other Officers in that State were appointed by him, and not immediately by God, as Moses was. From Judges, the State rose to Kings: when they came to Kings, they came to the top of their prosperity; they came to the government that God had promised to Abraham, and to that government which Moses prophesied of, and left directions for, Dut. 17. 14, 15, 18, 19  
'Tis true, God gave then their first King in Anger, because they sought him unlawfully, in murmuring against their lawful Magistrate Samuel and desiring a King for unlawful ends, and not patiently waiting God's leisure. This King God took away in his wrath, and cut off his family: but God chose him another King, David by name, and established his family in the Throne of Judah, until the carrying away of the King and People into Captivity. By which 'tis manifest, 'twas not the office of a King that God gave in anger, but the person of a King that God gave in Anger. Kingly government continued for fourteen generations in Jerusalem unmoved, in the family of David: neither the Church nor State of Israel were settled, until Kingly government was established; and than the ark was brought to a settled place, and a Temple erected for God's worship. By all which, and much more that might be said, 'tis evident, that Monarchy is jure divino; and therefore the office of Caesar, as Monarchical simply considered, was not usurped, but lawful.  
Object. But the Doctor saith that Caesar had no right, but bare possession only of the kingdom of Judea,  
Sol. To that we answer very briefly and plainly not meddling with learned Grotius, or those other Discourses of learned men, but using this plain distinction of right in general; There is a Natural, a Providential, and a Civil right.  
1. A Natural right Cesar could not have, unless he could prove a succession from Noah; which were ridiculous to think. Besides, he got his power by violence; and therefore 'twas not any natural right that he had to be Emperor.  
2. There is a Providential right, which is by God's permission: this Cesar had: for God suffered him to subdue the West and after that to overthrow the Eastern Armies that came against him: he overthrew Pompey himself and so made himself Possessor of the most of Pompey's Victories in the East Yea, this right Traitors and Usurpers have to the Thrones that they possess: this right a Slave (through God's just judgement on a Nation) may have to the Throne: for not a Sparrow falls to the ground without God's permission. This right both lawful Kings and Usurpers have to the Thrones they possess. Athaliah, that murderer of the Royal family▪ had only this Providential right, which she made appear only by possession. But this right gives not just Title, nor can expect any subjection merely upon that and no other right: and the reason is, because when Providential right crosseth Civil and Natural right, here a man is not bound to follow providence, but to guide himself by Moral and Divine precepts: for divine precepts are perpetual standing laws, by which the actions of men ought to be guided: but Providential acts were never ordained for laws or rules by which men should walk; and therefore to such a right there is no subjection due: for Providential right may be given by God to the to the vilest person, in judgement to a nation on purpose to try them, that so, by such divil-worship and unlawful subjection that nation may fill up the measure of their iniquity, and God may destroy both them and their governors. We see this dreadful ensample written on the ten Tribes backs, in bloody Characters.  
3. There is a civil right, which in divers respects may be either human or divine. As for example: Cain had a civil right of domination; this civil right, it was in respect of its original, and the Author of it, divine: for God had ordered it so: but as descending from Adam the Monarch of the world, he had a right by succession; which right we call human right.  
Now a human right is either by Succession or Conquest, or Compact. To be brief, we affirm that Cesar had an human right by conquest, over the kingdom of Judea. That I call an human right, by conquest, which brings the whole Community, by an overawing power, to promise subjection to, and own the Authority of the Conqueror; whereupon the Conqueror promiseth them protection. This gives the Conqueror a human right and title: for he holds his title jure gentium & concessu gentium. The Learned well observe there are five sorts of Subjects: 1. Subjecti naturae. 2. Subjecti affectionum. 3. Subjecti fortunae. 4. Subjecti belli. 5. Subjecti ex compact. The Jews were Subjecti belli, to Nabuchadnezzar, who by Conquest subdued Zedekiah, and made him take an Oath of Allegiance not to rebel against him; the breaking of that Oath was rebellion, 2 Chron. 36. 13. Here Nabuchadnezzar's Conquest gave him a human right; otherwise there could be no rebellion against him. Now I prove the Jews were either subjecti affectionum, subjecti belli, or subjecti ex compacto, or all, to Cesar, by this Argument, If the chief Priests and the people owned no other King than Cesar; then Cesar, by the consent of the Priests and people, was their King, and they his subjects: But the chief Priests and the people owned none for their King but Cesar, John 19 12. the Jews cried out, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a King▪ speaketh against Cesar. Ver. 14. Pilate saith, Behold your King. Ver. 15. the chief Priests answered, We have no King but Cesar. Now I would fain know of the Doctor, what more Cesar could desire to make him King of the Jews by human right, than the consent of the high Priests and the people. So that Cesar had more than bare possession: for he had as much human right as both the chief Priests and the people could give him.  
