The golden Rule, Text

The golden Rule · Text

p. 1THE GOLDEN RULE, Or, Juſtice Advanced.

ALCON of Creet, as a Dragon was embracing his ſon, ſhot an arrow into the heart, and hurt not the child, but the Dragon died immediately. Our State-Archers will now ſhew their skill and art, if (by Gods bleſſing on their labor) tyranny and oppreſſion may be taken away, without prejudice or hurt to the Nation: and for the better carrying on of ſo neceſſary and good a work, I have undertaken to prove, that when Princes become Dragons (as the Scripture uſually ſtileth great Tyrants)Iſa 27.1. Ezek, 29.3.Isa 27:1 'tis lawful for the ſupream and Soveraign power of the People to ſhoot at them, and kill them likewiſe; and whatſoever to the contrary is objected, either from Scripture, Law, Reaſon, or inconveniences, I have fully anſwered and refuted.

1. Objec. Firſt, The Rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, is mentioned, from which example ſome conclude, that all oppoſition and p. 2reſiſtance is unlawfull of the people againſt their King: Ergo, this kind of proceeding much more.

Anſw. This objection being impertinent, I ſhall ſpeak the leſſe to it. 1. Becauſe a faithfull officer in the due execution of his office, may not be oppoſed, reſiſted, puniſhed: will it follow, that the unfaithfull and wicked muſt be left alone? Moſes was a lawful Magiſtrate, and Aaron a true Miniſter of God, faithfull and good men both, and therefore to be obeyed; but Kings becoming perjur'd tyrants, are not ſo; neither is there any Allegeance or obedience from the people due to them, as we ſhall hereafter ſhew.

But 2. If this example be well conſidered, it will ſufficiently ſerve to juſtify ſo much as by me is here aſſerted, and thus I prove it: For any man or men cauſleſly to mutiny againſt the Supream Power of a Kingdom, and moſt unnaturally and impiouſly invade mens Lives, Liberties, and Eſtates, oppoſe Juſtice, and ſeek to bring a whole Nation to utter deſolation, ſuch lawfully may be reſiſted, ſuppreſſed; yea, by the example of Korah, &c. put to death: Now certain it is, howſoever Kings ruling according to Law are publick Miniſters of State, nevertheleſſe degenerating into Tyrants, and acting againſt Law, they are in ſuch a caſe, no more then private men: becauſe whatſoever at firſt was confirmed upon them in reſpect of Office, it did not in any ſort make a change upon their perſons; neither ſet them at any diſtance touching ſubjection to the Law, either active or paſſive, more then they were before; their perſonal eſtate was the ſame ſtill as before, neither are they exempted from corporall puniſhment if they break the Law, more then any other men.

2. objec. It is further objected, Exod. 22.28. Thou ſhalt not revile the gods, nor curſe the Ruler of thy people. Again, Ecc. 10.20. Curſe not the King, no not in thy thoughts, and curſe not the rich in thy bed-chamber. If Kings may not be curſ'd, much leſs put to death by their Subjects.

Anſw. 1. The firſt text is not properly meant of Kings, but pertains rather to Judges and other ſort of Rulers; and p. 3ſo the Jew Doctors underſtand the place. 2. Solomon well explains the place, Prov. 17.26. It is not good to ſtrike Princes for equity; that is, evil ſpeaking of Magiſtrates for well doing, is a wicked and vile thing. Hier. in hunc. ver. …3.The other text by ſome is applyed unto Chriſt the King of his Church. But take it literally, becauſe Kings may not be curſ'd, which is prohibited under pain of condemnation, will it therefore follow that Kings may be theeves, murderers, traytors, tyrants, and commit any wickedneſſe, and not be cal'd to an account by ſuch who are above them, and have a lawfull Power in their hands to puniſh them? 4. The place comprehends Rich-men as well as Kings, and therefore it may be as well concluded from it, that no man if rich, may be puniſhed for any crime or fault whatſoever. 5. Both theſe if rightly applyed are altogether for us: for whoſoever (whether King or Prince) ſhall curſe and revile the Supream and Soveraign State of the Land, and that for well doing, as call them Rebels and Traytors, and violently ſeek to deſtroy them, he abſolutely violateth this Law, Thou ſhalt not revile the gods. It is true, there is here no puniſhment ſet down for him, that ſhould thus rail: But ſeeing (as one writes on the place)Willet Qu. 57. he that railed on his father and mother was to die for it, Exod. 21.17. much more worthy of death was he, which ſhould curſe the fathers of the Countrey.

3. objec. I counſell thee to keep the Kings commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. Be not haſty to go out of his ſight, ſtand not in an evill thing, for he doth whatſoever pleaſeth him. Where the word of a King is, there is power, and who may ſay to him, What doſt thou? Ecc. 8.2,3,4. Hence the Royalliſts argue, If the word of a King muſt ſtand, and his power not to be reſiſted, how can his Subjects lawfully touch his Perſon?

Anſw. 1. To keep the Kings commandment muſt be underſtood of things juſt and lawfull: otherwiſe (as the Apoſtle ſaith) We muſt obey God rather than man. It is well laid down by Philo, Philo de vita Moſis.Regis officium eſt jubere quae oportet fieri, & vetare a quibus abſtinere debet: caeterum juſſie faciendorum, & interdictio cavendoru m proprie ad Legem pertinet. Atque ita conſequitur, p. 4ut Rex animata ſit, Lex vero ſit Rex juſtiſſimus. The office of a King is to command, thoſe things which ought to be don, and to forbid thoſe things which ought to be avoyded. But the command of things to be don, and the forbidding of things not to be don, properly belongeth to the Law. And ſo it followeth that a King is a living Law, and the Law is a moſt juſt King.

2. The oath of God here, is the oath which is taken in the name of God, and whereof God is made a witneſſe: The meaning is, the King is ſo to be obeyed, as that God is not to be diſobeyed, and that the oath made to the King is ſo to be kept, as that the oath made to God be not broken. Hence Tremellius reads it, ſed pro ratione juramenti Dei, but with regard to the oath of God: ſhewing that Subjects are by their Allegeance and Covenant no further obliged to obſerve the Laws of earthly Princes, then are agreeable to Gods commandments.

3. Whereas it is ſaid, He doth whatſoever pleaſeth him: this muſt be underſtood only of a good King, and juſt cōmands, as if it were ſupplyed with, whatſoever pleaſeth God, not licet ſi libet, as if all were lawfull whatſoever a King ſhould do; but the genuine ſence of the place is, ſtand not in an evill matter, for the King hath power to do whatſoever he pleaſeth in way of juſtice to puniſh thee, if thou continue obſtinate in evil courſes, to forgive thee, if thou confeſſe, ſubmit and crave pardon of him for the ſame.

4. Who may ſay to him what doſt thou? that is reprove, or cenſure him for doing juſtly as Job expounds it, Chap. 34 18. and ſo muſt the place be underſtood: to wit, that no man may preſume to queſtion the Kings juſt actions, warranted by the Law of God and men, but otherwiſe Kings may, and are to be reprehended, as we have ſundry examples for it, in Elias reproving Ahab; Eliſha, Jehoram; Nathan, David; John Baptiſt, Herod. 1 Sam. 13.13. 2 King. 3.14. Jer. 1… 28. chap. 22.3. Ho. 5.1.21 Sam 13:132 Kgs 3:14Jer 1:28Yea, not only ſo, but to be reſiſted, withſtood, and oppoſed in their unrighteous courſes. Hence Auguſtine and Ambroſe do affirm,Augu. in Pſal. 82. Amb. in Offic.Ps 82 when Herod and Pilate condemned Chriſt, and cauſed him to be put p. 5to death, howſoever the people lamented it, were ſorry for him, and ſorely bewail'd his death; yet were they all puniſhed: and why ſo? becauſe when they were able and might have taken him out of the hands of unjuſt and wicked Magiſtrates, and ſo preſerv'd his life, they did it not, in this regard they wrapt themſelvs in the ſame guilt of blood and became murderers of him.

But laſtly, This text intends, only private men? not a Parliament, the ſupreameſt Judicatory and Soveraign power in the Kingdom: for in this High Court, the Kings Perſon is no other than another ſubject; I ſay it again to this Court, He perſonally ſtands as a ſingle man to be queſtioned, cenſured, puniſhed as the Crime and Cauſe ſhall be. And in truth, here lies the ſtone at which many have ſtumbled, much like to that long controverſie between us and the Church of Rome, about Petros, and Petra; Peter, and the Rock. We diſtinguiſh them, taking the perſon of Peter to be one thing, his faith, or Chriſt another. Whereas the Papiſts will allow of no ſuch diſtinction. So the Title and Office of a King is one thing, the Perſon another: and howſoever the former comes not into queſtion, yet the latter may. But many by mixing and confounding things together which ſhould be ſevered and diſtinguiſhed, apprehend not how the Perſon of the King, and not the Title and Office of a King can be queſtioned, cenſured, and puniſhed. Hugo Grotius, putting down ſeven caſes in which the people may have moſt real action againſt the King, to accuſe, and puniſh him:Groti. de jure bell. & pac. l. 1▪ cap. 4. The ſecond is, He may (ſaith he) be puniſhed as a private man.

4. Objec. That place in Pſal. 105.14.15. is uſually objected, Touch not mine anointed. This by Royalliſts is applied to Kings, as a prohibition, that no man touch them, ſo as to hurt their Perſons.

Anſw. 1. The words in the Prophet, do not at all concern Kings, but were ſpoken directly and immediatly of the Patriarks, their wives, & families, walking as ſtrangers from Nation to Nation; the which is evident by verſ. 6. by the p. 6whole ſerious of the Pſalm, which is hiſtorical; ſome places of Geneſis to which the words relate,Gen. 12. 10. to 20. ch. 20. & 26. 1. to 29.Gen 12:10–20 and the general confeſſion of all Expoſitors on the place. The Cavalliers had in one of their Colours (which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marſton, July 2. Anno 1644.) the Crown and the Prelates mitre painted, with theſe words, Nolite tangere Chriſtos meos: ſo that it ſeems the antichriſtian mitre claims here a ſhare with the crown.

