Sect. 1.

IT is somewhat a slight Proverb, but carries anSect. 1. experienced Truth in it of good portendance to the Common-wealth; that Good ale sieldom wants a friend on the beneh. But that vile Actions, Oppression, Tyranny, Treason, Rapine, Depopu­lations, Murthers, horrid Murthers; yea the evident exposall of a poor wasted Nation to a re-suffering of her late endured miseries and extremities, should find so many Friends in the Pul­pit, and amongst Pulpit-men as is notoriously known they do at this day, is matter of a far more deplorable and threatening import▪ unto the Nation. That those fourtie odde Ministers of Jesus Christ (nam quoniam vult Alexander Deus esse▪ Deus esto) or rather the stickling part of them (for some were rather sub­scribed, than subscribers, yea some I understand, have repented of their subscription) who were not ashamed to make God himself a Patron and Protectour of murtherers, in a letter to his Excellencie, should, especially having Kings for their Cli­ents, turn Proctours for bloud, makes no impression at all of a wonder upon me, when I consider that of the Apost [...] But evil men, and seducers [...]. i. shall or will, advance to that which is worse, deceiving and being deceived 2. Tim. 3. 13.. The zeal of secular Greatnesse hath deceived them, and caused the shadows [...] [Page] [...] [Page 1] [Page 2] of the mountains seem men unto them. For did not, do not, tumults, insurrections, rebellions of the people against Autho­ricie▪ in ordine ad bonum Presbyteriale, in order to the Advance­ment of high Presbyterie, seem lawfull▪ yea and commendable practises unto many of them? Upon what account else did they separate their con [...]ecrated lungs for bellows to blow up these co [...]s amongst the people this last summer? Or were not they the ghostly Fathers of all, or the greatest part of those Anti-Parliamentary [...]arabbasses, who so lately commenced Masters of mis-rule in Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Esse [...] ▪ Wales, &c. and who, had they not been timely degraded by the Army, were very like to have made the land the second time an Aceldama, or field of bloud? Or do not the Ministers I speak of, at this very day, instead of lifting up [...] vo [...]s like [...], to cause the people to know their a [...]icati [...] lift them up like trumpets to prepare them to commit a [...]minations? And instead of sowing the in­c [...]r [...]pti [...]l [...] [...] Word, whereby children should be begot­ten unto God▪ they scatte [...] the corrupt [...]eed of their own un­hallowed dist [...]mpered fancies, whereby they beget in their own likenesse▪ children of seditious, turbulent, and most inve­terate spirits. Yea had not the people been wis [...] than their teachers; it had not failed but that before this, they had been again Pulpitted over head and ears into bloud; though it is true, they suffered much rebuke from some of their Tutours for this wisdom▪ and were temonstrated by them in their de­votions unto God for cowards, because of it. I heartily wish, for their souls sake▪ they could wash their hearts in innocencie before God, from these imputations▪ for (with Pilate) to wash their hands before men▪ is but a waterish and faint consolation.

As for their letter, they who can afford their judgements, [...]ect. 2. and consciences cheap▪ or at those low rates of reason, which here they bid for them▪ may have their custome: but the pre­misses in this letter▪ will never (I presume) be able to make a match▪ between their conclusion▪ and the belief of any ingeni­ous or considering m [...]n. For besides the irrelativenesse and loose sitting of those Scriptures which they produce, to their [...] cause, which half an eye is sufficient to discern; and hath been very satisfactorily demonstrated by others▪ (even by [...]en of their own side;) and besides their pleading for themselves onely with overthrown a [...]guments, such as in the Court of Reason and Truth have been non-suited over and over, they [Page 3] take not the least knowledge at all of any of those Scriptures, which rise up against them like so many Kings upon their Throns, and laugh all their reasonments and pretences of Scripture for their turn, in the face to scorn. Who so sheddeth mans bloud, by man shall his bloud he shed: for in the image of God made he him. Gen [...] 6 This was enacted for a Statute-Law unto all Flesh by that Great Law-giver, the Ancient of dayes, and proclaimed in the midst of the world immediatly after the flood. Afterwards it was revived, and that from time to time, in that politie or Common-wealth, unto which God himself vouchsafed after a peculiar manner, to prescribe a Government and Laws. He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. Exod. 21. 12. And he that killeth any man, shall be surely but to death. Le­vit. 24. 17. But most fully and with an addition of such a motive, for the through execution of it, which nearly concerns all Nations and communities of men. Numb. 35. 30. 31. 33. Who so killeth any person, the murtherer shall be put to death by witnesse: but one witnesse shall not testifie against any person to cause him to die. Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murtherer, which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for bloud it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the bloud, that is shed therein, but by the bloud of him that shed it. So again, Prov. 28. 17. A man that doth violence to the bloud of any person, shall flee to the pit: let no man stay him. Unto all which we may adde that of our Saviour. All they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. Matth. 26. 52.

It was extream weaknesse in the Ministers we speak of, know­ing,Sect. 3. that so many texts of Scripture of so expresse a tenour, of such a pregnant import, as these▪ lie point-blank against that position (or, supposition rather) which they so magisterially and imperiously assert in their letter, not to attempt (at least) such an explication of them, by which their apparant enmitie to their Doctrine, might (at least seemingly) be reconciled thereunto. Were they so simple as to imagine, that a strong man who keepeth his house, and stands upon his guard, will deliver it up (with the threasure in it) unto those that besiege it, onely upon big words, or high flourishes of valour, or untill they have taken away, those weapons from him, wherein he trusts? We charge them with plain and clear Scriptures, wherein God evidently, without speaking any parable, without the least intimation of [Page 4] any person, or persons whatsoever, to be excepted, commands that murtherers be put to death. Now unlesle they be able to ballance such Scriptures as these, either with other Scriptures, wherein the exemption of Kings from suffering the penaltie in­flicted by these Laws upon murtherers, in case they shall mur­ther, is as plainely asserted, or commanded by God, as the exe­cution of this penaltie upon murtherers, is commanded by him in these; or else produce some clear principle or dictate from the light of nature, by which it may fully appear to be a sence­lesle or unreasonable thing, that the afore said Scriptures should be extended unto Kings, they do but beat the air with all they can say, or plead upon any other account whatsoever: all their reasons, arguments, and passionate ululations otherwise, will be turned into stubble, and rotten wood before them. How much more, if it be made to appear from the Scriptures, that here God himself putteth in caution against any exemption of Kings themselves in that kind? Take heed what ye do (saith J [...]osaphat, by the spirit of God, to the Judges appointed to execute Judge­ment in the land of J [...]dah) FOR YE JUDGE NOT FOR MAN, BUT FOR THE LORD, who is with you in the Judgement. Where­fore now let the fear of the Lord [...]e upon you, take heed and do: fr there is no iniquitie with the Lord our God▪ nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts [...] where first it is observable, that not onely [...] Kings, but Judges also, inferiour in place unto them, judge for God. i. in the place and office of Judicature, represent God himself, or perform that work▪ which properly belongs unto God himself: therefore ought to behave themselvs in all acts of judgement, as their consciences tell them, that God himself would do, in case he sat in judgement himself, and were to give sentence with his own mouth. 2. That though God doth not sit, or appear visibly with such Judges, when they sit in judgement, yet he is after a very peculiar manner with them at such times [who i [...], or▪ will be with you in the judgement] viz, to observe nar­ [...]orowly with what courage▪ conscience, and integritie, they act for him, and how they represent him upon the tribunal: and so to assert, and vindicate them in every just sentence, against any person, or persons, how great soever, and of whose face other­wise they might be afraid. 3. That such Judges as these, are in a more especiall manner to take [...]eed, that in matters of judgement they do not mis-represent God, either first, in respe­cting mens persons; or 2. in taking of gifts. 4. (And lastly) that [Page 5] it was a godly and wise King, who said unto inferiour Judges created, and deputed by himself▪ that they were n [...]t to judge for man, [i. with respect to any humane Interest whatsoever, no not his own] but for the Lord. i. with an intire respect to the Interest of God, and so, that he may not suffer in any of his Attributes, through any unworthy carriage of theirs in their places.] A like passage we have from Moses also. Ye (saith he to the Judges appointed over the people) shall not respect pers [...]ns in judgement, you shall not be afraid of the face of man: for the judgement is Gods. Deut. 1. 17. So that if we ought to judge it a thing altogether unworthy of God▪ and dishonourable to his infinit Greatnesse▪ in case he sat in judgement himself, and gave sentence immediatly, to think that he would respect the persons of Kings in Judgement, and sentence onely meaner men, both being alike guilty; certainly it is dishonourable likewise unto him, and would be sinfull in an high degree, if they who are intrusted to judge for him, and in his Name, place, and stead, should do the same; I mean, accept the persons of Kings, or Princes▪ how worthy soever of death, and onely adjudge infe­riour persons to the suffering of this punishment, when they prove guilty hereof. Were not this to represent God unto the world, as an accepter of persons? and so to turn the glory of his unpartial justice into a lie? And might it not be more properly and truly said of such Judges, that they judge for man, and not for the Lord? Doth the Law of the most High God know any man after the fl [...]sh? Or is it afraid to say unto Kings, ye a [...]e wicked? or, when they shed mans blood, that by man shall their bloud be shed? Is it like to a spiders web, which serves to catch smaller flies, but hornets break through, and escape?

It is a frivolous pretence to say, that Kings are accountableSect. 4. unto God, when they transgresse his Law, though not unto men; and in this respect the Law of God is not made void in respect of them, though they should not suffer for their trans­gression of it, from the hands of men, as others do, and ought. For even those also, who suffer (and in the judgement of these ministers themselves ought to suffer) from men for the transgres­sion of the Law of God (as in the case of murther, or the like) are neverthelesse accountable unto God, for their transgres­sion, their suffering from men notwithstanding. So that if an accountablenesse unto God for the breach of such laws of his, which are punishable by men, were a due ground of exemption [Page 6] from suffering in the courts of humane Justice; not onely Kings, but Subjects also of all sorts, might justly challenge that exemption (in this kind) which is contended for by our Mini­sters, as the Prerogative of Kings. And if the Lawe of God should priviledge Kings against the barre of humane Justice, for what crimes soever leaving them accountable onely unto God, and not indulge the like favour unto meaner men, but make th [...]se▪ for their delinquencies▪ answerable to both tribunals, should they not (together with the Law-maker himself) beno­totiously partiall? Or what is partialitie in Laws, or Judge­ment, if to blend an equalitie in cause▪ with an inequalitie of a sentence▪ be not? This respect of persons in judgement is els­where and that frequently, very severely prohibited by God. See Levit. 19. 15. Deut. 1. 17. Deut. 16. 19. Prov. 24. 23. &c.

Against this Authority of Heaven▪ which arraigns even Kings [...]. 5. themselves, as well as persons of inferiour rank, at the bar of Earthly Judicatures, it is more than in vain for our Jure-Di­vino men to oppose a Jus human [...]m, or rather a defect of Jus h [...]ma [...]um, to inhibit the processe. Ought not Christ to be wor­shipped, as God, because the Senate of Rome refused to apo­theize him? Or must such a Law of God, which is both natu­rall, and positive (the Law which commands life for life, the the life of the murtherer, for the life of the murthered, is such) be over-ruled for the gratification of Kings, to their own, and the worlds undoing with them, by a meer non-ens, or by that which is not? Or is this good Logico-Divinity? There is no Law of the land, no Law of man, for the calling of Kings to account, for any crime what soever, no not for murther it self: therefore the law of God, which imposeth a sentence of death upon murtherers, without all exception, or respect of per­sons, must be of none effect in respect of Kings, when they mur­ther? The Sert [...]es and Pharisees of our Saviours time were sharply reproved by him, for making the Command of God of none effect by their tradition. M [...]. 15 [...]. Yet these men had some thing, they had their instrument, such as it was, they had their tradition, wherewith to work this prophane feat, the making the Command­ment of God of none effect. The Moses-chair-men of our dayes, make account that they are able to remove a like mountain with­out any instrument, or means at all; onely by they want a tra­dition, which should make it stand fast.

But what if there be a clear Law of the Land, for putting even [Page 7] Kings to death, when they commit murther? Doubtlesse that law of the land, which sentenceth murtherers with death, as it specifieth no particular rank▪ or calling of men, whereunto it is to be limited, so neither doth it particularize any order or de­gree of men, by way of exemption. Therefore since there is a Law of the Land clear enough for the punishing of shoe-ma­kers or taylours with death, in case any of these vocations shall be found guilty of murther, though there be no particular ex­pression of either of their professions, in the Law, which sen­tenceth murtherers with death; why should not the same Law be conceived to lie as clear for the p [...]nishing of Kings with death, in case they murther, though there be no expresse inser­tion of their Office or calling in the Law, to signifie their in­clusion in it; considering that there is no more intimation nei­ther for their exemption, than for the other?

To say▪ that the Law we speak of was never extended unto orSect. 6. understood of Kings, and therefore neither ought now to be extended unto, or understood of them; would be to say some what, but what is next to nothing. For, 1. who is able to give any sufficient account that it was never, in no age, by no person, understood of Kings? That in point of execution it was never extended unto Kings▪ is but a slippery proof that it was never understood of them. Very possibly it was never (in such a sence) extended unto musitians, or moris-dancers, yet this, if it could be proved, would be no proof▪ that therefore it was never under­stood or meant of them. Besides if the Law we speak of never extended unto Kings in the execution of it, it is no great wonder; considering. 1. That there being but one King at a time in the whole nation, it can be no matter of wonder, that he should not be a murtherer, which supposed, (I mean, that never any King of England heretofore, was, or was known to be a murderer) there was no possibilitie that the said Law should formerly have bin extended unto Kings in point of execution. 2. In case it could be proved that some former King, one, or more, were guiltie of murther, yet probably those who were intrusted with the execution of the Law we speak of, might connive either through fear, favour, flatterie▪ or the like. In such cases as these, there was no opportunitie of extending this law in the execu­tion of it, unto Kings Upon the same account it may well be, that however the Law ought in reason, equity, and according to the import of the letter and words of it, be understood, as well [Page 8] of Kings, as of meaner men, yet it might never be publickly and Authoritatively declared that it ought to be so under­stood. But

2 What if it can no more be proved, that the said Law was [...]t. 7. never yet understood of Kings, than it can be proved to have but executed upon Kings? Doth it therefore follow, that neither now it ought so to be understood? especially considering. 1 That the expresse letter and tenour of the Law will fairly bear such a sence. 2 That such an understanding and interpretation of it, will well stand with all principles of reason and equitie. 3. That the pulick interest peace and safety of the Nation requires such an Interpretation 4 (and lastly) that the contrarie can never be proved; I meane, that it was never understood (inclusively) of Kings. Suppose there were such a sence or interpretation of some text or sentence of Scripture, lately given, which every waies comports with the letter, and gramaticall sence of the words, fully agrees with the Analogie of Faith, or the received princi­ples of Christian Religion, falls in very genuinely with the context▪ or scope of the place, perfectly accords with the clear sence of the like phrase and expression in Scripture elswhere, &c. were such an interpretation to be rejected meerly upon such a pretence as this, That it cannot be proved that ever it was given▪ or received by Christians heretofore?

Nor is that colour lesse washie or fading▪ wherein to the exem­ption of Kings from humane Judicatories is commonly put, to give it some semblance, or shadow of a Truth; that the King is Supreme, and above all persons in his Kindom; and in this respect there can be no competent or lawfull Authoritie on Earth, to question, ar [...]aign▪ or judge him; it being a received Maxime in politiques, that [...]ar in parem non habet potestatem; multò minùs inferior in superiorem; .i. that no man hath any right of Autho­ritie over his equall; much lesse an inferiour over his superiour. For to this we Answer

1. That the Scripture cannot be dissolved by the authoritie ofSect. 8. any Politick Rule or Maxime whatsoever of humane sanction. If God in the Scripture saith, that who so sheddeth mans bloud, by man shall his bloud be shed; men must not reply to him, & say, we are content to put this Law in execution, when Kings are not the transgressours: but herein we must be pardoned; we have no Authority▪ nor Know we how to create any, by which to punish Kings according to the exigencie of this Law, when they offend [Page 9] against it. We have a Canon sacred and inviolable amongst us, which prohibits any man, or numbers of men, to execute this Law of thine upon Kings. Will that God, whose name is jealous suffer the Divine Authoritie of his Law to be trodden under foot by men, for the salving of the credit of a Law or Principle of their own? But

2 It was never yet proved (nor, I beleeve, ever will be)Sect. 9. either by any Scripture, or sufficient Reason, that the King (espe­cially under a Delinquencie or crime deserving death) is either Par, equall [viz, in power] much lesse superiour, to the body of his people, or their Representative. Master Rutherford, whom these Ministers may well look upon, as Praesidium & dulce de­cus suum, the chariot of Presbyterie, and the hors-men thereof, teacheth them another lesson over and over, in his book intitu­led, Lex, Rex. For the subject of Royall power (saith he) we affirm the first, and native subject of all power to be in the communitie. [...] p. 5 [...].. Again: There is not like reason to grant so much to the King, as to Parliaments; because certainly PARLIAMENTS, who make Kings under God, ARE ABOVE ANY ONE MAN; and THEY MUST HAVE MORE AUTHORITIE and wisedom, TH [...]N ANY ONE KING, except Solomon (as base flatterers say) should return to the thrones of the Earth. I [...] p [...] ▪ Yet again▪ wherever there is a covenant and oath betwixt equalls, yea or superiours and inferiours, the one hath some coactive power over the other; which position he clearly proveth [...] I [...] p. [...]9 by a case immediatly subjoyned presently after: Though there­fore the King should stand simply, superiour to his Kingdoms and Estates (which I SHALL NEVER GRANT) yet if the King come under covenant with his Kingdom, as I have proved at length c. 13. he must by that same come under some coactive power to fullfill his covenant. Ibl [...]m. Again: unanswerably I have proved, that the King­dom is superiour to the King I [...] p 46.. Yet over again: If we consider the fountain power, the King is subordinate to the Parliament, and not coordinate▪ for the constituent is above the constituted. If we regard the derived and executive power in Parliamentarie Acts, they make but a totall and compleat Soveraign power, yet so, as the Soveraign power of the Parliament, being habituall and underived, a prime and fountain power (for I doe not here separate people and Parliament) is perfect without the King, for all Parliamentarie Acts, as is clear, in that the Parliament make Kings I [...] p 37 [...].. It were easy to make the pile of such quotations as these, from this Author, far greater, and to shew how frequently he stiles the King, [Page 10] one while, the Servant, otherwhile, the vassal, of the Common­wealth. So that our London Presbyters in their most audacious, shamelesse, and seditious vociferations and out cries against the Parliament, as having no Authoritie, or right of power to proceed as they did against the King, and upon this effemi­nate account, desperately charging the most exemplary Act of Justice, and for which the world round about them, yea even Kings, and Princes themselves, may have cause to blesse them, in sentencing him unto death, with the odious and horrid im­putation of Murther, do as well defie their own great Oracle of Presbyterie, as the Parliament; & withall acknowledge men of greatest learning, worth, and parts, in the Order of Presby­terie, to be tainted with errours of as soul and hatefull a na­ture and import, as any that are lightly to be found amongst those, whom they honour with the ancient badge of Christia­nitie, and call, Sectaries.

M^r Prynne, another authour of their own, & supreme glorieSect. 10 of their Interest, in the Law (as the former in Divinitie) doth not onely acknowledge, but voluminously and abundantly de­monstrates, (if the frontispice flattereth not the bodie of his building) the superioritie of our own, and most other forreign Par­liaments, States, Kingdoms, Magistrates, collectively considered, over and above their lawfull Emperours, Kings, and Princes, by pregnant Reasons, Resolutions, Precedents, Histories; Authorities of all sorts, &c. Our London Pulpittiers, who abuse their cre­dulous and malignantish Auditories by teaching for Doctrine this tradition of their own, that the Parliament had no more right to deal by the King as they have done, than a thief by the high way to take their purse, should have acquitted themselves like men, and deserved (in part) that Interest and Authoritie in the consciences of men, which they expect and claim, as their due, if they had substantially answered the two Books now menti­oned, composed by Jachin and Boaz. [...] the two great Pillars of their own porch, before they had suffered themselves to be so deeply baptized into Shimer's spirit, as to bring the railing accu­sation of Murther against the Parliament, for their just and re­gular proceedings against the King. Howsoever (etenim fas est & ab hoste doceri) by what the two late named Authours have upon irrefragable premisses concluded, it fully appears, that the people, or their Representative, are superiour in power or au­thoritie unto the King; and consequently that this Maxime, [Page 11] Par in parem non habet potestatem, suffered not by the Kings suf­fering under the Parliament.

