Loyalty and Peace, Discourse 2 (1 of 2)

Loyalty and Peace · Discourse 2 (1 of 2)

p. 89The Second Diſcourſe.

NOw Reader if thou art only for Practical Divinity, ſtop here and go no further; for I confeſs to thee what remains will be partly Polemical, partly Political; being ſuch as the ſolemnity of the 30th day of January, and the occaſion of the Faſt of that day doth call for: For methinks, if I may preſume to know the Whiſpers of Mens Hearts, I hear ſome prejudiced Perſons object and ſay, What cauſe hath any Mans Conſcience to ſmite him for having been concerned in the Death of King Charles the Firſt? Why is he called a Martyr? or why his Judges called Murtherers? So many of them as died upon the account of that Fact?

Now why ſhould I be thought uncharitable, for imagining this to be the lauguage of ſome Mens Hearts, ſince David ſaith, Pſal. 36.1. The tranſgreſſion of the wicked ſaith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes; (there taking upon him to judge the p. 90Root in their hearts, by the fruit in their lives) there being ſo greata foundation in the practices of ſome men to judge ſo of their hearts: Namely, That they think the King no Martyr, nor his Judges no Murtherers. Nay what if ſome do think, That they were the true Martyrs, who ſuffer'd for putting the King to death. This will be more eaſie for any man to believe, if he ſhall but conſider that not one of all thoſe men that were condemned and executed for giving Sentence againſt the late King of Bleſſed Memory, would ever acknowledge that he had ſinned againſt God in ſo doing. Since they did ſeem to be of that mind, who had the Microſcope of Death before them (which I ſo call, becauſe death oft makes men ſpy ſmall faults in themſelves, who before could not eſpy great ones.) Doubtleſs there are many others of the ſame mind, though a man would wonder that there ſhould be ſuch a vail of ignorance upon the hearts of any that are called Chriſtians, as not to know ſo black and foul a Crime as that to be a ſin. But ſith ſo it is, that ſome if they durſt, would rather applaud that Bloody Fact than profeſs to abhor it; and would not doubt to ſay, That Miniſters in obſerving the Thirtieth day of January as a p. 91ſolemn Faſt, do but mock God and flatter the State; being a time which ſome had rather keep as a day of Thanksgiving (the more their Sin and Shame) I think it but neceſſary, not in order to kindling of Coals or increaſing Animoſities, or cauſing the ſurviving relations of the Kings Judges to be more hated and ſcorned; for God knows I abhor any ſuch thing: remembring what Amaziah did, Who put to death thoſe that ſlew his Father, but he ſlew not their Children; but did as it is written in the Book of Moſes: viz. Deuter. 24.16. where the Lord commanded, ſaying, the father ſhall not die for the children, neither ſhall the children die for their fathers; but every man ſhall die for his own ſin; 2 Chron. 25.4. I ſay not in order to fixing any odium or diſgrace upon the ſurvivors, but purely to convince as many as ſtand in need of it; that Miniſters and People may and ought to obſerve the Thirtieth of January as an Anniverſary Faſt. Yea, and that our Rulers do well in appointing it ſo to be kept, in order to bewailing and ſeeking the expiation of a moſt notorious Sin; and fetching out the ſtain of Royal Blood. I ſay in order thereunto, I hold it neceſſary and a Duty, to ſet a Mirror before the Eyes of Men, in p. 92which they may ſee the true viſage and complexion of that horrid Crime, which God grant may never more be laid to Englands charge. Know then if either Perjury, High Treaſon, Rebellion, Sacriledge, Wilful and deliberate Murther, Parricide, or the killing of a Father, Patricide, or the ruining of our Native Countrey. Juſticidium, or taking away the life of a Juſt Perſon. Regnicidium, or the deſtroying of a Kingdom. Monarchicidium or the deſtruction of Monarchy it ſelf; Legicidium, or the ſubverſion of Laws; Suicid…um, or a mans killing of himſelf, or being Felo d… ſe; Animaecidium, Soul-murther, ſo far as in men is; Multicidium, or the Murthering of many at once, both as to body and ſoul, if Gods mercy prevent not; yea, Deicidium, or ſtriking at the life of God himſelf; (in a higher ſenſe than moſt other ſins are ſaid to do) I ſay if all theſe things put together, do amount to a very great and ſtupendious ſin; then ſuch a ſin it was to put King Charles the Firſt to death.

And now you ſee, I have not charged the Kings Judges with Cumulative Treaſon (or many Petty Treaſons, or Non Treaſons, pretended when they were all put together, to amount to High Treaſon) for High Treaſon p. 93it ſelf is but one Article in this Charge.

Now it remains that ſo great a Charge as this, ſhould be proved againſt them. And had I not been conſcious of its being eaſie to be proved, I would never have exhibited it, for fear of violating the Ninth Commandment.

Firſt Article of this Charge is Perjury, for I do aver that they who ſentenced the King to death, did in ſo doing horribly violate the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, as alſo the Solemn League and Covenant (though an Oath of their own impoſing) wherein they ſwore to preſerve the Kings life and honour, &c. And as many of them as were his Majeſties Servants (as ſome ſuch there were) did alſo break the particular Oath which they had taken as ſuch; and thus breaking four Oaths at once, may be ſaid to be ſhod round with Perjury.

Some it may be would have added, that they had alſo violated their Baptiſmal Vow and Oath, and as many Repetitions and Confirmations of it, as they had made in receiving the holy Euchariſt; becauſe by thoſe two Sacramental Vows, all other Duties are bound upon men, and conſequently the obſervation of all our lawful p. 94Promiſſory Oaths; but I need not ſtrain ſo far to find out Aggravations of ſo Notorious a Fact.

Secondly, My Charge againſt theſe men i… that of High Treaſon. It is Petty Treaſon for a Woman to kill her own Husband, though but a private man, and what petty Sovereigns are private men compared with Princes? 'Tis Treaſon by our Laws barely to imagine the death of the King, Queen, or Prince, yea to kill the Chancellor, Treaſurer, or any Juſtice of either Bench; Juſtices of Aſſize, or any other Justices doing their Offices; is by the Statute declared to be High Treaſon. Statut. de Proditionibus, 25 E. 3. Stat. 5. cap. 2. Yea it is Petty Treaſon for a ſervant to kill his Master, &c. Nay clipping, craſhing, rounding, or fileing for lucre ſake any of the Peoples Moneys or Coyns of this Realm, is adjudged High Treaſon; Stat. 5 Eliz. 11.

Is the Kings Money as it were inviolable, and not to be clipped or diminiſhed, but upon pain of death: and is not his perſon ſo? In a Statute 13 Car. 2. cap. 1. it is thus ſaid, It ſhall be Treaſon in any perſons whatſoever to compaſs, imagine, invent, deviſe, or intend death or any bodily harm, maim, or wounding, impriſonment, or restraint of the p. 95perſon of the King, &c. If to maim or impriſon his perſon be Treaſon, what is it then to put him to death?

But methinks I hear ſome ſay, Though the Laws of England do puniſh Treaſon as a great and capital Crime, yet poſſibly it is not ſo in the eye of Gods Law? Now though every Breach of Gods Commandment be a ſin, yet poſſibly there are ſome Laws of Men that may be broken without ſin. To that I reply the ſinful Laws of Men are better broke than kept. Such as was Nebuchadnezzar's, when he commanded all people to fall down and worſhip the Golden Image that he had ſet up; Dan. 3.5. Such alſo was Darius his, Dan. 6.7. when he made a Decree, That whoſoever ſhould ask a Petition of any God or man, ſave of the King, for thirty dayes; ſhould be cast into a Den of Lyons. Such alſo were the Statutes of Omry, Micah 6.16. But no man can imagine that thoſe Laws are ſinful, by which the lives and liberties of Princes as well as of the People, are ſecured to them. Now moſt certain it is that Humane Laws, when lawful, can never be violated without ſin, or without doing that which is in the ſight of God as well as of men unlawful.

p. 96I think at preſent of no leſs than fir… Commandments of the Second Table which were broken by thoſe who put King Charl… the First to death (viz.) firſt of all the Fif… Commandment, in theſe words, Honour the father and thy mother; for Kings are Poli… cal Fathers: and to kill them, is as … from honouring them as any thing can be Secondly, It was a manifeſt violation of the Sixth Commandment, which ſaith, The… ſhalt not kill. Thirdly, of the Eighth Commandment alſo, which ſaith, Thou ſhalt … steal. For was not the language of the… hearts who put the King to death, the ſame with that of their mouths, Mat. 21.38. who ſaid of our Saviour, Come … us kill him, and let us ſeize on his inheritance Witneſs Cooks Confeſſion, viz. That what be did in reference to the Kings death, was not … of malice but covetouſneſs; not out of hatred to the King, but for the love of money. Habet… confitentem reum. The Ninth Commandment, which is, Thou ſhalt not bear falſe witneſs, &c. was as manifestly tranſgreſſed by thoſe who had a hand in that good Kings death, as any of the former. For without the horrible breach of that Commandment, it had been utterly impoſſible for them by a pretended High Court of Justice, and ſeemingly formal p. 97proceſs of Law (or rather Pageantry of Judicature) to have ſentenced ſo excellent a Prince to die the death of a Malefactor. 'Tis not yet forgotten what one or more ſaid of hm, when the pit was digging, and the net ſpreading, for the life of the late renowned King, viz. Blacken him, blacken him; meaning, Calumniare fortiter ut aliquid haereat; i. e. Brand him, ſmut him, make him odious; lay thoſe things to his charge which he never did: repreſent him (for ſo did Cook, that was Solicitor againſt him in his printed charge) as bad almoſt as was Nero himſelf; or as they did our Saviour, John 7.20. The People ſaid thou haſt a Devil, &c. i. e. Thou art poſſeſt, Satan hath fill'd thy heart and body both; thou keepeſt a familiar one or more, and doeſt caſt out Devils by Belzebub the Prince of Devils. Sith this was done to the green dry, wonder not at what was done to the dry. I am confident Jezebel did not more falſely accuſe Naboth of Blaſphemy, in the high Court of Juſtice, which ſhe procured againſt him, than was his Majeſty of famous memory, accuſed in the things that were laid to his charge; ſome of which were ſo horrid (the more horrid and execrable the guilt of his accuſers) as nothing could be more.

p. 98If our proverb be true, about loſing a good name, He that wholly takes away the good name, though but of a private perſon, though he do nothing more, does worſe than behead him. What then have they done, or wherewithal ſhall their Crime be expiated, who did not only take away the Head of an excellent Prince, one of a thouſand, but his good name alſo (as much as in them lay) and did not only extinguiſh his Life and Light, but endeavoured to make him go out in a ſnuff, and leave a loathſome ſtench behind him; which maugre all their malice God hath converted into a ſweet odor; and now he who had no Funeral Sermon on the day he was Buried, hath hundreds, that may be ſo called, preached anniverſally on the day of his Death, viz. each 30 day of January, and his name imbalmed a-freſh on every ſuch day, and like to be ſo to all poſterity.