3. The last position of the Doctor's we contradict, by affirming, that bare Possession without Right gives no true Title to any Power; neither is it ground for any people to subject to such a power. This my Position hath been already proved, by more learned Pens; therefore the less shall be said at this time; only we'll state what bare possession means rightly, by putting a right Case.  
We'll suppose that Eutopia's kingdom is governed by a King, whose power is measured by the laws of his kingdom, which are the rules of government: those laws are made not by the King alone, but by a Convention of to Estates who are joined in equal power with the King in making a Law: for those two Estates have Negative voices (which is their grand privilege) equal with the King: In this respect there is no Subordination in the three Estates sitting; for they are concauses of the same effect; which admits not of Subordination. Yet this King is Principium, Caput, & Finis Parliamenti: for he is Primus motor: he is created by none, nor chosen by none; but he creates the Lords, who make one of the two Estates which he assembles to him to make a Law: and the other, by virtue only of the King's Writs & Summons, are enabled to be chosen by the People, and sent up to the place mentioned in the King's Summons, there to consult de arduis Regni. This King hath power to continue or to dissolve a Parliament when he pleaseth; but this power he invests his Parliament with: which done, He and the Parliament differ; whereupon the King forsakes his Parliament; which by Law he cannot do, the Parliament sitting; for neither of the three Estates can depart upon any pretence from the other two, withoutt he joint consent of the whole: if either do, the other two will act, pro tempore, as if the third were present; because otherwise, through the obstinacy of one, the whole would run to ruin, by reason of the third's absence. This difference at last breaks into a Civil War betwixt the King and the two Estates: whereupon necessity enforceth the two Estates to lay hold on the King's Sword, the Militia, which was the King's undoubted Right; and the Parliament could not have touched it, had the King continued with them. The King complains that the Parliament takes away his right; the Parliament say the King's mistaken, and misled by evil Popish council; who under pretence of establishing him, seek his ruin, and the ruin of Religion, and the Parliament: they protest they intend not to take it from him, but secure it for him; which they may do, in time of such apparent danger: and to show their Loyalty, they voluntarily enter into a Solemn League and Covenant, to defend Religion, laws, Parliaments, and the King's Person, against Papists on the one hand, and Sectarians on the other hand. After they have thrown down the Papists party, who were the King and Parliaments Enemies on the one hand, up starts a subtle politic Religious Hypocrite, who by undermining and supplanting his betters, gets at last to have the power of the whole Militia of the kingdom in his hands: which, when he hath it, contrary to his former oaths, Vows, Protestations, and Covenant, all which he solemnly took in public, he lays violent hands on the King, allures by promises, and terrifies by threats the two Estates, who hereupon are divided: the timorous and guilty party fly to this Hypocrite, who presently engageth them to live and die with him: which done, by the power of his Sword he removes those that did oppose him, and puts in his own party, who vote what he commands them. This done, he claps up the King close prisoner, and then puts on his party to enforce him to resign his power: which the whole kingdom seeing, rise up in arms against this traitorous Hypocrite, and divert Him and his and party from proceeding in their intended design. Whereupon the two Estates assemble, and sit freely, and vote a Treaty with the King. The King yields to it, and signs the Propositions; especially these three. 1. To root out Popery. 2. To establish the Protestant Religion. 3. To give the power of the Militia to the Parliament. This the two Estates vote to be sufficient ground for the settling of the kingdom's Peace. Hereupon this aspiring Hypocritical traitor, persorce, pulls down those that voted this, and sets up again his own party, which were formerly engaged to him. Whereupon the secluded Members make this Protest: We the Knights, Commons, and Burgesses of the Parliament, above a hundred in number, being forcibly seized on and, kept by violence from sitting in the House, do, in our own, and the names of the Counties for which we serve, protest, to the kingdom, that (since the execrable force upon our Persons, against our Ordinances and Commands) all Acts or Votes, made or to be made during our restraint, are null and void: and all Assistants or Abettors in the same Treasonable armed violence, are hereby proclaimed open Enemies, and professed Perverters of the kingdom's privileges.  