Besides, Reason it self gives the superioritie of power to theSect. 11 people, or Parliament, and not to the King. For 1. as the A­postle argues the preheminencie of the man above the woman, from this consideration, that Adam was first formed, then Eve; 1 Ti [...] 2 [...] so may we inferre the like prerogative of the people over the King. The people were first in being: the King takes his turn after them, is not, till they have been.

2 The same Apostle concludes the same preheminence of the man over the woman, from hence also, that the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man 1 C [...]r. [...] 8. The same foundation is as pregnant to bear the superiority of the people above the King. The people are not of, sprang not from Kings, but Kings of, and from the people.

3 The same Apostle yet again derives the prementioned pri­viledge upon the man, from this spring; The man was not crea­ted for the woman, but the woman for the man 1 C [...]. 11 9.. In like manner it being evident that the people were not made for Kings, but Kings for the people, it follows merrily upon the same wheel, that the people have the precedency in honour before the King.

4 The servant is not (saith our Saviour) greater that his Lord John 13 1 [...].; but on the contrary, the Lord, then his servant. Now the King bears the Relation of a politicall Servant, or vassal, to that State, Kingdom, and people, over which he is set to Govern; as appeareth by those three essentiall characters of ser­vitude, inseparably attending his office; 1. Regulation or appointment of work; 2. Wages in consideration of his work, duly and faithfully performed; 3. And lastly, an ob­noxiousnesse to a laying aside, by the people, when they see it meet.

The King hath his work of Governing, appointed or set out unto him by the people, in those Laws, which they consti­tute and make for their own Government, and his, by their Re­presentatives, or Trustees in Parliament. Secondly, he recei­veth such allowance or proportion in wages, in consideration of his work in governing, as the people or State, whom he ser­veth herein, judge meet and reasonable to conferre upon him. For this cause (saith Paul, meaning, for their work and faith­fulnesse in governing) pay ye tribute also [viz. unto Kings, or ru­lers] [Page 12] as ye pay wages unto servants: onely you pay it under ano­ther name, the nature of this royall service being more Honou­rable▪ than common services are▪ and the exigency of it for your good, requiring greater respects in terms, and otherwise, then inferiour services doe. The Crown is but the Kingdoms, or peoples livery. Thirdly, (and lastly) the Servant (saith our Saviour) abideth not in the house for ever. [1. necessarily, or upon any such terms but that his Master is free, notwithstand­ing any Law of God or of nature, to put him out of his house, when [...]e seeth cause, yea though the cause be not very materiall or weighty but the Son abideth for ever [...]. In like manner the people (I mean collectively taken) have no Law of nature, or of God upon them, which prohibiteth them from laying aside a King or Kingly Government, from amongst them, when they have a reasonable cause for it. Such a cause as this they have (I mean, that which is just and reasonable, and competent) for so doing when either they find by experience that Govern­ment by Kings hath been a nuysance to the peace or liberties of the people [...]nd apprehend by reason, that, if continued, it is like still so to be; o [...] find, that the charge of maintaining such a Government▪ hath been, and if con [...]inued, is like to be (for the future) o [...]e-barth [...]n'om to the State, conceiving upon good g [...]und▪ withall that another form of Government will ac­commodate the Interest of the State upon equall▪ or better terms with lesse charge and expence; especially when they find, that the Government we speak of is gotten into a race or bloud, that is unfit for Government, as that which for severall de [...]rts together, as in Father, in Son in Sons son▪ &c. is either boyld up into, and breaks out in oppression and tyranny, or else turns to a water of naturall simplicity and weaknesse or froths into voluptuousnesse and luxurie, or the like; in all these cases (I say and many others like unto these▪ a people or State for­merly Governed by Kings, may very lawfully turn these ser­vants of theirs out of their doors; as the Romans of old, and the [...]land [...] of late (besides many nations more) have done, and are blameless [...].

Yea God himself, though he chargeth the people with sin, in desiring a change of their Government, which was by Judges▪ (wherein himself in truenesse of construction, was, as Samuel tells them, from his own mouth, their King, 1. Sam. 8. 10. with cap. 12. 12.) into that by Kings; yet condescending to [Page 13] their desires herein, and so yielding (in a sence) to his own de­thronization amongst them, he plainly, and exabundanti, avouch­eth the lawfulnesse of power in the people, to alter their present frame of Government, whatsoever it be, when they see cause. The sin of the people we speak of, did not stand in this, that they simply desired an alteration of their Government; but that they desired it with the forgetfulnesse and contempt, of those many Royall favours and blessings, which under their pre [...]ent Government by Judg [...]s, he had from time to time heap­ed upon their heads, in many wonderfull preservations and deliverances from their enemies (as appears, 1. Sam. 12, 6, 7. 8. &c. besides other places) Yet that he might not seem to check▪ or straiten in the least the liberty which people by nature and of right, have, to exchange their Government, when they [...]e cause, he yielded (as we have heard) to the rejection o [...] d [...]po­sall, not onely of his faithfull servants, and Prophet Samuel▪ but even his own also, by the people▪ 1. Sam. 8. 7. 9.

Nor doth that critique annotation of the Royall Doctor,Sect. 12 taking notice that the Supreme power, or Ruler, is in this Rela­tion stiled by the Apostle, the Minister of God, (Rom. 13.) and not of the people [...] Ha­m [...]d▪ H [...] ­ [...] ad [...]sse [...], any wayes in-fringe the credit of this con­clusion, that Kings are the Servants▪ or Ministers of the people. For Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, were the Ministers of God, (2. Cor. 6. 4.) and the Ministers of Christ, (1. Cor. 4. 1.) and the servants of God, and of Christ. (Col. 4. 12. Tit. 1. 1. P [...]t. 1. 1. &c.) and yet did they acknowledge▪ yea & more than acknow­ledge, even preach, themselves the servants of men. For we preach not our selves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and our selves YOUR SERVANTS for Jesus sake, (2. Cor. 4. 5.) So Paul saith of him­self, that [...] went to Jerusalem to MINISTER TO THE SANITS, Rom 15. 25. yea, (1. Cor. 9. 19.) he saith that he had made him­self A SERVANT OF ALL. Yea, Christ himself, that Great servant of God, (Isa. 42. 1.) was, this relation of his notwithstanding, [...], a MINISTER, or Servant OF THE CIRCUMCISION, (.i. of the Jews) Rom. 15. 8. So that the Doctour argueth much be­neath his degree, when he syllogizeth thus: The Supreme power, or Ruler is stiled by the Apostle, the Minister of God, and not the Minister of the people: Therefore he is the Minster of God one­ly, and not the Minister of the people; as if the one Relation were incompetible with the other. Why the King, or other Ruler (for the Doctour mistaketh in his supposition, that the A­postle [Page 14] appropriateth this stile, the Minister of God, to the Supreme power, or Ruler; evident it is, that he speaketh it of Rulers, in­definitly, and as appliable unto any) but why the King, or other Ruler, should be expressely asserted by the holy Ghost, the Mi­nister of God, and not the Minister of the people (though he be as well the one, as the other.) the reason is obvious. First, be­cause the Relation of a Ruler unto God, as being his Minister, is a spirituall truth and not so obvious to the minds or thoughts of ordinary men, as that he is the Minister, or servant of the people; as that Pastours of Churches, are Ministers of, and ser­vants unto, the respective Churches, unto which they Minister in the things of the Gospel, is a far nearer-hand truth, than that they are the Ministers of Jesus Christ, i. that they Mini­ster unto them in his Name, place, and stead, and that the na­ture and exigency of their office requires of them, that they speak and doe the same things to, and for them, in order to their eternall peace, which they conceive Christ himself would speak and doe, if he were their immediate and onely Pastour. Now it is much more proper for the holy Ghost to deliver and assert (in the Scriptures) truths of a more sublime and spi­rituall import▪ than those whereof the common light of reason in men is sufficient to perswade and lead them unto.

2 The scope of the Apostle (in the Text in hand) being to [...] 13 perswade subjection unto Magistrates or Rulers, it was very pertinent and proper for his purpose, to assert them the Mini­sters of God; but had been much out of his way, to tell them that they were the Ministers, or servants of the people. As when his intent is to dis [...]wade men from Apostasie, he doth not inforce his dehortation by any such motive as this, that God is loving, gracious, mercifull, long-suffering, or the like, but by this, vengeance belongs to him; and▪ it is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God: [...] and again; For our God is a consuming [...]ire; † yet his representing of God under these expressions of [...] terrour, upon a speciall occasion▪ doth not imply but that he is loving, Gracious, &c. no more doth he, in stiling the Magi­strate, the Minister of God, by way of inforcement to a speciall duty, deny him to be, or suppose him not to be, the Minister of the people also. Yea there is a plain intimation of this Relation likewise in the Magistrate, in the same place; as where it is said, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing. i. Upon the promo­tion [Page 15] of your good, by Governing. Now what is a more proper badge or character of a servant, than attendance, especially conti­nuall attendance upon another for the conveniencing of him in his affairs?

5. The creature is not superiour to the Creatour, nor the thing made unto it's maker▪ but the contrarie. Now evident it is from the Scripture it self, that the people are the makers of Kings, and Kings their creatures, or work-manship. Though David was expresly nominated and appointed by God himself, for King over Israel, yet was he not a King over Israel, untill the people made him so. The Text expresly saith, All th [...]se men of war that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron to MAKE David KING over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart TO MAKE David KING. 1 [...] 1 [...] [...] So the men of Shechem are said to have MADE Abimelech KING. Judg [...] So also the people are said to have MADE Saul KING before the Lord in Gilgal. 1 S [...]m 11. 1 [...] So a­gain, half of the people of Israel are said to have followed Tibni, the Son of Ginah, TO MAKE HIM KING. 1 King 1 [...] ▪ [...]1. In like manner Edom revolting from Israel, are said to have MADE a KING over them­selves. 2 King 8 20. So that it is familiar with the Scriptures to make the people the MAKERS of their Kings. And God himself supposeth the people to be those, that should set Kings over themselves, if ever they had any. THOU SHALT in any wise SET HIM KING over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall chuse. D [...]t. 17 1 [...] 15 Deut [...] [...]. According to this notion Peter also [...] calleth the Civil Magistrate, as well Kings, as others, [...], the ordinance, or creature of man; [...] P [...] [...] 1 [...]. viz. because they receive their very beings from the peo­ple▪ as Kings, & as Magistrates. Nor is that mist, which the Roy­all [...] [...]f this in M. Rutherford. [...] [...]. pa [...]. [...] Doctour (before mentioned) hath cast before the face of this Text▪ to hide that lineament of truth therein which we speak of, so thick, but that the light thereof shines through the thickest of it. For 1. The King is not here called, Supreme, in comparison of the whole body of the people collectively ta­ken, over whom he ruleth (as the Doctour supposeth) but as com­pared with subordinate Rulers. The very tenour of the con­text is evidence enough for this: whether it be to the King, as Supreme; or unto Governours, as unto them that are sent by him, 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14 &c. So that the Supremacie here asserted unto the King, is not over the whole body of his people, but onely over infe­riour Officers, or Rulers; and these distributively too, not collectively taken. Therefore this is no signall character, which [Page 16] keep the text from concluding the Supreme power to be originally in the people.

Nor 2. is this any such Character, that Governours are distin­guished Sect. 15 v. 14. from the King, or Supreme, by this, that Governours are sent by [i. have commission from] the King; whereas the King is not said to be sent by the people; which yet might be affirmed of him, if he were the Creature, or Creation of the people. For 1. Ar­gument [...]m ab authoritate ductum negativè, non valet: It doth not follow, that because such, or such a thing is not said, there­fore it might not have been said, and that with truth, and pro­prietie of speech sufficient We have lately heard it said in ma­ny text of Scriptures, that Kings were made by the people, set [...]ver those, whom they govern, by the people. Now I would gladly learn from my Teacher, what signall difference there is, between, being made, and set over, and being sent, or commis­sioned, by the people. Are not those Governours, who are sent by the King, made Governours, and SET over others, by him? 2. It being said, that Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac, Jacob; it need not be said further, that Abraham was Progenitour, or Grand-father unto Jacob, to make it matter of belife, that he was so. In like manner, it being expresly said by Peter of the King, that he is [...], the creature, or creation of men [...]i. of the people] and, that Governours are sent by, or have their Commission from the King, he need not say, that Governours are sent by the people, to render it certain▪ that so they are, [me­diante Rege.] Nor 3. doth it at all make against the originalitie of power in the people, that subjection is commanded to be paid unto the King, not for the peoples, but for the Lords sake.

For 1. He that perswadeth by one argument, doth not here­bySect. 16 deny that he hath no other but this one▪ to plead. When the Apostle exhorteth Christians unto Hospitality upon this ground, that thereby some have entertained Angels unawares, [...] 13 [...] he doth not imply, that the dutie could not have been commended unto them by any other motive or consideration, but this. Nor doth Peter suppose, when he presseth subjection unto Kings, for the Lords sake, that therefore he could not have enforced it by any argument relating to the people. But 2. Kings (and so all sub­ordinate Rulers) being the Ministers and Servants of God (in one sence) as they are the Ministers and Servants of the people, in another (which different sences have been opened) it was far more reasonable and perswasive, to require Subjection unto [Page 17] them from particular persons, being members of the people, up­on the account of their Relation unto God, as his Ministers, than upon their Relation to the People, as being theirs. Espe­cially considering, that Peter (in the Scripture in hand) presseth that subjection we speak of, upon Christians; who were not like much to respect their Rulers, whether Supreme, or subor­dinate, as they were the creatures, or servants of the people amongst whom they lived, being generally Heathens, Pagans, and Idolaters; but understanding that they were the Minister [...] and Servants of God, and ordained by him to rule them could not lightly but take a lively impression of subjection▪ from such a consideration. 4. The [...]le [...]m & opera which the Doctor be­stowes upon the opening of the originall word, [...], is meer­ly lost▪ there being nothing gained by it (though all his suppo­ [...]als in order to it, should be granted him) towards the relief of his cause. He beats up and down a large field to start this notion, that [...], without any restraint, signifies generally all man kind, Gentiles, as well as Jews. His chief pillar to bear up the fabrique of this interpretation, being Rom. 8. 19. though strong and straight in it self, yet stands trembling, if not a wry, under it. The carriage of the context here, from v. 19. to v. 22. (inclusively) will very hardly, if at all bear it, that▪ by the [...] ­c [...]ation of the creature▪ should be meant the hope which the [...]eat [...]en w [...]ld [...]ad, that at the R [...]v [...]lation of the gracious priviledg [...]s of the [...], they [...]i. the Gentiles] also should be freed from the slavery of corruption (their villan [...]us [...]eathen sins) unto the libertie, &c. For 1. It will sorely strain and stretch all the sinews of all the parts, learning▪ abilities, which the Interpreter hath, substantially to prove, that the Heathen world had any such hope▪ as he here ascribeth to them, viz. of being freed from their villanous [...]ea­then sins, at the Revelation, of the graci [...]us priviledges of the Mes­siah. The Apostle Paul, though writing to a parcel onely of th [...]se Gentiles▪ now become Christian▪ yet describing their con­dition, during the time of their Gentilesme, as the common condition of those, who were Gentiles in the flesh, speaketh thus: That at that time ye were without Christ, being alienes from the Common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of promise▪ having no HOPE, and without, God in the world. [...] Do­ctour Hamond supposeth, that the Gentiles before Christ was revealed unto them▪ had hope of an investiture with one of the greatest spiritual priviledges, which the Revealing of Christ [Page 18] (the Messiah) is wont to confer upon the world, viz. free­dom, or deliverance, from their villanous sins: but the great Do­ctour of the Gentiles, affirmeth, first, that these Gentiles, during the time of their Gentili [...]me, were without Christ, [i. without the knowledge of Christ, the Messiah, and so could not expect any R [...]velation of his Gracious Priviledges] 2. That they were strangers from the Covenants of promise. 3. That they were WITHOUT H [...] in the world; and consequently that they could not expect, or hope for such a glorious Freedom, as the Doctour supposeth, being one of the greatest and richest priviledges con­tained in the Covenants of promise. Yea it is far more like, that the Gentiles this Doctour speaks of, were more afraid of parting with their villanous sins, than taken with any hope of being de­livered from them.

Besides, what a man hopeth for (taking the word in the or­dinarySect. 17 signification) he must needs desire. Now then if the Gentiles, before the Revelation of the gracious priviledges of the Mes [...]ias, desired to be free from their villanous sins, (doubtlesse) they were freed from them, at least to a good degree, and as far, as Christians themselves ordinarily are▪ at, and by the Reve­lation it self, of the gracious Priviledges of the Messiah unto them; who seldom attain any further Freedom from sin in this life, than un [...]eignednesse of desire to be perfectly free. To will is present with me (saith the holy Apostle himself) but how to perform that which is good▪ I find not. Rom 7 1 [...]. So that (questionlesse) the pen royall sit's quite besides the Apostles meaning, in the interpretation of the word, [...], in the text in hand. It were easie to shew with how many more insuperable difficulties from the context it self, the said interpretation is incumbered. As 1. it is no easie task, to explain, how, and make good, that, the Gentile World wait­ed for the manifestation of the Sons of God. vers. 19. 2. How the said Gentile World, (as contra-distinguished to the Jewish World) can be said to have been made subject unto vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him, who hath subjected the same in hope. vers. 20. Or 3. (and lastly,) how this Gentile World, can be said to groan, and travail in pain together [viz. with the Saints, or beleevers themselves] untill now. v. 22. There are th [...]se, and some other bars of iron in the way, very hard for the Doctour to break, to make way for his Interpretation to come at his Text. So that his Opinion, denying the Relation of Kings to the people, as their Creatures, is but in a very deplorable case, [Page 19] having no better prop to support it, than so un-proper, and un­probable an Interpretation.

But grant him his Interpretation so much laboured for in the Sect. 18 fire, thus far, that by [...] the creature, or creation, (in the Scripture lately insisted on) is meant the Heathen or Gentile world, will it follow from hence, that therefore [...], i. every creature, or, the whole creation, signifieth determinately, the Heathen world? which yet is that which he was to prove according to his ingagement.

But yet again, give we the Doctour his fill of that his pre­carious Interpretation mentioned, as that [...], and [...], signifie the Heathen world, yet I presume his ingenuitie will serve him so far, as to grant, that they signifie the world he speaks of, in the relation, or under the consideration of, be­ing the creature, or creation [of God] If so, what hath he sowed by such an interpretation, but wind? or what can he reap, but a whirl-wind, in reference to his cause, which is to prove, that [...] (in the place in Peter) doth not signifie, the creature, or creation of man, or the civil Magistrate, as being the creature, or creation of man, but this Magistrate, as free from, or void of any such Relation? For it will avail him nothing for his purpose, to prove, that [...] (in the Scripture un­der debate) signifieth the civil Magistrate, or the Heathen Magi­strate, as well as Jewish, unlesse he can prove withall, that the said complex expression signifieth either the one, or the other, without any intimation or supposition, of their being the crea­tures, or creation of men. I can willingly go along with him thus far, that the meaning of the precept of S. Peter to his Jew-Christians is clearly this, that they must be obedient, not onely to Christian Magistrates, but to Gentiles, Heathen also; but my com­panie for this mile will do him little good, unlesse I could go along with him this other also, and grant, that the Apostle, in the same words, imports no relation at all of creature-ship in Magistrates unto the people. How little he hath yet said, to draw either me, or any considering man, into part and fellow­ship with him in this notion, I appeal to every man, that hath read his discourse without partiality. How unlikely it is, that he will ever be able to say any thing so much as competently ingaging thereunto, may be judged, partly by what hath been already cited, and argued, from the Scriptures, to prove it the Interest, and (as it were) the occupation of the people, to make [Page 20] Kings; partly also (and more particularly) by this considera­tion; that the holy Ghost, is seldom or never wont, to ex­presse either persons, or things, by words importing such a re­lation, whereof the persons, and things so expressed, are unca­pable. When the Doctour shall present me with two or three pregnant instances from the Scriptures, of such a character, I shall be many degrees nearer to a closure with him in his opi­nion, which avoucheth, that the holy Ghost stileth the King, or Magistrate, [...], the Creature of Man, without supposing him to be a Creature so related; though I must aver withall, that even such an atchivement, how dexterously soever performed, would not be sufficient to remove me from my pre­sent sense, which assureth me above, and against, all dialecticall opposition whatsoever; that Kings are the manufacture, work­manship, or creatures of the people.