Laſtly, If their Treaſon, who imbrued their hands in the Blood of the late King, were not attended with the breach of the Tenth Commandment no ſin ever was. This horrid Murther and Treaſon, was certainly one branch ſpringing from that bitter root Covetouſneſs; which the Apoſtle calleth the root of all evel; p. 99and if of all evils, ſurely of this for one. They thought the Life of a King in an ill ſenſe more worth than the lives of ten thouſand of his Subjects; I mean a better prey, a greater booty, of which they could make more earnings and greater advantage to themſelves than of ten thouſand other Lives. They would have ſaid of a common man, Quid laudis in nece tantillae beſtiae? He had not been worth the beheading, what ſhould they get by his death? But doubtleſs they had well computed what was to be gotten by the death of their King. He had Fields and Vineyards. They knew how to part the Skin of a royal Lyon if he were but once dead: they would be his Executioners (as it were) that they might make themſelves his Executors, I mean ſerve themſelves of his Revenues, and cauſe him to die that they might live more ſplendidly. The Flowers and Jewels of one Royal Crown are ſufficient to enrich (though with a vengeance) many private Families. That by their own confeſſion ſome of them aimed at, and doubtleſs ſo did the reſt or moſt of them that did never confeſs it. Was it not the wedge of Gold, I mean the Kings Revenues, and that which they called A Babyloniſh Garment, p. 100viz. The Lands of Biſhops, Deans and Chapters, which thoſe Achans, thoſe Troublers, of Iſrael long'd for, and made their way to, through the Blood of their King? So Judas for the lucre of 30 pieces betrayed his Lord and Maſter. Now if that be not a great ſin which breaks five Commandments at once, let the World judge.

And ſo I paſs on to my Third Aggravation, of their ſin who Murthered King Charles the Firſt, It was flat and down-right Rebellion, open and palpable Rebellion. In what can a Son more rebel againſt his Father, than if he ſeek to take away his Life, yea do actually murther him? Now Kings are as well Political Fathers to their Subjects de facto, as they are Nurſing Fathers de jure. Yea ſuch Political Fathers are much more ſuperior to their Political, than Natural Fathers are to their Natural Children. Sons if abroad in the World and at full age, are not indecently ſuffered to be covered in the preſence of their Fathers; but may ordinary Subjects be ſo in the preſence of their King? If then Kings be unqueſtionable Fathers to their Subjects, and of an order of Fatherhood ſuperior to thoſe who begat them, then whatſoever is Rebellion in Children againſt their Natural Fathers, p. 101the ſame thing if againſt their King is as true and as great, yea greater Rebellion, Ex parte objecti: Now the Scriptare calls it Rebellion in a Son, but to reſiſt and refuſe the lawful Commands of his Father, Deut. 21.18. If a Man have a ſtubborn and rebellious Son, which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they have chaſtened him, will not hearken to them: There you have a Rebel againſt his Natural Parents de facto, viz. A Child that will not obey or hearken to the voice of his Father, or of his Mother: And his Puniſhment is ſet down, v. 21. All the men of his City ſhall ſtone him with ſtones that he die. Is Diſobedience in a Child to the lawful Commands, not only of a Father but of a Mother, Rebellion, and ſuch as God appointed to be puniſhed with death, and ſuch a death too as is there deſcribed, viz. Then ſhall his Father and his Mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the Elders of his City, and unto the Gate of his Place; and they ſhall ſay unto the Elders of his City, This our Son is ſtubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, &c. v. 19, 20. Where firſt of all his own Parents were to be his accuſers, yea as it were the Conſtables that were charg'd with him p. 102to bring him before the Magiſtrates and give evidence againſt him, declaring his Crime, viz. ſaying, This our Son is ſtubborn and rebellious, a glutton and a drunkard: Then his own Countreymen or Townſmen, here called the Elders of his City, were to be his Judges, and to give ſentence againſt him, and that ſentence of Death, and that the Death of a Dog, viz. to be ſtoned, and that ſtoning by the hand not of one ſtrange Executioner, but by the hands of Countreymen or fellow-townſmen, every one of which did or might fling a ſtone at him; ſo at once giving him, both his death and burial, and killing him, as it were, by burying him; that is, by burying him alive under a heap of Stones. This Puniſhment did the Law of God award for rebelling but againſt the Commands of a private Father or Mother; even death and ſuch a death. If he that rebelled but againſt the majeſty of a private Father or Mother were ſo puniſhed, ſurely we may allude to what David ſpoke to Doeg, Pſal. 120. What ſhall be given unto thee? or what ſhall be done unto thee thou falſe Tongue?? who rebelleſt againſt the Majeſty of a King; ſharp arrows of the Almighty with Coals of Juniper, as it is v. 4. Nay beyond all this, if to rebel againſt p. 103the Will and Command of a private Parent were made a capital Crime, how much more than capital (if a man had any thing dearer to him than life to loſe) might it juſtly be made to rebel againſt the very Life of a King, and our own King? Hear the Prophet aggravating the ſin of Rebellion 1 Sam. 15.23. And Samuel ſaid, Rebellion is as the ſin of Witchcraft, and Stubbornneſs is as Iniquity and Idolatry. Now whereas ſome may object that that is ſpoken of Saul's Rebellion againſt God, not of any Subjects Rebellion againſt him (which is very true) yet for as much as they who rebel againſt the lawful Commands of their lawful Rulers, in ſo doing do rebel againſt God, whoſe Vicegerents they are, whoſe Image they bear, by whom Kings Reign; and who are called The ordinance of God, Rom: 13.2. Hence may they be ſaid to be guilty of Idolatry or Witchcraft, or what is as bad, who rebel againſt their lawful Commands; but a thouſand times more who rebel againſt the Lives of Gods anointed ones; I mean of thoſe Kings whom God hath ſet over them.

Then let no Man ſay Rebellion is no ſin, unleſs he think that Idolatry and Witchcraft be no ſins neither. Why do we read of p. 104thoſe who periſhed in the gainſaying (i. e. in the Rebellion) of Core, Jude 11. if Rebellion be no great ſin? Core and his Complices were a ſort of Rebellious Levellers, or Levelling Rebels, attempting to overthrow the Government both of Church and State, as appeareth by their foreign, their gainſaying or contradicting and murmuring againſt both Moſes and Aaron; and ſee what came of them, v. 32. The earth opened her mouth and ſwallowed them up and their houſes, and all the men that appertained to Corah, and all their Goods. What had Corah, Dathan, and Abiram done? Had they cut off the Head of Moſes and of Aaron? no ſuch matter, They had only opened their mouths againſt them, and talkt at ſuch a rate as if they had been as good men as they themſelves; and for that did the Earth open its mouth upon them, They and all that appertained to them went down alive, into the Pit, and the Earth cloſed upon them and they periſhed from the Congregation, v. 33. Which words give me fit occaſion to mention what he, whom ſome have called Our Engliſh Seneca, meaning Maſter of the Sentences, ſaith to this purpoſe, Vengeance againſt Rebels may ſleep, it cannot die. A ſure if late judgment attends thoſe that dare to lift up p. 105either the hand or tongue againſt the ſacred perſons of Gods Vicegerents: Nay hear what a greater than he ſaith, Rom. 13.1, 2. The Powers that be are ordained of God, whoſoever therefore reſiſteth the Power reſiſteth the ordinance of God, and they that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation.

Now the word foreign (here tranſlated damnation) is put in many places, not only for Judgment, as ſome would mince the matter, but for Gods eternal wrath and vengeance. So Luke 20.47. Acts 24.25. Rom. 2.2. Heb. 6.2. 2 Pet. 2.3. 1 Cor. 11.29. See Dr. Hammond.

Thus having proved Perjury, High Treaſon, and Rebellion, againſt thoſe who had their hands in murthering of King Charles the Firſt, I come in the fourth place to lay Sacriledge to their charge; of which I ſhall eaſily prove them as guilty as of the three former. Now that word Sacriledge is no ſooner dropt from my Pen, but I ſancy that at the firſt ſight thereof ſome there are that will forthwith charge Superſtition upon me, for uſing it; looking upon that which we call Sacriledge, or upon the notion of Sacriledge, as a meer Chimaera or Ens rationis; a Bugbear to ſcare Children. For their opinion is that there p. 106are but fours ſort of Holy things in the World, viz. 1. The Holy God, Trinity in Ʋnity, &c. 2. Holy Angels and Archangels. 3. Holy Men and Women, or Saints Triumphant in Heaven, and Militant upon Earth. 4. Holy Ordinances of God, ſuch as Prayer, Preaching, Sacraments, &c. Now it is very true, if we ſpeak concerning the Holineſs of Things, nothing but the Ordinances of God, if ye take that word in the largeſt ſenſe, viz. for Things ordained and inſtituted of God, as holy ſeparate and devoted to himſelf are holy; (for God is the Fountain of all kind of holineſs as Kings are of all temporal honours.) But the great miſtake of theſe who make nothing of Sacriledge, yea who deſpiſe the word Sacriledge, lies here; by God Ordinances, they underſtand nothing but Scriptures, Praying, Preaching, Hearing, Reading, Singing of Pſalms, Sacraments, &c. Theſe indeed are Ordinances of God, but whatſoever elſe is of Gods ordinaing and appointing, as ſet a part or devoted to himſelf, is Gods Ordinances Alſo: Civil Power and Authority, is called the Ordinance of God, Rom. 13.2. becauſe ordained of God, v. 1. and therefore ſurely it is in a ſenſe ſacred, becauſe one of Gods Ordinances. p. 107Upon that account it was that the Ark of God, though but a piece of Wood, was called Holy, and that we do read ſo often of Holy days, the Sabbath and other feſtivals; yea of holy places, yea of the holy of holies, or moſt holy place (which was the inmoſt Temple (called the Sanctuary) and that Jeruſalem is called the Holy City. Alſo of the Holy Veſſels that were in the Tabernacle, 1 Kings 8.4. And of the Holy Garments made for Aaron and his Sons, Exod. 28.3. and 29.29. Hence the Prieſts and Sons of Aaron are ſaid to be Holy to God, by vertue of their Office, Levit. 21.8. Yea hence thoſe words, Levit. 25.12. It is the Jubile, it ſhall be holy unto thee. i. e. it ſhall be obſerved as a thing of Gods ordaining, and therefore inviolaible and ſacred.

Now in this ſenſe it may be truly nnd ſoberly ſaid of all Kings, as ſuch, that they are ſacred, viz. Becauſe the Powers that are are, ordained of God, and cannot be reſiſted but upon pain of damnation, becauſe they are the Ordinance of God, Rom. 13.2.

Now Sacriledge being the violation of ſacred things (for that all Scholars know to be the true notion of it) and the Perſons and Authority of Kings being ſacred (as p. 108hath been proved at large) they muſt need… be guilty of notorious Sacriledge, who not only deſpiſed the Authority, but deſtroyed the very Life of that excellent King of whom we have been ſpeaking.