But 2. Admit this Scripture ſhould be ſo meant, (which is not ſo) yet nothing can be hence rightly gathered, that Kings ſhould be exempted from Arreſts, Impriſonments, or Sentence of death it ſelf. For 1. If we take it ſpiritually for the internal oyl of the Spirit, as this annointing is common to ſubjects as wel as Kings, ſo it muſt follow neceſſarily that in their perſons they are no more exempted from arraignment and capital cenſures than other men.

2. Admit it be meant of an actual external Anointing, yet that in it ſelf affords Kings no greater priviledge, than the inward unction of which it is a type, neither can it priviledge them from the juſt corporal ſentence of all kinds: and this is manifeſt in Sihon, Og, Adonibezek, Eglon, Agag, Joram, Ahaziah, Jehoaz and others, who by Princes and ſubjects of another nation, were apprehended, and ſlain, and juſtly, as all grant without exception. Beſides, Kings who are ſubordinate homagers, and ſubjects to other Kings and Emperours, though annointed, may for treaſons and rebellions againſt them, be lawfully judged to death, and executed; as appears by ſundry preſidents in our own and forraign Hiſtories. Yea, the Roman, Greek, and Germane Emperors, have been Impriſoned, Depoſed, and ſome of them judicially judged to death by their own Senates, Parliaments, and States for their oppreſſion and tyranny: So the ancient Kings of France, Spain, Arragon, Brittain, Hungarie, Poland, Denmark, Bohemia, India &c. & that juſtly notwithſtanding any pretence of being anointed Soveraigns: And it is by Grotius confeſſed,Grot. de Jur. bel. & pac. l. 1 cap. 4 That the People may puniſh the King to death for matters capital, if ſo it be agreed on betwixt king and the people, as in Lacedemonia.

p. 73. If the Scope and Sence of this Text be duly weighed, it is ſo far from affording Kings any corporal immunities, or exemption from puniſhment, as it cleerly ſpeaks the contrary: For the words are not ſpoken of Kings, but by God Himſelf ſpoken unto Kings, that they ſhould not touch his Spiritual anointed Saints, men conſecrated unto him by the oyl of the Spirit. But you wil ſay, What if they touch Gods anointed, even ſpoil and murder them for his ſake? I anſwer, The Law (Gen. 9.6.) excepteth none: the deareſt that nature knoweth are not excepted. Who ſo ſheddeth mans blood, by man ſhall his blood be ſhed. The Supream Court of Juſtice is here highly concerned. Thus ſaith the Lord, Becauſe thou haſt let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter deſtruction; therefore thy life ſhall go for his life, and thy people for his people.1 King. 20.42.1 Kgs 20:42

5. obiect. Davids often ſparing of Saul, though in his hand is often object. And Dr. Gauden in his late Letter to his Excellency, ſaies, You cannot be ignorant of Davids both conſciencious and generous reſpect to Sauls ſafety, and life, whom he leaves to Gods juſtice, by no uſurpation of power, ſucceſſes, or opportunities of revenge. page 7.

Anſ. 1. There is nothing from Davids carriage towards Saul in this particular, but to bring it into a ſhort account is thus: Subjects ought not wilfully or purpoſely to murder or offer violence to the perſon of the King, ſpecially in their cold blood when he doth not actually aſſault them, nor have a lawful power judiciouſly to proceed againſt him.

2. But more particularly I anſwer. The difference was but private and perſonal between Saul & David, David being Sauls private ſubject, ſervant and ſon-in-law; not publick between Saul and his Parliament or Kingdom. Now many things are unlawful in private quarrels, which are juſt and honourable in publick differences. Saul intended no Arbitrary government, nor to make Iſrael a conquered people, nor yet to cut off all the godly, under the pretence of hereticks and ſectaries; neither to deſtroy laws, liberties p. 8and Parliaments: nor came Saul againſt theſe Princes, Elders, and People who made him King; only David's head would have made Saul lay down his arms.

3. Howſoever ſome reaſons may be given wherefore David ſpared Saul, as, 1. Being his father-in-law, and lord too, and ſo it would have been thought ſomewhat an unnaturall act in him, and ſavoured too much of private revenge and ambition, aſpiring to the Crown before due time. 2. By his lenity to convince Saul, and reclaim him from his bloody purſuit, and cleer his innocency to the world.

And laſtly, Manifeſt his dependance upon God, and his ſpecial promiſe, that he ſhould enjoy the crown after Saul, by divine appointment: nevertheleſſe, if theſe and other Scriptures be well peruſed, Saul and David ſoldiers (if not David himſelf) conceived that David might with ſafe conſcience have puniſhed him, as well as pittied him.1 Sam. 24.10.11 12.17.18 & 26.23.24.1 Sam 24:101 Sam 24:11 Expedient I confeſſe it was (for the conſiderations mentioned) to ſpare him, but whether the thing in ſoro Dei and in it ſelf altogether unlawful had he ſlain him (ſpecially after he had killed the Prieſts, and deſtroyed both men and women, children and ſucklings in Nob)1 Sam. 22.18.191 Sam 22:181 Sam 22:19 I leave to the judicious Reader to think of.

6. Objec. That place 1 Sam 8.9. and ver. 11. is much alleadged to prove both the abſolute power of a King, and the unlawfulneſſe of reſiſtance. aaGrot. de Jur. bel. & pac. lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3.Hugo Grotius, bbBarcl. cont. mon l. 2. p. 64.Barclay, ccArniſ. de fur. 6. Mai. c. 1. n. 3. p. 157, 158.Arniſaeus, ddDr. Fern 3. p. Sect. 2. p. 10.D^r. Fern, and others argue thus; that by this place, The People oppreſſed with the injuries of a tyrannous King, have nothing left them but prayers and tears to God, and will have us diſtinguiſh inter officium Regis & poteſtatem, between the Kings office and the Kings power; and it cannot be ver. 9.11. the cuſtome and manner of the King, but muſt be the law of abſolute Majeſty, &c.

It is ſaid of Paracelſus that the diet he preſcribed his patients, was to eat what, and how often they thought fitting themſelves. Royalliſts and Court-flatterers do allow ſuch an abſolute prerogative to Kings, that if they would make uſe of their plenitude and unlimitted power, there is no wickedneſſe p. 9but they may do. viz. violently raviſh matrons, deflour virgins; unnaturally abuſe youth, cut all their Subjects throats, fire their houſes, ſack their Cities, ſubvert their Liberties, and (as Bellarmin puts the caſe of the Popes abſolute irreſiſtible authority) ſend millions of ſouls to hel; yet no man under pain of damnation, may or ought demand of him, Domine, cur ita facis? Sir, what do you? ſuch a ſlavery thoſe vermins have ſought to bring all Subjects into.

But to anſwer, 1. The ſcope and drift of the place is thus: Samuel being diſpleaſed with the people becauſe they would reject Gods government, who was then their King, having in his own hand the regal rights, and did ſubſtitute under him Judges, whom he extraordinarily called, qualified, and inſpired them with his ſpirit; ſhews them the manner of the King, ver. 9.11. not what they ſhould be, and ought to do in right, but what they uſe to be, and do in fact, and how commonly they demean themſelves in Government, contrary to Gods Law, Deut. 17.15. and the Lawes of the Kingdom; and that he ſpeaks not here of the Law or power of a lawfull King, but of Saul's tyrannicall uſurpation: is evident thus.

1. The Hebrew word is not foreign but foreign, the which as our Engliſh rendreth, is the manner, and ſo the word uſually ſignifies aa2 K ng. 17.26. Gen. 40 13. Exod, 21,19. 1 Sam, 27,11.Gen 40:13a cuſtome or manner; and as a cuſtom, ſo a wicked bb1 Sam, 2,13, 1 Kings 18,28,1 Kgs 18:28cuſtome. Peter Martyr on the place ſaith, He meaneth here of an uſurped Law. The cuſtome and manner of doing, ſay Junius and Tremellius. Clemens Alexandrinus on the place ſaith, non humanum pollicetur Dominum, ſed inſolentem daturum minatur tyrannum, he promiſeth not a humane Prince, but threatneth to give them an inſolent tyrant. So ſaith Beda. Lyra expoundeth it Tyranny: ſo Cajetanus. And Serrarius, he ſpeaketh not here, quid Reges jure poſſint, ſed quid audeant; what they may do by right and Law, but what they wil be bold to do; and ſo ſpeaketh Thomas Aquinas, Oſiander, Pelican, Borhaius, Willet and our laſt large Annotations, take it, that Samuel ſetteth not down the office of a King; and what p. 10he ought to be, but what manner of Kings they ſhould have, ſuch as would decline to tyranny, be tyrants, not Kings, rule by will, not by Law.

2. He ſpeaketh of ſuch a power as is anſwerable to the acts here ſpoken of: but the acts here ſpoken of, are acts of meer tyranny. As 1. to make ſlaves of their ſons, ver. 11. was an act of Tyranny. 2. To take their fields, and vineyards, and oliveyards from them, ver. 14. was no better then Ahabs cruelty towards Naboth. 3. To put the people of God to bondage. ver. 15, 16. was to deal with them as the Tyrant Pharaoh did. 4. He ſpeaketh of ſuch a Law, the execution whereof ſhould make them cry out to the Lord becauſe of their King. ver. 18. but the execution of the juſt Law of the King, Deut. 17. is a bleſſing, not a croſſe or curſe.

3. It is clear, that God by his Prophet diſſwades them from their purpoſe of ſeeking a King, by fortelling the evil of puniſhment, that they ſhould ſuffer under a tyrant. for 1. Samuel is to proteſt againſt their unlawfull courſe, v. 9. 2. He is to lay before them the tyranny and oppreſſion of their King, which cruelty Saul exerciſed in his time; as the hiſtory of his life ſheweth. But he ſpeaketh not one word of theſe neceſſary and comfortable acts of favour, that a juſt King by his good Government was to do for his people, Deut. 17. 3. It is ſet down, ver. 19. how in effectual Samuels exhortation was: now how could it be ſaid, they refuſed to hear the voyce of Samuel, if he had not dehorted them from a King.