Nor is the Doctour any whit more dexterous, or successe­full,Sect. 19 in the vindication, than he was in the assertion, of his In­terpretation. The objection, which himself raiseth against it, over-poyseth his Answer. I shall onely take notice (at this turn) how unexpert he is in those two passages of the word of righte­ousnesse, unto which he repairs for balast to his Answer. When (saith he) [...]e [i. the Apostle] commands to honour all, it m [...]st be understood, all, to whom honour belongs; superiours, not in­feriours. This glosse clearly corrupts the Text. For the Apo­stle▪ commanding them to honour all, or all men, plainly suppo­seth, that there is a debt of honour, or respects, due from every man, to every man; not onely from Inferiours to Superiours, but from equals to equalls, yea and from Superiours themselves, to Inferiours. This is evident from that of the Apostle Paul, Rom. 12. 10. In honour preferring one mother: or (as our for­mer Translatours rendered the Original [...]) In giving honour go one before another. Therefore it is the duty of Christians to exhibit honour, or honourable respects, not to their Superiours alone, nor to their equals alone, but to their Inferiours also. Thus Timothy, though a chief and extraordi­nary Officer in the Church, is yet enjoyned to honour widows: [...] Tim 5. 3. yea and these of the poorest and meanest condition, (as is evi­dent from the sequel in the context) A second Scripture, by which our Doctour seeketh to credit his answer, is 1. Pet. 5. 5. where (as himself saith) he commandeth them to be subject to one another. But (saith he) it must not be understood, that the Supe­riour [Page 21] must be subject to the Inferiour, a [...] the Inferiour to the Supe­riour: [...] Hu [...]bl [...] [...] ­ [...]ess, [...] pag 7 8 but a [...] the nature of the duty inforces to interpret, the Infe­riour to be subject to the Superiour onely. It seems the Doctour is not acquainted with, doth not understand the nature, or Law of Christian Church-fellowship, wherein there ought to be a mutuall condescention, or subjection, of all the members one unto another, as well of the Superiour to the Inferiour, as of the Inferiour to the Superiour, in all things reasonable and e­qual; without which it is unpossible, that unitie, love, and peace should long continue amongst them. And that it was such an universal reciprocal subjection, as this, which the Apostle exhort's them (in the said words) unto, the tenour of the place it self sufficiently evinceth. Likewise ye younger, submit your selfs to the Elder; yea, all of you be subject one unto another, and be cloathed with humility; as if he should have said, it becomes, not onely the younger to submit [...]nto the Elder, (though many times the younger are Superiour in place, and the Elder, Infe­riour) but even all of you, without exception, without standing upon terms either of naturall, or Civil Superiority, or secular greatnesse in any kind, to be subject one unto another, i. as well the Superiour to submit unto, to comport with, the Christian advice, the reasonable and equitable requests and demands of the Inferiour, as on the contrarie. He doth not here speak of that subjection, which Christians, as well as others, stand bound to exhibit, in a politick consideration; but of that, which they ought to practice among themselves in their Christian commu­nion, and in a spiritual consideration. And thus Peter ac­cords with Paul, who injoyn's the Ephesians to submit them­selves one unto another in the fear of God. [...]ph. 5 21. Thus we see, how the main pillars, upon which the Doctour build's his Answer to his Objection, fail him: so that the Objection remain's still in full force, strength, and virtue, (the said Answer notwithstand­ing) and consequently, the Interpretation assaulted by the Ob­jection, falls before it (though upon another account also, which hath been fairly cast up, it be null.)

But though the Scriptures be but strait-handed towards himSect. 20. in his conceit, his confidence is very great, and hardly to be born, that Reason will deal bountifully by him. Passing by his impertinent demands. 1. Whether, if Adam and his posterity H. [...] Humble Ad­dresse▪ &c. pag. 8, 9. had remained in that innocencie▪ wherein both he, and they in him, were created, they would not have been capable of positive [Page 22] precepts in order to a civil life, and consequently whether in reason some one, or more men should not have had superiority over all o­thers, Parents over children, and the like. 2. Whether the diverse orders and subordination of the Angels that never fell, be not an evidence, that even in state of innocence God designed superiority, not equality; passing by (I say) these impertinencies, wherein he plainly confounds naturall superiority, with civil, and which by himself (in the very next passage of his discourse) are ren­dered impertinencies indeed; let us close with him in such al­legations, wherein his cause is more nearly concerned. To prove, that God gave not all men that freedom, which (he saith) is the supposed foundation of that Doctrine, which places supreme power in the people, he alledgeth, that it is most certain that God did design and appoint Government. But this alledgement may stand, and yet his cause fall. For what though God design and appoint Government? doth it therefore follow, that all men (viz. collectively taken in their respective communities) were not naturally free, i. to chuse, by what kind or form of Go­vernment, they would be Governed, as whether by Kings, or by Counsel of State, or by popular Suffrage, &c. 2. In case of either of the two former Governments, to chuse what persons they pleased, for the administration of that Government, where­unto, they thought good by Common consent, to subject them­selves. 3. To proportion, limit, and circumscribe that power, which they were to confer upon the Administratours of that Government they should chuse, for the exercise thereof, by what Laws, or Covenants they pleased; onely provided, that in all these they have a due respect unto, and make a competent provision for, the due and just end of Government; which is, the politique or civil welfare and good of the Governed? Doubtlesse Gods appointment of Government, doth not any wayes inferre a restraint in civil or politique societies or communities of men, in respect of any of these things. For if men set over themselves any lawfull and just Government whatsoever, suffi­cient for their Regulation in a politique way, they do not at all contravene Gods appointment concerning Government, but duly comport with it. But if the Doctours meaning be, that the Doctrine he speaks of (which placeth supreme power in the people) stands upon any such foundation as this, that God gave all men freedom, either to doe what they list, or to live without all Go­vernment; or that he gave a freedom to every, or to any parti­cular [Page 23] man, to refuse Subjection to that particular Govern­ment, which is lawfully established in that Community, where he liveth, so far as it is lawfull, he puts darknesse for light, and bitter for sweet. That Doctrine is built upon no such sand, but upon this rock, (amongst others) that no Governour, whe­ther Supreme, or subordinate, hath any just power beyond what he hath been invested with, by that Community of men, which he Governeth.

That notion, wherein the Doctour very inordinately plea­sethSect. 21 himself, as if it had made him some such promise▪ as Peter once made to Christ, that though all the rest of his Disciples should be offended at him, and so forsake him, yet [...]e would not, will be found deceitfull upon the weights▪ and serve him no better, than Peter did his Lord and Master, at whom he was not one­ly offended, but so deeply, as to abjure him. The notion, or conceit we now speak of, the Doctour makes to go far, as poor men use to doe that little money they have; and spreads it very thin to make it cover two pages, or more, of his di­scourse. In which respect it is somewhat hard to gather it up clean, or fix into a regular body of an argument. Yet I sup­pose I shall not eclipse any part of the glorie or strength of it, by casting it into this Hypotheticall form.

To this Argument I answer, by denying the consequence in the proposition. The reason of my deniall, is this: because though no man, [.i. no particular or individual person consi­dered apart by himself,] hath by nature any such power over his own life, as is here mentioned; yet as a Member of a Com­munity, or politique society of men, he hath, not simply a power, but a necessity lying upon him by way of duty, in order [Page 24] to the peace and civil good of this community, to consent with others, that his life also shall be taken from him by the hand of Justice, as well as any other mans, in case he shall wrong the community by any crime deserving death. The power of life and death is eminently & virtually in the people▪ collectively taken, though not formally. And though no man can take away his own life, or hath power over his own life, formally; yet a man, and a body of men, have power over their own lives, radically and virtually; in respect whereof they may render themselves to a Magistrate & to laws, which if they vio­late, they must be in hazard of their lives: and thus they vir­tually have power of their own lives, by putting them under the power of good Laws for the peace and safety of the whole. This is evident in all those, who either make, or consent to the making of, any such Laws, which inflict death, in any case of misdemeanour deserving it. First, it is a clear case, that they, who are intrusted with a legislative power, for the good of that community, which intrusteth them, stand bound by way of duty, to enact, or consent unto the continuation of Laws al­ready enacted, for that punishing with death, such and such Transgressours against this Community, as Murtherers, Re­bels, Traitours, &c. 2. As clear it is, that the persons we speak of, who are of duty to joyn in, and consent unto, the making of such Laws, are themselves as Subject unto these Laws, being made, as other Members of the same community. 3. It is as little questionable, as either of the former, but that these per­sons, both before, and at the time of their making, or consent­ing unto such Laws▪ clearly know, that themselves are, must, and ought to be, thus subject unto them. Therefore it is a noon­day truth, that men by nature have such a power over their lives, as voluntarily according to a due course and processe in Law, to expose them to the stroke of publick Justice, in case they shall offend that community, whereof they are Members, by any crime, or crimes▪ worthy death. Nor hath the King him­self any other power over the lives of any of his subjects, but that which is thus conditioned and limited. The King hath no power to take away the life of any of his subjects, without cause; no nor yet for every cause; nor indeed for any cause▪ but that onely, which by the Law is made punishable with death. Nor hath he any such power over any of his subjects, or their lives, which enables him, to command any of them to be their [Page 25] own Executioners, though by Law guilty of death, yea and sentenced accordingly. So that that principle, Niiil dat, quod non habet, shew no countenance at all to the Doctours argu­ment▪ own any relation to it. Men have such a power over their lives, as is vested in Kings: nor could Kings have any such power over them, as now they have, did not men themselves invest them with it, and that in a regular and lawfull way. Men have by nature a right or power over their lives, whereby they may lawfully submit them unto the sword of a Lawfull Ma­gistrate, and consent▪ that in case they shall commit things pu­nishable with death by the Law, they shall be taken from them thereby. And what power have Kings over them but onely (as hath been said) according to the tenour of such a submis­sion, and consent, as this? Or upon what other account (at least immediate) doth even this power it self a cerve unto Kings, but by the equitable force and virtue of such a submission and consent from the people? The very image, tenour and form of the power, which Kings have over the lives of their subjects, plainly sheweth it to be the off-spring, or naturall issue of that power, which themselves by nature have over the same. And that men in some cases, have not onely a power by nature, but even a necessity by Religion, to expose their lives unto death, is evident from that of the Apostle John; Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the Brethren. (1. John. 3. 16.) 1. To be al­wayes ready and willing to lay them down, upon any just oc­casion

Besides, if the power, which the King hath over the lives of the people, were (as the Doctour supposeth) immediately from God, than he might lawfully execute the same, and take away the lives of men, without any mediating Direction, or warran­ty from any Law, at least from any politique or humane Law, whatsoever. For certain it is, that the execution of no Com­mission immediately issued by God, ought to be suspended upon, or determined or regulated by, any Commission, or constitution of men. But whether the King hath any regu­lar or just power over the lives of men, other than that, which is proportioned, formed, set out, and bounded by the Laws of that State, wherein he ruleth, I doe not much fear to refer to the arbitration of the Doctours him­self.

[Page 26]Again, if the power of Kings over the lives of men wereSect. 23 by immediate derivation from God, then must this power be uniform, of the [...]ame measure and extent, in all polities, and Kingdoms whatsoever. If so, then will it follow, either that there is no just power of this kind, I mean just in the compasse of it) in any King now reigning upon the earth; or, in case there be some one King whose power over the lives of his Subjects, is just, that the power, which is owned or exercised by all other Kings not being every waves commensureable with this, is unlawfull and unjust. First (not to reflect upon the Doctours abilities in the least I beleeve it is above their sphere, to prove, that any King under heaven, either hath, claimeth, or exerciseth any such dim [...]s [...]n or exact proportion of power over the lives of his Subjects, which upon the supposall of an immediate derivation from God, is onely competible unto him. For what­soever proceeds immediately from God, and without all asso­ciation of second causes, for, in, or towards the production of it, must needs be absolutely perfect and compleat (for the kind.) Therefore they who affirm that that power, which any parti­cular King in the world, claimeth, and exerciseth, over the lives of his subjects, is by an immediate investiture, or derivation from God, run an extream hazard of blaspheming God, or at least of ascribing that to him, which is unworthy of him. Secondly, there being scarsely two Polities, States, or King­doms in the world, wherein the power claimed and exercised by their Kings, or Supreme Rulers, over the lives of their Subjects is every wayes commensurable and co-extensive, the one with the other, it must needs follow, that the power (in this kind) generally claimed and exercised by Kings, is irregular and unjust, and consequently not of any immediate derivation from God.

Yet again; to aff [...]rm that the power which Kings have overSect. 24 the lives of their people by immediate influx and derivation from God, is to smite them with blindnesse, and to put them into as ill a capacity for the finding of this their power, or what it is, as the m [...]n of Sodom were in, when they wearied themselves with se [...]king [...]'s door. Gen 19. 11. For what light can such af­firmers exhibit unto Kings, whereby to discover and find out the Alpha, and Omega, the Dan and the Beersheba of such their power? If they claim [...]nd exercise, a narrower and more con­tracted power, than that which is supposed to be immediately [Page 27] confer'd upon them by God, they make themselves trans­gressours by not fulfilling the Ministery and trust, which they receive from God. If they claim and exerci [...]e a larger power than that, so derived unto them, they sin on the other hand by usurpation. To leave them to their own judgements and consciences for their information about the true compasse and content of their power, is to turn them over to blind guides, and to tempt them to make their lusts their Teachers. To send them to the Scriptures, or Word of God, as to the Judicials of Moses, or the like, for their direction in this kind, is constructively to exauthorize States-men, and persons of civil imployment, from legis-lation (at least in criminall matters which concern the lives of men) and to interesse Di­vines and Clergie-men in that affair, at whose mouths the Law of God [.i. the mind of God in his Law] is to be sought, and (of right) should be found. So that the Doctours opinion concerning the immediate derivation of Kingly power from God, is of a very ensnaring nature unto Kings, of a disturbing na­ture unto States, and directly tends, either to send this power into a land of darknesse, where it shall never be seen, or found, by any man, or else to make it as unnaturall and monstrous, as Kings themselves please.

Once more (and so enough of this for the present) if the saidSect. 25 Opinion be Orthodox and Authentique, then can no act of the People contribute any thing in one kind or other, towards the investiture of the King with that power, which he hath o­ver their lives. This is evident. For that derivation which is immediate from God, can be no wayes assisted, furthered, or pro­moted by any creature, or second means. But certain it is, that the derivation of that power we now speak of, upon the King, is either properly effected, or at least furthered, by an act of the people, and particularly either by that act of theirs, by which they elect, or else that, by which they create and make him King. Ergo. The assumption stands firm, upon this ground. No King is invested with power over the lives of the people, neither by God, nor otherwise, untill he be their King, either actually, as by Creation, Installment, or Coronation; or de­signatively, as by Nomination or Election; and this either formall and explicit, as when the people meet, and vote such, or such a man King; or else vertuall and interpretative, as when the people having formerly consented to receive the heir [Page 28] in such, or such a race or family, for their King, successively, do not upon a vacancie of the Throne by death, expresse any re­vokement of that their grant or consent. So then, the people must of necessity act, either by Electing, or by Creating the King, or both, in order to the investing of him with such a power over the lives of his Subjects, as we speak of, before he be invested herewith: which plainly shews, that this investiture, or power, accrueth not unto him by any immediate derivation from God, but by the intervening (at least) of the Act of the peo­ple, either (as hath been said) Electing, or Creating him, for their King, or both. And the Truth is, supposing that power over the lives of men▪ hitherto so much spoken of, to be essentiall to the Kingly Office and Dignity, (which is, I question not, the ready and round sence of the Doctour) and withall, that this power is not derived thereunto by the people, but immediately from God, it undeniably follows, that the people have no suf­ficient interest or right of power▪ either to chuse, or create, any King for themselves. Nor can they assure themselves, that that person, whom they chuse, create, and call their King▪ is truly such, or that he hath any power at all over the lifes of his Sub­jects▪ unlesse they suppose it to be conferred upon them by themselves▪ it being impossible (by what hath been argued to the contrary) that they should have any assurance, that it is con­ferred upon him immediatly by God.

Th [...]se things considered, had the Doctour (think we) anySect. 26 such great cause to greet his Excellencie, and Councel of war, with such an over-weening insinuation, and conceit, not onely of the high-convincing power, but of the raritie also, and un­heard-of-nesse, of his Notion, as is expressed in these words, p. 10. For it is possible that I may put you in mind of an evident Truth, which perhaps you have not taken notice of; that as the Original of Government in any particular place, cannot be imagined to be by any more then two wayes, either Gods designment, or the peoples a [...]; so in either of those two cases 'tis God onely, and not the peo­ple, that gives the power of the sword, or the power of life to the Go­vernour, &c. As for the evidence of Truth, in his Notion, we have found it as clear as the Sun at mid-night. For the raritie of it, which he insinuates in those words, [which perhaps you have not taken notice of] the truth is, that between 30. and 40. years since, when I was a young Student in Cambridge, such Doctrine and devises all these, that the people in their Election do [Page 29] but present an empty cask unto God, and that he fills it with the wine of Royal Power and Authority, that the Interest of the peo­ple extend onely to the nomination, or presentation of such a person unto God, who they desire might be their King, but that the Re­gal power, by which he is properly and formally constituted a King, is immediatly, and independently, in respect of any act of the people, derived unto him by God; These (I say) or such like positions as these, were the known preferment-Divinity of the Doctorate there, and as the common air taken in, and breathed out by those, who liv'd the life of hope in the King, and sought the truth in matters of Religion by the light of his countenance. The Doctour hath accused me for a flatterer (with much a do, it seemes, to forbear a deeper charge) before his Excellency and Councel, and the whole world, pretending that he himself [as composed a man as he is, as little subject to admiration through the abundance of knowledge in him, as another] was amazed at the largenesse and exorbitance of my expressions that way. But whether I be a flatterer, or no, (for the Doctour, spent in his charge, faints in his proof) most certain it is, that he, with the whole Legion of the Royal faction, who generally hold and teach, that monster, as well in Reason, as Religion, that Kings are contable unto none▪ but God, are the first-born of that evil generation: and by the unhappy breathing of that fulsome and importune principle alone into the ears and spirits of Kings, have brought a world of troubles, miseries, and calamities up­on the world▪ yea & have apparantly consulted shame, & miscrie to Kings and Princes themselves, both in this world, and that which is to come. But we shall not trespasse upon the tenour of our present discourse by having further to do with our Royal Antagonist here: there is an odde reckoning of an elder date between him and me, which I shall endeavour to set straight in convenient place: and there I shall answer further to my charge of flattery. In the mean time, we have (I suppose) upon sufficient and undeniable grounds evinced the superiority of the people over the King: so that that State maxime, [Par in parem non habet potestatem,] Equall against equall▪ hath no power, may stand, and yet the capital proceedings of Parliament and High Court of Justice against the King, stand in honour with it. But 3. Evident is is, that that Law-principle we speak of, Par in Sect. 27 parem, &c. though in ordinarie and most cases it may be admit­ted to umpire, as a Truth; yet is it not of that sacred or uni­versal [Page 30] Truth, but that with most other general rules founded upon humane observation, and Authority) it suffers the dispa­ragement of an, Est ubi pe [...]cat, and may▪ upon circumstance, be justly waved and declined. It is to be supposed that two neigh­bour-States or Nations, one no wayes relating unto the other, but in neighbourhood of soyl, or te [...]ritorie, are [...]ares equall, neither superiour, neither inferiour, unto other. Yet in case the Laws of neighbour-hood and of Nations, be broken by the one▪ the other may very lawfully repell violence with violence, and in ca [...]e they have power, compell their delinquent neigh­bours to a regular satisfaction. In like manner, though it should be granted, that the King▪ and people (in their Representative the Parliament) are coordinate, and so equall▪ in their power (which is all that the more considerate party of Royallists claim on the Kings behalf) y [...]t in case the King shall turn the Interest [...]f power, which he hath▪ against the people and be in­ju [...]io [...]s and oppressive unto them, they may ve [...] lawfully, and without any check from the pol [...]ick axiome mentioned im­prove their Interest of power to compell him to a just satisfa­ction or otherwise to secure themselves from him. So that (as M [...]. Rutherford well observeth) mutuall punishments may be, where there [...]e no m [...]tuall relations [...]f superiority and inf [...]riority. [...] Re [...]. p [...] From whence likewise it plainly appeareth, that the Rule so oft repeated▪ and opposed to the Parliaments proceedings against the King, onely takes place in such cases, 1. When there is a a third power lawfully constituted over both the parties that are at variance. 2. Where recourse may be had to this power for justice, or redresse, without running an imminent hazard either of losse of life, or of sustaining some considerable damage in the inte [...]m. Out of these two cases, (which are both cases of necessity▪ though in different kinds) it may be admit­ted for reasonable, and equall that they that are equall, should not exercise any power one over▪ or against, the other. But the case between the King and Parliament was the former of these (as hath been said) and so is one of the two, which are re­served from the specified Rule. Yea