But there is one cauſe more of mens deſpiſing the great ſin of Sacriledge and making nothing of it, viz. A great miſtake which they are and have been under, as touching the holineſs of Perſons, viz. That they know and acknowledge no holineſs of Perſons, but that which the Scripture intends, when it ſaith, without holineſs no man ſhall ſee God: Whereas moſt evident it is, both from the Old and New Teſtament, that Perſons are very often called holy upon a much more laxe, large and looſe account. Ex. gr. 1. Ʋpon account of being dedicated, though not by themſelves to God, yet by God to himſelf, to his own uſe and honour, Luke 2.23. Every Male that openeth the Womb ſhall be called holy unto the Lord. Surely that is not meant of a ſaving but of a ceremonial Holineſs, of a typical rather than of a ſubſtantial Holineſs. 2. Ʋpon account of Gods external Adoption of a people to the title and outward priviledges of his Children and Holy ones. Hence it is ſaid of the Jews or Jewiſh Nation, though it were not ſavingly p. 109true of all or of the moſt of them, 1 Pet. 2.9. Ye are a choſen Generation, a holy Nation, a peculiar People, &c. The reaſon of which Apellation is, becauſe they were Iſraelites, to whom pertained the Adoption and the Glory, and the Covenants, &c. Rom. 9.4. Not ſo far forth, as that all of them were thereby finally ſav'd, but only put into a much better capacity for Salvation than others were who did not enjoy the ſame priviledges. 3. Ʋpon account of meer profeſſion and outward appearance, men are often called in Scripture Holy and Saints (which is all one, &c.) So 1 Theſ. 5.27. Let this Epiſtle be read to all the Holy Brethren. So he calls the whole Church. So Heb. 3.1. Wherefore Holy Brethren, partakers of the Heavenly Calling, &c. So we find the word Saints ſcattered ſo freely, and us'd ſo commonly in Saint Pauls Epiſtles, that we may reſt aſſured it is not there applied to them only who are Saints indeed. Rom. 12.13. Diſtribute to the neceſſity of the Saints, i.e. Of all poor perſons profeſſing the Chriſtian Religion, for they could not ſearch or judge of their hearts, Rom. 15.25.26. Rom. 16.15. With innumerable other Texts to the ſome purpoſe. 4. Ʋpon the account of federal Holineſs, are they called Holy who p. 110are not all ſo in ſtrictneſs of ſpeaking, or i… relation to eternal Life. So 1 Cor. 7.14. Th… unbelieving Husband is ſanctified (or rendre… holy) by the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is ſanctified by the Husband, elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy; meaning federally (not ſavingly) holy; as the unbelieving Wife is ſaid to be ſanctified by her Husband, not ſavingly (for ſo many never are) but federally. 5ly. and laſtly, Perſons may be called ſacred upon the account of their being inviolable, or ſuch as do not lie open and expoſed ſo as common perſons do, but there is a noli me tangere upon them; Touch not, handle not, hurt not to be ſure: Touch not mine annointed, and do my Prophets no harm. So the Feaſt of Jubile was called Holy, becauſe inviolable, Lev. 25. Now though none but religious and godly Kings be holy, ſo as is meant when the Scripture ſaith, Without holineſs none ſhall ſee God; yet every King profeſſing the Chriſtian Religion is ſacred upon the five accounts laſt rehearſed, and in a peculiar manner upon the laſt of them, viz. As being more inviolable and unapproachable for the matter of hurting, more guarded from the violence of men, by the ſacredneſs of his Office and Supremacy of his Condition, than Subjects p. 111are. Yea and upon one accompt more, 6ly. …ings and Rulers as they have more of the Image and Stamp of God, in point of Authority, therefore called Gods in Scripture, and they are ſet apart by God for his more eſpecial ſervice, as his Deputies and Vicegerents upon earth, may and ought to be counted ſacred perſons. Now being Sacred, the injury done to ſuch, eſpecially the deſtroying of theirlives, may very fitly be ſtiled Sacriledge. Now when I have ſpoken to two things more, viz. 1. That Sacriledge is a very great ſin; and 2. That this Regicide was very great Sacriledge: I ſhall diſmiſs this 4th Article, and proceed to another.

May not the heavy judgments of God inflicted for Sacriledge, be alledged as a great proof of the hainouſneſs of that ſin; for though God hath now and then ſignally puniſhed ſins ſeemingly but ſmall (yet it is poſſible they might be really much greater, all things conſidered, than we know of) yet ordinarily they are great and hainous ſins, for which God viſiteth men with great and heavy Puniſhments. And ſuch are the Judgments which God hath inflicted for Sacriledge, witneſs Mal. 3.9. Ye are curſed with a curſe; for ye have robbed me, even this whole Nation, Witneſs alſo what we read p. 112touching Eli and his Sons, 1 Sam. 2.25. When Hophni and Phineas took away pa… of the Fleſh which the People brought fo… offerings, to roſt for themſelves, Eli th… expoſtulated with them: If one man ſin against another, the Judge ſhall judge him, b… if a man ſin againſt the Lord, who ſhall entreat for him? Where their Sacriledge i… ſpoken of as ſo great a ſin, and ſo immediately againſt God, that they would find it hard to get any body to intercede for them (though in Law-ſuits betwixt man and man, Advocates and Council (a… they are called) are allowed on both ſides:) In Jer. 7.16. God ſaid to Jeremy, Pray no… you for this People, neither make interceſſion to me, for I will not hear thee. And in Exod. 32.10. The Lord ſaid to Moſes, let me alone that my wrath may waxe hot againſt them, and that I may conſume them. Now Eli ſpoke to his Sons, as if their ſin had made God ſo angry, that he ſcarce knew what mortal man would dare to intercede for them, or be ſuffered by God to ſtand in the gap. Yea the following words are very ſevere, viz. Notwithſtanding they hearkened not to the voice of their Father, becauſe the Lord would ſlay them, i. e. God was ſo provoked by their liquoriſh Sacriledge, p. 113that he was reſolved not to prevent their ruin by any ſpecial interpoſure of his Grace, nor yet to put their Father upon what further means he might have uſed for the reclaiming of them, viz. By hard blowes, inſtead of ſoft words: Yea ſo angry was God with Eli's Sons for their Sacriledge, that it reached not their heads only, but alſo run down upon the Skirts of their Father Eli for not puniſhing of them at an othergueſs rate, than his tender over-indulgent heart had ſuffered him to do; becauſe he ſmote them not as with Rods, God ſmote him and his as with Scorpions, 1 Sam. 2.34. This ſhall be a ſign unto thee that ſhall come upon thy two Sons, on Hophny and Phineas; in one day they ſhall die both of them; v. 31. There ſhall not be an old man in thine Houſe, v. 36. Every one that is left in thy Houſe ſhall crouch for a piece of Silver and for a Morſel of Bread, and ſhall ſay, Put me into one of the Prieſts Offices that I may eat a piece of Bread. Theſe were the things which God bid Samuel foretell old Eli, 1 Sam. 3.11. I will do a thing in Iſrael, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it ſhall tingle: I will perform againſt Eli all that I have ſpoken, &c. Nay in this caſe the All-merciful God ſeemed to be inexorable; I have ſworn that the Iniquity p. 114of Eli's Houſe ſhall not be purged with ſacrifices or offering for ever, v. 14. All theſe paſſages of Gods ſevere animadverting upon the Sacriledge of Eli's Sons, may bring to remembrance what Biſh. Hall ſaith in his Contemplations p. 19. Neither is Achan alone call'd forth to death, but all his Family, all his Subſtance: The Actor alone doth not ſmart with Sacriledge; all that concerns him is enwrapped in the Judgment. Thoſe that defile their hands with holy goods, are enemies to their own Fleſh and Blood.

But let us look a little farther into the ſtory of Achan that great Warning-piece ſhot off by God to make the World for ever afraid of Sacriledge. Eli and his Houſe ſped ill by reaſon of that ſin, but Achan and his Family ſped worſe upon that account, if worſe can be. 'Tis the eaſieſt thing that can be to prove that Sacriledge was the ſin for which ſo great and ſudden deſtruction befel Achan and all that did belong to him, witneſs Joſh. 6 17. And the City (meaning Jericho) ſhall be accurſed, i. e. a cherem, an foreign, or devoted it and all that are therein to the Lord. v. 19. All the Silver and Gold and Veſſels of Braſs and Iron, are conſecrated to the Lord, they ſhall come into the Treaſury of the Lord. Now to rob God of that or any part of that which he p. 115had ſo ſolemnly ſet a part for himſelf, was as plain Sacriledge as ever was. Hear Achan confeſſing againſt himſelf, Joſh. 7.20, 21. Achan anſwered and ſaid, I have ſin'd againſt the Lord, and thus have I done; when I ſaw amongſt the Spoils a goodly Babyloniſh Garment, and 200 ſhekels of Silver, and a wedge of Gold of 50 ſhekels weight, then I coveted them and took them, &c. Theſe were the things which he had ſacrilegiouſly ſtoln, but how did they thrive with him? what did he get by robbing God? See v. 24. And Joſhua and all Iſrael took Achan and the Silver, and the Garment, and the wedge of Gold, and his Sons and his Daughters, and his Oxen, and his Aſſes, and his Sheep, and his Tent, and all that he had, v. 25. And all Iſrael ſtoned him with ſtones, and burned them with fire, after they had ſtoned him with ſtones. So highly was God provoked by that ſin of his, that not only his own life muſt go for it, but alſo the lives of his Sons and Daughters (O overflowing guilt) yea his very dumb Cattle, his Oxen, Aſſes, and Sheep (and what had they done, or what was their crime, ſave that they were the ſervants of ſo bad and Sacrilegious a Maſter?) yea into the ſame flames were thrown his Babyloniſh Garment, nay his Silver p. 116and his wedge of Gold (as if it had been ſaid, Thy money periſheth with thee) yea … if one ſort of death had not been enough fo… ſo great an offender, he was both ſton… and burned, he and his; and as if every man had been bound to have been h… Executioner, or had an ambition ſo to be the text ſaith, All Iſrael ſtoned them a… burned them with fire, v. 25. Every hone… man had a ſtone to fling at a Sacrilegio… Perſon, but Iſrael was particularly pr… voked ſo to deal with Achan, for his ſ… had proved a general Calamity; on whi… Biſhop Hall thus deſcants, Only one Acha… troubles the peace, and his ſin is imputed … Iſrael. The innocence of ſo many thouſa… Iſraelites is not ſo forcible to excuſe his one ſi… as his one ſin is to taint all Iſrael. When the… went againſt Ai, the wedge of Achan di… more fight againſt them than all the ſwords … the Canaanites. How common a peſt Acha… had been, you may gather from Joſh. 7.2… Joſhua ſaid (to Achan) Why haſt thou tro… bled us, the Lord ſhall trouble thee this day, &c.

How much Joſhuah and the reſt of Iſrae… were troubled by means of Achans ſin, you may read Joſh. 7. v. 5, 6, &c. Lord wha… monſter of a ſin is Sacriledge, that a little of it, whereof but one man neither wa… p. 117perſonally guilty, ſhould trouble a whole Nation (and turn it into a valley of A…cor?) Is this the ſin that a few years ſince was ſo much ſlighted and reckoned for no ſin at all? Is this that Zoar to which ſo many thouſands of profeſſors fled, not thirty years ago, and ſaid, Their Souls ſhould live? Was not this that foul ſpot, of which in thoſe days men were no more aſhamed than women are of wearing black patches? Did not many of them who ſeemed moſt zelouſly to abhor Idols, give occaſion to be askt that queſtion which St. Paul puts, Rom. 2.22. Thou that abhoreſt Idols, doſt thou commit Sacriledge?

But of all the Sacriledge committed in thoſe days, give me leave to ſay, that of robbing King Charles the Firſt of his Life, God and his People of ſo good a King, was certainly the greateſt. It muſt always be granted that Perſons are more excellent than Things; the leaſt of Perſons are to be prefer'd before the beſt of Things, the Life of a Man above Silver and Gold, Houſes and Lands; for (all that a man hath would he give for his life) one ſaith, There is more excellency in a Flie, becauſe it has Life, than in the Son becauſe it has none: Of all Thieves Menſtealers are the worſt called, 1 Tim. 1.10. p. 118foreign. Now the Men-ſtealers her ſpoken of, were ſuch as ſtole Children … make Slaves of them, or to ſell them ſo Slaves: But of all Men-ſtealers, they ar… the worſt who ſteal away the Lives of Me… who rob Men of their precious Lives: An… of all the ſtealers of Mens Lives, are n… they the worſt who ſteal away the Live of Princes, of good Kings? &c. (Where as the people ſaid of David, and it is tru… of all ſuch as he, Thou art worth ten thouſan… of us, 2 Sam. 18.3.)