Thus the third Estate protesteth: notwithstanding the pact party in the third Estate of the kingdom of Utopia sits by the power of the aspiring traitorous Hypocrite, who hath the power of the Militia throughout the Kingdom into his hands: these few proceed in their exorbitant and illegal courses, to destroy the chief of the three Estates; and for this end, desire the said Estate of Lords to join with them; which by the law of Nature they cannot do: for neither of the three Estates are capable of being attached as Estates: for, then two might join together to destroy any one of the three; and so the Government must necessarily, by its own power, be confounded. The Lords reject the motion: hereupon this pact party, by the power of the Sword, which now was wholly theirs, clap a Lock and a Guard upon the door of the House of the second Estate of Lords; and forthwith dubb themselves Kings, by voting these three Votes. 1. That the People are the original of just Power. 2. That the Commons are the supreme power of the Nation. 3. That whatsoever is declared by the House of Commons to be Law, hath the force of a Law. Against this the House of Lords, who are the second Estate in the Government of the kingdom, protest; as also against their violence in secluding them from sitting in the Parliament.  
This pact party proceed by their own power, and erect a Court, and appoint the men who shall sit, judge and condemn the King, who is the first Estate; who, upon the Scaffold where they behead him, protesteth, that would he have yielded to have given away his power, he needed not to have come there; but for the Government, laws, and Liberties of the kingdom, he there died a Martyr.  
Now in such a Case, where a whole kingdom is engaged by oaths, Vows, Protestations, and Covenants, to defend their lawful governors and Government all the days of their life; if such a party shall arise, and, contrary to their Vows, oaths, Protestations and Covenants, rise up against, overthrow, imprison, behead, and overtop the three Estates, all which three never resigned the least of their power, but all three openly protested against them as public enemies to the kingdom, and traitors; I say, in such a case, notwithstanding that party be in possession, and have suppressed the ancient Government of the kingdom, yet this gives them no just Title to the Government; neither doth it disengage people from their former Oaths to the ancient Government, nor oblige the People to subject to the Usurper. For if this should be true, that an Usurper that hath no right, but being in possession, ought therefore to be subjected to, than this must necessarily follow, that all resistance made against an Usurper, is Treason or Rebelion; and than the Priests, and the captains, and People, in 2 King. 11. who deposed Athaliah the Usurper, and set up the lawful heir the King's Son▪ in her stead, rebelled: but the Scripture doth not affirm anywhere that they were Rebels, or traitors, nor dares any sober-minded man affirm it.  
I shall say no more but this, (because I am unwilling to exceed or be tedious upon this Discourse) that he that shall affirm, that Obedience is due to an Usurper, because he is in possession of the Throne, affirms that, which, 1. Iscontrary to the Law of God; 2. To the Law of Nature; 3. He maintains a damnable sin.  
1. He opposeth the Law of God: for the fifth Commandment enjoins every man, Honour thy Father and thy Mother. Now an Usurper is he that deposeth and murthereth my Civil Father; and I am no more bound to obey him, than the natural Son is bound to observe him who murders his Father, on purpose to take possession of his family and estate: nor no more, than the Apostles were bound to obey Judas because he betrayed his Master; though he should have got Christ's Coat on after he had murdered him.  
Again, 'Tis contrary to that Commandment, Thou shalt not steal: for he that gives to an Usurper, that which is due to his lawful Magistrate, plainly robs his Magistrate of his due. S. Paul enjoins the Romans to pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due: but no Tribute is due, no nor Honour, to an Usurper, one that hath neither human nor Divine right. Indeed many times people have been forced to pay Tribute to an Usurper, and to sit silent under the Tyranny of Usurpers: but a forced subjection is so far from being an argument that subjection is due, that it proves the contrary.  