4 It is not onely true, that in some cases (and particularly,Sect. 28 in those mentioned) Par in parem may have potestatem, one equall, exercise a coactive power over another, but that in some cases also, even those that are Inferiour may do the like over their Superiours. Where there is a civil bound, Covenant, [Page 31] or oath, between an Inferiour, and a Superiour, this bond or oath being violated o [...] broken by the Superiour gives the Infe­riour a [...]ight of power to compel his Superiour to the per­formance of the terms [...]atified by this bond, or oath. In case a Father gives bond to his s [...]n or makes any other civil contract with him, valid in Law and conscience, for the pa [...]ment of [...] five thousand pounds at such a day; if he pe [...]form not accor­dingly, the Son by the Law of Nations, and by the civil Law, hath a right of power to compel him thereunto. So that though it should be supposed, that the King simply and abso­lutely is Superiour to his people, yet having entered into a civil, yea and sacred covenant and bond with them the breach hereof on his part giveth unto them a Lawfullnesse of right or power, to compel him to the terms of his agreement; or to make satisfaction for his violation of them. In such cases of Delinquencie, as this, that superiority, which for argument sake we suppose (in simple and absolute consideration) to be competent to the King, is for the time, and untill just satis­faction be made, forfeited unto the people, and they made the Superiour hereby. For doubtlesse he spake very conforma­bly to the Law and light of nature, and nothing but what the Scripture it self frequently attests, who said,

If then Superiours joyning in any act of impietie with their inferiours, lose the honour and dignitie of their Superiorship, and render themselves as v [...]le and low, as these their Inferiours, who partake in the same impietie with them; they must needs, by the contraction of such guilt upon them, fall beneath their Inferiours, who are innocent, and turn the Relation of Supe­rioritie and Inferioritie between them, upside down. There­fore,

5 And lastly for this) though it should be granted, that a King (truly and properly▪ so called) is either equall, or Supe­riour, in power, to his people in Parliament, yet being degene­rated into a Tyrant, he is neither A King, and a Tyrant, are as specifically distinct▪ as a lawfull husband, and an adulterer. This clea [...]ly appears by their respective descriptions, or defini­tions, which do [...], one answer the other in a relative opposition, after the manner of two species contra-distinguished (the one against the other) under the same genus. He that is a [Page 32] Tyrant (saith Aristotle) minds his own benefit, or profit [in his Go­vernment] [...]. [...] but he that is a King, that benefit of those, that are govern­e [...] by him. He is a Tyrant, (saith Peter Martyr) that ruleth contra­ri [...] to equity, good, and the Laws. Now certain it is, that as neither God, nor men, ever ordained that the adulte [...]er should be the head of the woman, or claim, or hold any superioritie over her, whose chastity he attempts by force; So neither ever did the one or the other, ordain by Law, or otherwise, that a Ty­rant should be the politick head of a body of people (collecti­vely taken) or that such a body as this should acknowledge him for their Superiour. Kings themselves (in the notion of the Civil Law▪ and of sound reason it self, as was formerly ar­gued) are but servants, or vassals, to their Kingdoms, or those respective Common-wealths which they govern. We hold that the [...]aw saith with us (saith Master R [...]therford) that vassals lose their farm, if they pay not what is due. Now what are Kings but vassals to the State, who if they turn Tyrants, fall from their right. [...] Elswhere: If a King turn a Pa [...]ricide, a waster and de­stroyer of the people, as a man he is subject to the coa [...]tive power of the Laws of the Land, &c. [...] pag. [...] If Kings in the best of their ho­nour▪ according to the very tenour, and tenure of their Office, and before any tainture with Tyranny▪ be the servants of their States and people, and in this consideration are their Inferiours; how much more when they have abused themselves with wic­kednesse in their Government▪ and violated those very Laws, which were the spirit, life, and soul of their Authority.

That particular Christians are injoyned by God in the Scri­pturesSect. 30 to obey Kings and Rulers, when they were persecu­tours and wicked, is no argument at all, whereon to conclude, that therefore such Kings or Rulers, were not the Servants of, and in their power and Authority dependent upon, those re­spective States and Kingdoms, which they ruled. There is little question to be made, but that particular Members of a Statest and bound in prudence▪ as well civil, as Religious and therefore▪ (and in both respects) in conscience, to yield obedience unto him in all things Lawfull, untill his Master, or Lawfull Superio [...]r, I mean, the body of that State (or in cases extraor­dinary▪ such a part of it as shall be spirited and strengthened by God for the atchivement) which hath made him their Ru­ler, shall in a Regular way▪ dis-title him▪ and take that Interest of power and Authority from him, which they gave him: as [Page 33] Masters use to doe by their servants, when they discharge them of their service. But this proveth not, so much as in face, that therefore the intire body of a State, in their representative stand bound in prudence, either civil, or religious, to continue such an Head, in the power and Authority of his Headship over them, or to own him still for their Superiour. A Cor­poration or Company convened together may Lawfully do many things relating to their body, which no single person of them may doe; as (for example) they may discharge an Officer, whom they find unfaithfull in, or insufficient for, the place, wherein he hath formerly related unto the Company, which no particular person amongst them can, or ought, to doe. And certain it is, that the Apostles did not direct their Christian pre­cepts or exhortations concerning obedience and subjection unto Kings, to Bodies politique, or whole States, or King­doms (collectively taken) but unto Christian Churches, and the Members thereof in particular: Nor did they undertake to umpire by any sentence or order directed unto them from hea­ven, between Kings, and States, touching their civil rights, or politique interests, but left them in these to the Regulation of the Law of nature, and of nations.

To object, but who shall judge, whether the King be a Ty­rant,Sect. 3 [...] or no; or, is it meet that the people, who are a party, and his enemies, should be admitted Judges, in their own case; is but to call for an answer near at hand. First the Laws of the land are very competent and unpartiall Judges in such cases. If these do not, either expressely, or constructively and by evi­dent consequence, declare a man to be a Tyrant, it is probable that he is not guilty: but if these speak his guiltinesse in that point, the testimony against him is sufficiently valid. If it be further demanded, but who shall declare, or expound the Law in this case? I answer; the known Rule in the Law is; that it [...] appertains to them to interpret the Law, to whom it belongs to make it. Now it being the Interest or right of the people in their Representatives, to make their Laws, it must needs be their right also, in the same capacity, to interpret them. If it be yet said; yea but the King is interessed in making of Laws, as well as the people: therefore it belongs, as well unto him, as unto them, to interpret them. I answer, no: the King is not interessed in making, 1. in framing▪ or contriving Laws, but onely in ratifying or confirming them. That which he [Page 34] contributes towards the Laws, is onely the guift of his Royall assent; which supposeth them made, before they come at him. His Assent unto the Laws made by the people, is (in it self, and simply considered) but a State formality, yet apprehended (it seems) of such consequence, that the people formerly, judged it meet, to constrain him by an oath at his Coronation to ex­hibit it. So that the Interest of declaring Laws, resides wholly in the people. But

2 Where there is no opportunity for the interposure ofSect. 32 other Judges, the Law of nature and of nations, alloweth every man t [...] judge in his own case. When a man is encoun­tred upon the way by a thief, who demands his money, and in case of refusall, threatens and assaults his person, this man is allowed by all Laws whatsoever, that yet I have heard of, but injoyne [...] by the Law of nature to become both a witnesse, and a Judge, yea and executioner too, (if he knows himself able) in his own case; as 1. to say unto himself, this man assault­eth me; and 2. to sentence him, as worthy of blows, yea of death it self for so doing, if he refuseth to desist from his at­tempt; yea and 3. in case of non-desistance▪ to execute this sen­tence upon him, if he be able, by s [...]aying him. When Hanun the King of the Ammonites by the counsel of his Princes, abused [...] David in his messengers, David took upon him (and that with­out the violation of any Law) to be Judge in his own case, and committed the execution of the sentence, which he awarded therein, unto the sword of Joab, and of the men of war with him. So that when Kings turn Tyrants over their people, the people themselves are competent Judges, though they be par­ties, and the case their own, because they are not in a capacitie of making an application or addresse, unto any other Judge, for redresse of their wrongs. Even as the late King took upon him to be Judge in his own case, when he sentenced all those, who served in the Wars on the Parliaments side against him, for Re­bels and Traitours, and commanded execution accordingly. But whether in such cases, as those lately specified, where no recourse can be had to other judges, or in what cases soever, men do not sin, simply by making themselves judges in their own case (for who is there but in any case relating to him, un­dertakes to judge what of right belongs unto him?) But 1. in judging partially, or unrighteously, in their own behalf. 2. In not suffering their own judgement to be over-ruled by the [Page 35] better sentence of a competent Judge. 3. In not abiding (with patience) by the sentence or award of a Judge, or Judges lawfully constituted and deputed for the cognisance of their cause, upon a pretence or supposal of in-justice in it. Thus then it is as clear as the sun, that the topique Authoritie of this say­ing, Par in parem non habet potestatem, reflects nothing, but peace, upon the Sentence passed upon the KING.

Yea but (say some) we cannot approve the said sentence, asSect. 33 just, in respect of those who awarded it. The Parliament, by whose Authority the High Court of Justice was erected, were no legitimate, or true Parliament, or Representative of the people; nor in a capacity of acting in a Parliamentary way, a considera­ble part of their members being deteined from them by force; and those remaining, being under force. To this I answer▪

1. The absence of twice so many members, as were deteined from the house by force, doth not at all maim the legitima­cie or truth of a Parliament, nor disable the legal Authoritie of it in respect of any Parliamentary end or purpose whatsoe­ver; fourtie sitting in the House, being legally invested with the same power for all publick transactions, which four hun­dred, or the whole number of them could have, in case they were present.

2. The deteinment of some of their members from them by force, doth not alter the case, in respect of nulling the Autho­ritie, or Parliamentarie power of those, who did s [...]t; especially they not consenting, or being accessarie to such their detein­ment. Suppose some of their Members imployed by them in carrying Messages, or Petitions to the King, during the time of the Wars, had been forcibly deteined by him; would such a restraint laid upon them by the King, have dissolved the Parli­amentarie Authoritie of the House?

If it be said, Yea but the Members, who met and sat in theSect. 34 House, during the deteinment of their fellow-Members, did unworthily in not demanding these fellow-Members of theirs out of the hands of those, who deteined them; or, in case of being denied in this kind in not refusing to act in a Parliamen­tarie way any further, untill they had been re-delivered unto them. To this I answer,

1. It doth not all relate to the point in hand, whether the Members remaining in the House, during the restraint of the other, behaved themselves worthily, and as became them, in all [Page 36] points (though I have nothing to charge them with to the con­ [...]rarie) but whether they were a legal Parliament; legal I mean in such a sence, which imports a sufficient investiture or quali­fication, according to the Laws of the Land, with Authoritie or rightfulnesse of power, to perform such acts, which are lawfull onely for Parliaments to perform. That they were not a legal Parliament in this sence, hath not yet been proved, nor (I believe) ever will. I have heard nothing I know nothing so much as to colour, or pretence, such a supposall.

2 They did demand the restitution of their deteined Mem­bers once and again. But to infer, from their being denied in this their demand, or from the non-restitution of their Members (especially receiving a satisfacto [...]e account from those, who deteined them, why they could not restore them,) that therefore it had been their dutie to have suspended all Parliamentarie proceedings; considering in what a trembling and distracted posture the great affairs of the Kingdom then stood, what is it, but to make the miserie, ruin, and destruction of the people, the duty of those, who were intrusted with the procurement of their peace and safety? But

3. Whereas the main Objection pretends, that the Parlia­ment, [...]ect. 35 or Members remaining, who voted the Erection of the High Court of Justice, were at the time of this transaction, and ever since, under force; unlesse the Objectours will pretend to know more in this point, than these Members themselves, they must acknowledge vanity and falshood in such a pretence. For these in their late Declaration of Febr. 17. 1648. published by way of Answer to two letters sent unto them by the Scottish Commissioners, plainly deny it. For the said Commissioners (in one of their letters) pretending, that the exclusion of some of the Members of the house by the Souldiery, had occasioned many others to withdraw, because they could not act as a free Par­liament, they repone to them these words (pag. 15. of the said Declaration) whether this be their judgement, or the Commis­sioners own, we know not▪ if some Members that are absent, be of that judgement, that they cannot act freely, we neither force their judgements, NOR FIND OUR SELV [...]S UNDER ANY SUCH FORCE, AS TO HINDER THE FREE EXERCISE OF OUR OWN.

4. If the Parliament of England, because of the sequestra­tionSect. 36 of some of their Members by the Army, were under force, or in no capacity to act Parliament-wise, doubtlesse the Par­liament [Page 37] of Scotland now sitting, is much more under force; and upon this account, all they have acted since the first of their sitting, or shall act yet further, must be null; yea more for­mally and apparantly null, than any the Acts of the present Parliament of England. For about six moneths since (the Ar­my of the Parliament of Scotland which invaded this King­dom, being by the blessing of God overcome) those that now govern affairs there (who were before oppressed by them) raised forces of their own Authority, and by force caused them, whoSee the Par­liaments De­claration o [...] [...] 17. 16 [...] Pag. 12. 13. had the Parliamentary Authority, to flee from Edenburgh: and (by the help of the English forces than in the North, invited to their assistance) did compell the disbanding of the forces there remaining, that were raised by the Parliament: and ha­ving modelled their own forces, did call another Parliament while the former was (by Adjourment) continued, and gave such limitations to the new Elections, as they judged most for the interest, safety, and peace of that Kingdom. And that Parliament hath since sat under the Protection of those forces so raised. So that the present Parliament of England is much more free, than the Parliament of Scotland. For 1. The Mem­bers of the former were Elected, without any limitations pre­scribed to, or about, their Election; whereas the Election of the Members of the latter was incumbered, and not carried, or made with the like freedom. 2. The Parliament of Eng­land now in being, was not brought in by force over the head of another Parliament legally chosen, this being forced to flee, to make way for that, which is the case of the Scottish Par­liament. 3. (And lastly) the Parliament of England sitteth under the Protection of forces raised by their whole body, and whilest all their Members had full liberty to sit: whereas the Parliament of Scotland is attended, (for their security) by for­ces raised by some few of them onely; the forces raised by their free Legall Parliament, being by force compelled to disband. But

5. That the Parliament of England acteth freely, and not asSect. 37 under any force, since the want of their secluded Members, (or at least as freely as they did before) is evident; because they now act by the same principles, and according to the same ge­nius, by which they acted, whilest those Members sat with them; though by the number, and potent influence of these Members upon the House, matters were still over-ruled in op­position [Page 38] to them, (as well as to the liberties and safety of th [...] Kingdom.)

6. There is no colour to judge the Parliament now sitting to be under force, in as much as those, under whose Protection they sit, are their reall, cordiall, and [...]ried friends, being their own Army, raised by themselves, and who have stood by them, and by the Kingdom, with all faithfulnesse, and with the emi­nent hazard of their own lives, from the first untill now. Do m [...]n use to be afraid of their friends▪ their known, their long, their throughly experienced friends? Suppose they had been under such a kind of force, which had strongly inclined them to act contrarie to their judgements, (I mean, contrarie to such principles, as by which▪ it is like, they would have acted, in case such a force had not diverted them) yet unlesse it can be proved, that those judgements of theirs, according unto which it is supposed they would have acted, in case no force at all had influenced them, were consistent with the liberties, peace, and safety of the Nation (which consistencie hath not yet been pro­ved, nor ever will) there can no sufficient reason be given, why their acts should be judged null, or illegall. It is the saying of Seneca: It is an happy necessity, which compelleth men to better [...] c [...] ­p [...]. wayes, than otherwise they were like to take. And in case Par­liamentary Acts should be questioned in point of legall validity, u [...]on a supposall (yea and this in some degree, reasonable) that Parliaments, at the time of their transaction, were under force, or (which is the same) under fear of acting otherwise, upon this account the validity of all Parliamentary Acts whatsoe­ver in this Kingdom (if not in others also) will be obnoxious, and liable unto question. For it may very reasonably be doubt­ed, whether any Parliament were ever so free in the passing of any Act, but that they were under fear, either of the King, and his power and party, on the one hand, or of the people, and their discontent, on the other: and consequently, whether ever any Parliament acted with such precisenesse of liberty or freedom, as that the genuine and native ducture of their judgements was no wayes touched or wrought upon by any influence of per­sons, or things, feared by them.

If it be yet objected: yea but it was onely the House ofSect. 38 Commons, that voted the Erection of that Court of Justice, which gave sentence against the King; The House of Lords concurred not with it. Therefore the Authority of this Court, [Page 39] was illegall; it being contrarie to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, that either of the two Houses should assume unto themselves or exercise, a compleat Parliamentary power, with­out the concurrence of the other. I answer

1. Many talk of the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, who (I beleeve) understand not, (at least, consider not) what the word, fundamental, imports. Certain it is, that no other Law, or Laws, of this Kingdom, can with any propriety of speech, be termed fundamental, but onely such, the observation where­of by the body of the Kingdom, is of absolute necessity to the wel-being of it. And no lesse certain it is, but that the welfare and prosperity of this Kingdom may stand, without any house of Lords at all; and much more▪ without their concurrence with whatsoever the House of Commons shall passe, in order thereunto. Upon the same ground evident it is, that the Trial of Malefactours or Delinquents (especially in extraordinary cas [...] of Delinquencie) by Juries, is no fundamental Law of the Kingdom, in as much as the wel-being of the Kingdom may subsist as well without it.

2. All Authority, and Power of Government being origi­nallySect. 39 and fundamentally in the people (as hath been already proved at large) they have a just and legall power (in their Re­presentative, which is the House of Commons, without the Lords) to act and do, whatsoever they rightly judge condu­cible to their wealth and safety; especially when the Lords shall refuse to concurre with them in such things. It is unrea­sonable to conceive, that it should be a matter of sin, or unlaw­full for a Kingdom, to make provision for it self, and it is own good, unlesse such, or such a small party amongst them, who prefer their own undue personal Interests, before the publick Interest and welfar of the Nation, should consent, and joyn with them therein. That Law, or Custom of the Kingdom, which placeth the supreme Authority, or power of Govern­ment▪ in the three Estates, of King, Lords, and Commons, doth it upon this presumption, or ground, that they all would, and should joyn, consent, and agree, in, and to all such things and transactions, which make for the benefit, and wel-being of the Kingdo [...] So that when this presumption, [...] ground, faileth, as when either the King, or Lords, refuse to consent un­to things of such a tendencie and import, that Law, or Custom we speak of, lose their interest and force of Obli [...]tion, yet [Page 40] without any violation of their intention. For it is not imagi­nable that any such Law should ever be enacted, whereby a Kingdom should be denied a liberty, or right of power, to provide for it's own wel-being and safety, unlesse those that are enemies to the making of any such provision, would consent notwithstanding that it should be made. Therefore though the Erection of a Court of Justice by the House of Commons without the Lords, be contrarie to the letter and out-side of the Law; yet a requisitenesse of it supposed in order to the peo­ples good, it is of perfect compliance with the spirit and soul of the Law. But

3 (And lastly) suppose that, (which is the height of supposi­tionsSe [...]t. 40 that can be made against the▪ Justice of that Sentence▪ [...]ow under defence and withall, far from truth) viz. that the Par­liament, by who [...]e Authority the said Court of Justice was founded and created, wa [...] no formall▪ legall, or complete Par­liament, yet will not this neither disable the Justice, or righte­ousnesse of the Sentence, unlesse it could be further supposed (which apparent Truth prohibiteth any man to suppose) that there was some other Magistrate, one, or more, superiour in place and Authority to this Parliament, who probably would, either have erected alike Court of Justice for the same end (I mean, for the Capitall triall of the King) or else have called him to the [...]ar of some Court of Justice already established, and prosecuted the same triall here. For doubtlesse the execution of Justice and Judgement is so absolutely and essentially neces­sary to the preservation and well-being of a State, or body po­litique, that both the Law of God, and nature, doth not onely allow it i [...] any member, one, or more, of such a body, in their order, turn, and course, (1. when those, who are peculiarly de­puted for such Execution, shall neglect, or refuse it, as viz▪ Ma­gistrates, and Judges) but even calleth them unto it, and re­quireth it at their hand, in such cases. The Execution of Ju­stice, in order to the peace & safety of the Publick, is not a work so appropriate to the office, or calling of a Magistrate, but that, when they in all their subordinations shall neglect it, it devolves (as it were) of course, unto those who are not Magistrates; yea by [...]y of duty and necessity unto such, who have oppor­tunity and means to perform it. This is the clear sense both of God and men.