Is it Sacriledge in the firſt, and immediat… acceptation of the Word, to rob Temples … Churches of Stones, or other dead Materials, and is it not far greater Sacriledge to demolliſh and deſtroy one of Gods Livin… Temples? yea one of the greateſt and mo… noble of them? Had London ſo great a lo… when moſt of its Churches were burnt to the Ground, as when that one grea… Temple, of which I am now ſpeaking, was demolliſhed? Were ever any Temples build with Stone, or Brick ſo ſacred to God as he was? Did the great God ever dwell ſo eminently, ſo ſenſibly in any Temple mad… with hands, as he uſeth to do in all Chriſtian Princes, who are the Temples of the Living God in a more noble ſenſe than any p. 119thing without Life and Reaſon, ever was or could be? Could ever dead Temple be as it were a nurſing Father to God Iſrael which Chriſtian Princes are ſaid to be?

Some have charged Belſhazzer with Sacriledge for alienating the Veſſels of the Temple, only ſo far forth as to drink in them, when he feaſted a thouſand of his Nobles at one time; others have called the ſin of Annanias and Saphira Sacriledge, and ſo it was to keep back any part of that which they had dedicated to God and to his Church; but ſith the two firſt inſtances of Sacriledge, are much more notorious than theſe two latter, if I ſhall prove that Murthering of King Charles the Firſt was greater Sacriledge than either of them, viz. Than that of Eli's Sons, and that of Achan, by proving the greater, I have certainly prov'd the leſs: for Omne majus in ſe continet minus. As for the Sacriledge of Eli's Sons it was but this, They took a part of Gods Meat (for ſo were Sacrifices as the Altar was Gods Table) and whereas it ſhould have been boil'd for Gods uſe, they cauſed it to be roſted for their own. They rob'd him of part of his Meat, who if he were hungry would not tell us, for his are the Beaſts upon a thouſand Mountains, Pſal. 50.12. The p. 120World is his and the fulneſs thereof, &c. They were over-kind to themſelves and over-bold with God, which coſt them dear, as you have read; but what is all that in compariſon of being cruel to the Life of a Man, a Chriſtian, a Prince, and our own Prince? The Sacriledge of Eli's Sons compared with that of Murthering the King, ſeems (if I may ſo ſpeak) to have been lighter than vanity and nothing: Nay doubtleſs it did far exceed that Sacriledge of Achan, which was greater than that of Eli's Sons: For what was it that that Achan (who for his ſin was ſtoned to death and burn'd, and called the troubler of Iſrael, becauſe of the ſad conſequence of it) did ſteal from God? Was it not only a Garment, ſome Silver, and one wedge of Gold? Now what trifles, what meer bawbles are all thoſe things, if weighed in a ballance againſt the Life of the King?

I thought to have wholly paſſed by the inſtance of of Annanias and Saphirah, their Sacriledge, which together with the lie that attended it, was puniſhed with preſent death. How much leſs was their Sacriledge than theirs who put the late King to death? They rob'd the Church but of a ſacred eſtate, if I may ſo call it, becauſe devoted to God; but theſe of a ſacred Life: nay p. 121they ſtole away but part of an eſtate, theſe deſtroyed a precious Life not in part but in whole. They with-held but what themſelves had given and might have choſen whither they would have given, and could give again; but the Murtherers of our King withdrew that which they never did or could give, and which when they had once withdrawn, they nor all the World could never give again. They deſtroyed but one ſmall ſinew of the Church (if money may be ſo called, as it is called the ſinew of War) yea did but ſtrike that one little ſinew, but theſe cut off the temporal Head of the Church (for ſo we own the King of England to be next and immediately under God Supream Head and Governor.) How great then was that Sacriledge which hath clearly outdone that of Annanias and Saphirah, that of Eli's Sons, that of Achan; yea the moſt notorious of all the Sacriledges recorded in Scripture, if not all thoſe Sacriledges put together. Who now cryes not out as the Prophet Jer. 9.1. Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the ſlain, &c. ſlain with the Aggravations of multiplied perjury, high Treaſon, horrid Rebellion, tranſcendent p. 122Sacriledge. And ſo I have made good the four firſt Articles exhibited againſt the Murtherers of King Charles the Firſt, &c.

5. The putting of the late King to death was Homicidium, i. e. down right Murther: I need not fear to ſay, greater than that of David in the matter of Uriah: For there a King murthered a Subject, but in this caſe Subjects murthered their King, and Servants their Maſter. What is Murther but taking away the Life of Man without juſt cauſe, and without a juſt authority? If ſo to do be not murther, I wonder what is? If either of theſe be in the caſe, it is ſingle murther (as I may call it) but if both do meet it is murther upon murther (if I may ſo phraiſe it) or redoubled Murther. Now they both meet in the caſe of King Charles the Firſt. For Firſt, If he had done any thing worthy of death, who but the King of Kings had authority to puniſh him for it, or to inflict upon him the death which he had deſerved? If equals have no power of each other, as the Law tells us, that Par in pares non habet poteſtatem. What power can Inferiors have upon their Superior? Now he muſt needs be Superior to all the people of England, and they all his Inferiors, whom the Nation ſweareth to own as the p. 123Supreme: The Law of England being ſuch as alloweth of no man to be put to death but by his Peers; whither Lords or Commons doth ſurely ſuppoſe that no man hath any legal authority to put a King of England to death, for what Fact ſoever, ſith he hath no Peers (as that word ſignifieth equals) for every body elſe in and of the Kingdom is his Subject. Flagitious Princes, ſuch as Nero (whatſoever become of their evil Servants and Counſellers) muſt be left to the juſtice and judgment of God, but our hand muſt not be upon them. Did not Saul by the hand of Doeg, whom he imployed for that purpoſe, kill in one day 85 perſons wearing Linnen Ephods, 1 Sam. 22.18 for which and for many other things he had well deſerved to die: Yet I no where find David (who of all men was moſt provokt to do it) attempting upon his Life: yea I hear him ſaying, The Lord forbid that I ſhould ſtretch forth my hands againſt him, ſeeing he is the anointed of the Lords, 1 Sam. 24.6. Muthology repreſents Achilles to have been impenetrable and invulnerable, ſo far as he was anointed with Ambroſia, but Kings in a ſenſe are anointed all over with the ointment of Divine Authority and Power, therefore impenetrable and inviolable dejure, p. 124whatſoever they may be de facto. Give me leave to change the mode, and cry inſtead of Plectuntur …lectantur Achivi. If Princes err for want of good advice from thoſe Subjects of theirs who ought to give it them, let Subjects pay for it, but preſume not to meddle with the perſons of Soveraigns, whom God hath reſerved to his own immediate Juſtice: Let them ſtand or fall to their own Maſter, and who is that but God Almighty?

Would it not be murther in him who is no Executioner, nor appointed by the Magiſtrate thereunto, to put to death the fowleſt Malefactor that was ever brought to a Gaole, becauſe he has no authority ſo to do. To be ſure they who put the late King to death, neither had or could have any authority or foreign, for what they did; for we have no ſuch Law or Cuſtom in England, thanks be to God, as to put our Kings to death if they do not pleaſe us: They may be free in their own perſwaſion to do ſuch things if commiſſioned from Rome, for that purpoſe, who doubt the Supremacy of all Princes but the Pope, to whom they apprehend all other Princes to be of right in ſubjection; but we Proteſtants have not ſo learned Chriſt and Religion, as to think that p. 125the Heads of all Secular Princes are at the Popes Devotion, and their lives in his hands, and that they are to hold them but durante illius beneplacito: During his Holineſs Pleaſure. Therefore I am amaz'd to think what kind of Heteroclite degenerate Proteſtants they were (if we may call them Proteſtants) who took the boldneſs to behead King Charles the Martyr.

Sixthly, The ſixth Article which I exhibit againſt the Murtherers of the late Royal Martyr is, that their fault was Regicide, the murthering not of a private perſon or ſubject, but of a King, which gave a great accent to their crime, and made them as it were double-died in blood. Though the blood of Jeſus Chriſt may and will upon true and lively repentance waſh away the Guilt of Royal Blood, ſo as to prevent the eternal damnation of them that ſhod it (and oh the virtue and value of that Blood, that can do ſo) yet I know no Laver that God hath appointed to waſh out the ſtain thereof; I mean the blot and ſtain which it always leaves upon the names and memories of them whoſe hands have been ſo imbrewed. To attempt that were to waſh a Blackamore.

All injuries become greater by the greatneſs p. 126of the object, or party againſt whom they are committed. Read the greatneſs of their ſins in the greatneſs of the puniſhments, which God hath inflicted on them (as the Scripture tells us) who have ſo much as reſiſted or rebell'd againſt their Kings, but more againſt them who have put their Kings to death. When the Moabites, who had paid tribute to King Ahab, rebell'd againſt his Son Jehoram, 2 Kings 3.5. They were ſorely beaten, and the King of Moab brought to ſuch diſtreſs, that he took his Eldeſt Son, that ſhould have reign'd in his ſtead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the Wall, v. 27. Again we read how Ho eah the King of Iſrael was puniſhed, and the Iſrael;ites carried away Captive (though the Governours were Heathen and the Subjects the People of God) 2 Kings 17. becauſe after he had made himſelf ſervant and tributary to Shalmonezer, King of Aſſiria, he afterwards denied him tribute, &c. In like manner Zedekiah King of Judah was puniſhed, as you may ſee 2 Kings 25.1. compared with chap. 24.20. Thorow the anger of the Lord it came to paſs in Jeruſalem and Judah, until he had caſt them out from his preſence (viz. giving them up to Famine, Deſolation, Captivity, Deſtruction p. 127of their City and Temple, chap. 25, &c.) that Zedekiah rebell'd againſt the King of Babylon, yea, ſee what is added chap. 25.7. They ſlew the Sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the Eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in Fetters of Braſs and carried him to Babylon. Lord what a diſmal train of Conſequences inſued upon a Jewiſh King, his rebelling but againſt a Babyloniſh King? Inſtance we next in Sheba, who rebell'd againſt David, and drew all the ten tribes after him; was he not by him beſieg'd in Abel, had his head cut off by the advice of a Woman, and thrown out to him, 2 Sam. 20.22. The Amalakite that ſaid he had ſlain Saul, though he had not ſlain him, and though he ſaid that Saul bid him, was notwithſtanding preſently put to death at the command of David; ſaying this to him, 2 Sam. 1.14. How waſt thou not afraid to ſtretch forth thy hand to deſtroy the Lords anointed? Yea, David was ſo incenſed at it, that he curſed the Mountains where Saul was ſlain, v. 21. Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain upon you, nor fields of offerings: for there the ſhield of the mighty is v…lely caſt away, the ſhield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oyl. The meer murmurings of the Iſraelites againſt Moſes, p. 128are both ſpoken of and puniſhed as murmurings againſt God, Exod. 16.8. So Num… 20, 13. it is ſaid, the people chode with Moſe… for water; and yet v. 13. it is ſaid that th… water was called the water of Meribah; be cauſe the Children of Iſrael ſtrove with th… Lord. Hannaniah perſwaded the Jews to revolt from the King of Babylon only, an… yet it is ſaid, that he taught rebellion again… the Lord, Jer. 28.16. Was not Miriam puniſhed with Leproſie but for ſpeaking again… Moſes, Numb. 12.10. Mind what God ſaid and did upon that occaſion, ver. 8. were y… not then afraid (ye, viz. Miriam and Aaron) to speak againſt my ſervant Moſes? ver. 9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled again… them, and he departed. v. 10. And the Clo… departed from off the Tabernacle, and behold Miriam became leprous. Nay, we find diſobedience to the very Prieſts and Lovite… threatned with Leproſie, Deut. 24.8, 9. Tak… heed of the plague of Leproſie, that ye take heed diligently to obſerve, and do according t… all that the Prieſts and Levites ſhall teach thee; ver. 9. Remember what the Lord thy God d… to Miriam, viz. who was ſtrucken with Leproſie, for murmuring againſt Moſes, who was no Prieſt, &.