2. Touching theſe words, and ye ſhall cry out in that day becauſe of your King. 1. Here is not one word of any lawfull remedy, for this is not alwayes underſtood of praying to God by reaſon of oppreſſion, as by many aaIſ. 15.4. Ha. 2.11. Deut. 22.24.Isa 15:4Deut 22:24Scriptures doth appear. 2. Though it were the Prophets meaning, they cryed unto the Lord, yet it is not the crying of a people truly humbled, and in faith ſpeaking to God in their bbZec. 7.12. Pſal. 18.41.Ps 18:41troubles, and therefore ſuch prayer as God heareth not. 3. It is a rule in Logick and Divinity, Ex particulari non valet argumentum negative; from one particular place a negative argument p. 11is not good. To apprehend, impriſon, and put a tyrant to death is not written in this particular place: therefore it is not written at al in other places of Scripture. But 4. The text ſayes not They ſhall only cry out, as if no other courſe were to be uſed againſt a tyrant, but crying out, which ſhews a meer fallacy and abſurdity in what they ſpeak. Becauſe a man muſt pray for Kings and Rulers; Ergo, there is no tribute or obedience due to them. Again, Men muſt pray for their daily bread, and ſick perſons ſeek to God for health. Ergo, they muſt only pray, and not labor for it, they muſt take no phiſick but only pray.

3. If the Prophets words be rightly underſtood, he is ſo far from affirming that the power of a King is abſolute, and uncontroulable, as on the contrary he cloſely admoniſheth the people, that they ſhould look to him, as to reſtrain and bridle his licentious liberty, and keep him within the due limits of law and reaſon, and ſeeing he is apt to degenerate into a tyrant, and cruelly to oppreſſe the ſubjects, to be therefore prudent and carefull ſeaſonably to prevent ſo great a miſchief and danger.

Laſtly, In the whole deſcription here of a tyrant there is not one word againſt our Concluſion. For 1. The peoples power (whoſe Repreſentatives the Ordines Regni, the States of the Kingdom are) is above the King. Polib. hiſ. l. 6,Such were the Ephori amongſt the Lacedemonians, the Senate amongſt the Romans: The Forum Superbienſe amongſt the Arragonians: The Electors of the Emperors: the Parliaments in England, Scotland, France, and Spain: The Fathers of Families, and Princes of Tribes amongſt the Jews. And for this Soveraign and Supream power of Eſtates, as above Kings, I appeal to Juriſts, and to approved Authors. Argu. L. aliud. 160. ſect. 1. de Jur. Reg. l. 22. Mortuo de fidei. l. 11.14. ad Mum. l. 3.14. Cornelius Bertramo, c. 12. Junius Brutus, Vindic. cont. Tyran. ſect. 2. Sigonius de Rep. Judaeor. l. 6. c. 7. Author Libelli de Jur. Magiſt. in Subd. q. 6. Althuſ. Pol. c. 18. Calvin Inſtit. l. 4. c. 20. Pareus in Rom. 13. Peter Mart. in lib. Judic. c. 3. Joan Marianus, de Rege, lib. 1. c. 7. Marius Salamonius p. 12Lib. 1. de Principatu Hottaman de jure. Antiq. Reg. Gallica. l. 1. c. 22. Danaeus Polit. Chriſt. l. 3. c. 6. Buchanan de Jure Regni apud Scotos.

2. The King is under Law, and puniſhable by Law, as we ſhal manifeſt more fully hereafter. It is the Law▪ Imp, l. 4, dignavox C, de leg. & tit.Quod quiſque Juris in alium ſtatuit, eodem et ipſe utatur. What a man of right enacteth for another, the ſame he himſelf ſhould do. If otherwiſe, proving a Tyrant, he may (ſaith Bartol)In tractat, de Tyran, & in tract, de re, Ci. Jun. Bru, vind, con, tyr. l, 3. be juſtly depoſed by his ſuperiour, or according to the Julian law, by force of the whol Common-wealth moſt deſervedly puniſhed. I will end this point with the words of Junius Brutus. A Tyrant (ſaith he) is more outragiouſly wicked, than any thief, high-way-robber, murderer, or ſacrilegious perſon, and therefore deſerves a far greater, heavier, and ſeverer puniſhment.

7 obiect, I find ſome to frame their objection thus. None of the Prophets in the old Teſtament reprehending the Kings of Iſrael and Judah for their groſſe Idolatry, cruelty, and oppreſſion, did call upon the great Councel of State, to convent, cenſure, & put their Kings to death upon any of theſe grounds, therefore to put them to death is unlawful.

Anſw. 1. It is a great Non-conſequence, Ariſtoteles aut Plato hoc non dixerunt, hoc Ergo ita ſe non habet. Fra, Bur… Inſtit, L…, l. 1. c. 18.This duty is not practiſed by any example out of the Prophets in Gods word. Ergo, It is no duty. Practice in Scripture, is a narrow rule of faith: ſhew a practice when a husband ſtoned his wife becauſe ſhe enticed him to follow ſtrange gods. Yet it is commanded, Deut. 13.6. when a man lying with a beaſt was put to death. Yet it is a law, Exod. 22.19. ſo many other laws, the practice of which we find not in Scripture.

But 2. Seeing none of the Prophets did forbid the thing, or dehorted the people from proceeding this way, therefore it was lawful, and the people freely might have done it, if they had been zealous of the law, and had a heart to it. And to make this cleer, take notice what the Law ſaith,Levit. 19.35,36, Deut. 25,13.Lev 19:35Lev 19:36Deut 25:13 Ye ſhall do no unrighteouſneſs in judgement, in meteyard, in weight, or in meaſure: juſt ballances, juſt weights, &c. Thou ſhalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a ſmall. Theſe ordinances p. 13taught men juſtice. Ye ſhall not reſpect perſons in judgment, ye ſhall not be afraid of the face of man: deu. 1.17.ſo that whoſoever was a murderer, an adulterer, a witch, a Sodomite &c. he was to be put to death. And queſtionleſs, had the Lord intended, that ſome, (namely Kings, howbeit murderers, adulterers, witches,) ſhould be exempted from the puniſhment of ſuch laws, as being no power or Court on earth to reach them, it would have been ſome where ſet down. And therefore whereas it is objected, that the Prophets ſpeak no where of putting their Idolaters & wicked Kings to death, the truth is, it needed not, neither was there any reaſon for it, for it was never queſtioned in the Prophets times, whether Kings might be put to death if they did ſuch things as by the law was death.

3. Not only is it evident by the Hiſtory of the Kings and Chronicles in ſundry places,2 Kin. 21.11.12. & 23.26. & 24.3. Jer. 15.1,2,3.4.2 Kgs 21:112 Kgs 21:122 Kgs 23:262 Kgs 24:3Jer 15:1Jer 15:2Jer 15:3Jer 15:4 that God did puniſh the people for the wickedneſs of their Kings: but likewiſe the Prophets have threatned ſo much: the which thing ſurely God in juſtice would not have done, neither the Prophets ſo have ſpoken, had not the people power to have removed them, and put them to death for their capital crimes, according to the Law.

4. When the Prophets exhorted the People to repent, and to execute juſtice and judgment, and to deliver him that was ſpoiled out of the hands of the oppreſſor. Jer, 7.5. & 21.12. & 22,3.Here they did call upon the great Councel of State to puniſh their tyrannous, murderous, and idolatrous Kings with death, according to the law: for otherwiſe, how could the people truly repent, or have anſwered what the Prophets exhorted them unto in point of juſtice.

5. That tyrannous Princes, not only by command of Gods Prophets, but of God himſelf, and by his ſpecial approbation have been put to death by their ſubjects, 'tis apparent in Scripture: thus Nadab by Baaſha, Elah by Zimry, Jehu by Gods own appointment puts to death Joram and Ahaziah Kings of Iſrael and Judah: And ſay, that it was extraordinary to Jehu that he ſhould kill Joram, yet there p. 14was an expreſſe law for it, that he that ſtirreth up others to idolatry, ſhould die the death. Deut. 13.6. And mark what Mr. Rutherfurd writes in this very point,Preem Elect, qu 34. p. 364 THERE IS NO EXCEPTION OF KING or Father in the Law: For to except Father or mother in Gods matters is expreſly againſt the zeal of God. Deut. 33.9.

8 obiect. That paſſage in Pſal. 51.4. is much taken hold of, where King David confeſſing his ſin of adultery and murder to God, uſeth this expreſſion, againſt thee, thee only have I ſinned, and don this evill in thy ſight: Sac. Mai. p. 148. de author prin. c. 4. num. 5. p. 73Hence Maxwell, Arniſaeus, and others conclude, That the King is above all Law, and all earthly Tribunals; accountable to none for his actions, but to God, and that there was not any on earth, who might puniſh David.

I have ſomewhere read how Caliſthenes Lucullus ſervant, gave his Maſter poyſon, not of any evill intent, but ſuppoſing the poyſon had power to make his Maſter love him the more; but it put him out of his wits, and kill'd him. Fawning Sycophants, and Court-flatterers, have uſually thus ſerved Kings and Princes, in hope of more love, and greater preferment from them, have powerd into them the venemous doctrine of abſolute Monarchs, Arbitrary power, to be reſponſable to none but God only, for what they do; by which means they have grown mad Tyrants, and afterwards cut off by ſome viſible and ſenſible ſtroke of juſtice.

But to the objection, I anſwer, 1. It is moſt certain that David by his adultery and murder (being ſins againſt the ſecond table) did ſin not only againſt God, but againſt Ʋ riah, his wife, children, and kindred, and againſt his own ſoul. And this muſt needs be ſo, for otherwiſe, 1. The King becauſe a King is free, not only from all puniſhing Laws of men: but from the duties of the ſecond Table ſimply, and ſo a King cannot be under the beſt and largeſt half of the law, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelf.

2. He ſhall not need to ſay, forgive us our ſins as we forgive them that ſin againſt us. For there is no reaſon from the nature of ſin, and the nature of Gods Law, why we can ſay p. 15more the ſubjects and ſons ſin againſt the King and Father, then to ſay, the Father and King ſin againſt the ſonnes and ſubjects. 3. The King killing his Father Jeſse ſhould ſin only againſt God, but not break the fift commandment, nor ſin againſt his Father.

2. As all Emperors, Kings, and Princes, are ſubject to the Lawes of God, of nature, and Nations; ſo are they bound in conſcience to give ſatisfaction and recompence to their ſubjects againſt whom they ſin in this nature; and David himſelf determines ſo much in his own cauſe. And Davids anger was greatly kindled againſt the man (the man was himſelf, 1 Sam. 12.7. thou art the man) and he ſaid to Nathan, as the Lord liveth the man that hath don this ſhall ſurely die.