When God first published unto the World, that great LawSect. 41 [Page 41] of Justice against murtherers, (mentioned Gen. 9. 6.) he did not limit or confine the Execution of it unto Magistrates, or draw it up in such terms as these; Who so sheddeth mans bloud, by Magistrates shall his bloud be s [...]ed; but thus, by man shall his bloud be shed; doubtlesse to imply, that the Execution of this Law doth concern every man in his order and place, and not the Magistrate onely (in his) the Magistrate (indeed) first: but then others also, under his deficiency. The like intimation (I conceive) is given afterwards, where this Law, at first given unto, and imposed generally upon, all flesh, is particularly in­serted, and that several times, amongst those Laws, which God himself was pleased to prescribe unto the Nation of the Jews. He that smiteth a man so that [...]e die, shall be surely put to death. Exod. 21. 12. So again: He that killeth any man shall be surely [...]ut to death. Levit. 24. 17. The word SURELY import's▪ that though the Magistrate be unfaithfull in his place, and shall neglect to put the Law against murther in Execution, (which is here, it seemes, supposed, that sometimes he will do,) yet the murtherer must not so escape. He shall surely be put to death: if he, to whom it more properly and peculiarly belongs to ad­minister justice in this case, shall prove like a sliding foot or bro­ken tooth, to God, and that people, which hath set him over them, and neglect the administration, yet shall they, to whom the said administration belongeth in a secondarie and more ge­nerall way, supply that which is wanting in the Magistrate on this behalf. In like manner our Saviour himself repeating and confirming (though in other words) the same Law, Mat. 26. 52. doth not expresse it, thus; All they that take the sword, shall pe­rish by the sword of the King, or of the Magistrate; as if there were none that had right to execute justice upon such, in case these refused it; but, in the general, and without confinement to the sword of Magistracie, thus: All they that take the sword (viz. to do violence to the bloud of any man) shall perish by the sword. It is much considerable to the further clearing of the point in hand, that God in delivering those politick or ju­diciall Laws unto the Jews, which he judged meet for their Politie, useth the same form or tenour of compellation, where­with and wherein he delivers the Morall Law unto them, with the respective precepts thereof. As he directeth these to the whole body of this people, divisim & conjunctim, sometimes in the second person singular, as THOU shalt [...] no ot [...]r Gods be­fore [Page 42] me; THOU shalt not make to thy self any graven image, &c. Sometimes again in the same person plural, as YE shall not make with me Gods of silver, or Gods of gold, Exod. 20. 23. YE shall not trouble any widow, &c. Exod. 22. 22. (which manner of ex­pression implies, that obedience unto the things commanded appertains unto and is expected from them all,) so doth he, in [...] delivery of the Judiciall Law, and the particulars thereof, add [...]sse himself to the generality and body of the people also, a [...]er the [...]ame manner. [...] THOU [...] a [...] H [...]brew servant, [...]e shall [...] s [...] [...]s, &c. Exod. 21. 2. THOU shalt not [...]uffer a witch [...] Exod. 22. 18. THOU shalt not overthrow the right of [...] Exod. 23. 6. &c. So again: Also (saith [...] Mos [...]) Thou shalt sp [...]ak unto the children of Israel, say­ [...] [...] die and have no son, then YE shall turn his inherit­ance unt [...] [...]is da [...]g [...]t [...]. And if he have no daug [...]ter, YE shall give his inheritance unto [...]is brethren, &c. Numb 27. 8. 9. see also, ve [...]s. 10. 11. So, YE shall appoint the Cities, to be Cities of re­fuge, &c. Moreover, YE shall take no recompence for the life of the murtherer, &c. Numb. 35. 11. 31. (with many the like) This tenour and form of words used by God himself in the promulgation of the Judiciall Law, undeniably evinceth, that the observation of this Law, in the severall branches of it, did not so relate to those, whom this people should set over themselves for Magistrates or Judges but that they themselves were concerned, the whole body of them, joyntly and severally, to see the said Law observed and duly put in execution as well, though not as imm [...]diatly or by proprietie of office, as they. The [...] were first (for their own accommodation and conveni­ence) to appoint Rulers and Magistrates over them upon whom the Execution of these Laws should in speciall manner lie: and in cases these Rulers and Magistrates proved faithfull unto them in a d [...]e Execution of these Laws, the people should be looked upon by God, as having discharged their duties in this behalf b [...] them (their Rulers.) But in case these Rulers en­trusted by them with the Execution of these Laws, should pre­varicate with their trust, so that the Laws we speak of were not put in exec [...]tion by them, it highly concerned themselves (I mean the body of this State, or generality of this people) one and other, without e [...]ception of any, to provide for this Exe­cution. And (questionlesse) upon this account and ground it is, that when injustice, violence, and oppression are practised [Page 43] without controul in a Nation, whether by Magistrates them­selves onely, or by others likewise with them, the displeasure of God for these sins is not kindled against Magistrates onely, as if they alone were guilty of them, but against the people al [...]o, even the generality of them; as might be shewed by many pregnant instances, both from the Scriptures, and from other Histories. Which plainly proveth a joynt delinquency in the people, with their Magistrates, in their non-execution, or non-providing (by one means or other) for the Execution of such Laws amongst them, which are made for the due punish­ment, (and so for the prevention) of unrighteousnesse and op­pression. For it is no wayes consistent with the righteousnesse of God, or with that equitablenesse of his wayes (concerning which he is willing to make his enemies themselves, Judges. E­zech. 18. 25, 29.) to punish the people for the sins of their Rulers, unlesse they were their fellow-sinners.

By the way, Inferiour Magistrates, yea and the generality ofSect. 42 the people, shall do well to take knowledge, how highly it con­cerns them, (as they are Members of that State and Commu­nity where they live, and have much of their peace and com­fort bound up in the peace and wel-being of the publick,) dili­gently to consider, when their Superiours are remisse, and loose, in the Execution of their Laws, such especially whereby such sins, which are more provoking in the sight of God, as inju­stice▪ oppression, murther, adultery, &c. are made punishable; that [...]o they may understand, when the publick peace and [...]afe­ty call's for them to interpose and act in an extraordinary way, as viz. by executing Justice and Judgement in their land, upon the default of those, who bear the sword in vain, and thereby expose the land unto a curse. Run ye to and fro (saith God himself by his Prophet) through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, IF Y [...] CAN FIND A MAN, IF THERE BE ANY THAT EXECUTETH JUDGE­MENT, that seeketh the Truth, and I will pardon it. [...]er▪ [...] ▪ [...]

And whereas the [...]act of P [...]in [...]as, (recorded Numb. 25. 8.)Sect. 43 and which is termed by the holy Ghost, the executing of j [...]dge­ment (P [...]al. 106. 30.) is commonly resolved into an extraordi­nary instinct, or impulse of spirit, from God, as if without some such warranti [...] as this it had not been justifiable, the reso­lution (I conceive) is not onely reasonlesse, and without ground▪ [...]ut even clearly refutable by the Scripture it self. For 1. God [Page 44] himself imputes the act we speak of, unto Phineas his z [...]al for God: because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the Children of Israel. [...]um [...]5 1 [...] Now to be zealous for God, and hereby to make an atonement for our people, is but a regular du­ty, and whereunto we stand all obliged continually. 2. This fact is said to have been imputed unto him (by God himself) for rig [...]te [...]s [...]esse. [...] 31 1. to have been commended and rewarded by him as an act of righteousnesse. Now to act righteously, or work [...]g [...]teousnesse, doth not require any extraordinary, im­mediate or forcible in citation from the Spirit of God, being nothing but what all men stand bound to perform by that standing and ordinary pre [...]ence and assistance of the spirit, which is vouchsaf [...]d unto them, yea and which hereby they may perform. By Faith (saith t [...]e Apostle, speaking of the Saints of old) they wrought rig [...]teousnesse. [...]b 11. 33. 3. The kindling of that [...]lame of zeal in Phineas, by which he was strengthened to the act we speak of, the Scripture ascribes, not unto any extraor­dinary a [...]tu [...], or revelation from heaven, but to the occasionall sight or beholding of that daring wickednesse in one of the people (though a great person) who, in the sight of Moses, and of all the congregation of the Children of Israel, now wee [...]ing before the door of the tabernacle of the congr [...]g [...]tion, brought along with him a Midianitish woman, and carried her into his tent. And when Phineas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the Priest, saw it, [...]e rose up from amongst th [...] congregation, and took a javelin in his hand, and went after the man of Israel, &c.N [...]mb [...]5▪ [...] 7 [...] ▪ That which may seem most irregular in the fact▪ viz. that he should do that severe Execution so suddainly, and this onely upon his own evidence, and without conviction by witnesses, &c. is reduci­ble to terms of common righteousnesse and equity, by the con­sideration of these three circumstances; 1. The desperate da­ringnesse of the impiety in both the Delinquents, especially the man, who being an Israelite, brought an Idolatrous Woman in t [...]e sight of Moses, and of all the congregation, and carried her in­to his tent. 2. This wickednesse was thus daringly and dread­lesly committed, when the wrath of God was now kindled a­mongst the people, and a devouring plague set in amongst them, which had already destroyed the lives of many thousands of them, and was advancing in full carier to make a further slaughter, and this for the sins of this people with the daughters of Midi [...]n▪ 3. (And lastly) it was committed i [...] [Page 45] the sight of Moses, and of all the congregation of the Children of Israel, whilst they were mourning and weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the Congregation, to pacifi [...] the w [...]ath of God, which was now fallen in so terrible a manner upon the people. Now when there is not onely a sufficient ground in point of demerit, for the punishment inflicted upon a Male [...]actour, but an addition also besides of any provoking and aggravating circumstance, one, or more, the Justice of God in this case may well be conceived, proportionably to allow somewhat out of course, and above the rule for ordinary cases, touching the manner of inflicting the punishment. When a sin, which for the kind of it▪ and without any aggravating circumstance, de­serveth death, is committed with any unnaturall, and execrable aggravation besides, God usually covereth all irregulariti [...]s, which are found in, or about the Execution of Justice upon the sinner, and justifieth the Execution, though it be not man­aged in all circumstances according to standing rules of Ju­stice in ordinary cases. There is the same consideration of the fact of E [...]ud in killing Eglon, unto whom by right of conquest, the Israelites had now been in subjection, 18 years. For how­soever some Court-Rabbies, secretly to enchant Kings into Ty­rants for their unworthy ends, have endeavoured to disguise the face of this example also, and to make it look like the na­turall off-spring of some super-Scripturall converse between God, and the spirit of the Actour, yet hath the devise been too hard for them to perform, neither Scripture, nor sound reason, affording any assistance to the attempt. But this by the way.

Thus then we see, that according to the Scriptures, whenSect. 44 Superiour Magistrates faulter in such executions of just Laws▪ which properly, and by office, belong unto them, the right of these Executions acc [...]ue to the Inferiour: and in case these faulter and fail likewise, the power, right, and care of all such executions devolves, not onely by way of right or power, but of duty also, upon the people. Nor is this principle of De­volution, in case of failer in the Superiour, asserted onely by God in the Scriptures: our adversaries themselves (in the ca [...]se now under plea) are friendly, yea and zealous assertours of it also The Scottish Covenanters, in the year 1639. upon the Kings delay in calling their Nationall Synod, published a writing to this purpose; that the power of calling a Synod, in case the Prince be an enemie to the Truth, or negligent in promoting [Page 46] the Churches good, is in the Church it self. T [...] M [...] [...] [...] [...] ­l [...]nt &c. l [...]b 3 [...]. [...]. M^r. Prynne, borrow­ing Junius Brutus his pen, in case of the incroachment of Ty­ranny upon the people (w [...]o, as he saith, are Lords of the Publick) from the Prince, and the conniveance▪ or collusion, of most of the Nobles, doth not onely acknowledge it as a thing lawfull, but enforceth it as a duty and matter of conscience, that any one of the Nobles; who considers the inc [...]oaching Tyranny, and de­tests it from [...]is soul, take care lest the Common-wealth receive any detriment: Yea, (saith he) he shall preserve the Ki [...]gdom even against the Kings will and resistance, by which [...]e [...]imself becomes a King, [...] &c. (with much more to like purpo [...]e) So that M^r. Prynne is clear, that in case the next of kin refuseth, he that is more remote, may lawfully take the relict to wife▪ In the Tractate last mentioned, he c [...]teth the Judgement of Georgius Ob [...]c [...]us, a great Lawyer, wit [...] severall others, standing to the same point. M [...]. R [...]t [...]e [...]ford, the great Patron of Presbytery, notwithstanding patronizeth also that devolution we speak of. Convention of the Subject (saith he) in a tumultuary way, for a s [...]ditious end, to make War without warrant of Law, is forbidden: but not when Religion, Laws, Liberties, invasion of forreign ene­mies, neces [...]itat [...]th the subjects to convern, though the King and or­dinary Judicat [...]res going a corrupt way to pervert judgement, shall refuse to consent to their conventions, &c. [...] And more plainly in another place: When the King defendeth not true Religion, but presseth upon the people a false and Idolatrous R [...]ligion, in that they are not under the King, but are presumed to have no King, eatenus, so far, and are presumed to have the power in themselves, as if they [...]ad not appointed any King at all: as if we presume the b [...]dy had given to the right hand a power to war [...] off strokes, and to defend the body, if the right hand should by a palsie, or some other disease, be­come impotent, and be withered up; when ill is coming on the body, it is presumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand, and to the rest of the body, to defend it self in this case, as if the body had no right hand, and had never c [...]mmunicated any power to the right [...]and at all. [...]. Long before him▪ M^r. John Knox his country-man, and great Architect of the Presbyterian disci­plin in Scotland, in a generall Assembl [...] a [...]ouched it (in a dispute against Lethington▪ Secretarie of State) to be the judgement of Calvin, and of the most godly and most learned Presbyterian Divines that be in Europe, that the Inferiour Magistrates, and upon their final default, the people may, and ought to, execute [Page 47] their Princes for murthering or destroying there liege Subjects. Pol [...]nus a learned man, and a Reformed Divine of good note, expresly granteth, that when Bishops and Ecclesiastiques are defe­ctive either in will, or skill, for the Reformation of Religion, and the Church, laiques, or private men, may lawfully supply their de­fect herein, and act the part of Bishops or Ecclesiasticall persons in such Reformation. [...] So that opinion, which asserteth the right of Authoritative Executions, unto Inferiour Magi­strates, though properly and primarily appertaining unto Su­periour, when these neglect, or refuse them; and unto the people, when all Magistracie, as well that which is Inferiour, as that which is Superiour, neglect them, is no Independent o­pinion, much lesse any private opinion of mine own: it is the signall Doctrine of the greatest Rabbies in the Presbyterian School. Let me adde this from a late writer; that from dili­g [...]nt search m [...]de into our ancient books of Law, it is affirmed, that the Peers and Barons of England had a legall right to judge the King: which was the cause most likely (for it could be no slight c [...]se) that they were called his Peers, and Equalls. And to con­clude (as to this point) this present Parliament, whilst as yet the Legality of it was not questioned in the least through any dismembering, or otherwise, and whilst it was (as yet it re­mains, for ought I know) Presbyterian enough, viz. in May 164 [...]. upon that Kings refusall of the Bill for the calling of the Assembly, o [...]t tendered unto him, fell to argue, fully a [...]gued, what i [...] [...]c [...] cas [...] might [...]e done by Authority of Parliament, when t [...]e Kingdoms g [...]d is so m [...]ch concerned, when a King refuseth, a [...] abs [...]nt [...]th himself from the Parliament. And at last it was brought to this Conclusion: that an Ordinance of Parliament, wh [...]r [...] t [...]e King is so absent, and refusing, is by the Laws of the Land, of as good Authority to [...]ind the peo [...]le, for the time present, as a [...] A [...] of Parliam [...]nt it self can be. Th [...] M [...] H [...] [...] [...]r­ [...] [...]. l [...]b [...]. [...] [...]. Therefore this Conclu­sion stands like a great mountain, immoveable; that the Justice and Honour of the Sentence against the late King are no wayes impa [...]rabl [...] b [...] any such supposition, as this, (be it true, or be it false) that the present Parliament, neither is, nor was at the time, when the said Sentence was passed, a compleatly-legall Parliament. There being no Authority in the land Superiour to it at least, which was either willing or likely, to have brought that Grand Delinquent to condig [...] punishment, the right of power, yea the necessity of the duty, to effect it, devolved in course upon them.

[Page 48]But amongst all the pleas, pretexts, and pretences levied bySect. 48 the Ministers of London, against the Justice of the said Sen­tence, that wherewith they arm themselves out of the maga­zine of the Covenant, is most importune, empty, and sencelesse, and hath been grownd to powder ten times over by the weight of those counter-reasonings, which have fallen from many pens upon it. But their Covenant, their solemn League and Cove­nant, is their Cornu-copia, or Amalthean horn, out of which they furnish themselves withall things necessary for the suste­nance and support of the Presbyterian cause, when it faints, and is in want. They make both Sea and Land of their Co­venant▪ to supply them either with fish▪ or flesh. It is not onely a Gladius Delp [...]icus in their hand, a sword wherewith they can strike both wayes, but a Gladius Versatilis, a sword which they can turn every way, to guard the entrance into their Paradi [...]e [...] p [...]g [...]. against all as [...]ailants whatsoever. By virtue of their Covenant, they claim, and exerci [...]e, N [...]buchadnezzars prerogative: whom they will, t [...]ey slay, and whom they will they keep alive: whom they will, they set up, and whom t [...]ey will, they put down: [...]. and all this out of a conscientious observation of their solemn League and Covenant. As they go to work in justifying of themselves, and condemning others, in reference to the Covenant, they re­present it as a Covenant unpossible for them to break, and as unpossible for other men to keep. For let them act in never so diametrall and keen an opposition to the greatest and deepest ingagements of this Covenant, let them seek by all the means they can imagine, to diminish his Majesties just Power and Great­nesse, let them fire the whole Kingdom about his ears, whilst Presbytery is like to have no portion in him; let them tread and trample upon the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, like clay, and mire in the streets, by abetting, countenancing, in­couraging, the sons of B [...]lial in their affronting, threatening, [...]rcing the House; let them, in stead of discovering with all faithfulnesse all Incendiaries, Malignants, evil Instruments, in order to the bringing of them to publick triall, and that they may receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall re­quire, or deserve, &c. (which the Covenant imposeth upon all others, who take it) but let them (I say) instead of all this, joyn hand in hand, comply, comport, consociate themselves, with Incendiar [...]es, Malignants, and the worst of instruments, make De­fection to the contrarie party, and this in the sight of the Sun; [Page 49] yea and oppose with all their might and interest in the people, the bringing of such men to [...]ublick triall, and their receiving of co [...]dign [...]unishment, and crie out against such, who out of Con­science of their Covenant faithfull [...] endeavour to do either, as Covenant-breakers, perjured, unjust, bloudy, murtherers, &c. yet they in all these most impudent, shamelesse, and broad-fac'd violations and prophanations of their Covenant, must have the honour and repute of the most intemerate, chast▪ and superla­tively-conscientious Observers and Assertours of it. On the other hand, they who have been, and are, as carefull, as strict, as unblameable, as dwellers in houses of clay lightly could be, in performing all, and every the Articles in this Covenant, so far as would stand with the main end and intent of it (which indeed▪ interprete Conscientiâ, Conscience being the Interpreter, is the Covenant) that is, who have endeavoured both the Pre­se [...]vati [...]n, and the Reformation of Religion, expressed in the first Article; who have in like manner endeavoured the [...]xti [...]pa­tion, mentioned in the second; who have also endeavoured, both the Preservations, the one, of the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, the other, of His Majesti [...]s person and Authority, with, and according to, the limitations and conditions speci­fied, in the third Article; who again have no lesse endea­voured that discov [...]ry, that bringing to pub [...]ick triall and condign punish [...]ent▪ which the fourth Article requireth; yet again▪ who have (after the same manner) endeavoured that firm peace and union▪ demanded in the fifth Article, and lastly, who have conscientio [...]sly exhibited that assistance and defence, which the si [...]t (and last) Article requireth; such men (I say) who have th [...]s regularl [...] and with all faithfullnesse, walked according to all the ingagements of the Covenant onely and meerly because no worshippers of their Diana▪ are by these Ministers paradig­matized, reproched, and traduced, as the most perjured Co­venant-breakers under heaven. Never (doubtlesse) was there any pearl [...]o mudled and padle [...] in the dirt with the feet of swine, never any holy thin [...] so desperatly polluted and pro­fan [...]d▪ as the Covenant we speak of hath been, and is yet daily, b [...] this generation of men.