To perſwade men to revelt from thoſe p. 129Princes whoſe ſubjects they are, is yet a farther Crime than bare murmuring, and ſee how God puniſhed it in Ahab and Zedikiah, who were roſted to death by Nebuchad-nezzer, Jer. 29.22. And how Shemaiah's whole Family was likewiſe extirpated, v. 32. Hear David's Sentence againſt Saul's Servants for not uſing their utmoſt indeavours to preſerve his Life, 1 Sam. 26.16. As the Lord liveth ye are worthy to die, becauſe ye have not kept your Maſter, the Lords anointed. See how miſerably Rachab and Banah, two of Iſhboſheth's Captains came off, who murthered their Maſter, and carried his Head as a preſent to King David, hoping for a reward, v. 12. David commanded his Young Men and they ſlew them and cut off their hands and feet and hanged them up (poſſibly in Chains as a terror to others.) Had Zimri peace who ſlew his Maſter Elah King of Iſrael? Surely no, for when he was beſieged by Omri, and ſaw that the City was taken he went into the Pallace and burnt the Kings Houſe over him and died, 1 Kings 16.18. How ſped the Servants of Amon King of Judah, who murthered him in his Houſe? See 2 Kings 21.24, And the People of the Land ſlew all them that had conſpired againſt King Amon, and p. 130made Joſiah his Son King in his ſtead. Joaſh his Servants conſpired againſt him and ſlew him, 2 Chron. 24.25. (which was a moſt juſt thing on Gods part, to avenge the Blood of the Sons of Jehoiada the Prieſt, v. 25.) but how came they off; ſee 2 Chron. 25.3. When the Kingdom was eſtabliſhed to him, he (i. e. Amaziah) ſlew his Servants that had beheaded the King his Father.

If the Murtherers of private perſons be now and then reſerved to the judgment of the great day to be puniſhed, yet Divine Juſtice and Vengeance, as if more concerned about the death of Princes than of Private Perſons (by the inſtances fore-cited) ſeems to have alwayes overtaken thoſe, even in this Life; who have ſpilt the Blood of Kings as Water upon the Ground. Whence is eaſie to infer that though Homicide be a very great ſin, yet Regicide is greater, and that he was a King whom the Men I am writing of put to death no man ever doubted.

Seventhly, Neither was it Regicide only, or the murthering of one who was meerly a King, of which theſe men were guilty, but alſo Juſticidium, or the murthering of a good King.

Who knows not that the wilful murthering of any man, though a bad, yea though p. 131the worſt of men, is a great and crying ſin? but the murthering of a good and vertuous man, a man of a thouſand, is worſe than that; and beyond either of them is the murthering of a good and excellent King, yea of one of the beſt Kings in the World, which is the caſe before us. Now by how much better the murthered perſon was, by ſo much worſe was the murther, for Corruptio optimi eſt peſſima; is a never failing rule. I dare not apply to this occaſion thoſe words of St. Peter, Acts 3.14. Ye denied the holy one and the juſt; becauſe they are peculiar to our Saviour, who is the holy and the juſt one, foreign, (and there is no man ſo beſides him) but that the martyred King was a man of great vertue, is I think as generally acknowledged by them, that either knew him, or have ſeen what is in Hiſtory concerning him, as almoſt any thing is. Who could ever taxe him with Intemperance more or leſs? Who knew not the greatneſs of his Patience under his unparallell'd Sufferings, his profeſſed forgiveneſs of his moſt provoking enemies? Who ever did read more Divine Lines, more pious Contemplations dropping from the Pen of any afflicted Prince, than his incomparable and p. 132unimitable Book doth contain? But it will not ſtand with the brevity here intended, or with the Symmetry of this part with the reſt of this Book, to write a Hiſtory in this place, of that renowned Kings Vertues; but he that ſhall read his Life excellently written, as it is, by Dr. Perringſhief and others, if he have any faith in Hiſtories (as what wiſe men hath not ſome?) will not as much admire the greatneſs of his Vertues as the barbarouſneſs of his Sufferings, and both together moſt of all?

Herein appeared the barbarouſneſs of his murtherers, that they could find in their hearts to uſe a Prince ſo immenſely ill who deſerved ſo excellently well. The Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 5.7. Paradventure for a good man ſome would even dare to die. Were they Men or Monſters, or Devils incarnate, or what were they then, who inſtead of dying for a good man, put a good man to death? An untimely death, I had almoſt call'd it a ſhameful death, for ſo it in true tended, but that I know no ſhame was in martyrdom.

If any man doubt the piety of that Martyr, and the tenderneſs of his Conſcience, let him but read the 2. chap. in his excellent Book, viz. upon the Earl of Strafford's death: p. 133Becauſe when almoſt wearied out of his life by the importunity of thoſe that he believed did wiſh him well, and us'd it as a Maxime, Better one man periſh (though unjuſtly) than the people be diſpleaſed or deſtroy'd, he had complied to ſign a Bill againſt the Earl of Strafford's life (though without plenary conſent to his deſtruction, as he himſelf ſaith.) Lord! how uneaſie was his Conſciſcience: Reader, forbear weeping if thou canſt, when thou readeſt thoſe melting warning words of his. I ſee it a bad Exchange to wound a man's own Conſcience, thereby to ſalve State-ſores; to calm the ſtorms of Popular diſcontents, by ſtirring up a tempeſt in a man's own boſom. But I will not prevent thy reading of that whole moſt excellent Chapter, which may almoſt warrant us; to call him, A father of Penitents, as Abraham was called, A father of the Faithful.

I ſhall conclude this ſeventh Article of my charge againſt the Murtherers of King Charles the Firſt, with a ſhort reflexion upon David's words to Baanah and Rechab, who cut off the head of Iſhboſheth, and brought it to him, looking for a reward, 2 Sam. 4.11. How much more when wicked men have ſlain a righteous perſon? ſhall not I require p. 134his blood of your hand, and take you away from the earth? As if David had ſaid (for that he meant) Saul was a wicked King, an enemy to God, as well as me, and yet when one told me, ſaying, Behold, Saul is dead, (viz. the Amalekite, who ſaid he ſlew him by his own command, to put him out of pain, 2 Sam. 1.10) I took hold of him, and ſlew him, who thought I would have given him a reward for his tidings. If he were worthy of death who only reported himſelf (upon a pick-thankly account) to have kill'd Saul (who ſeem'd otherwiſe about to kill himſelf) and at his own appointment, who was then full of anguiſh, though Saul was a very wicked man (as aforeſaid) what have they deſerv'd who beheaded a virtuous King ſore againſt his will, and beſt endeavours to the contrary, and that with many circumſtances of barbarity, as you will hear hereafter.

And ſo I proceed to the eighth Article, wherewith I charge the ſaid King's Judges, viz. Hypocriſie; I ſay with great Hypocriſie, practized in that fact. It was Homicidium maxime Hypocriticum. It was even the Maſter-piece of Hypocriſie, and the grandeſt Cheat under the Notion of Piety that ever was impoſed upon the world. Now all p. 135Hypocriſie is a perfect Lye, and the fault that needs a Lye grows two thereby (as Mr. Herbert tells us.) Who that underſtands the intrigue of that Buſineſs, do's not cry out, Tantum Religio potuit ſuadere malorum? Could ſuch a Monſter ſpring from the Womb of Religion? Who laid that Brat at her Door? For it was none of hers. So Politicians talk moſt of Religion, when they mean nothing leſs; as if they would compenſate by taking God and Religion often into their mouths, for their having nothing of either in their hearts. Commend me to a famous Story which I heard from a Reverend and dignified Divine, not far off, and not long ſince, which was to this purpoſe: An excellent Knight told me (ſaith he) that a year or two before the late War betwixt the King and Parliament broke out, there were ſeveral Meetings held at his houſe (then in Covent-Garden) betwixt ſome great Officers of State that were then in play, and other popular Gentlemen who had a great mind to their places. The late King was privy to all their Conferences (if not ſometimes preſent) and finding where the Cardo Controverſiae, or Hinge of the Controverſie was, viz. that ſome Popular, but yet private, and unpreferr'd Gentlemen thirſted to get into publick Offices, ſuch (as Mr. of p. 136the Court of Wards, &c.) and that they would never be quiet till it were effected, yielded that all of them, ſave one, to whom he had ſome particular and unpardonable exception, ſhould have and enjoy the Places and Offices which they ſought for; but the King refuſing him, and they being reſolved upon one and all, hit or miſs, the meeting was quite diſſolved; and not long after the War broke out; which, ſaith he, could every one of thoſe great Seekers have found the Preferment which he ſought for, had been prevented. But that which the Author of this Story ſaid moſt of all to my purpoſe was this: Whilſt we were thus bandying at this our meeting from time to time, one half to hold the places which we were poſſeſt of (or parta tueri) the other half of the Company to throw us out and get themſelves into our places; without thoſe Walls nothing was talkt of but Religion, what great contrivances there were at that time for reforming and ſettling Religion, whilſt, God knows, within thoſe Walls there was not all that while one word ſpoken concerning Religion, but ſome of us were willing to hold our Preferments, and others to get them away from us. O Nation ſweetly cheated! O thou bleſſed Name Religion! how oft haſt thou been miſus'd and made uſe of to chriſten the moſt horrid Villanies: p. 137For the Proverb has prov'd too true, In nomine Domine incipit omne malum: Was it not under pretext of Religion, becauſe Religion, as was alledged could not be preferr'd; if he were ſuffer'd to live, that that Martyrs blood muſt be made ſhed for the Church? that the King's Head was ſaid to be cut off? As if to cut off the Head of the Church of England, were the only way to keep life in the Body thereof: Now how fond and irrational a thing was it, how groundleſs and malicious a ſlander and cenſure, to ſay or think that the life of King Charles the Firſt could not conſiſt with the true Chriſtian and Proteſtant Religion?