3. For the reaſon of Davids ſpeech, in ſaying, againſt thee, thee only have I ſinned. Expoſitors are diverſly minded, ſome ſay, he meaneth none durſt judge or puniſh him, but God onelyonly. Lorinus the Jeſuit obſerveth eleven interpretations of Ancient writers all to this ſence. It is true, Beda, Euthymius, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtome, Baſil, Theodoret, do acknowledge from the place de facto, there was none above David to judge him: ſo Auguſtine, Baſil, Gregory, Arnobius, Dydimus, Hieronim. But the ſimple meaning is, Againſt thee only. 1. As my eye witneſſe and immediate beholder: for he conceal'd his ſin from men, but could not from God. 2 Sam. 12.12. 2. Becauſe as the cauſe ſtood, God only could remit the puniſhment of his ſin. 3. By only he means comparatively, as if he ſhould ſay, principally and eſpecially againſt thee: Iſa. 43 5 Pſal. 41.3Isa 43:5Ps 41:3and the word (aa1 King 15.7. Joſh 1.7.18, 1 Sam. 18.17.1 Kgs 15:7Josh 1:7Josh 1:181 Sam 18:17 only) is often ſo taken.

4. The Sanedrim did not puniſh David: Ergo, it was not lawful for them; nor is it lawfull for a State to puniſh a King for any act of injuſtice, is logick which we may reſiſt.

5. Had the adultery, and murder been publickly known, and complained of to the Great Councel of the Kingdom, I do affirm, and will ſtand to it, that they might judicially have proceeded againſt him for it. And becauſe ſome wil be ready to brand this under the ſcornful terme of a new light, or think I am ſingular herein, I ſhall here ſet down the judgment p. 16of a judicious and learned profeſſor of Divinity, Mr. Sam. Rutherfurd a Scotchman. Preem of Elect of King. qu 26, p, 241The Prelate (ſaith he) draweth me to ſpeak of the caſe of the Kings unjuſt murder confeſſed, Pſal. 51. To which I anſwer, He taketh it for confeſſed, that it had been treaſon in the Sanedrin and States of Iſrael, to have taken on them to judge and puniſh David for his adultery and murder, but he giveth no reaſon for this nor any word of God: and truly, though I will not preſume to go before others in this, Gods law (Gen. 9.6. compared with Numb. 35.30,31.) ſeemeth to ſay againſt them.

Nor can I think that Gods law,Deut, 1,17 2 Chr. 19 6,7,2 Chr 19:62 Chr 19:7 or his deputy the Judges are to accept the perſons of the great, becauſe they are great: and we ſay, we cannot diſtinguiſh where the Law diſtinguiſheth not. The Lord ſpeaks to under-Judges, Levit. 19.15. Thou ſhalt not reſpect the perſon of the poor, nor the honor of the perſon of the mighty, or of the PRINCE, for we know what theſe names foreign and foreign meaneth. I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King ſhould draw the ſword againſt himſelf; but yet it follows not, that if we ſpeak of the demerit of blood, that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or ſmall, and if the STATE BE ABOVE THE KING, as I conceive they are, though it be a humane politick conſtitution, that the King is free from all coaction of law, becauſe it conduceth for the peace of the Common-wealth, yet if we make a matter of conſcience▪ FOR MY PART, I SEE NO EXCEPTION THAT GOD MAKES OF IT; if men make, I crave leave to ſay, A facto ad jus non ſequitur. Thus that Reverend Author.

Laſtly, This ſin againſt Ʋrijah was perſonal, and a private injury into which David fell by occaſion, and out of humane frailty: it was the firſt and only ſin that he committed in this kind that ever we reade of, he made no trade of it, he repented for it, and never relapſed after into it. Whereas Charles Steuart in a hoſtile and publick way hath murdered many thouſands of his beſt ſubjects, by giving Warrants and Commiſſions under his own hand to Atheiſts, and Papiſts, perſonally appeared in many battles to deſtroy the people, cauſed ſundry villages, towns, and cities to be p. 17ruinated by fire, plunder, rapine, authoriſed villanous Pirates of other nations, (not to mention his own Son, nor Rupert that monſter of mankind) to rob and kill his own ſubjects at ſea: gave Ormond commiſſion, and the bloody Iriſh, to kill and maſſacre, not ſo few as two hundred thouſand, men women, and children, of the Proteſtant religion in Ireland; not to ſpeak of fifteen hundred widowes which he made in one morning, as M^r. Henderſon told him; nor the loſſe of Rochel in France, by his lending ſhips to the French King; and this was his trade and conſtant practice many yeers together, and doubtleſſe would have continued ſo to this day, had not the Lord of Hoſts by a powerfull hand (uſing our Army as inſtrumental means) ſuppreſt him: and for all this his heart never ſmote him as it could be perceived, but remain'd impenitent and incorrigeble in his ſins.

9. obiect. It is likewiſe objected,Jer. 29,7.Jer 29:7 That the children of Iſrael were commanded by God himſelf to pour out ſupplications & prayers for the peace and proſperous eſtate of Nebuchadnezer a moſt cruel tyrant, and that it was not lawfull for the Jewes to withdraw themſelves from the ſubjection which they did owe unto his Empire: Neither would the Lord authorize the people to deliver themſelves from under Pharaoh, but made Moſes a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a ſtretched out arm: Nor did the Lord deliver his People by the wiſdom of Moſes, or ſtrength of the People, or any act that way of theirs, but by his own immediate hand and Power. Hence conclude, that ſubjects may not puniſh their Kings for any miſdemeanour.

Anſw. 1. The Jews were not only ſubjects and of a private condition, but likewiſe moſt of them ſervants and bond-men under the power and Empire of the Caldeans, and therefore for private men to riſe up againſt the Magiſtrates, or to reſiſt them with force of arms had been unlawfull.

2. And let it be obſerved, that the Jews came by the immediate appointment of the Lord, under the power of the Caldeans, of which thing they were often preadmoniſhed and fore-told by the Prophets: ſo that it was not only unlawfull for Zedekiah and the reſt of the Jews in the time of p. 18their captivity to reſiſt the tyranny of the Caldeans, but likewiſe before the captivity, they could not with a good conſcience have reſiſted, or maintain'd the city againſt them when they had beſieged it; foraſmuch as the Lord commanded them by Jeremy that they ſhould deliver up the city into the hands of the Caldeans, and without reſiſtance yeeld themſelves to be their ſervants.Chap. 21.2,3,4, & 27,1,12,13,14, ch 36, ch, 37

3. Touching Pharaoh, 1. He had not his crown from Iſrael. 2. Pharaoh had not ſworn to defend Iſrael, nor became their King upon condition and oath to maintain their Laws, Liberties, and Rights. 3. Iſrael had their land in Egypt by the meer gift of the King. 4. The Iſraelites were not his native ſubjects, but ſtrangers and ſojourners; who by the Laws of the King and Princes, by the means of Joſeph had gotten the land of Goſhen for their dwelling, and liberty to ſerve the God of Abraham, to whom they prayed in their bondage.Exod. 2,23,24.Exod 2:23Exod 2:24 The Kings of England (as Kings) have ſtood to England in a four-fold contrary relation: they have had their crown by the voluntary and free choiſe of the People, and no otherwiſe but conditionally; that is, covenanting and taking their oath to do ſo and ſo, for the publick good: The Engliſh are natives, not beholding to their Kings for their poſſeſſions, nor ever held the ſame as gratis from them: The Supream and Soveraign Power of the Kingdom is in their hand; the which Iſrael in Egypt never had, nor could lawfully challenge.

10. obje. D^r. Gouden ſpeaking of putting the King to death, ſaith, Never did Chriſt or his Apoſtles by practice or precept give the leſt intimation of the will of his Father as agreeing to what you declare to be your purpoſe. Chriſt (ſaith Maxwel)Sac. San. Mai. c, 5. n. 6. in the cradle taught by practice to flee from Herod, and all Chriſts actions are full of myſteries and our inſtructions: He might have had Legions of Angels to defend him, but would rather work a miracle in curing of Malchu's ear, as uſe the ſword againſt Caeſar. He ſuffered under Pontius Pilate, & to commend patient ſuffering of ill, & condemn al reſiſtance of ſuperiors, would have ſervants ſuffer buffets not only for ill doing of good maſters, but alſo undeſervedly of theſe maſters p. 19that are evill, and that from his own example, 1 Pet. 2.18.21.23. much more are we patiently to ſuffer of Kings without reſiſtance.

The monuments of Babels ruin, ſhew farre off to be high and great things, but being neer they are very low and little too: whatſoever is here, if we come up cloſe to it, 'tis impertinences, non-conſequences and nothing elſe. And firſt in general we anſwer, 1. Chriſt ſaying, His Kingdom is not of the world, and refuſing to take the Magiſtracy upon him ſignifyed thereby, that for civil politie he left it to the people, to practice according to the humane Law and reaſon, and as it might beſt ſerve for every nations ſafety, peace, and welfare. 2. When the D^r. writes next, I would have him ſet down where Chriſt and his Apoſtles, by precept or practice taught, that any man for murder, treaſon, rebellion, &c. might lawfully be put to death by the higher powers: if he find this thing no where directly or by conſequence in the New Teſtament, then under favor of his Doctorſhip, it is ſimply ſpoken: But if he can find ſuch a precept or practice, thus far I do ingage, and challenge any man to oppoſe, that I will as clearly prove from the ſame place, that the Commons of England may lawfully put their King to death for the like crimes. 3. If Chriſt came not to deſtroy the Law, as the Law of nature, Nations, then it is not contrary to any precept or practice of his, for the Parliament of England, to judge to death the King for treaſon and high miſdemeanors againſt the law of nature and Nations. But the firſt is true, therefore the latter.

2. For a more particular anſwer: 1. Chriſt flying into Egypt, what myſtery ſoever it had, ſure I am, it contained no prohibition againſt the lawfull execution of juſtice and judgment upon any man.

2. That Chriſt might have defended himſelf with more then twelve legions of Angels, but would not, it was not becauſe, to cut off tyrants is unlawfull, … no ſhadow for that in the Text, but becauſe it was Gods will, that he ſhould drink the cup his Father gave him.