But let us joyn issue with them more closely, in debating thatSect. 50 clause in the Covenant, wherein they so importunely trust to render the proceedings of the Parliament against the King, as against the Covenant also. Herein (say they) we have covenanted, [Page 50] that we will sincerely, really, and constantly &c. endeavour to pre­serve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority, in the preserv [...]tion and defence of true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdom. Where

1. It is very observeable, how (like unto the Scribes and Pha­risees of old, as our Saviour himself deciphereth them) they title the m [...]t, anise, and cummin of the Covenant, not onely with passing over, but with rising up against, the weighty mat­ters of the Covenant, as judgement, and mercie. If there be, or was, any thing lesse considerable than other in the Covenant, I mean, of looser connexion with the main end of the Co­venant (which I presume to be the peace and happinesse of the three Kingdoms) doubtlesse it was the Preservation of that Per­son and Authority, which these men insist upon in opposition to that great Article of the Covenant, which calleth for justice and judgement, bringing to publick triall, and condign punishment, all Incendiaries, Malignants, evil Instruments, &c. as likewise in opposition to that weighty clause, wherein the said Covenant bindeth us to endeavour with our estates and lives, to preserve the liberties of the Kingdoms. For who knoweth not, but that the peace and happinesse of the Kingdoms may very possibly subsist (as they have subsisted heretofore) without that person, or his personall Authority, whose preservation these men urge (with so much importunity) from the Covenant, both against that Justice and Judgement, to the Execution whereof upon delin­quents, the Covenant bindeth, as also against that mercie to all the three Kingdoms, which would be expressed and shewed unto them, as well in the preservation of those liberties, as in the Execution of Justice upon their enemies, and disturbers of their peace.

2. Suppose the preservation of the Kings person, had been,Sect. 47 simply and without any limitation or condition, injoyned in the Covenant, yet the injunction being grounded upon this presumption, that the King himself should, and would, enter into the same Covenant with us, he refusing to come into the bond of the Covenant, excludeth himself from all the benefit overtu [...]ed unto him in the Covenant upon those terms, and dis­chargeth the Covenanters, from all Covenant-obligations re­lating unto him. The Author of the Discourse intituled, Lex, Rex, was (I suppose) at the framing of the Covenant in Scotland, yea and (probably) fashioned it both behind and before, [Page 51] or however, hath ploughed with a better heifer, than all our Subscriptioners have done, to understand a right the riddle of it, yet he teacheth us this Doctrine, for truth: that if the Con­dition, without the which one of the parties would never have en­tered in Covenant, be not performed, that person is loosed from the Covenant. L [...] [...]g. p [...]g [...]. Now I appeal to the Consciences of the Subscribers (or to as many of them, as have taken the Covenant) whether they would have Covenanted the preservation of the person and Authority of the King, if they had known the King would not have Covenanted the other things with them; especially if they had known that he would so desperatly have opposed all the main ends of the Covenant, as he did. But this nail (I re­member) is driven home to the head, by that work-man, who drew up the Armies large Declaration. Therefore

3. Where a promise is either made, or sworn, conditionally;Sect. 48 especially when the performance of the condition by him, to whom, or on whose behalf, the promise is made, or sworn, is of greater moment, than the performance of the promise it self, in such cases it is as clear as the light, that the non-performance of the condition by the one party, induceth a disobligation of the other party from performance of the promise. How much more, when there is not onely a simple non-performance of the condition, but also a practising with an high hand in oppo­sition to it? First, evident it is, that those words in the Co­venant, [in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdom] import a condition to be performed on the Kings part, without the performance whereof the Co­venant obligeth no man to the preservation or defence of his Per­son, or Authority. If this be not the clear meaning and impor­tance of them, the Covenant is a Barbarian unto me: I under­stand not the English of it. But if men will impose aenigm [...]s in the name of Covenants, or Covenants made of riddles, they can reasonably expect no observation of them, but onely from some Oedipus, or Fortunatus, unlesse they will please to send their heifer along with them. Secondly, whether the Preservation and Defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom, be not a matter of far greater consequence, than the Preservation and Defence of the Person and Authority of the King, I am content to leave it to the Ministers themselves to judge, and determin. Thirdly whether the King hath not all along, since the taking of the Covenant by the Generality of the Parliament and [Page 52] Kingdom, acted in a way of full opposition to the preservation and defence of true Religion, and the Liberties [...] the Kingdom, I do not much fear to refer to the same arbitration. Certain I am, that (if their tongues and pens were not at va [...]iance with their judgements) this was their unanimous judgement and award, wh [...]est the Parliament smiled, and the King f [...]owned, upon the Presbyterian Interest. Therefore as God by his pro­mise of [...]aving those who shall believe▪ stands no wayes bound to save those who shall not believe; so neither doth any Co­venant▪ or promise, though made with Oath, to preserve a [...]d de­fen [...] t [...]e [...]ings Person and Authority, in case [...]e shall preserve the t [...]ue Religion and Lib [...]ties of the Kingdom oblige any man to the preservati [...]n or defence of either, when the King acts destructive­ly, either to the true R [...]ligi [...]n, or to the Liberties of the King­dom, least of all when he acts destr [...]ctively unto both. M [...]. Prynne himself (approbante calam [...]) citeth these words (amongst many others of like import) out of J [...]tus Brutus. ‘Therefore the people are obliged to the Prince under a condition; the Prince, purely to the people. Therefore if the condition be not fulfilled, the people are unbound, and the Contract▪ void, the Obligation null in Law it self. [...]’ Nay

4 The truth is, all things duly considered, that the Covenant Sect. 49 doth not more, if so much promi [...]e▪ or overture unto the King, the preservation or defence of [...]is Person, or Authority, by those that should take it, as threaten him with the neglect, yea and ruin, of both, from them▪ Thus far the case is evident: he that promiseth upon condition, intimates, and (to a degree) threatens, non-performance of promise, in case the condition be not performed; (especially when the performance of the con­dition is of much concernment to him, that maketh the pro­mise) Suppose that God should onely have made such a promise as this unto the world▪ Whosoever believeth in my Son Christ, shall be saved, without the explicit addition of this threatening▪ but he that believeth not shall be damned; it had been a pregnant Item and caveat given unto the world, not to have expected salvation from him, unlesse they believed. Yea the promise [...] self contains a tacit threatening of condemnation unto those, who believe not. Nor is it a thing reasonable or worthy of God▪ to conceive▪ that he in a most serious and solemn manner, and when he would speak most like unto himself, should promise salvation unto the world upon condition that men believe; [Page 53] and yet at the same time intend to save them, whether they be­lieved, or no. Nor would it be in men any thing lesse than taking the Name of God in vain, to swear in a solemn manner, and with [...]ands lifted up to heaven, the preservation and defence of the Kings Person and Authority, upon condition, that he prese [...]v [...] and defend the true Religi [...]n and Liberties of the King­dom, and yet to tell or intimate unto him at the same time, that they will preserve and defend his Person and A [...]thority, whether he preserves Religion▪ and Liberties, or no.

5 If there be any thing in the Vow, Protestation, or Co­venantSect. 50 against bringing the King to a judiciary Trial, and sen­tencing him according to his demerits, the Ministers them­selves are far deeper in the condemnation of tran [...]gr [...]ssours, than those that have acted in or towards▪ this bringing of him to trial, or, that have given Sentence against him, at least in re­spect of any guilt contracted by them, by either of these trans­actions.) In so much that that of the Apostle may be applied▪ and spoken unto them (with aggravation and advantage:) Therefore thou art in excuseable, O [...]an, whosoever thou art, that judgest▪ for wherein thou judgest another, thou cond [...]m [...]est thy self: for thou that judgest, dost the same things. [...]m. [...] ▪ [...] ▪ The Ministers were they who deposed the King: and consequently, who accord­ing to the common and known processe of Law and Justice in the Kingdom, exposed him both to that judiciary Trial▪ where­unto he was brought, as also to that Sentence, which passed upon him. For a King deposed, is no longer a King, but a Subject: and consequently, as subject (I mean, according to the ordinary current▪ and course of things) unto Law and Ju­stice, as ordinary Subjects are. The Ministers (with their par­ty) clearly deposed the King, when they denied their subje­ction unto him, withdrew their obedience from him, acknow­ledged and submitted unto a power as Superiour unto his, (viz. the Parliament) levied war against him, as against a Traitour, Rebell▪ and Enemy to the Kingdom, chased him up and down the land from place to place, confiscated his revenews, and at last imprisoned his person. But this Doctrine (with a further explication, and proof of it) hath been lately taught them with Authority and Power, by another pen: Ten [...]e of Ki [...]g [...] and Magi [...]te [...] ▪ by J M p [...]g [...]9 [...] &c. the Sermon being in print▪ needs no repetition. So then were it granted, that the Protestation, Vow, or Covenant, did positively, and without any proviso, injoyn the preservation of the Person and Authority [Page 54] of the King, neither they who brought him to trial, nor they who sentenced him, can be looked upon as Covenant-breakers, in either of these actions; because neither he, who was brought to that Trial we speak of, nor he who was sentenced, was a King when these things were done to him, but onely a Subject that had been a King in his dayes, but was now devested of his royall office and power, by the Ministers of London, and their partisans, and reduced to the rank and condition of a Subject, and this none of the greatest neither. There is not the least jot or title in the Covenant concerning the Preservation or Defence of the Person and Authority of any man that, sometimes was, or had been a King: nor the least mention of any restraint from bringing to triall, or giving sentence against, such a person, being a Delinquent; Therefore there being no Law in the Co­venant against the trial or sentencing of such a person, there can be no transgression in either, against the Covenant. Again,

6. (And lastly) Suppose the Ministers were gratified withSect. 51 their undue supposal, viz. that the Covenant injoyns the Pre­s [...]rvation of the Kings Person and Authority, without any reci­procal indenting with him for the preservation of Religion and Liberty; yet there being two expresse clauses in the Covenant, the one, injoyning the preservation of the Liberties of the King­doms▪ the other, the bringing of Incendiaries, and Malignants unto condign punishment, either of these falling in competition with that, concerning the preservation of the Kings person, swal­loweth up the obligation thereof. For that is a true Rule, which Peter Martyr delivers (as elsewhere I have observed) [...]ht [...]nd [...]h [...], &c. p [...]. 30. that when two duties or commands meet in such a strait, that they cannot b [...]th receive that honour of observance, which otherwise belongs unto them both, that which in the judgement of the Law-giver, is the greater, ought to be observed, and the lesser to give place.* Now [...] P▪ M [...]t▪ [...]n [...] S [...] [...] ▪ [...]. [...] first, certain it is, that as well the one, as the other of these two duties, the preservation of the liberties of the Kingdom, the bring­ing of In [...]endaries and Delinquents to condign punishment, are far greater duties, of far greater moment and consequence, than the Preservation of the Kings Person and Authority. (the highest service imaginable of his Person and Authority in their best preservation, being the procurement of these, which are very well procureable too without them) and 2. no lesse certain it is, 1. that neither the preservation of the Kingdoms Liberties; nor 2. (and this more app [...]rantly th [...]n the former)▪ the bringing of [Page 55] Delinquents to condign Punishment, were consistent with such a preservation of the Kings person & Authority as the Ministers deem the Parliament, Army, and others obliged unto, by the Co­venant. Late and lamentable experience shewed how near the Liberties of the Kingdom were to ruin, by occasion of the preser­vation of the Kings person onely, (and that onely for a season) though his Authority was kept under hatches. It was the Pre­servation of his Person that gave life, and breath, and being, to those dangerous insurrections in Kent, Essex, London, Surrey, Wales &c. by means whereof there was but a step between the Liberties of the Kingdom and perpetuall enslavement. It was the Preservation of his Person (with hope of a restitution of his Au­thority) that administred strength unto Scotland to conceive the conquest of England, and to make the attempt by invading it with an Army of about (if not above) 30000 men: unto whose teeth (doubtlesse) this Nation had been a prey, had they not fought from heaven, had not the stars in their courses fought against them. And had his Person still been preserved (especially with his Authority) according to all experiments which the world hath made, and had, in such cases, yea according to all princi­ples, as well of Religion, as of reason and policy, it would have been a spring or fountain of bitter waters unto the land, and a darkening of the light in the heavens thereof. (But more of this elsewhere.) And instead of bringing Delinquents unto condign punishment, it cannot in any rational Construction but be sup­posed, that it would have been the lifting up the heads of such persons unto undeserved places of honour. This, with the o­ther particulars argued upon the point of the Covenant, duly considered, is it possible to imagine, that the Ministers should find in their judgements or consciences, or any where else, but in their degenerous and ignoble ends, the least colour or pre­tence, to declaim against the Parliament (and those who ad­here to them in their proceedings) with such wide and open mouths, with such multiplied and incessant battologies of Co­venant-breaking, Covenant-breaking, Covenant-breaking, as they do, for their honourable proceedings against, and royal execu­tion of Justice upon, the Person of the King? or to think that such Scriptures have any hard aspect at all upon them, or their actions, as that which they manage against them, Shall he pro­sper, shall he escape, that doth such things? Or shall he break the Covenant, and be delivered? As I live, saith the Lord, seeing he de­spised [Page 56] the Oath by breaking the Covenant (when lo, he had give [...] his [...]and) he shall not escape, &c. Ezech. 17. 14▪ 15. &c. Have they not much more cause to fear, that the Spirit which spe [...]k in such Scriptures as these, [...]eth in wait for themselves, and will break forth as a lion out of a thicket upon them, & devour them? Or a [...] not they the signal Cov [...]nant-br [...]ak [...]rs of the Na­tion▪ in opposing and pleading against▪ the bringing of Incendia­ries and Delinquents to condign [...]s [...]nishment, the Liberties of the Kingdom, the ro [...]ting out of Episcopacy, the forces raised and con­tinued by [...]oth Houses of Parliament for th [...]ir just Defence? Or do they not very palpably▪ and in the interpretation of all unpartial and considering men oppose all these▪ in pleading for the [...]reser­vatio [...] of the Kings Person and Authority, upon such malignant terms, as they do? Do they not, in charging the Parliament and Army with breach of Covenant, do like [...]ti [...]ars wife, who accused hir servant Joseph unto his Master, of unchast attempts; when as she her self was the impure person, and J [...]seph a Mir­rour of that virtue, which was directly contrary to that sin, whereof he was accused?

But what may we in a fair way▪ and without the least breachSe [...]. 52 of Charity, judge to be the reason, why the [...]e Ministers, when the Sun, Moon and Stars do not obeisance unto them, when they find themselves agrieved with the motions of the State, and the workings of publick affairs not kindly sympathizing with their Interests, still arm themselves with the Solemn League and Covenant to fight against those, in whose spirits, or wayes, they resent the least non-compliance with them, and their ends? Why do they still rage with the Covenant in their mouths? why do they still make a staff of the Covenant to strike and beat their adversaries? Questionlesse the thought of their heart is, that whether the Scriptures were calc [...]lated for the Meridian of high Presbytery, or no▪ the Covenant was: and therefore their confidence of a blessi [...]g from this▪ upon that their Interest, is greater, than from those. They think it impos­sible, by virtue of the Covenant, that any man should touch them, and be innocent. It cannot enter into them to imagin, that the Covenant, considering who were the compilers of it, and from whom they received it, should suffer any man, with a good conscience, to do the Presbyterian Interest the [...]east harm; yea or to withhold their hand from a zealous promoting of it? What? the first-born Sons of Presbytery, draw up a Covenant [Page 57] for themselves, and for the Honour of their Kingdom, and con­t [...]ive it so weakly, so impolitickly as to leave the takers of it at liberty, in any juncture of circumstance whatsoever, to act con­trary to their desires, contrary to the e [...]igencies of their King­dom? They must not, they dare not, they cannot, stain the glory of their wise men, with such an imputation. Hence (I conceive) it is, that without any more ado, without any fur­ther consideration had, than onely of the parentage and descent of the Covenant, whoever troubleth them or discontenteth them in their way, they presently arrest him at the Suite of the Co­ve [...]a [...]t, making no question but that the Covenant will be too hard for him, and avenge them on all their adversaries. But poor men▪ in all this they do not consider, of whom it is writ­ten: [...]. He catch­eth the w [...]se in their [most emphaticall, and signall] craft (for so the article, [...], seems to import.)

Whereas the Ministers (with their new Friends, generally)Sect. 53 seem to plead the Oath of Allegiance, together with many other O [...]ths, in way of bar to the equity and lawfulnesse of the Par­liamentary proceedings against the late King, and to conclude all under perjury, and breach of many Oaths, who being under the bands of these Oaths, have either assisted in, or consented unto, the said proceedings: and posturing themselves upon this imaginary ground, shake the dreadfull rod of such Scri­ptures over their heads, as those which threaten perjury, and swearing falsly;

1. I wonder not a little, how they come by a dispensation for perjury, or oath-breaking, themselves, and that more palpa­ble, and with more-aggravating circumstances, than they can (so much as with colour) charge upon others: or, in case they have no such dispensation, but the guilt of the sin still cleaves unto them, where they gat such armour of proof for their fore-heads, that they dare charge perjury upon other men. For (to omit that, which was formerly mentioned, and hath been proved to their faces by others, viz. the expresse breach of all the manifold Oaths they speak of, by themselves, in such a no­tion or sence, as they charge the breach of them upon others, in their fomenting, countenancing, abetting the late Wars against the King, with other practices relative hereunto) have they not violated the many Oaths, wherein they sware obedi­ence, Canonical obedience, to their Ordinaries, as Bishops, [Page 58] Chancellours, &c. who knows how often?) and that in the highest way of violation that lightly can be, viz. by swearing (point-blank against those) to indeavour their extirpation; yea and this without any declaring or acknowledgement, either by words, or deeds (at least in publick) of any unlawfulnesse in those Oaths, or of any sin committed by them, in the taking of them? Nay, they have solemnly sworn the extirpation of Pre­l [...]te, &c. contrary to their former Oaths for the maintaining of it; yet have they been so far from acknowledging any sin in these former Oaths, that they have (at least some of them) avouched the lawfulnesse of Episcopal Government, and pro­fessed the ground of their swearing the extirpation of it, was onely the inexpedience, or inconvenience of it for this Nation. I believe that neither the Parliament nor any cordial unto them in their proceedings, ever transgressed any Covenant, or Oath, so much as in the letter or out-side, when they judged the ob­servation of them, onely inconvenient, and not sinfull. May we not then retort those words upon themselves, wherewith they causelesly strik at the honour and repute of his Excellency, and Councel: Be not deceived, God is not mocked. He knows, how frequently you condemn that, as a great crime in others, which [...] Repre [...]n­ [...]n [...] [...]g [...] ▪ you would have accounted a virtue in your selves. But God, who is no respecter of persons, alloweth no such rule: But

2. As Peter Martyr well observes concerning the promis [...] [...] P▪ M [...]. [...] cap. [...]. [...] 5 of God, that they are to be understood according to the present State and condition of things▪ when they are made: meaning, that no performance of them is intended by God, in case men shall decline from that integrity, under which, and in relation unto which, such and such promises were made unto them (where­of very many examples might be produced from the Scriptures) so neither are the promises of men, whether made with Oath▪ or without, to be so taken or understood, as if the makers of them stood bound to perform the terms of them, under any possible change or alteration whatsoever in the persons to whom they are made. If I should promise, and (suppose) bind my self by Oath▪ by such a day to deliver back a sword, unto my friend, which I borrowed of him; in case this friend of mine shall in the interim fall distracted, or mad, I am so far from being bound to make good my promise unto him, that I should [...]in in so doing, and bring the guilt of all the evil, which this [...]n shall do by means of the sword so by me delivered unto [Page 59] him, upon mine own head. Suppose a State or Prince, should swear a Covenant, or League of perpetual Amitie, with ano­ther Prince or State; in case this Prince or State shall at any time in an hostile manner invade the territory of the other, the State or Prince invaded are disobliged from all ingagements by such an Oath. Chrysostome writing upon those words, Matth. 19. 28. Verily I say unto you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit upon the Throne of his Glory, shall also sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel; Demands thus: what then? shall Jud [...] sit? no, at no hand. How then doth he say, that you shall sit upon twelve Thrones? how shall the contents of the promise [...]e fulfilled? For answer to this question, he refers us to Jer. 18. 9. 10. and to Gen. 9. 2. In the former of these places, the righteous God speaketh thus by his Prophet. [...]t what instant I shall speak concerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it doth evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said, I would benefit them. (See an example answering this rule, 1 Sam. 2. 30.) In the lat­ter, thus: And the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the Earth, &c. Why this promise of God is not made good unto men, but on the contrary, the fear of many beasts, as of lions, wolves &c. is upon men, he gives this reason: He (meaning, man) shewed himself unworthy of this command. [...]. This (saith he) is Judas his case; meaning, that though the promise of sitting upon a Throne was made unto him, as well as unto any other of the Apostles, yet by reason of that change which afterwards appeared in him through his wickednesse, he forfeited and lost his right of interest in that promise: neither was it any part of the Lord Christ his intent in that general promise, at the making of it (though no such exception or pro­viso was expressed) to obliege himself unto any the rest of the Apostles for matter of actual performance, but onely upon sup­position, or condition, of their perseverance unto the end in that course of following him, wherein they pleased him at the time, when the promise was made by him. Nor doth any promise, though confirmed by an Oath, of Allegiance, obedience, or subjection unto a King, and his Successour [...] or Posterity, bind any longer, or otherwise, either before God, or m [...]n, than whilst, and as, this King, or his Successours, shall continue in the same depor [...] of themselves in the discharg [...] of their [Page 60] trust, and administration of their power, whereby they com­mended themselves unto us at the time, when we sware such Allegiance unto them, and in consideration, and expectation whereof the same was sworn by us. Therefore the King being so notoriously changed from what he was and proving so con­trary to what he was expected to be, when the Oath of Alle­giance was taken by us and in respect of which it was taken, as the late administration of his power to the destroying of the lives of his Subjects, and the miserable devastation of his King­dom plainly declare him to have been; evident it is, that God himself by the tenour and import of his promises, and Jesus Christ by the like tenour and import of his together with the [...] C [...] ­ [...] [...]g [...]. Law of nature, and all principl [...]s of reason, equity, yea and common sence it self, fully and fairly di [...]charge and acquit us f [...]om all ingagements or ties, which the [...]at [...] of Allegiance, at the time of our taking it, laid upon us.