Moreover, they knew no more than their heels, when the Religion eſtabliſhed in the Church of England by Law was gone, what to put in the room of it; for they themſelves were not of one Religion: nay, what if many of them were of no Religion. What think you of St. Martin, and St. Scot, were they not pure Saints? with ſeveral others of thoſe Aeacus's and Radamanthus's, who gave Sentence againſt the late King? Oh, how did they burn? Was it with zeal for Religion? A man would hardly think that Religion to be chaſte and honeſt, which ſuch men courted or ſeemed to court. What p. 138Religion, I beſeech you, in pulling down all the fences of the Church, and letting in all ſorts of little foxes and wild bores to ſpoil God's Vineyard. If this were Reformation, it was not unlike that in Egypt, when the whole Land did ſwarm and was over-run with Frogs and Lice, and Flies, Exod. 8. Whilſt theſe men pretended to the honour of Religion, who ever diſgraced it more? to the preſervation of true Religion, who indangered it more? to the Reforming of Religion who ever deform'd and undid it more? Look how the Ivy whilſt it creeps into the wall, and claſp's cloſe about it; embracing it as it were with greateſt kindneſs, doth mean time rot, decay, and periſh it: or look how the Ape ſo hugs her young ones, as that ſhe kills them with her kindneſs; ſo kind and no kinder were thoſe bloody Reformers to true Religion, which they could have as ill afforded to have lookt in the face, as a Debtor his ſevereſt Creditor, or a Malefactor his Judge. Surely they were never intended by God for Reformers, conſidering what God ſaid to David, 1 Chro. 28. Thou ſhalt not build an Houſe for my Name, becauſe thou haſt been a man of war, or haſt ſhed blood. Who could expect a Reformation of ſuch men's making, worthy the coſt of that p. 139Royal Blood wherewith they purchaſed it: That which they gave us was to dear by every drop which the purchaſe coſt them. When I am convinc'd that Jezebel took the courſe which ſhe took with Naboth upon a Religious account, that a zeal to reform Religion put her upon writing Letters in Ahab's name, and ſealing them with his Seal, as it is 2 Kings 21.8, 9, 10. ſaying, Proclaim a Faſt, and ſet Nabal on high among the people; and ſet ſons of Belial to bear witneſs againſt him, ſaying, Thou didſt blaspheme God and the King; and then carry him out and ſtone him, that he may die. I ſay, when I believe that a true zeal againſt blaſpheming of God, made her do as ſhe did; who 'tis moſt certain, did all this meerly in order to what we read ver. 15. When Jezebel heard that Naboth was ſtoned and was dead; Jezebelſaid to Ahab, Ariſe, take poſſeſſion of the Vineyard of Naboth, which he refuſed to give thee for money; for Naboth is dead. I ſay, when I ſo believe, then, and not till then, ſhall I think that an unfeign'd deſire to promote true and undefiled Religion, to keep out Popery, and to reform Proteſtantiſm, as practiſed amongſt us, was that which prompted the unhappy Judges of King Charles the Martyr, to ſend him packing p. 140out of the world. How hypocritical and falſe was the name that was given to the Court which tried him, called The High Court of Juſtice? For 1. we know it was no Court, for it was not any ſuch thing legall…; and nothing is a Court but what is legally ſo: and moreover his Majeſty would never own it for a Court. 2. It was no ways High… but in …ride, preſumption and Arrogan…e to undertake what they did. 3. It was to be ſure no Court of Juſtice, for it was called together only to ſerve one turn (like Jezeb…ls Court that was ſummoned againſt Naboth aforeſaid) to do one wi… ked job or feat, that is, per fas aut nefas, right or wrong to cut off the Kings Head, and there was to be the end of it. But do men think that God will always be thus mocked? When Ananias and Sapphira added as little Hypocriſie as this comes to, to their Sacriled…e, did it not coſt them their lives, and were they not charg'd with lying not only to men, but to the Holy Ghoſt?

Now there is nothing of greater tendencie and efficacie to bring Religion into hatred and diſgrace (if a man had a real deſign ſo to do) than to make a Cloak of Religion for all ſorts of Villanies and to entitltle them thereunto; to put Rebellions and p. 141Treaſons, and Sacriledges, and Murthers, and Regicides all to its account, and to ſhelter them under its wings. They that make Religion the foreign, which ſome do ſay ſignifieth the Dung-cart, which paſſes by a City to receive all its filth; or like to thoſe perſons whom the Latines called Piacula, i. e. Sacrifices, on whoſe head all the ſins and curſes of the people ſhould be laid, and expiation made by ſacrificing of them. I ſay, thus to do by Religion, is the way to make every one ſmile at the naming of it, and bid defiance to it. Their ſin had been leſs, if they had ſaid in ſo many words, we will kill the Heir that the I…heritance may be ours, &c. To conclude this Article, Wo to you Regicides, as becauſe of Perjury, Reb…llion, Treaſon, Sacriledge: ſo no leſs, becauſe of what I mentioned laſt, viz. notorious Simulation and Hypocriſie. And ſo I proceed to the Ninth particular.

Ninthly, To all the former, I muſt needs add, That the putting of King Charles the Martyr to death, was Parricidium, Parricide, or the Murthering of a Father, a Crime which uſeth to make the ears of all that hear ſuch a thing done, to tingle. If a Son or Daughter happen to kill either of their Parents, all the Country rings of it; and it makes as p. 142it were an Earthquake throughout the whole Kingdom. But the Parricide of Parricides was then committed, when K. Charles the Firſt was put to death, who was not only a Father to them that had a hand in it, but to the whole Nation: beſides, a common Father, a Political, though not a natural Father. To be fure he was one of thoſe whom the fifth Commandment intends, by the name of Father, when it ſaith, Honour thy Father and thy Mother; meaning every whit as much Kings and Princes, whom God hath ſomewhere promiſed to make nurſing Fathers and nurſing Mothers to his Church; as thoſe whom the Scripture calls the Fathers of our Fleſh. For though we owe not our Being to them, as to our natural Fathers, yet our well-being we do owe to them under God; though we owe not our Generation to them, yet our Preſervation we do owe to them under God. Every good King is a Protector of his People, as to their Lives, Limbs, Eſtates, good Names, Relations, Property, Religion, &c. And is not that a great piece of Fatherhood (as I may call it?) Are not his Subjects ſafe under the ſhadow of his wings? Philoſophers ſay, That Preſervation is a continued Creation. If that be ſo, do we not owe as much to thoſe p. 143by whom we are preſerved under God (though not ſo preſerved as by God himſelf) as to them by whom we were propagated. David did both repreſent himſelf, and was repreſented by others unto Nabal as one that had deſerv'd very well at his hands, and the hands of his; becauſe he was able to ſay, as it is, 1 Sam. 25.7. Thy ſhepherds were iwth us, we hurt them not, neither was ought miſſing to them all the while they were in Carmel: As who ſhould ſay, It is a favour in thoſe who have power over us (though no lawful Princes neither) if they do us no hurt. Alſo in the 15th ver. we find one of Nabal's Servants thus pleading with Abigal the wife of Nabal; But the men (meaning David's Souldiers) who came to ſalute our Maſter, and he raild on them, were very good to us, and we were not hurt, neither miſſed we any thing, as long as we were with them. This they look'd upon as a great obligation, though that which followeth as a greater, ver. 16. They were a wall unto us by night and by day all the while we were with them keeping ſheep. Nay, David himſelf inſiſts upon it as a piece of merit, ver. 22. Surely in vain (ſaith he) have I kept all that this fellow hath in the wilderneſs, ſo that nothing was miſſed of all that p. 144pertained to them, and he hath requited me evil for good. Now Nabal's returning a churliſh anſwer to a Captain and his Company, who had not only not plundered, but protected him, tempted David to ſay in a great paſſion, as ver. 22. So and more alſo do God to the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any one that piſſeth againſt the wall. Did Nabal owe ſo much to David and his Souldiers for not injuring him, or ſuffering others to injure him whilſt they were near him, what then do we owe to good Kings for their fatherly kindneſs to us? In not dealing with us, as Samuel told the Iſraelites ſhould be the miſhepat hammelec, or the manner of a King's dealing with them, 1 Sam. 8.11. He will take your ſons, and ſome of them ſ…all run before his Chariots: ver. 14. He will take your fields and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the beſt of them, and will give them to his Servants. ver. 16. He will take your goodlieſt Servants and put them to his work, &c. i. e. he will uſe them as he liſt, and you ſhall be able to call nothing your own; but he will let ye know that whatſoever ye call yours is now his, and ſhall be more at his command and diſpoſe than at your own. If they who have power enough in their p. 145hands to ſerve us ſo, do not, even for that we have cauſe to thank them and bleſs God on their behalf; but if they defend our Lives, Limbs and Eſtates; and above all the true Chriſtian and Proteſtant Religion (as thanks be to God His Majeſty that now is doth, and ſo did his Father before him;) we have cauſe to own them as our Fathers, yea Nurſing Fathers. Such Fathers they are, as we are bound to honour, fear, and obey, more than our Natural Parents; for though we are bound to obey them in all lawful things (and are not bound to obey Kings in what is ſinful) yet when the Commands of the Parents of our Bodies interfere with the commands of our Political Parents, or of our Kings and Rulers, we ought to obey the later rather than the firſt, viz. becauſe what is injoyned by the former becomes unlawful when it is forbidden by the latter. I was about to ſay that reſpective Kings are not only our Fathers but our Fathers Fathers, our Grandfathers, yea our great Grandfathers Fathers, if they be living and within their Territories. Soon ſhould we loſe what our Parents gave us, viz. our Lives and Eſtates, if we had no King or Rulers to protect us. Receive it therefore for an indubitable truth, p. 146that Kings are Fathers, what then are they that murther them but meer Parricides? yea and the worſt and moſt flagitious of all Parricides. The Scripture foreſaw ſome ſuch would be, 1 Tim. 1.9. The Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawleſs and diſobedient, foreign, i. e. for murtherers of Fathers and murtherers of Mothers, &c. But what puniſhment ſhort of Hell its ſelf, can be thought great enough for thoſe that are ſuch? Sith Death the greateſt of all temporal puniſhments had wont to be inflicted upon Chiidren, who were only diſobedient to their Parents; yea ſince there is ſuch a paſſage as that of Solomon, Prov. 30.17. The Eye that mocketh at his Father, and deſpiſeth to obey his Mother, the Ravens of the Valley ſhall pick it out, and the young Eagles ſhall eat it, i. e. Such perſons as theſe ſhall not live out half their days, but ſhall come to untimely and ſhameful ends; as to be hang'd, or ſuch like; and ſo their Bodies expoſed to be devoured by ſuch revenous Creatures, as are Crows or Eagles, which are obſerved to aim eſpecially at the Eyes of dead People (whether becauſe a very tender part and grateful to their palates, or for what other cauſes I know p. 147not) what then ſhall be done to thoſe who not only mock but murther Kings, who are their Fathers in a more eminent ſenſe than were they who begat them?

We propagate to the Children of our Bodies original ſin and actual miſery (which yet they ought to excuſe us for, as becauſe no man can help it, ſo likewiſe becauſe they will do the ſame by their Children, when they come to have any, and ſo will all men in all ages; and we muſt not ſet the whole World a quarrelling) ſo do not Kings to their Political Children, i. e. their Subjects. Kings as Kings are Fathers to us only for our good and real benefit, therefore called the miniſters of God to us for our good, Rom. 13.4. a terror not to good works but to them that do evil, v. 3. i. e. Whoſoever therefore ſhall raviſh the Lives of them that are ſuch Fathers by Office, but eſpecially if ſuch by a due execution of their office, puniſhing Vice and encouraging Vertue: what may or can they expect (to uſe and allude to the Apoſtles words, Heb. 10.27.) But a certain fearful looking for of Judgment, and fiery indignation, which ſhall devour the adverſaries.

Tenthly, Neither was their Crime meer p. 148Parricides, as great a ſin as that is) but alſo Patriaecidium, if I may have leave foreign, or to make a new word upon this occaſion: Now by Patricide I mean the murthering of their Native Countrey, putting that to death for which they ought to die if need were. The phraſe of killing ones Countrey may ſeem harſh, but will be rendred more ſoft and ſuitable, if we call to mind an ancient wiſe ſaying, viz. That England is a great Animal which can never die unleſs it kill its ſelf. If it may be call'd an Animal it may be kill'd; for whatſoever Creature here below is poſſeſt of Life, may alſo be diſpoſſeſt of the ſame; but that none but its ſelf could kill that Animal, was a great miſtake, unleſs they took the word Self ſynecdochically; i. e. for a part of its ſelf; for by a part of its ſelf it was indeed deſtroy'd, or brought to the very brink of deſtruction, kill'd out-right, or brought within one ſtep of death. Witneſs the grand and ſignal ſymptomes of death, which they brought upon it, for in that number are they reckoned by Phyſicians. Magnae Jactationes multae bigiliae, motus convulſivi, & ipſiſſimae convulſiones Pulſus Intermittens Facies Hippocratica, &c. All whichill ſymptoms, or what was analogous to them, p. 149were found upon England in the time of their raign who cut off the Head of King Charles the Martyr. Let me add two or three more, viz. Deliquium, or frequent Lipothymies, Faintings or Swoonings: Alſo Delirium, Doting and Phrenſie: I might have brought in Singultus or Hiccops, as another deadly ſign, but that it is one ſpecies of Convulſions. Now give me leave to ſay our Ruling Regicides had brought upon this poor Nation and their Native Countrey, all the concluſive ſigns of death aforeſaid, whereby it appeareth they had given England its deaths wound, but that God who killeth and maketh alive, who bringeth down to the grave, and ſaith return again; yea God who raiſeth the dead, was pleaſed moſt miraculouſly to reſtore it to life again.