3. That Chriſt blamed Peter for ſpeaking of drawing p. 20his ſword: Rivetus ſheweth the reaſons,Rivet, in dec. in mand. 6. pag, 234. 1. Becauſe it had a kind of revenge in it: for ſo few could not repel ſuch an Army as came to take Chriſt. 2. He waited not on Chriſts anſwer. 3. He could have defended himſelf another way. 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter.Mat. 16,21,22,24Matt 16:21Matt 16:22Matt 16:24

4. To the place in Peter I anſwer: 1. Patient bearing of wrong, and puniſhing wrong doers are compatible in one and the ſame perſon. One act of grace is not contrary to another: Not to reſpect perſons in judgment, is as commendable a vertue as patient ſuffering for a good cauſe. 2. The ſcope of the place, is not to forbid all violent reſiſting, but only forbiddeth revenging reſiſting, as not to repair one wrong with another, from the example of Chriſt, who when he was reviled, reviled not again: and therfore the Argument is a fallacie, Ab eo quod dicitur foreign ad illud quod dicitur foreign If a maſter attempt to kill an innocent ſervant, and invade him with a weapon of death, in that caſe the ſervant is free from guiltineſs, if (there being no other way to ſave his life) he ſlay the maſter than be kild himſelf: becauſe I am neerer by the law of nature, and dearer to my ſelf and mine own life, then to my brother. 3. No Prince hath a maſtery or dominion over his ſubjects, but only a free, paternal, and tutorly over-ſight for the good of the people. The maſters in the Apoſtles time, had a dominion over ſervants as over their proper goods.Ro. 13.4.Rom 13:4

11. obje. But the ſpecial Objection of Royalliſts is, Rom. 13.1,2. Let every ſoul be ſubject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God: and whoſoever therefore reſiſteth the power, reſiſteth the ordinance of God. Hence therefore they conclude,Grot. de Jur. bel. & pac. l. 1 cap. 4 Barc, con mon. l. 3. c, 9 Maxwel S…c. San. Mai. c. 2 p. 29. 1. That the King is the ſupreameſt or higheſt power here intended. There is no Judge above a King on earth. 2. Howſoever, in thoſe dayes there was a ſtanding and continual Senate, which not long before had the Supream power in the Roman State, yet now the Emperour was Supream, and therefore no power of reſiſtance left to the people. 3. The prohibition, doth not only concern Chriſtians, but all the people under theſe Emperours, and howbeit Religion was perſecuted, the peoples Liberty loſt, and the Senate then enſlaved p. 21by Edict and Laws inforced on them by Nero and other Emperors, yet notwithſtanding, the Apoſtle forbids to reſiſt.

That I may give a ſatisfactorie anſwer to this Objection, I deſire the Reader to conſider the occaſion of the Apoſtles words, which I take to be thus. The Roman Magiſtrates being Infidels, people newly converted to Chriſtian Religion, might think themſelves exempted from any ſubjection or obedience unto them, by reaſon of Goſpel-liberty and further, that it was not lawful for them to make uſe of ſuch Magiſtrates in any civil cauſe what wrong ſoever they ſuffered: To refute which error, the Apoſtle informs them, that howbeit the Magiſtrates were unbeleeving Gentiles, yet their authority and power was from God Himſelf, and in that regard, their profeſſion of Chriſtianity did rather obleige them, then exempt them from ſubjection; and they were Gods Miniſters appointed by him, to puniſh offenders, and to take vengeance on them. Now bring this into an argument, becauſe Religion exempts not ſubjects from due obedience to lawful pagan Magiſtrates, and people oppreſſed may ſeek redreſſe of their grievances, therefore Tyrants may not be legally arraigned, cenſured, and put to death by the higheſt and ſupremeſt Court of the Kingdom.

2. If the Apoſtles words be obſerved (even word for word) there is not any thing in them againſt the arraignment of a tyrant. For 1. The Higher Powers muſt be ſubmitted to: and why? Becauſe they are ordained of God, and are Gods ordinances. verſ. 1, 2. That is ſo far as they govern according to reaſon and juſt laws, preſerve their Peoples liberties, perſons, and eſtates. But where is it ſaid, When they prove traitors to the Kingdom, and are the Devil's Agents, they may not be ſeverely puniſhed for it. 2. Becauſe thoſe who reſiſt lawful authority, and juſt commands, receive to themſelves condemnation, is not this, a non ſequitur, that the Parliament whoſe juriſdiction and power is above the King, may not call him to an account for tyranny and miſ-government.

p. 223. Rulers muſt be obeyed, Becauſe they are not a terror to good works, but to evil. verſe 3. is not this a good conſequence, when they are profeſt enemies to all good works, and do evil and continually evil with both hands, that ſame power which hath ſet them up, cannot take them down again.

4. Obey him ſaith the Apoſtle, why? becauſe he is the miniſter of God to thee for good. v. 4. But can this be applied to a tyrant, who hath deſtroy'd the people in body & goods; doth it not rather plainly imply, that thoſe who are the devils miniſters to us for evil, rather then Gods for good; by a lawful power above them, ſhould be thruſt out of their place.

5. It is ſaid, ver. 5. But if thou doſt that which is evil, be afrayd, for he beareth not the ſword in vain, for he is the miniſter of God, a revenger, to execute wrath on him that doth evil: Can any Roialiſt find any thing here, which is not ſpoken in reference only to faithfull Magiſtrates, in the execution of juſtice upon malefactors, wherein they muſt not be reſiſted, much leſſe puniſhed for well doing. And by the rules of contraries, a Tyrant that makes war upon his people, to ruin, ſpoyl, and enſlave them, protecteth all wicked men, gives liberty to all manner of unrighteouſneſſe, bears the ſword, not only in vain, in reference to the publick good, but draws it forth only upon thoſe that are good; for ſuch cruelty, oppreſſion and impiety, may lawfully be cut off.

3. The text doth include all higher powers, not to be reſtrain'd only to Kings and Emperors, but comprehends all kind of civil Rulers: Auguſtin, Irenaeus, Chryſoſtom, Hierom, expound it of Maſters, Magiſtrates. So doe Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Piſcator, Rollor, Marlorat, So do Popiſh writers, Aquinas, Lyra, Hugo Cardinal, Carthuſ. Pierius, Toletus, Cornel. a Lapide, Salmeron, Eſtitius, expound the place. Hence it muſt follow, that no reſiſtance of the higher powers is here prohibited, but only in the due and legall execution of their offices. For no man will deny but inferior lawfull officers illegally endeavoring to ſubvert Liberties, Laws, and unrighteouſly governing the people, may be impriſoned, arraigned and condemned for their miſdemeanor. And p. 23this granted (which cannot be denyed) our concluſion is fully proved: and thus I make it appear.

Whoſoever is a murderer or a traytor to the State, may lawfully be put to death by the civil power that is above him, and that by vertue of this text, Rom. 13.1,2,3. But the King of England is under a civil power and juriſdiction; to wit, the Soveraign power of the Parliament. Ergo, If a murderer or traitor to the State may lawfully be put to death. Though there be no Tribunall (ſaith Mr. Rutherfurd) formally, regall, and Kingly above the King, yet there is a Tribunal vertual, eminently above him, in the caſe of tyranny; for the States and Princes are above him.

4. That the Romane Emperor (when Paul wrote) was the Supream and higheſt power in the Romane State, is moſt untrue: Iuſtinian indeed, ſpeaks ſomewhat that way,Dig. l, 2. Tit, 2. p, 146. that the Emperor was abſolute, but he is partial in this caſe. Bodin proveth,Bodin de Rep, l, 2 c. 5. pag. 221. That the Romane Emperors were but princes of the Common-wealth, and that the Soveraignty remained ſtill in the Senate and people. Livius, Florus, Tacitus, ſay the like; and to put it out of all doubt, the caſe of Nero that wicked Emperor is proof ſufficient, whom the Senate judicially condemned, and as a publick enemy to the State adjudged him to have his head faſtned to a fork, and ſo to be publickly whipt to death, and then to be precipitated from a rock; upon which ſentence he being ſought for (and forſaken of al) to avoyd the execution therof, murdered himſelf with a poinyard.

5. As for tyrants and wicked oppreſſing Magiſtrates, they are not within the intendment of this text, neither is there any thing here ſpoken to prohibit the people from cenſuring and puniſhing of them. for 1. That which is not the Ordinance of God, but rather of the devil, and the meer ſin and enormity of the Governor himſelf, not of the Government, is not within the compaſſe of this text.

2. That which is no point of the Magiſtrates lawfull power ordained of God, but diametrally repugnant to it, as tyranny, oppreſſion, violence, &c. is not within the verge or compaſſe of this text.

3. All Powers intended in the text are not only ordained p. 24of God but alſo circumſcribed and bounded with certain rules of Law, juſtice, and honeſty, within which they muſt contain themſelves, and if they paſſe beyond thoſe limits, they are none of Gods Ordinance. Now the tyranny and oppreſſion of Kings and Rulers are meer exorbitances, arbitrary, illegall actions exceeding the bound of juſtice and honeſty, preſcribed by the Law of God and men: therefore not within the limits of this text, and therefore to be reſiſted, and the Perſon puniſhable.

4. Howſoever the lawfull power of Princes be of God, yet the tyranny it ſelf, and abuſe of this power is of Satan, and therefore though the power it ſelf which is good and profitable, be to be honored and continued, yet the tyrant juſtly may be condemned to death, as not within the compaſſe of this text.

13. Obje▪ And thus much for the firſt ſort of Objections: we come now to the reſt. Kings (ſome ſay) are in dignity and power above tho people, their perſons ſacred, not criminal or obnoxious to any tribunal but that of God. King Theodor. in Caſſidore ſpeaking of himſelf,Caſſi. var. l. 6, var. 4. hac ſola ratione diſcreti, quod alteri ſubdi non poſſimus, qui Judices non habemus. In this reſpect we are diſtinguiſhed from others, that we cannot be ſubject to another, who have no Judges over us. Impune quidvis facere, id eſt, Regem eſſe.

I have read in Plutarch, that Alexander Magnus publiſhed he was the ſon of Jupiter Hammon; yet when he ſaw the humor running down from his wounds, was conſtrained to ſay, this is foreign not foreign the blood of man not of God: and ſmelling the ſtench of his own fleſh, asked his flatterers, if the gods yeelded ſuch a ſtench. Princes (ſpecially of late) have deem'd themſelves to be None-ſuch, and altogether unlike other men, but when they ſhall ſee themſelves as priſoners ſtand at the bar, and juſtice don upon them, they will think otherwiſe of their condition. I know what the common ſaying is:

Quidquid delirant Reges plectuntur Achivi.