'Tis contrary to that Command, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour: for in subjecting voluntarily to an Usurper, the lawful Magistrate is slandered as a Tyrant and an Usurper, and the Tyrant and Usurper is honoured as a lawful Magistrate.  
'Tis also contrary to that Commandment, Thou shalt not kill: for in setting up and worshipping the Usurper, the Authority, Honour, and majesty of the lawful Magistrate is stifled, and killed; and, as Augustine saith, He that goeth about to destroy a King, as much as in him lies endeavours to dethrone God: for Kings are God's representatives on earth. But I shall bring the Fathers, anon, within the Ordinance of speaking Treason.  
2. 'Tis contrary to the law of Nature: for Justice which is the Queen of Nature's Laws, bids me Suum cuique tribuere, give to every one his due. It forbids me to give that to the Servant which is due to the Master; it forbids me to set the Foot where the Head should be, and the Head where the Foot should be. Solomon observed this as a great evil which he saw; Princes on foot, and Servants on horseback. If that were so great an evil, what would he have said, if he had seen Princes heads on the block, and their sworn servants, yea, those that were scarce worthy to eat with the dogs of their flock, judging and condemning their Master's heads to be cut off! This sin is so much against the light of Nature, that the Ravens of the field shall pick out his eyes that is so presumptuous as to behold such iniquity with approbation. But this sin and great evil, even against Nature, are they guilty of, who shall yield subjection and obedience to those who are such Usurpers; inasmuch as they allow of all their actions, and justify their authority.  
3. 'Tis a damnable sin to subject to Usurpers, who have no Right but bare Possession; because, they that so subject themselves, resist the powers that are ordained of God, Rom. 13. 2. and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. Now he that subjects to an Usurper, who in the sight of all the world, hath, by Treason against the Higher Powers, got possession of the Throne, consents to, and allows of the evil of the Usurper, and so comes into the same condemnation with him. If under the Law, (Lev. 20. 9) He that cursed his Father was surely to be put to death; of how much greater judgement is he worthy, who shall crucify his Civil Parents, the Parents of the kingdom; who shall presume to make, by his Rebellion and Treason, a whole kingdom fatherless! This sin of Rebellion is so abominable, that in one place 'tis put in the balance with witchcraft, to show that Witches and Rebels, as they are two abominable parties in a kingdom, so they are fittest to be linked together: They are fit Companions; the one renounceth his Allegiance to God, and the other renounceth his Allegiance to God's Vicegerent, to his sovereign. In Deuteronom. 27. vers. 16. the second Curse to which all the People were to say Amen, was this; Cursed be he that setteth light by his Father and Mother: This is put next to the Curse of the Idolater, to show, that Rebellion against a lawful Magistrate, is next to Rebellion against the Sacred Majesty of God himself.  
Now if Rebellion be so great sin in those that act it, How much greater is their sin that set up such Rebels in the Throne, and, by subjecting to them, give them the Honour due to those they murdered and dethroned! If God doth say, Thou shalt not suffer a murderer to live; that God saith, Thou shalt not exalt and magnify that murderer.  
I shall conclude all, with Revel. 13. vers. 4. where Christ himself styles those that subject to an usurped power, Worshippers of the Dragon. Verse. 1. The Beast of the Sea, that is, a Beast rising out of the Church; that is, say learned Interpreters, the Government by Popes. verse. 2. The Popes got to their greatness by subtlety, and murder, and Treason; by dethroning their lawful Masters, the Roman Emperors. verse. 3. All the World wondered after this Beast; that is, the greatest part of the Western Empire subjected to the Pope; and this subjection to the Pope, that Grand Usurper, is called, (verse. 4.) Devil-worship; And they worshipped the Dragon; and why the Dragon? Because he gave power to the Beast. Usurpers have not the power from God, but from the Devil; and he that subjects to an Usurper, subjects to the Devil.  
Now as for that man that dares presume to preach for subjection to Usurpers, and bring our blessed Lord and Saviour for an example, I pity that man, and wish him hearty and speedy repentance, before that God whom he hath blasphemed by a lie, fall upon him.  
FINIS.