A ſhort proof may ſerve for each of the particulars aforeſaid, they being ſo much known to all ingenious men, that have either ſeen or read of the affairs and tranſactions of the late times: the truth is, the names of ſymptomes, which I mentioned, becauſe by Metaphor applied to politicks or morals, may need ſome little explication, but when that is done they will eaſily command aſſent and acknowledgement. p. 150Briefly then were there not Magna Jactationes, that is, great toſſings and tumblings up and down in thoſe days (as dying men turn from ſide to ſide, ſit up, lie down again, call to riſe and to be removed from bed to bed, and chamber to chamber, finding themſelves uneaſie in every poſture, ſeeking reſt in change of poſture though they find none.) How oft did we ſhift and change Governments in one year? pull down one and ſet up another, and pull down that again; Sic cum voluit fortuna jocari. So were we banded as it were by fortune, or male-adminiſtration rather, from end to end; ſo reell'd we too and fro like drunken men, or like a ſhip ready to be overſet with ſtiff and contrary winds; ſo ſound we no reſt for the ſole of our feet; and it was moſt eaſie to make the prognoſtick, that nothing but a miracle of divine power and goodneſs, could ſave us from ſudden death and ruine. Such Governments as they then ſet up, ſeemed to be things that would not keep above a month or two, or little Gourds which had a Worm at their root, which cauſed them to wither preſently. And as the Nation had at that time little reſt in one ſenſe, ſo little ſleep in another; for were not the minds p. 151of men continually kept awake with fears and ſad apprehenſions, like people that live in an old rotten decay'd houſe who cannot ſleep in tempeſtous nights for fear the houſe they dwell in ſhould fall upon their heads? Theſe were the magnae vigiliae which I ſpoke of, or rather the cauſes why men could not ſleep in thoſe days as they deſired to do, and ought to have done.

Again, whoſoever knows what State-Convulſions mean, muſt needs underſtand that we had a great many of them in thoſe days. There are particular and univerſal Convulſions ſpoken of by Phyſicians, i. e. ſome of particular parts only, as of the eyes, when they are diſtorted; of the mouth, when that is drawn awry, &c. Others again of the whole body, whereby a man is rackt, as it were, from head to foot; we had of both ſorts in thoſe unſettled times, Diſturbances in particular Counties, otherwhile almoſt all the Nation over. We were pull'd and hall'd forward and backward, as one ſort of Convulſion is called foreign, another foreign; yea, ſometimes the Nation ſeem'd to be ſtiff as a ſtake, to have no motion with it, anſwering to the Convulſion, called foreign, when it is ſo with a Body: Was it not often ſo p. 152that we knew not how or which way to turn our ſelves?

Again, Could any Natural or Animal body have a worſe Pulſe than England had in thoſe days? One while the Pulſe of the Nation beat as high and feaveriſhly as could be, that is all things were done furiouſly, the Army called up to the City (which was to be the Trojan Horſe for that time) the very Gates of the City appointted to be broken down, &c. Otherwhile the Pulſe of the Nation did beat exceeding low, ſo it could ſcarce be felt, was very unequal, intermitted often; it was often ſlow or languid, like that which goeth by the name of Pulſus mynrus, vermiculans, which is very bad; yea, Formicans, which is worſt of all: The firſt of which viz. Mynrus, betokens a Pulſe that dwindles leſs and leſs like a Mous's tail: The ſecond, viz. Vermiculans, a Pulſe that creeps or crawles like a Worm: And the laſt, viz. Formicans; i. e. a Pulſe that takes many ſteps like an Ant, but the pooreſt ſtrides that can be thought of, as if it moved but a hairsbreadth at a time. It were eaſie, but that I would not be too tedious, to find out things in the late times that did bear proportion to each of theſe.

p. 153As for Deliquiums, Lypothimies, or fainting-fits, nothing was more ordinary than them in thoſe days: For, as the whole head was ſick, ſo the whole heart was faint, mens hearts failed them very much, for fear of thoſe things which were coming upon them.

That the Nation was then in frequent Deliriums or Frenzies is the eaſieſt thing of all to prove; for how madly would men talk in thoſe days, and how wildly did they act? Who hath not heard diſcourſes of drying up the River Euphrates, interpreted to be ſeizing upon the Gold and Silver Mines of Popiſh Princes, which was to have been effected by taking Hiſpaniola, in lieu of which we accepted of Jamaico; alſo of ſending an Army to Rome to pull down the Pope. Of our Saviours coming in the year 1666, now paſt and gone, to reign upon the earth; (and you know who intended or pretended themſelves to be his Fore-runners.) And did not men act as wiſely in thoſe days as they talkt? How did they do and undo, ſet up and pull down again, and could come to no conſiſtency?

That England in thoſe times did fetch its breath very ſhort, and was, as they ſay, very much out of breath (for ſo we had run our ſelves) was obvious to every mans eye and obſervation.

p. 154As for Singultus or Hiccough (a very dangerous ſymptom in ſick bodies) how to apply that to the caſe of England in the late times may ſeem hardeſt; but the definition of that Diſeaſe doth agree thereunto, therefore the thing deſigned muſt needs do ſo likewiſe. What is a Hiccough, but a convulſive motion of the Stomach, labouring to caſt off ſomething which ſticks upon the coats thereof, and by either its quantity or quality rather, doth much offend it? Sure I am, many things did ſtick upon the Stomach of the Nation in thoſe days, which fain they would have caſt off, and did uſe their endeavours ſo to do, but could not effect it.

Laſtly, That the Nation had faciem Hippocraticam in thoſe days (or did look like death:) I appeal to all that were judicious Spectators of it. Did we not look ſo ghaſtly as would even fright one? ſo pale, ſo thin, ſo wan, ſo ſharp like a Skeleton, or like a deaths-head; ſo like a body that the Grave waited for, and the worms ſtood ready to devour? Were were not then the pity of our friends and the ſcorn of our enemies? Thus low was a once flouriſhing Nation brought by the hands and management of cruel Regicides, men profound to make ſlaughter, to ruine and demoliſh, but p. 155how to cure the breaches and diſtempers of a Nation they had no skill. More I could ſay upon this head, but for brevity-ſake, I paſs on to the next.

Eleventhly, Taking away the life of the King was Regnicidium, or the deſtruction of a Kingdom. For one and the ſame blow cut off the head of King and Kingdom both at once. For what Kigdom can there be without a King? What ſignifies a body without a head? That Notion or Maxime of the Law, viz. That Rex nunquam moritur, i. e. The King never dieth, was methoughts become very Metaphyſical, when the late good King did not actually reign either in his own Petſon, or in his proper Heir or Succeſſor, or any of his Line and Family. I have been overſavorable in talking of their deſtroying one Kingdom, whereas the truth is they did deſtroy three Kingdoms at once, that were united under that one good King. The miſchief of their ſo doing will more fully appear, by what I ſhall ſay under the next head.

Twelfthly, This their horrid murder was not only Regnicidium, & Regicidium, or Monarchicidium, but Monarchiae-cidium, i. e. not meerly the deſtruction of one King and three Kingdoms, or of one Monarch and p. 156Monarchy, but of all Monarchy or Kingſhip; of all that moſt excellent form of Government in all parts of the world, ſo far as in them lay. For 1. They gave other Nations a moſt pernicious Example of depoſing Kings, and caſting off Kingly Government. 2. Did they not make it their buſineſs by writing and ſpeaking to diſgrace Monarchy, and to bring all Nations out of conceit with it, and to make it odious to the whole world? 3. Did not the Army that then was, ſwear againſt being ever after governed by a ſingle Perſon; but they only exchang'd (or ſuffer'd to be exchang'd) a Rowland for an Oliver (you know my meaning) and ſo therewith all was ſalved.

Now give me leave to tell you, in labouring to deſtroy Monarchy, they labour'd to deſtroy the beſt form of Government in the world (as they that know me, do know that I have often ſaid and undertook to prove.) For Monarchy is that Government which the light of Nature leads men to, & neceſſarily caſts them upon. For the truth is, all Governments in the world by what names ſoever they are called or diſtinguiſhed, are nothing elſe but diſguiſed and imperfect Monarchies. And this holds true p. 157both in publick and private Governments, as of Courts, Cities, Towns, Families, Socieeties, Corporations, as well as in States, Commonwealths, publick Ariſtocracies or Democracies, as they are called both in Church and State. Take the inſtance in Juries, Is there not commonly one leading man that ſways all the reſt? So in all Committees, in Courts of Judicature or other Courts. So in Republicks: ſo in Congregational Churches. For admit the diffuſed power of the two laſt ſhould happen to be equally divided (as is poſſible for it to be, and yet to have a power of determining it ſelf and turn the Scales) muſt not that be done by ſome one man? will it not neceſſarily iſſue there? For ſay, All power were in a Senate, conſiſting of a thouſand men; admit there be all the Members of that Senate preſent at a debate, ſave only one; by means of whoſe abſence, there being five hundred Votes on the one ſide, there can be but 499 on the other; upon this ſo great diviſion you ſee the whole Affair is carried by but one voice. Even amongſt thoſe who by their conſtitution have an equal ſhare in Government, is there not generally a Dominus fac totum, a Chieftain, or Superintendant, a Leading-man, a man that hath p. 158the caſting voice generally given him, in whoſe advice and counſel all the reſt or the major part of them, do acquieſce? And what is ſuch a man but a Monarch in his place, and amongſt thoſe over whom he governs ſo abſolutely, ſo uncontroulably, let him go by what name he will, either of Juſtice, Magiſtrate or Miniſter, &c. Kings themſelves do not act without their Privy Council and other perſons of Honor, who are aſſiſting to their Affairs; but in conjunction with them, their advice and aſſiſtance, they do what they pleaſe. And truly ſo do thoſe petty inviſible Princes or Kings, that walk incognito and under diſguiſe. They in conjunction with ſome of the beſt Head-pieces that are about them, and by the aſſiſtance of their party which adheres to them, carry what they pleaſe, carry all before them, in ſpight of all oppoſition. Thus it was from the beginning, thus it now is, and will be to the end of the world. Were it not eaſie to ſay, Who is in effect a Monarch amongſt the Anabaptiſts, and, amongſt the Quakers, &c? So that all the Governments in the world are virtually, and in effect Monarchies, though the people ſee it not, and their Votes are little more than for faſhion-ſake, and to p. 159pleaſe them with a ſhadow of Power and Liberty, when their real power is little more than to ſit ſtill. He then that is an Enemy to Monarchy, and to every thing that is like it, will preſently become an enemy to all ſorts of Governments all the world over, which are indeed and truth but ſo many Virtual Monarchies, all things conſidered. So men fly the Name, whilſt they continue the Thing; and alter the Shadow, whilſt they accept the Subſtance of Monarchy, over them. Amongſt thoſe who are equal in power, the wiſeſt will always govern the weakeſt, and they that by their Wealth or Prudence, or otherwiſe, can make the greateſt Party will carry all before them. If then the light of Nature, and univerſal practice of the world hath determined Monarchy to be the beſt and moſt neceſſary form of Government, who can ſufficiently decry their ſin, who did not only deſtroy an excellent King and Monarch, but alſo aimed at the deſtruction of Monarchy, or Kingly Power throughout Europe, that if it were poſſible the Name and Thing might be rooted out, and might be reſtor'd no more. And ſo I have made good the 12th thing which I charg'd upon them, viz. an attempt to deſtroy Monarchy, though it be the beſt Government in the world.

p. 160Thirteenthly, It muſt needs be confeſt they were Self-murtherers, or Felo de ſe's, who murthered the late King. For in taking away his life, they forfeited their own. If an Earl or a greater Subject, do wilfully but murther a poor Foot-man, or Beggar, by ſo doing he forfeits his life according to God's Law, yea, and the Law of England too. He then that kills a King, had he a hundred thouſand lives, would by ſo doing forfeit every one of them, and be made to pay his forfeiture too, unleſs great clemency interpoſe. I remember no one Regicide in all the Scripture but what is puniſhed with death, ſave only that of Jehu committed upon the perſon of Joram, which being done at the expreſs command of God, ought not, I think, to be called Regicide. But I paſs on.