What fault ſoever Kings commit,

p. 25The ſubject muſt be hang'd for it.

A practice againſt Scripture, reaſon, and conſcience: It is no Law grounded upon any divine principle, That the King doth no wrong, only his wicked Councellers and bad inſtruments muſt be puniſhed, but he not: the Lord ſaith, the ſoul that ſinneth, it ſhall dy; and in all ages hath puniſhed the author of ſin, and perſons commanding ſuch and ſuch wickedneſſe, more ſeverely and extreamly, then the agent, who acted by the others warrant, commiſſion, and authority. We ſee dayly the mother puniſhed for her whordom, yet the baſtard ſpared; but that the baſtard ſhould ſuffer, and the mother eſcape, it is ſuch a thing as I think was never heard of.

Now touching the objection I anſwer, 1. Simply, abſolutely the people are above and more excellent then the King, and the King in dignity inferior to the people and the whole Kingdom: and this I prove.2 Sam. 19.9. Pſa, 78.70.71. 1 Sa. 10,1 Ro. 13.4.2 Sam 19:91 Sam 10:1Rom 13:4 1. Becauſe he is the mean, ordained for the people, as for the end, that he may ſave them: a publick ſhepheard to feed them, the captain and leader of the Lords inheritance to defend them; the Miniſter of God for their good. 2. The pilot is leſſe then the whole paſſengers, the General leſſe then the whole Army, the phyſitian leſſe then all the living men, whoſe health he careth for; the Maſter or Teacher, leſſe then all the Schollers; becauſe the part is leſſe then the whole. The King is but a part or member of the Kingdom.

3. Thoſe who are given of God as gifts for the preſervation of the people, to be nurſing-Fathers to them; thoſe muſt be of leſſe worth before God, then thoſe to whom they are given, for the gift, as a gift, is leſſe then the party on whom the gift is beſtowed: But the King is a gift for the good and welfare of the people, as is manifeſt, Eſa. 1.26.

4. People though mortal in the individuals, yet in the ſpecies cannot dye,Ecc. 1.4.Eccl 1:4 but the King as King may and doth die, and therefore more excellent then that which is accidental temporary, and mortal.

5. The people are before the King, and may be without the p. 26King, and therefore muſt be of more worth then that which is poſterior, and cannot be a King without them.

2. The people in power are ſuperior to the King, and that upon theſe reaſons: 1. Becauſe every efficient and conſtituent cauſe is more excellent then the effect: every mean is inferior in power to the end. But the people are the efficient cauſe, the King is the effect;Iſa. 3.7.Isa 3:7 the people are the end both intended of God to ſave the people, to be a healer and phyſitian to them.

2. Common reaſon, Law, and experience, manifeſts that the whole, or greateſt part in all politick or natural bodies is of greater power and juriſdiction, then any one particular member. Thus in all corporations the Court of Aldermen and Common-Councel is of greater power then the Major alone, though the chief officer: ſo the whole Bench, then the Lord chief Juſtice, and the whole Councel then the Preſident. And it is Ariſtotle's expreſſe determination,Pol, lib. 1 C. 2. & l. 3. c. 8. Majorum rerum poteſt as jure populo tribuitur. The King (as we ſayd juſt now) is but a part or member (though I grant a very noble and eminent member) of the Common-wealth.

3. The Soveraign Power to make Laws, and ſo a power eminent in their ſtates repreſentative, to govern themſelves, is in the people. Ergo,

4. Thoſe who can limit power, and bind royal power in elected Kings, they in power are ſuperior to Kings. Peter ſpeaking of Kings and their Supremacy, cals them a creature or humane ordinance, becauſe it took its originall and riſe from men, and can be bound, limitted, or reſtrained, as they ſee occaſion.1 Pe, 2.13

Coverrunias a great Lawyer ſaith,Cover. Tom. 2. pra. queſt, c. 1. n. 2. 3. That all civil power is, penes remp. in the hands of the Common-wealth; and it is a received principle, That Soveraign Power, eminently, fontaliter, originally, and radically, is in the people.

But it is objected, The people have made over their right, and whole power to the King, all is freely given up into his hands, and ſo may not retract or take back what they have once given.

Anſw. 1. It is a thing neither probable nor credible that p. 27any free people when they voluntarily incorporated themſelves into Kingdoms, and of their own accord ſet up an elective King over them, that there was ſuch a ſtupidity and madneſſe in them, as abſolutely to make away their whole power to the King and his heirs for ever, and to give him an entire, full, and incontroulable Supremacy over them, and ſo to make the Creature ſuperior to the Creator, the derivative greater then the primative, the ſervant more potent than themſelves, and ſo of free-men to make themſelves ſlaves, and for their more ſafety to be more enſlav'd.

2. People cannot by the Law of nature reſign up their ſoveraign and popular power, authority and right, into the hand of a King: for neither God, nor natures Law, hath given them any ſuch power.

3. He who conſtituteth himſelf a ſlave is ſuppoſed to be compelled to that unnatural fact of alienation of that liberty which he received of God, from the womb, by violence, conſtraint, or extream neceſſity, and ſo is inferiour to all free-men: but the people do not make themſelves ſlaves, when they conſtitute a King over them.

4. If the people give all power away: 1. What power is then left them to make a new King when this man dies? 2. If the King turn diſtracted, or like Nebuchadnezer his reaſon be taken from him: what then? or if he turn Tyrant, and deſtroy his ſubjects with the ſword? In a word, If the King be abſent and taken captive, the people having given all their power away, there can be nothing done in ſuch and many the like caſes, for their own ſafety.

5. He who ſweareth to the people to be regulated by law and taketh the Crown Covenant-wiſe, and ſo as the people would refuſe to make him their King, if either he ſhould refuſe to ſwear, or if they knew certainly that he would break his oath, he had never the whole power of the people reſigned up unto him.

6. Though the people ſhould give away their power, and ſwear, though the King ſhould kill them all, they would not reſiſt, nor defend their own lives though he ſhould commit p. 28the vileſt wickedneſſe that was ever heard of, yet they would not queſtion him for it; this ſhould not obliege the conſcience, for it ſhould be intrinſecally ſinfull, and an oath directly againſt the law of God.

7. Theſe are known rules in law, nature, and reaſon, Nemo plus iurus ad alium transferre poteſt quam ipſe haberet. No man can give to another of right more than that which he hath. Again, Non debet actori licere, quod reo non permittitur: ſo Alterius circumventio alii non praebet actionem. So likewiſe, Non debet alteri per alterum iniqua conditio inferri. If the father have reſigned his whole right of liberty in the hand of the King, yet could he not take in his poſterity with him, neither obliege them in point of equity and conſcience to confirm and obſerve what againſt the law of nature he had done, but his children afterwards might lawfully, yea and ought to ſtand faſt in the liberty which the law of God, nature, and nations had made them free, and not be entangled in the ſlaviſh yoke and bondage of their father. Nullus videtur dolo facere, qui ſuo jure utitur

I ſhall here conclude this point with a few obſervations. 1. Seeing the ſervant is no better than his Lord: Kings may as lawfully be puniſhed for their crimes as other men: becauſe in dignity and power they are inferior to the people: they are the Miniſters and Servants of the Common-wealth, not Maſters of the State, which title good Kings did never ſcorn, nay evil Princes have affected that name, and for ſome ages none of the Roman Emperours (unleſs thoſe who were moſt manifeſt wicked, and notorious profeſſed tyrants, as Caligula, Nero, Domitian) would be called Lords.

2. If the King as King, be the peoples Creature, they his Creator, then by the ſame power they may un-king him: For eodem modo quid conſtituitur diſſolvitur, in what manner a thing is conſtituted it may be diſſolved. Again, Omnia quae jure contrahuntur contrario jure pereunt.

3. Whoſoever grants that the King in power is inferior to the people, he muſt neceſſarily grant that by this power duly and rightly adminiſtred, a King for treaſon and murder may lawfully be put to death, for it is abſurd and irrational p. 29to ſay, there may be a power, and the due executing of it unlawful.

4. If our forefathers in times paſt have given away all their power and right to Kings, and have ſworn not to puniſh them for tyranny and miſgovernment, it concerns us not, neither are we tied to ſuch engagements, oaths, promiſes which they have made, but in point of conſcience, law and reaſon, are free to uſe our own due power, as occaſion ſhall be offered

13 obiect As the King is above the people in dignity and power, ſo ſay Royalliſts, he is abſolute, and hath a prerogative above all law. Such a plenitude and fulneſſe of power (ſaith Sanches)Th. San. Ma. Tom 1. l. 2. diſ. 15. n. 3. as ſubject to no neceſſity, Nulliuſq. publici juris regulis limitatus and bounded with rules of no publick law. And ſo Baldus before him.Bald. l 2. n 40. c. de ſ. & aqua. Ʋlpian ſaith,Vlpian. l. de regib. The Prince is looſed from laws. Bodin Bodin de Rep. l. 7. cap. 20.Nemo imperat ſibi, no man commandeth himſelf. Tholoſanus ſaith, Ipſius dare non accepere: the Prince giveth lawes, but receiveth none. Donellus diſtinguiſheth betwixt a law, and a Royal law proper to the King. Don. l. 1. com. c. 17Trentlerus ſaith,Tren, vol 1. …9. 8. The Prince is freed from laws, and that he obeyeth laws, de honeſtate non de neceſſitate, upon honeſtie, not of neceſſity: And with him Soto, Gregorius de valentia and other School-men, ſubject the king to the directive power of the law, and liberate him of the coactive power of the law.

It is reported of one Licas and Thraſilius, being cured by Phyſitians of the Phrenſie and phantaſtical conceits, grew afterwards very angry with their friends becauſe they left them not alone in their former fooliſh condition. I know there is little thanks to be expected from the Kings of the earth, by ſeeking to remove that State deſtroying principle which their Court-flatterers have put into them, as, Abſoluteneſs, a prerogative above law, not under power of any juriſdiction &c. nevertheleſſe, the work being uſeful and neceſſary for the publick good, it is fit it ſhould be taken in hand.