3 (And lastly) when the Ob [...]ervation of Promi [...]es, Vowes,Se [...]. 55 P [...]t [...]stations Covenants or Oaths must of necessity be accom­panied with sin▪ as either with the perpetration of that which is evil▪ or with the omission of somewhat that it is morally good, it is so far from being necessary, or matter of duty, that it is plainly▪ and without, and above all con [...]radiction, sinfull. For was it lawfull for Hero [...] to behead John the Baptist, be­cause he had bound himself unto it by an Oath? Or had it not been sinfull in tho [...]e Jews who bound themselves with a [...] Oath of ex [...]cration, not to eat or drink [...]ll they had killed Paul if they had destroyed their own lives by famin, in observation of their Oath? I do not compare these Oaths, with the Oath of A [...]le­giance in respect of the lawfulnesse▪ or unlawfulnesse, of taking (I acknowledge the taking of the latter, to be much more law­full, than of either of the former) but in respect of the lawful­nesse, or unlawfulnesse, of keeping them: and affirm, that in this respect the juncture of circumstances considered, the Observation of the latter by the Parliament, would have been as sinfull to them, as the Observation of the other was, or would have been, had they been observed. For it being as well unlawfull for a People to suffer their land to remain under a pollution, though brought upon it by another, when God put an op­portunity into their hand to purge it, as it is to pollute it them­selves; and the purgation of this land being utterly incompati­ble and inconsistent with such an Observation of the Oath of [Page 61] Allegiance by the Parliament and Army, as the Ministers pres­sed them unto, evident it is that this observation of it, had been sinfull; yea and had increased the pollution of the land, in stead of purging it. For 1. that the land, before the [...]entence passed, and executed upon the King, was polluted (and that with a very grievous pollution, so much innocent bloud having been shed in it) is evident: for God himself saith, that, for bloud, it defileth (or polluteth the [...]an [...]. Nu [...] [...] ▪ [...]3. If you ask, how, or in what sence, or respect, bloud is said to poll [...]te or defile a [...]and; I answer, first, it doth no [...] pollute it ceremonially: morall sins▪ amongst which murther, or the shedding of innocent bloud, is one of the first-born, are not wont to defile cerem [...]nial [...]y. Secondly, the originall [...] translated, defileth, signifieth (as M^r. Ains­worth explaineth it, and Arias Monta [...]us rendereth it) impi [...]usly, staineth, [...]ouly de [...]ormeth. Thirdly, the same word is used to expresse that defilement of a land, which it contracteth by spi­rituall whoredoms, or idolatries commited in it. Jer. 3. 2, 9, &c. Hereupon the ancient H [...]b [...]w Docto [...]s say, Th [...]u hast not any thing concerning which the [...]aw giveth such a charge, as for shed­ding of blo [...]d. Therefore fourthly (and lastly) when a land is defil [...], or polluted, it importeth an obnoxiou [...]nesse, exposall, or nakednesse of it to the stroke of the di [...]pleasure or just indigna­tion of God, see 2. Sam 21. 2. King. 24. 2, 3, 4, &c. Esa. 4. 4. Jer. 22. 3. compared with▪ 6. 5. Lam. 4. 13▪ 14. Ezek. 16. 38, 39. & 22▪ 2. [...] ▪ 4▪ &c. So that a Land, or People are in a very danger­ous and sad condition, whilest they remain under pollution.

2. As certain it is, that a land which is polluted with bloud,Sect. 56 cannot be recovered from under that danger of divine displea­sure, whereunto it is subjected by such a pollution, but onely by the capitall punishment of him▪ or them, who have so polluted it. For bloud (saith God himself) it polluteth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the bloud that is shed therein, but by the bloud of him that shed it. N [...] 35. [...]3. It is true▪ where the number of ac­cessaries or of persons drawn in to assist in any murtherous in­gagement, is very great, it is not necessary for the purging or cleansing of the land, that the bloud of them all should be shed; especially when the Heads and Principall Actours in such ingagements, are delivered up by hand of divine Justice, to make the atonement. For though the punishment or execu­tion of Justice upon the murtherers, which God requireth in order to the cleansing of a land (for the present polluted with [Page 62] bloud) requireth the bloud of the murtherer; yet the end or intent of such punishment or execution, is not the shedding the bloud of the offender, but the effectuall prevention of like enormous crimes for the time to come. Therefore when such punishment is inflicted upon Delinquents in this kind, or Exe­cution of Justice done, which may reasonably be judged efficacious for the terrifying of bloudily-disposed men from at­tempts of bloud afterwards, it is (I conceive) a sufficient expia­tion of the land, and a competent re-enstating of it in the love and favour of God. God himself in his Law declareth the end of that punishment, which he commandeth to be inflicted upon malefactours, to be, the prevention of the like evils in o­thers afterwards. For having made a severe Law for the sto­ning to death of such persons, that should intice away the peo­ple to Idolatry; But thou shalt surely kill him: and again: And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die, &c. he subjoyns (as the principall thing he intended by such an execution of Justice.) And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any suc [...] wickednesse as this is, amongst them. [...] [...]3. 1 [...], 1 [...]. A like passage we have a­gain a few chapters after: And the man that will doe presumptu­ously, and will not bearken unto the Priest—or unto the Judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Is­rael. And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more pre­sumptuously. [...] [...]7 [...] ▪ [...] The meaning is not that such an universall re­formation as this should certainly, or infallibly be the fruit, or consequent of such an administration of Justice; but that such a course, would be proper and effectuall to produce it. So then when Gods end in commanding the execution of Justice upon malefactours, is sufficiently according to the principles of good reason, and experience in like cases, provided for, there is no necessity of extending the execution (especially in the height or rigor of it) any further. It is like Saul had many accessories, and instruments, counselling and assisting him, in the cruelty which he practised upon the Gibeonites; yet God accepted a sa­crifice of onely seven of Sauls house (himself upon another ac­count being now cut off by death) by way of atonement for the land.

If it be here replyed and said; but why might not then theSect. 57 King have been spared, considering that there were besides him, so many Capitall Offenders in the same ingagement with him, delivered up to the stroke of Justice? would not the cutting [Page 63] off of all these by the sword of Justice, have been a sufficient atonement for the Land, and provisionall in abundance against the like mischievous perpetrations for the future? To this I answer,

1. That when the Apostle Jude admonisheth us, [...], i. to put a difference amongst [or, between] those, on whom we shew mercy, Jude ve [...]s. 2 [...]. it would be rather a deriding, then observing▪ of his injunction, to give most unto those who are most unworthy, and are like with all to make the worst use, of what is given unto them in this kind: in like manner, when there is an opportunity (haply a necessity) of putting a difference in the execution of Justice, it would be a provoking abuse of this opportunity in the sight of God, and of all just men, to con­demn the grashoppers in sin, and to let the An [...]kims, especially Anak himself, to escape Though the strictnesse of Law per­mit the Creditour to fall upon the surety for the recovery of his money, when the principall may be had, and is solvendo; yet such a practise as this would not be of any good resentment with men of ingenuous and fair principles. I think there are few men amongst us▪ but will grant, that the King was not onely the Su­preme Person, but the Supreme Actour also in the tragedie of bloud, which hath been lately acted upon the stage of this Na­tion; yea and had more of the guilt of the bloud shed in it, up­on his consciensce, than all his fellow-Actours besides, put toge­ther. His own confessions at the treaty in the Isle o [...] Wight, im­plied no other. Now to cut off the tail of wickednesse, and to leave the head still upon the body, what would it be, but to render Justice, the comeliest of all virtues, as a ridiculous and deformed Monster?

2. Should Justice seize upon Inferiour Delinquents onely,Sect. 58 and such who have lesse of the evil done, upon them, and passe by him, who hath been the Grandee, and deeper in wickednesse than they all; such an administration, reason it self being Judge, would be so far from securing the Nation from such bloudy attempts against it for the future, that it would rather be a means, or occasion to provoke and irritate the same spirit of wickednesse the second time. For if Kings, or Persons intrust­ed with the Supreme Power of the Land, or with the Admi­nistration of this Power, be more than inclinable enough to make such Tyrannous and bloudy attempts upon their Subjects, whilst as yet they know not, whether they shall suffer from the [Page 64] hand of Justice, or no, in case they prosper not in their way; much more will they be incouraged, and their hand strengthen­ed unto such wicked practices and ingagements, when all fear in that kind shall be taken from them, by an experimented ex­emption of their Persons in such a case. And if that of Solo­mon be true, that because Sentence against an evil work is not exe­cuted speedily, therefore the hearts of the Sons of men i [...] fully set in them to do evil; much more fully set to do evil must their hearts [...] needs be, when they shall expect, or fear, no Execution at all, neither speedy, nor tardy. As for Execution by a Divine hand, or punishment from God how terrible soever they are, or may be, when they come, yet are they seldom to Kings▪ or Persons in greatnesse of Power, of any resentment at all before. Divine Justice before Execution, or threatenings from God, are turned i [...]to straw and stubble and rotten wo [...]d, before Kings.

To say that Kings can do no evil, without instruments; andSe [...]. 59 from hence to infer, that therefore the punishment of Instru­ments, is sufficient to bind the Kings hands from doing evil, and to stop all the issues of mischief as from him; is but to lay a foundation of sand, to build hay and stubble upon. For 1. though no man should miscarry, or fall, under Sathans tempta­tion, yet Sathan is neverthelesse himself, as much a devil, in his suggestions and temptations, as he could be, in case all that are tempted▪ should fall by him. The evil of Kings is not eased, or diminished upon this account, that they can purchase, or pro­cure no Instruments, to serve them in wicked designs: nay such a disappointment as this, unlesse it shall be supposed universal, yea and upon such terms, that every person tempted by them (in this kind) shall at the very first reject their motion with a peremptory indignation, is like to make them so much the greater Sinners. For as beggars, that cannot receive reliefe at one door, are hereby occasioned, and half necessi [...]ated to re-act their parts at another: So tempters unto evil, being under the command of such a lust, which cannot be fulfilled, without the consent and concurrence of others there [...]nto, the more denials they receive, are provoked to multiply their tentations so much the more, and to attempt the integrity of greater numbers, and consequently to sin the more. And besides, faint refusals, do but teach the Tempter his art more perfectly. But

2. Whilest Kings, or Persons in Sovereignity of Power, areSect. 60 free from fear of punishment for evil practices, and consequent­ly, [Page 65] at full Liberty to assault the weaknesses and infirmities of men by their golden baites of tentations, it is in vain to con­ceive or expect, that they should not be able to raise up a gene­ration of Instruments for their turn against any disadvantage whatsoever. How many persons have perished and do perish daily in the sight of the Sun, through Sat [...]ans temptations, and yet Sathan being at liberty to tempt, the generation of evil doers through his temptations, faileth not, abateth not, nor is like to do either, untill the Tempter be tied up in chains.

3. (And lastly) to the main Objection in hand; I answe [...],Sect. 61 that had the servants onely suffered from the hand of Justice, and the Master of the house, the King, being more polluted with the bloud spilt in the Land, that they all, escaped, the Pattern in the mount (I mean, the example of God himself in executing Judgement and Justice) had been declined, and some ignoble slimie modell of the valley followed in the stead. For the Scriptures from place to place, still represent God as fixing his eye in speciall manner upon Kings and Princes, when he threat­ens any severe Execution of Justice upon men for such sins, wherein they were Actours, as well as others. And when se­venty years are accomplished, I will visit THE KING of Babel, and that Nation (saith the Lord) for their iniquities, &c. Jer. [...]5. 1 [...] After­wards in the same Chapter: Then took I the Cup at the Lords band, and made all people to drink, unto whom the Lord had sent me: Even Jerusalem, and the Cities of Ju [...]h, and the KINGS thereof, and the Princes thereof. Pharaoh also KING of Egypt, and his servants, and his PRINCES, and all his people: And all sorts of people, and all the KINGS of the land of Uz. And ALL▪ THE KINGS of Tyrus, and ALL THE KINGS of Zidon, and THE KINGS of the Isles that are beyond the Sea. And ALL THE KINGS of A­rabia that dwell in the desert. And ALL THE KINGS of Zimri, and ALL THE KINGS of Elam, & ALL THE KINGS of the Medes. And ALL THE KINGS of the North, far and near, &c. and THE KING of She [...]ha [...]h shall drink after them. Ve [...]s. 17, 1 [...], 19▪ 20, &c. See other places of like import. Jer. 49. 3, 38. 50, 35. Hos. 5. 10. Am. 1. 4, 15. Ezek. 29. 3. 31. 18. Psal. 76. 12. 110. 5, 6, &c. It were easy to make this pile yet much greater; the holy Ghost upon all occasions seeming to make speciall threasure of this Obser­vation, that whensoever the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, (in any publick manner) against the unrighte [...]snesse of men, Kings and Princes, when they are of the confederacie, are still [Page 66] placed by him in the front of the Sufferers, and made to drink of the Cup of his indignation, whosoever else escapeth. There­fore the Ministers who so importunely presse the sparing of Agag, what do they else but change that precept of Christ into an injunction of their own, wherein he commands those that professe Faith and Interest in him, to be perfect, not as men, nor as men count perfectnesse, but as their heavenly Father is perfect. [...].

By what hath been argued concerning Oaths, in point of Obligation, and Disobligation, it fully appears how irrelativelySect. 62 to their occasion, our [...] (to speak in M^r. J [...]kins Dialect, one of the Subscribers) insist upon the severe punish­ment of the Kingdom of Israel, and of Sauls [...]t [...]rity in particular by God, for Sauls violation of the Oath, w [...]ich Joshua, and the chil­dren [...]iou [...] [...]nd F [...]hfull Re­p [...]entation. of Israel, [...]ad swor [...] unto the Gibe [...]nit [...]s. This example is just as much to their purpose, as if I should alledge the severe displeasure of God against the Nation of the J [...]ws, for cruci­fying of Christ, to deterre Judges and Executioners of Justice in a State from putting murtherers, or the most desperate Ma­lefactours, to death. If the Parliament, or High Court of Ju­stice, should have proceeded capitally against the King, in case his Government and Deportment towards his People, had been just and peaceable, or without sufficient and due proof made of matters and crimes against him, justly, by the Laws of God, and men, and his own Land, deserving death, the exam­ples of Sauls slaying the Gibeonites contrary to Oath and Co­venant, would have somewhat parallelled the case. But the Mi­nisters, to make the Example, so much as in colour, serviceable unto their design, must prove, either first, that the Gibeonites, whom Saul slew in zeal to the Children of Israel, had been mur­therers, and men of bloud, had by inciting and joyning them­selves with a discontented party of the Sons of [...]elial; destroyed the Lives, burnt the Towns and Dwellings▪ ruined the Esta [...]es of many thousand innocent persons in the Land, &c. Or else 2. they must prove, that had these Gibeonites committed all these horrid crimes, and crying abominations in the Land, yet God because of the Oath and Covenant made with them, would as severely have punished the Kingdom of Is [...]ael▪ and Sauls Posterity, as now he did in case Saul in a due and regular pro­cesse of Justice, should have put them to death. Except they can prove both, or (at least) one of these, they do but beat the air with Sauls sword, that slew the Gibeonites.

[Page 67]But how miserably, and above measure, blind, do these menSect. 63 shew themselves to be, when they call the proceedings of the Parliament and High Court against the King, the drawing upon themselves and the Kingdom, the bloud of their Sovereign. A Vindi­cation &c. p [...]g 7. That which God, and the Scriptures expresly call a cleansing from bloud, these men (upon the matter, as expresly) call a defiling or polluting with bloud. For bloud (saith God, meaning, unrighte­ously spilt) it defileth the Land: and the Land cannot be cleansed of the bloud shed therein, but by the bloud of him that shed it. Nu [...] ▪ 35 3 [...] Doubtlesse that of the Prophet hath overtaken these men: Therefore night shall be unto you for a vision, and darknesse shall be unto you for a divination: and the Sun shall go down over the Pro­phets, and the day shall be dark over them. M [...] ▪ [...] ▪ When David, to the great discouragement of those that had stood by him with their lives, in his danger, mourned for his Traiterous Son Absalom, being now dead, Joab challengeth him in these words (amongst others) This day I [...]erceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, than it had pleased thee well. [...] S [...] ▪ 19. 6. It seemes the Mi­nisters (the Vindicatours) are deeply baptized into some such spirit: and that had the Land remained, under that great Pol­lution, wherewith the King, by the bloud which he had so causlesly, and so abundantly shed, had defiled it, and the whole Nation perished, or (at least) been severely punished by God, for the same, this would have pleased them well, so that the man of their delight, the great Architect of all the late and present miseries and calamities of the Nation, might have escaped. But it is the lesse marvail, that these men should call the purging of a Land, the Polluting of it, considering that it hath been a strata­gem of Sathan in all ages, to procure his mark, or brand, to be set upon the things of God: and to entitle himself unto such actions, as the Authour or Promotour of them, which have been signally excellent, and in the archievement whereof the finger of God hath most appeared. Thus by his Factour Rab­shakeh of old, he represented unto the people those zealous in­gagements of religious Hezechiah, against Idolatrie, whereunto his heart and spirit were in speciall manner stirred up by God, as if they had been horribly sacrilegious, and highly displeasing unto God. But if thou say to me, we trust in the Lord our God; is it not he, whose high Places and Altars Hezekia [...] hath taken away, [...] Es [...]. [...] &c. In like manner in the dayes of our Saviour, by his then-Agents, the P [...]arisees, he sought to pos [...]esse the people, with the [Page 68] spirit of his dangerous Errour [...], viz. that when the Lord Christ cast out Devils and unclean Spirits by the finger of God, he cast them out by no other meanes, than by Beelzebub the Prince of the Devils. M [...] 1 [...] [...]4 Hath this Blackamore changed his skin, since these dayes of old? Or is he not busie at work upon the same trade, in the tongues and pens of many of his anointed Instruments at this day, amongst us? Doth not the same Spirit breathe rank and strong in several veins both of our Ministers R [...]presenta­ti [...]n, and Vindication; and particularly, where they set them­selves to turn the glory of the late proceedings of his Excellency and the Army, by which they have highly honoured God, and pre [...]e [...]ved their Nation, into the shame of sin and unworthinesse? For is it not in respect of the [...]e actings, that they pitie them with an, alasse! you have eclipsed your own glory, and bro [...]g [...]t a cloud over all your Excellencies. You are now walking in by-paths [...] Re­ [...] p [...]g 9. of your own? * And again: How is Religion made to stink through your miscarriages, and like to become a scorn and reproch in all the [...] Christian World! They have eclipsed their glory [by doubling the lustre and brightnesse of it] they have brought a cloud [wherein God dwelleth] [...]ver all their Excellencies. They have made Religion to stink through their miscarriages [i. they have made the R [...]ligion of these Ministers to stink in the nosthrils of all intelligent and considering men, by approving themselves so much more righteous and Religious, than they.] Doubtlesse these men stand in the very dint and sweep of that Wo, which is gone out from before the presence of God against those, who call evil, good, and good evil: who put darknesse for light, and light for da [...]knesse; and bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter▪ Who ju­stifie the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousnesse of the righteou [...] from him. [...] [...]. [...]. [...]