Fourteenthly, The murthering of the late King was Animaecidium, not only Self-murther, as to each of their Bodies, but Soul-murther, as to every of them, unleſs the infinite Mercy of God ſhould ſtep in and prevent it. Is Hell-fire the wages of them that wilfully murder but a private perſon; witneſs thoſe words, 1 John 3.15. And ye know no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him: i. e. no wilful murtherer p. 161hath jus in re, as to eternal life, i. e. any preſent actual capacity, to enter into life eternal; as he that was under a Leproſie under the Law might not for that time be admitted to eat the Paſſeover, though jus ad rem, i. e. a dormant ſuſpended right, which may or ſhall be reſtor'd and redintegrated upon his repentance, that he may have as David had when he defiled Bathſheba: But divers do ſay, If David had never actually repented of that great ſin, he had never had eternal life, but had been everlaſtingly damn'd: So Baronius in his excellent Book De peccato mortali & veniali. If the wilful murthering of one private man be enough to ſink a Soul into Hell, what will not the murder of a King do? Will not God heat that Furnace yet ten times hotter for Regicides? Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, are called ſinners againſt their own Souls, Numb. 16.38. for rebelling againſt Moſes and Aaron, i. e. for but murmuring againſt them, though not one drop of blood was ſhed by their hands. How greatly then have they ſinn'd againſt their own Souls, who have rebelled and reſiſted even to blood? I have before quoted that Text Rom. 13.2. They that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation. I leave that word to p. 162fasten this head on their Conſciences, as a nail in a ſure place, and paſs on to the next.

Fifteenthly, The murthering of the King was Multicidium (pardon the making of a new word in ſuch a caſe as this) or Caedes multorum; or Homicidium multiplicatum & complicatum, i. e. it was a great many murthers in one. Firſt, it was virtually ſo according to the computation which we read of, 2 Sam. 18.3. But the people anſwered, Thou ſhalt not go forth (i. e. David ſhould ſhould not go forth to Battle) thou art more worth than ten thouſand of us, &c. Secondly, It was actually ſo, as the Complices in that violent action, by encouraging and emboldning each other thereunto, were guilty of the ſin and death of one another. Thirdly, As the death of the late King was remotely the death of many perſons and families, I mean the ruine and deſtruction of multitudes of Families, which depended upon him, which was worſe than d…ath its ſelf.

Sixteenthly, Putting of the late King to death, was Legicidium, as well as Regicidium, i. e. the death of the Law, as well as of the King. For firſt, By the King's death a stop was put to the making of any p. 163more Laws, which might be judged neceſſary for the good of the Nation. For without the King no Law can be made: His Royal Aſſent, Sanction, and Fiat, makes every Law to be a Law: Therefore the Parliament did never preſume to call any things by the name of a Law, which they made without the King; but by the name not of Acts, but of Ordinances of Parliament. Secondly, there was ſtop put to the execution of thoſe good and wholſome Laws, which were before in being. Execution (ſay they) is the life of Laws, and who but the King is the great Executioner of Laws, or the life of their Execution? When Judges and other great men in the Law went off by death, who but a King could legally ſubſtitute others in their room? If any Juſtice be done by Officers not legally called and conſtituted, we muſt be beholden to uſurpation for it Laws are things full of life and ſpirit, if they be ſuch for the conſtitution and execution of them as they ought to be; and upon the life of good Laws depend all our Lives, Liberties, good Names, Eſtates, Properties. It is as it were the breath of their Noſtrils. If the true Soul of the Law go out of it (which is the King) they muſt either be reſtored by ſome p. 164Ʋſurper, or uſurping ſpirit, or fall to the ground. They who deſtroy our Laws, or the due execution of them, had as good in effect burn up all our Ships, break down all our Forts and Fences; yea, they had as good almoſt cut down all our Banks and Buttreſſes upon the Sea-ſhore, and let in the Sea upon us, as do what they do. He that deſtroys one good Law, or the effect and progreſs of it, may do the world more miſchief, than if he had deſtroy'd twenty men, yea, a hundred ſuch as they might be. I had almoſt ſaid, If a man could ſtop the motion of the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and all their Influences upon the earth, their light, and height, &c. for ought I know, would not be more miſſed than the free courſe or progreſs of Laws would be. What Death then could be greater than their demerits, who kill'd not only the Law-maker, but the Laws themſelves, which are all in all in all that we have to ſhew or plead for any thing that we call ours in this world.

Seventhly. Alas! alas! that I ſhould yet have more wherewith to accuſe thoſe poor unhappy men, who put the late King to death; I ſay it was Homicidium barbarum, a barbarous Murther in reference to the circumſtances of it. Who knows not p. 165that cruelty may be ſhew'd even towards a noxious Brute, which ought to be put to death; as towards a wild Boar, or the like, namely, by making its neceſſary death more painful, or more lingring than it need to be; but if the ſame thing be done to a harmleſs Animal, as to a tame Dove, or ſuch like, the cruelty and barbarouſneſs is yet greater upon that account. If the ſeverity be applied to a reaſonable Creature, man or woman, it is counted ten times ſo barbarous; but when barbarous uſage ſhall be applied to a Prince, a King, our own King. a virtuous King, and one that had been a man of ſorrows, and acquainted with griefs for many years together not to grant him as handſome an Exit out of the world, as could conſiſt with an untimely death, was ſuch a tranſcendant inſtance of inhumane barbarity, as I think no age can parallel.

Reader, If thy heart can bear the mention of them, which I aſſure thee mine hardly can, and if thou art content to weep a while (for the following Lines are ſcarcely to be writ or read with dry eyes) I ſhall quote a few inſtances of the barbarous uſage which our dear and dread Sovereign, that then was met with, as I find them recorded p. 166in Dr. Perrinſhief's excellent Hiſtory of the Life and Death of King Charles I. To ſay nothing of the King-killing Party in Parliament and Army their over-ruling all the vigorous endeavours which were uſed from time to time by the whole Houſe of Lords, together with the major part of the Houſe of Commons to compromiſe all matters with his Majeſty, having courageouſly Voted (though the Army was drawn up to London to over-awe them) That the King's Conceſſions were a ſufficient ground for Peace, Dr. P. p. 174. But to come immediately to ſuch paſſages as do refer to his Death. Some would have the King (ſaith Dr. Perrinſhief, pag. 185. firſt formally degraded and diveſted of all his Royal Habiliments and Enſigns of Majeſty, and then as a private perſon expoſed to Juſtice. Others deſigning a Tyrannical Oligarchy, whereby they might have a ſhare in the Government, would have the King proceeded againſt as King, that by ſo ſhedding his Blood they might extinguiſh Majeſty, and ſo m…rther Monarchy. For ſeveral of them did confeſs that indeed he was guilty of no Crime more than that he was their King, and becauſe the excellency of his parts and the rights of his birth would not ſuffer him to be a private perſon; pag. 186. In their ſecond debate p. 167about the matters of Accuſation, all embraced the advice of Harriſon to blacken him, &c. Ibidem. Accordingly they impeached him as a Tyrant, Traitor, Murtherer, and an implacable common Enemy, becauſe he had levied war againſt the Parliament. Upon which the Author afterward deſcants thus excellently, pag. 187. Thoſe who had none but the light of nature to make them generous, never reproached their conquered Enemies with their Victory; but theſe men would murther their Prince againſt whom they had nothing elſe to object, but the unhappy iſſues of a war, which leaves the Conquered the only Criminal, while the name of Juſtice and Goodneſs are the ſpoils of Conquerors. Moſt barbarous was their cruelty, becauſe moſt inexorable. For (ſaith he, pag. 187. while they were thus ingaged to perpetrate their intended miſchiefs, all Parties declare against it. The Presbyterian Miniſters, almoſt all thoſe of London, and very many out of the ſeveral Countries, and ſome, though few of the Independents: The Scots alſo by their Commiſſioners declare and proteſt againſt it. The States of Holland alſo by their Embaſſadors did intercede and deprecate it, as most deſtructive to the Protestant Intereſt. Some of the moſt eminent of the Nobility, as the Earl of Southampton, p. 168the Duke of Richmond, the Marqueſs of Hertford, and the Earl of Lindſey, and others, neglact no ways either by Prayers or Reaſons to ſave the King; yea, they offered themſelves as Hoſtages for him, and if the Conſpirators muſt needs be fed with blood, to ſuffer in his ſtead. pag. 189. The Prince of Orange did daily ſend as Arents the Kindred and Allies of the Conſpirators with full Power, and to propoſe any Conditions, make any Promiſes, and uſe all threatnings to divert them from their intended cruelty. But all was in vain: For no conditions of Peace could pleaſe them, whoſe Ambition had ſwallowed the hopes of Empire; therefore they would remove the King to enthrone themſelves. To me it ſeems ſo barbarous, as nothing can be more, not to ſuffer his Majeſty to plead for himſelf, becauſe he would not own the Authority of the Court, which they themſelves knew in their own Conſciences was not veſted with any lawful Authority, but was a meer uſurpation, and a high affront, to bring a King before ſuch contemptible Judges. See in pag. 194. At his departure he was expoſed to all the ind…gnities that a baſe rabble could invent and commit; when the barbarous Souldiers cried out Juſtice, Juſtice, Execution, Execution. See alſo page 199. The Conſpirators meet p. 169in a Committee to appoint the manner, time, and place of the murther. Now bluſh, O Heavens, and be aſhamed, O Earth, at the reading of that which followeth. Some (ſaith he, page 199, and 200.) would have his Head and Quarters faſtned upon Poles (as it is uſual with Traitors) that the marks of their cruelty might outlaſt his death. Others would have him hang'd, as they puniſh'd Thieves and Murtherers. Others gave their Votes that he ſhould ſuffer in his Royal Habiliments, with his Crown, and in his Robes, that it might be a Triumph of the People's power over Kings. At laſt, they agree, That he ſhould loſe his Head near White-hall-gates before the Banqueting-houſe that ſo from thence where he uſed to ſit on his Throne, and ſhew the ſplendor of Majeſty, he might paſs to his Grave, there parting with the Enſignes of Royalty, and laying them down as Spoils, where he had before uſed them as the Robes of Empire. Thus did they endeavour to make their malice ingenious, and provided Triumphs for their revenge. And becauſe they ſuspected he would not ſtoop to the block, they cauſed to be faſtned in it ſome Iron ſtaples and Rings, that by them, with cords, they might draw him down if he would not comply.