That God hath given no abſolute and unlimitted power to a King above law, is cleerly proved thus:

p. 301. He is appointed of God, even when he ſitteth on the throne, to take heed to read on a written copy of Gods Law, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep all the words of this Law. Deut. 17,18,19.Deut 17:18Deut 17:19Notwithſtanding the greatneſſe of the affairs of his Kingly office, he muſt read the Law, the more carefully to obſerve and obey it in every particular, for the ordering of his own life, and for the government of the people.

2. Whatſoever power a King hath, he hath it from the people, and all the power they gave him, is a legal and lawful power, to guide themſelves in peace and godlineſſe, and ſave themſelves from uniuſt violence, by the benefit of Rulers; and therefore to claim a power above Law, or to uſe a tyrannical power againſt the people for their hurt and deſtruction, or to be exempted from puniſhment; is not only againſt the peoples intention in their election, but ſuch a power as they never gave him, never had, never could give; for they cannot give what they never had, and power to deſtroy themſelves, they never had, nor to ſave any man, who ſhould commit ſuch crimes, as by the Law of God and nature deſerveth death. I ſay ſuch a power the people never had, never gave him, and ſo conſequently a King hath it not.

3. The Law ſaith, Illud poſſimus quod jure poſcimus. Again, it is no power which is not a lawfull power, and therefore if a King murder the innocent, and do acts of ſinfull iniuſtice, this tyrannicall power is not from God, otherwiſe then by way of permiſſion, as a power to ſin, in devils and men is; and therefore ſuch a power is reſtrainable and puniſhable by the ſubiect, as being a power, I ſay, not from God at all.

4. Note the conditions tacite or expreſſe, upon which the Prince receiveth the crown: For ſoedus conditionatum, aut promiſſio conditionalis mutua, facit vis alteri in alterum; a mutual conditional covenant giveth Law and power over one to another: I ask then, why a ſubject breaking his covenant with the King by treaſon or rebellions ſhould be puniſhed for it juſtly; and the King breaking his covenant and oath with the people in degenerating into a tyrant, and murdering the innocent, ſhould not be puniſhed likewiſe? Specially ſeeing it is acknowledged, That the States of the Kingdom who gave him the crown are above him, and they may take away what they gave him, as the Law of Nature and God ſaith, Qui habet poteſtatem constituendi, etiam & jus adimendi.Rutl plea for the people. queſt. 26. pag. 234. l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg, jur l. ille a quo 13. S.

5. If the King turn a paricide, a lyon, a waſter, and a deſtroyer of the People, as a man he is Subject to the coactive Laws of the land; if any thing ſhould hinder that a Tyrant ſhould not be puniſhed by law, it muſt be, either becauſe he hath not a ſuperior, but God, or nemo poteſt a ſe ipſo cogi: but this ground is falſe and abſurd, for a politick ſociety, as by natures inſtinct, they may appoint a head or heads to themſelves, ſo alſo if their head or heads become ravenous wolves, the God of nature hath not left a perfect ſociety, and free people remedileſſe, but they may arraign and puniſh the head or heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good, not for their deſtruction.

p. 316. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt two equals; yea, or ſuperiors and inferiors, the one hath ſome coactive power over the other. If the father give his bond to pay the ſon a thouſand pounds, as his patrimony; though before this ingagement the father was not oblieged, but only by the law of nature to give a patrimony to his ſon: yet now by a politique obligation of promiſe, covenant, and writ, he is ſo oblieged to his ſon, to pay a thouſand pound, that by the Law of Nations, and the civil law, the ſonne hath now a coactive power by law to compel his father, though his ſuperior, to pay him ſo much of his patrimony. Even ſo (though it ſhould be granted (which I ſhall never grant) that the King ſtands ſuperior to his Kingdom and States, yet if the King come under covenant with his Kingdom (as ours have don) he muſt by that come under ſome coactive power to fulfill his covenant: for omne promiſſum (ſaith the Law) cadit in debitum, what any man doth promiſe falleth under debt. If the Covenant be politique and civil, then the King muſt come under a civil obligation, to perform the covenant, and though there be none on earth ſuperior to King and people to compel them both, to perform what they have promiſed; yet de jure by the law of nations each may compel the other to mutual performance. And this is cleer, 1. By the law of Nations, if one nation break covenant with another, though both be Independant, yet hath the wronged Nation power, de jure, to preſſe performance, and to force the other to keep covenant, or puniſh them for violation.

2. This is proved from the nature of a promiſe or covenant, deſcribed by Solomon, Pro. 6.1,3Prov 6:1Prov 6:3My ſon, if thou be ſurety for thy friend, if thou haſt ſtricken thy hand with a ſtranger: Thou art ſnared with the words of thy mouth, and art taken with the words of thy mouth. The meaning is, by a word of promiſe and covenant, the creditor hath coactive power, though he be an equal or an inferior to the man who is ſurety, even by law to force him to pay, and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the debtor, that he may force the creditor to pay. If then the King (giving, not granting he were ſuperior to his whole Kingdom) come under a covenant to them, to preſerve their rights, lives, liberties: but contrarywiſe deſtroys their perſons, goods, cities, by ſword, plunder, and fire, by his commiſſions granted to inhumane malignants and bloody Iriſh, they have power to compel him to give ſatisfaction.

3. The law ſhall warrant to looſe the vaſſal from his lord, when his lord hath broken his covenant. Hippolitus in L. Si quis viduam, col. 5. & dixit de quoeſt. l. Si quis major, 41. & 161. Boltol. n. 41. The Magdeburgenſ. in libel. de Offic. Magiſt. Imperatores & Reges eſse Primarios vaſſallos imperii, & Regni, & proinde fi feloniam contra Imperium, aut Regnum committant, feudo privari, proinde ut alias vaſallos.

14 obie. I find this to be a main objection, That there is no law for ſubjects to put their Kings to death, for any crime. It is (ſaith Bodin) a great difference p. 32to ſay that a King may be lawfully ſlain, by a ſtrange Prince, or by his Subjects

It is no commendation or grace given to the law, that it ſhould be like the ſpiders web, that catcheth the little flies, and lets the greater eſcape.

But to anſwer. 1. It is an error and a great miſtake, to ſay, that the Commons in the houſe of Parliament, or the repreſentative Kingdom are ſubjects to the King. This I utterly deny, to wit, as they are Judges, there, to be ſubjects to the King, neither doe they Judicially convent his Perſon before them, cenſure and iudge him to death, (quatenus) as ſubiects: but thus, He being a miniſter, a ſteward, or ſervant of the people, and they repreſenting the whole body of the people, doe call him to an account, not as Subiects to him, but indeed as his lord and maſter, and ſo have a Soveraign power to iudge him to death, if his crimes deſerve the ſame.

2 In point of law Bodin gives us the whole cauſe,Ibid. for he confeſſeth Where the Prince that bears rule is not an abſolute Soveraign, but the Soveraignty is either in the people or Nobility: in ſuch a caſe (ſaith he) there is no doubt, but it is lawfull to proceed againſt a Tyrant in way of juſtice, and to put him to death: and gives for it the example of Nero and Maximinius. That the Kings of England have not been abſolute Monarchs, but the Supreame Soveraignty reſided in the people, is a thing certainly known, and ſo abundantly proved by other hands, as there cannot be any ſhew of reaſon brought againſt it.

3. Seeing the King is under law, and the repreſentative of the people above the King to proceed in iuſtice againſt him, hence it will neceſſarily follow, that the King by law, may lawfully be put to death: for the law ſaith, the higheſt or ſupreameſt Judge upon earth, cannot pardon and free the guilty of the puniſhment due to him.A. de le. l. non ideo minns. Rom. 3,4 Deu. 1.17Rom 3:4Deut 1:17

And the reaſon is, he is, but the miniſter of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. And if the judgment be the Lords, not mans, not the Parliaments, as indeed it is not, he cannot then draw the ſword againſt the innocent, nor abſolve the guilty, except the would take upon him, to be wiſer then God, reſpect perſons in judgment, and diſpoſe of that which is proper to his maſter. Now ſure it is, God only univocally and eſſentially as God, is judge; and God only and eſſentially, and all men in relation to him, are miniſters, legates, deputies, ſervants, I ſay, in relation to him, equivocally and improperly Judges, and meer created, and breathing ſhadows of the power of the King of Kings. And look as the Scribe following his own deviſe and writing, what ſentence he pleaſeth, is not an officer of the court in that point, nor the pen and ſervant of the Judge: ſo the Supream Councel of State, and Repreſentative of the Kingdom arraigning the King for murder, Treaſon, and other high miſdemeanors, would be but forged intruders and baſtard Judges, and go contrary to Law, ſo far as they gieve not the very p. 33ſentence of God, and are not the very mouth of the Iudge of Heaven and Earth, to pronounce ſuch a ſentence as the Almighty himſelf would do, if he were ſitting on the throne or bench.

4. Howſoever there be ſome ſolemnities of the Law, from which the King may be free, which indeed are not Laws (as Prickman proveth)D. c. n. 78 but ſome circumſtances belonging to the Laws: Nevertheles, if a king commit murder, adultery, theft, and be a traitor, a waſter, and deſtroyer of his people, their goods, lives, Laws, Liberties, contrary to his oath and Coronation-Covenant, in this caſe I confidently affirm, there is no law (that hath reaſon, equity, or juſtice for its bottom and ground) againſt the putting of ſuch a King to death by the great Councel of State (as we have formerly ſhewed) above him. And the reaſon is cleer, for the people have no power to make a law, that the King ſhall not dy by the hand of Juſtice what wickedneſſe ſoever he ſhould commit.

5. I would gladly be informed by any Iuriſt, or Statiſt, If a Tyrant without a title may be killed, yea by a private man; why a Tyrant that hath loſt his right and title to the Crown, by the higheſt Judicature in the Kingdom, may not lawfully be put to death. Ut L. & vim F de Juſtit. & jure ubi plene per omnes.For the firſt, the law gives it, and it is ſo generally held by Vaſquez, Barclay and others.Vaſq. l. 1 c. 8. n. 33. Bar. cont. Monar. l. 4: cap. 10 pag. 286. And for the latter, obſerve what Royaliſts themſelues acknowledge, Winzetus againſt Buchan, ſaith of Nero, Wintzet. adv. Buc. p. 275.that he ſeeking to deſtroy the Senate and People of Rome, and ſeeking to make new lawes for himſelf, excidit jure Regni, loſt all right to the kingdom. And Barclay ſaith, a Tyrant ſuch as Caligula, ſpoliare ſe jure Regni, ſpoileth himſelf of the right to the Crown. So Grotius, Groti. de jure bell. & pac. l. 1 cap. 4.Si Rex hoſtili animo in totius populi exitium feratur emittit regnum, If he turn enemy to the kingdom for their deſtruction he loſeth his kingdom: becauſe (ſaith he) Voluntas imperandi, & voluntas perdendi, ſimul conſistere non poſſunt. A wil or mind to govern and to deſtroy, cannot conſiſt together in one.

6 The cutting off of a contagious member, that by a Gangreen would corrupt the whole body is wel warranted by nature and reaſon: for the ſafety of the whole is to be preferred before a part. But here perhaps, it will be objected, cut off a mans head, and the life of the body is taken away; ſo the King being the head, deſtroy him, and the whole body of the Common-wealth is diſſolved. I anſwer. God cutteth off the ſpirits of Tyrannous Kings, and yet the Common-wealth is not diſſolved: For 1. This or that tyrannous King being a tranſient mortal thing, cannot be referred to the immortal Common-wealth, as it is adequate correlate. 2. If all the Kings of the earth were removed, yet the Common-wealth would not leave off to be a body, it would be only a caſting off of one form of Government for another, the worſer for the better; but the natural body without the head cannot live.

Laſtly, Mr. Pryn citing ſome Law-Books, where the King is ſaid to p. 34be the only Supream Governor of this Realm, hath no Peer in his Kingdom, ought not to be under man. Soveraign power of Parl, l. 1. p 104, 105.Thus anſwereth, 1. That the meaning of al theſe books is, the king is above every one of his Subjects particularly & diſtributively as ſingle men: but if we take them collectively in Parliament, as they are one body, and repreſent the whole kingdom, then they are above the King, and may, yea, ought to reſtrain and queſtion his actions, his male-Administrations, if there be juſt cauſe. 2. Bracton explains himſelf how he is higheſt and without a Peer, to wit, in diſtributing juſtice, that is, he is the highest Iusticiar in the Kingdom, but as the Law as any in receiving juſtice. And for the Oath of Supremacy, it relates to the Popes forraign Princes authority, formerly uſurped in this Realm, and not at all to be referred to Parliaments, or their juriſdiction, power, ſuperiority, preheminence, or authority, not ſo much as once thought of by the ſubſcribers of this Oath, which had its creation and authority from the Parliament.

15. Obje Some ſay, For people to adjudge their King to death, is without example, either in Scripture or humane hiſtory.

Anſw. 1. We argue this negatively, this is neither commanded, nor practiſed, nor warranted by promiſe: Ergo. It is not lawfull, But this is not practiſed in Scripture: Ergo. It is not lawfull, It followeth not. I read not in all the word of God, of a man put to death, for lying with a beaſt, for witchcraft, for tempting the people to go a whoring and ſerving a falſe God; yet theſe things are written, and are all divine precepts.

2. Phyſitians ſay, that that Phyſick which only ſtirs the humors, and doth not carry them away, leaves the body worſe then it found it: ſo, it hath been ſeen by often and wofull experience, when the States of a kingdom have only ſtirr'd their Princes by oppoſing and reſiſting their tyranny and miſgovernment, and not cut them off, they have brought upon themſelves and the whol Realm the more miſchief and miſery afterward.

3. Former examples are no binding rules to us, otherwiſe then we ſee men have acted according to reaſon, religion, Law; for wherein ſoever they differed from theſe things, therein ought we to differ from them. 4. If kings formerly have not judicially been put to death for murder, treaſon, and other capital crimes, it is the more needfull and uſefull that ſuch a thing ſhould now be don, that all other Nations far and neer may hence know and learn, what their duty is, and what they may lawfully do, in point of Law and conſcience, and not ſtand ſtil as if they were beaſts in a baſe and ſenceleſſe ſlavery any longer.

But Fiftly. To ſpeak more directly to the objection, There is no new thing under the ſun. We have many examples of Emperours & Kings which have judicially been condemned & put to death by the Soveraign power of the people.Matth. Par. pag. 273, 274, 275. Not to ſpeak of Nero mentioned before: nor of our King John who was condemned to death by a Parliament in France, for ſlaying his Nephew Arthur treacherouſly with his own p. 35hands, and likewiſe to loſe the Crown of England. It is ſaid of Amaziah king of Iudah 2 King. 14.19. That they made a conſpiracie againſt him in Jeruſalem, and he fled to Lachiſh, but they ſent after him to Lachiſh and ſlew him there. Not privately, but openly, as acted by publick authority for his great impiety, and having broken his Oath and Covenant: whereupon we reade not of any complaint, inquiſition, proceeding, or puniſhment inflicted on thoſe that ſlew him after his death either by the people, or his children, as there was upon thoſe that ſlew king Amon: but being ſlain, They (to wit, the perſons who had put him to death) brought him on horſes, and he was buried in Jeruſalem: and all the people of Judah made Ahaziah King. Which plainly ſhews that what was formerly done by the greater part of the State at Jeruſalem, was afterward confirmed by Common-conſent, and executed by command of thoſe which might lawfully do it.

In like manner Andronieus, was apprehended, depoſed, & put to death by the people for his tyranny and oppreſſion. Nic. Chr An nales fol. 52. Grimſt. Emp. hlſt pag. 160. Reg. Sco Buchan. lib. 4. pa. 111.So Iulianus, not only deprived of the Empire, but authoritatively commanded to be ſlain in his pallace. Heliogabulus (that monſter of mankind) was by the Praetorian Soldiers, put to death with the Senate and peoples approbation. Dardan King of Scotland by the unanimous conſent of the Nobles and people had his head cut off (which they carried about for a laughing-ſtock) and threw his corps into a jakes, after he had reigned 4. years, Lucktock the 22 King of Scotland, for his vitious and baſe life was convented before an aſſembly of the chief men and ſlain with the inſtruments of his wickedneſs. ib. p. 113.Eugenius the 8. another of their Kings, was for his filthy luſts, covetouſneſs, and cruelty, ſlain in the aſſembly of his Lords, by their general conſent, and his companions in villany and wickedneſſe hanged: Et ipſi gratum populo ſpeculatum praebuere: pag. 165.which was a greateful ſpectacle to the people.

So Agis and Pauſanias two Lacedemonian Princes put to death by the people. Mun. coſ. l. 5. c. 37. p. 1248.So the Thracian Kings for their offences by publick conſent were puniſhed with death. The uſual practice of the Saboeans was to ſtone their Kings, if they highly tranſgreſſed and went beyond their bounds. If need were, it might be ſhewed out of Hiſtories and approved Authors, that the Athenians, Ionians, Meleſians, Marchomanni, Quadi. Perſians, Sicilians, Corinthians, Parthians, Meroes, Gardii, Medes, Paphii, Cathians, Ethiopians, Sidonians, Germanes, Swedes, Danes; and antiently even all other Nations, not only preſcribed laws, and lim… to their Kings, but cald them uſually to an account for their miſgovernment, and oft times put them to death when they ſaw cauſe.Alex. ab … 4. … fol. …. …uel. & Gibel. pli l. 4. Alex. l. 6. c. 4. Plut. in Arat. Val.

6 The putting to death of Tyrants in former times hath been held ſo lawful and honorable, as large rewards have been propounded to the undertakers and authors thereof, and to the living they have given the goods of the Tyrant as to the deliverer of their Country, and honored the dead with Epitaphs, and Statutes of braſſe, p. 36as in Athens, Harmodius, and Ariſtogiton, together with Brutus, and Caſſius: Max. l. 2. c. ult. L. 3. & L. om… ne delictū, Sect. ut F. de re mil.in Greece Aratus the Sycienian, and thus by publick Decree of their States, becauſe they had freed their ſeveral countries from the tyranny of Paſiſtratus, Coeſar, Nicoebis, yea, thoſe monuments of Tyrant-killers by antiquity were ſo honored and highly eſteemed of, as they placed them in their Temples on ſacred banqueting beds: And when Xerxes (having vanquiſhed the Athenians) had carried away with him the Statutes of Harmodius and Ariſtogiton into his own country: Seleucus one of the ſucceſſors of Alexander the great King of Syria, cauſed them with all diligence to be carried back again, and to be ſet up in their own places.

In Norway antiently they had this cuſtom, That whoſoever ſlew a Tyrant King, was thereby made a King.Gul. Neu brig. l. 3. cap. 6. And what the Poet wrote was the opinion then, and common ſaying of the people.

—Victima haud ulla amplior

Potest, magiſve opima mactari Iovi

Quam Rex iniquus.

To God no better offering can men bring,

Nor fatter, than a wicked Tyrant King.

For concluſion: This only I ſhall add, to ſay, There is not an example any where of the like practice. If it be meant not ſo judicially and according to the ſtrict rule and form of law, I confeſſe there may be much truth in it: For commonly heretofore, amongſt all Nations, Iewes. Turks, Papiſts, Heathens, &c. People obſerved not the manner as matter, they thought Tyrants ſo worthy of death, as they did not much mind how and in what way to cut them off, ſo they were deſtroyed; hence it came to paſſe, that few tyrannous princes in old time ever died a natural death, but either by their ſubjects, or their means were ſlain in warre, or by ſome private hand made out of the way: which gave Iuvenal occaſion to ſay,

Ad generum Cereris ſine caede & ſanguine pauci

Deſcendunt Reges & ſicca morte Tyranni.

Few Tyrants unto Plutoes Court do go

But that are thither ſent by bloody blow.

And therefore this late proceeding againſt the King, ſeeing it was ſo legal, it ſhall live and remain upon record to the perpetual honor of our Engliſh State, who took no dark or doubtful way, no indirect …by-courſe, but went in the open and plain path of Juſtice, Reaſon, …w, and Religion: and in this regard they need not fear the reproaches and falſhood of malitious tongues and pens; for as God doth approve their work, and owns it, ſo he will defend them, his, and their Cauſe in ſpight of all treacherous and wicked Deſigns, either of Men or Devils.

The end of the Firſt Part.

End of the text · John Canne, The golden Rule (1649)