But the worst dead flie of all in the [...]intment of these Apothe­caries, Sect. 64 and that which makes it cast forth a most abominable and stinking savour, is their insinuation, that their Opinion a­gainst the taking away the lives of Murtherers, if Kings & Ty­rants, by the Sword of Justice, is first consonant to the tenour of the S [...]riptures▪ And secondly, hath allway been the constant Judgement and Doctrine of Protestant Divines, both at home, and abroad; with whose Judgement [...] (say they) we do fully concurre. Represen­ [...]i [...]n [...] 1 [...]. They (presently after) say of the J [...]suites▪ that they are the worst of Papists: but certainly themselves are of the Sect of the Au­to-catacr [...]es, the worst of all Sectaries. For is it possible to [Page 69] think, but that they know (in their Souls and Consciences,) 1. That there is nothing in all the Scriptures, against the cut­ting off o [...] mu [...]therers, o [...] capital malefactours by the sword of the Magistrate, no though they be or have been, Kings? 2 That their Opinion in this point, is so far from having been the con­sta [...]t Judgement and Doctrine of [...]rotestant Divines, that there is scarce any Protestant Divine of note in any of the Reformed Churches, but upon all occasions have declared their Judge­ments to the contrary.

First, let us briefly see how ridiculously they in title the Scrip­tures to their Opinion. The Apostle Jude (say they) sets a b [...]and upon those, who despise Dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Wo unto them (saith he) for they have gone in the way of Cain, and run gredily after the errours of Balaam for a reward, and perished Represent [...] [...]o [...], pag. 1 [...] ▪ in the gain saying of Corah. Ergo it is not lawfull for the Civil Magistrate to put murtherers to death, if they be either Kings, or Tyrants. Are not these close Disputants? Do they not with much acutenesse bring darknesse out of light, drawing a conclusion out of such premisses, where neither subject, nor pre­di [...]ate, either formally, or virtually are to be found? So again: You know (say they) the sad examples of Corah, Dathan, and Abi­ram, (those [...]editious Levites) in their mutinous, Rebellious, and le­velling design against Magistra [...]ie and Ministerie, in the persons of Moses and Aaron. You take too much upon you (said they to Mo­ses and Aaron) seeing all the Congregation are holy? Wherefore then lift ye up your selves above the Congregation of the Lord? Which Moses fears not to call (I know no reason why he should) a gathering together agai [...]st the Lord, and warns the people to avoid their Company, Depart from the te [...]ts of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins; Af­ter which the Earth opened his mouth, and swallowed them up with all that appertained to them. And yet there were in the Rebellion a considerable number of eminent men (as there was in the rebel­lious Insurrections in, and about the Citie of late years▪ both Priests▪ and others,) two hundred and fifty Princes of the Assembly, famous in the Congregation, men of Renown. Ergo, It is not lawfull for the C [...]vil Magistrates to put mur­therers to death, provided that they be Kings, or Tyrants. Doth not this conclusion follow roundly from the premises? Is not the inference so pregnant and clear, that a man without [...]es may see't as apparently as [...]e that hath the quickest sight of [Page 70] all? yet again, they seriously beseech his Excellency and Army, [...] learn John Baptists lesson for Souldiers; Doe violence to no man, (or, put no man in fear) neither accuse any man falsly, and be con­tent with your wages. But if you persist in these waies [wherein you never yet walked] behold, you have sinned against the Lord, and be sure your sin [which you never committed] will find you out▪ And take [...]eed, lest when the hand of God shall overtake you and turn the wheel over you, you be found to suffer both as e­vil doers, and as busie-bodies (such as we are) in other mens mat­t [...]s. [...] Ergo▪ murtherers, if they be either Kings or Tyrants, ought not to suffer Capitally by the civill sword. This is a learned argument, drawn à majori ad nihil: These (with the example of Gods severe punishment against the kingdom of Israel and Sauls posterity▪ for Sauls slaying the Gibeonites, living peace­ably and harmlesly in the land, contrary unto oath; together with those other texts▪ altogether as irrelative to their purpose as the former, as hath been sufficiently evinced by others, viz. Prov. 24. 21. Thess. 3. 6. Tit. 3. 1. Rom. 13. 1. 2. are all the proofs they levie from the Scriptures to prove their opinion, wherein they plead the Prerogative of Kingly murtherers a­gainst the expresse commandment of God, to be consonant unto them. Who can imagin that forty seven men, professing Scholarship and good letters, and besides trained up from their youth in the study and preaching of the Scriptures, should not be able, laying their heads, their wits, their memories, their learning, their parts (and all but their consciences, which it seems, they laid aside) together, evidently to see and conclude, that there is not so much as a face, no nor as the least lineament of a face in all their citations, of that opinion, which they most importunely and imperiously seek to obtrude upon the con­sciences of the Generall and his Councel, and in them upon the world? If they be mistaken, who judge these men, a self­condemned generation, it is too great an opinion of their parts, learning, and freedom from phreneticall passions, that de­ceiveth them.

As for that which they adde concerning the uniform andSect. 66 constant judgement of Protestant Divines, both at home and abroad, as being consonant unto theirs in the said opinion; it is next to the removing of mountains for any considering man to be­lieve, but that this also is affirmed by them, not only with the secret regret, but even with the loud reclamation of their con­sciences. [Page 71] For, not to insist upon that saying of one, who (upon good grounds I believe) is able to make it good against all gainsayers, viz. Tenure of Kings and Magistrates by J M. p. 29. That there is no Protestant Church from the first Waldenses of Lyons and Languedoc to this day, but have in a round made War against a Tyrant in defence of Religion and ci­vil liberty, and maintain'd it lawfull. (And if so, then much more to proceed in a judiciary way against him, when they have opportunity) The writings of their own Authors and Friends, persons of the same judgement, and dear interest with themselves in the cause of Presbyterie, (which it cannot reason­ably but be presumed they have read, at least some of them) are pregnant with this opinion, that Kings in many cases of male­administration of the trust and power committed unto them, may lawfully be deposed, yea and sentenced with death. In­somuch that M^r Iohn Knox a man of renown in all the histories of Presbyterie, and who laid the corner stone of this Govern­ment in the kingdom and Kirk of Scotland, being by a gene­rall Assembly commanded by the Nobility, to write to Calvin and other learned men for their judgements in the question, whether Kings in criminall causes, as of Murther, Tyranny, &c. might not lawfully be proceeded against by their Sub­jects, alledged, that both himself was fully resolved in consci­ence, and had heard their judgements, and had the same opi­nion [viz: that Kings might lawfully be deposed and capitallyJohn Knox his history of Reforma­tion of Re­ligion in the realm of Scotland p. 397. dealt with in the said cases] of many the most godly and most learned that he knew in Europe; so that if he should move the question to them again, he should but shew his own forgetful­nesse or inconstancie. The same Author at this Assembly main­tain'd openly in a dispute against Lethington Secretary of State, ‘that Subjects might, and ought to execute Gods judgements upon their King; that the fact of John and others against their King, having the ground of Gods ordinary command to put such and such offenders to death, was not extraordinary, but to be imitated of all, that prefer'd the honour of God to the affection of flesh and wicked Princes: that Kings if they offend have no priviledge to be exempted from the punish­ments of law, more than any other subject; so that if the King be a Murtherer, Adulterer, or Idolater, he should suffer; not as a King but as an offender:’ These things he inculcates o­ver and over into those that were present and ads many more of the same import with them. This pillar of Presbyterie, in ano­ther [Page 72] book of his, having declared his judgement freely against the establishment of Idolatrous and persecuting Kings and Rulers by the people, advanceth his discourse in these words: Neither can oath or promise bind any such people to obey and maintain Tyrants against God and his Truth known: but if rashly they [the people] have promoted any manifest wicked person, or yet ignorantly have chosen such an one, as after declareth himself unworthy of Regiment over the people of God (and such be all Ido­latrous and cruel persecutors) most justly may the same men depose and punish him, that unadvisedly before they did nominate, ap­point, and elect. The appel­ [...] ▪

The Author of the book intituled Lex, Rex, full of solid [...]ec. 67. learning and variety of reading, (supposed, as was before inti­mated, upon very pregnant grounds, to be M Samuel Ruther­ford) maintains many positions in this Tractate, of a close con­federacie with the mentioned o [...]nion of M^r Knox; as ‘That the King is the servant of the people, both objectively, and sub­jectively▪ Pag [...]7. That the consciences of Inferior Iudges, are immediately subordinate unto God, not to the King▪ either mediately or imediately: That an inferior Judge may put to death murtherers, as having Gods sword committed unto him, no lesse then the King; and though the King command the contrary: [...] That the Sanedrims not punishing David, Bath­sheba, Ioa [...], was but a fact, not a Law: [...] That resisting of Kings that are Tyrannous, and patience, are not inconsistent: [...] That Christs non-resistance hath many things rare and ex­traordinary, and so is no leading rule to us: [...] [...]15. That Davids not invading Saul and his men, who did not aim at Arbi­trary Government, as subversion of Lawes, Religion, and extirpation of those that worshipped the God of Israel, and opposed Idolatry; but only pursuing one single person, is far unlike to our case in England and Scotland: [...] 34 [...]. 3 [...]3. That if a King turn a Parricide, a Lion, and a waster and destroyer of the people, as a man he is subject to the coactive power of the Lawes of the land: Pag. 344. That Kings are but vassals to the State, who if they turn Tyrants, fall from their right:’ Pag. 404 To omit very many others of the same calculation with these. Hugo Grotius, as great and learned a Royalist (I believe) as ever took hold of shield or buckler in the defence of Prerogative; yet acknowledgeth, that there are seven cases wherein the people may have most reall action against the King to accuse [...] ­nish [Page 73] him. What the particular cases are, the Reader, if he please, may find in the last mentioned Discourse. Pag. [...]. ‘Yea Ma­ster Prynne himself, having related out of Sozomen and Ni­ [...]ephorus, the Story of J [...]lian the Emperours death (reputed to be slain by a Christian Souldier of his own Army) and the fact of the Christians at Antioch, who for this murther insti­tuted a publick Triumph, Epiphonemas it thus: A pregnant Evidence, that even the Primitive Christians (on whose ex­amples and practice our Antagonists so much depend, though to no purpose, as I have elsewhere manifested) held it not onely lawfull for them to resist, but even in some cases to flay a pe [...]secuting Apostatizing Tyrant, bent to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; as may be further evidenced by Constantine the Great his aiding the oppressed Christians and Romans, a­gainst the Tyranny and persecution of the Emperours Max­entius, Maximinus, and Li [...]inius, even with force of arms, with which he conquered these persecutours in sundry open Battels fought against them, at the Christians earnest importunitie. Sove [...]eig [...] Power of P [...] [...]nd K [...]gdom [...]. Append [...]o the forth p [...]t▪ p. [...]6▪ [...]7.’

I should multiply quotations from other Protestant Au­thours,Sect. 68 of the same character and tendencie with these already cited, by which the constant Judgement of Protestant Divines in the Question in hand, would appear to be quite contrary to what the Representers most unworthily affirm it to be, but that others, and that of late, have laboured so abundantly in this ser­vice. If the Ministers will please but to peruse their Clerico­classicum, or Alarm to a third War, (pag. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35.) they shall find a Constellation of many Stars, in the Protestant Hea­ven, clearly shining forth light opposit to that darknesse, which they either so ignorantly, or contra-conscientiously, attribute to them. Whereunto, if their desire of a Reformation in their Judgements▪ (in case their miscarr [...]age issued from hence) will so far serve them, and hold out, as to joyn the like perusall of a few pages (viz. 23▪ 24, 25, 26, 27.) in another book lately al­so published by J. M intituled, The tenure of Kings and Magi­strates, doubtlesse they will retract that ignoble and unclerk­like assertion, wherein they affirm, that their inhumane Tenet, whereby they cannot but encourage Kings to turn Tyrants, to commit murthers, rapines, and all manner of abominations, that Tenet of theirs (I mean) wherein they deny unto Kings the help of that bridle for the ruling of their lusts, (more need­full for them, than for any other sort of men) the fear of death [Page 74] by the sword of civil Justice upon any occasion whatsoever] to have alway been the constant Judgement and Doctrine of Protestant Divines both at home, and abroad.

Onely for a cloze to the point in hand, and to convince them, (if it be possible, and they not as yet [...])Sect. 69 that when they wrote the words last mentioned, through a mistake they wrote their Interests, in stead of their Consciences, I shall briefly present them with the Judgement of two home-Authours more in the case; the one being one of themselves, in both the Subscriptions; the other as cordiall unto them, as themselves, in the case in hand, and whose Judgement in the businesse cannot lightly be more unknown unto them, than their own. The former of the two, is M^r. Christopher Love, who in­titles himself to the Pastorage of Anne Alders-gate, as well in the Vindication, as Representation; (but since, meeting, it seemes, with better [...]asturage, hath voided that title for the unprofita­blenesse [...]f it) a man, who (I know) counteth it no robbery, to be both a Protestant, and a Divine. Doubtlesse this man did not judge it (neither can he judge it now) to be the constant Judge­ment and Doctrine of Protestant Divines at home (whatsoever he might conjecture of theirs abroad) that Kings upon no occa­sion, in no case whatsoever might be put to death, when he preached first out of the Pulpit at Uxbridge to a few, and then out of the presse to all the world, that the late King was the Troubler of England, as [...]chan was of Israel subjoyning, It was the Lord that troubled [...]chan, because he troubled Israel. Oh that in this our State, Physicians would resemble God, to cut off those from the land, that have distempered it. Melius est ut pereat UNU [...], qu [...]m unit as. England [...] D [...]t [...]mper: a Se [...]n preached at Ʋ [...]bridge before the Commissio­ners appointed by the Parliament [...] [...]at with the King there▪ by Mr L [...]v [...] ▪ pag▪ [...]. Did the man crie out, O [...], to have that done by the Parliament, which his constant Judgement was could not be done without sin? If so, he hath no part or fellowship in that blessednesse, which the Apostle pronounceth over him▪ that con­demneth not himself in what [...] alloweth. Rom. 14▪ [...] Or did the wind of this mans Judgement, blow to the same point of the compasse, at which it stands both in the Representation and Vindication, when (a few pages after in the same Sermon) he dogmatized thus: ‘Men who lie under the guilt of much innocent bloud, are not meet persons to be at peace with, till all the guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged, either by the sword of the Law, or by the Law of the sword: else a Peace can neither be safe or just.’ Though I do not find any great store [Page 75] of good sence in this period, (which seemes to suppose, that a Peace can neither [...]e safe or just with a person guilty of much inno­cent bloud, untill he be dead) yet the Authour clearly supposeth, [...]. That the King lay under the guilt of much innocent bloud. 2. that such guilt ought to be expiated and avenged by the sword, either of the Magistrate, or the Souldier. His meaning cannot be, that the guilt contracted by, and which lay upon the King, should be expiated or avenged upon the person of another man (though this seemes to b [...] M [...]. Gerees Divinitie Might o­ve [...]oming Right, pa [...]. [...] &c.) because the Peace now endeavoured by Treaty, was to have been made and concluded chiefly with the King. If then M^r. Love be so in­fected with the dangerous Errour of [...]uto-catacritisme, I fear there are very many of his fellow-Subscribers in the same Con­demnation with him. For it is well known, and commonly talked, that the Sons of high Presbytery have still in matters of opinion relating to their Interest, but one Judgement amongst them, which serves them all, and which they weather, as Mariners do their sail [...], upon all occasions, ac­cording to the shiftings of the wind.

The latter of the two home-Authours mentioned, is M [...] Wil­liam Sect. 70 Prynne, who though no Divine by profession, yet a Protestant, yea and a Divine too, both by competency of faculty, and super-frequencie of ingagement, since the sit­ting of this present Parliament hath written and published a large volume, intituled The Soveraign power of Parliaments and Kingdoms; wherein (if the frontispiece be not too high for the edifice) the Superiority of our own, and m [...]st other forreign Parliaments, States, Kingdoms, Magistrates, Colle [...]tively con [...]ide­red) ‘over and above their lawfull Emperours, Kings, Princes, is abundantly evinced, confirmed by pr [...]gnant Re [...]sons▪ Resolutions▪ Precedents Histories, Authorites of all sorts, the contrary refelled.—And all Objections, Calumnies of the King, his Councel, Royalists, Mal [...]gnants, Delinquents, Pa­pists, against this present Parliaments proceedings, (pretended to be exceeding derogatorie to the Kings Supremacy, and Subjects libertie) satisfactorily answered, refu [...]ed, diss [...]pated in all particulars.’ This book, all circumstances considered, as 1. the subject matter of it, 2. the Author of it, a man of [...] ­minent learning, and great Mecenas to the Pr [...]byterian cause, 3. the largenesse and comprehensive fulnesse of the discourse, 4. the ti [...]e, wherein it had been [...]xtant, and every where to [...]e [Page 76] had, when the Ministers subscribed their Representation and Vindication, being four or five years (at the least,) 5. the Grand and pressing occasion, which of later times lay upon all con­scientious men, and more especially upon them themselves, in regard of their solemn undertakings to Stigmatize (as they have done) the proceedings against the King, to inquire into the argument for satisfaction; all these circumstances (I say) with some others of like nature duly considered, is it possible to imagine that the Ministers had not seen this book, or at least known or heard of the judgement of the Authour therein, a­bout that great question concerning the power of Parliaments over Kings, so largely there debated, when they subscribed both the said Subscriptions? If they had done either the one or the other, how shall not their consciences sweat blood, for affirming that it hath alwaies been the constant judgement and Doctrine of Protestant Divines, that Kings ought not to suffer from the sword of justice for any perpetrations or crimes whatsoever. For unlesse this be their meaning in their sting­ling and aspersive language, wherein they professe, that they disclaim, detest, abhor the wicked and bloudy Tenets and Practises of J [...]suits—and the murthering of Kings by any, though under the most specious and colourable pretences; they do but baffle their simple Reader, speaking nothing at all to the businesse in issue. For who, or which of those, to whom they addresse in the Re­presentation, do not with as much clearnesse and simplicity of spirit as themselves disclaim, detest, and abhor the wicked and bloudy Tenets and Practises of J [...]suits,—and the murthering of Kings, though under the most specious and colourable pretences; ifRepresenta­tion pag. 11. they mean nothing more than what they say in these expressi­ons? and I wonder upon what account men pretending to such proximity unto the Heavens, in sanctity and integrity, as they, should assume that to themselves as somewhat emphatically ex­cellent and singular, which is nothing but what is found in all men (without exception) unlesse it be that congregation of the first-born of Satan the Jesuites and their Proselytes. But as commonly it fareth with trades-men that are much behind­hand with the world, and declining in their estates, they buy dear, and sel cheap, and make all bargains to losse and disadvan­tage, till they fail and sink right down; so these men having o­verthrown their estates in honour and repute with men, by stretching themselves beyond their line, and over-dealing both [Page 77] their wisdom and their worth, are now from time to time (af­ter a [...]ort) necessitated to disadvantagious tran [...]actions, and such, which will (I fear) in short time lay all their grandure and high looks in the dust.

Whereas some pretend an irregularity in the Sentence passedSect. 71 upon the King, through a defect of President, or example, I answer, this is the lightes [...] and loosest of all pleas, that are com­monly made in the case. For

1. An example, is no Rule: God made Rules, before that men, yea or himself, made examples. Nor doth he necessarily break a rule, who acts or works without a pattern, or example. Bezal [...]l and A [...]olia [...] wrought curious work for the taberna­cle, and yet had no patterns of what they wrought, before them. When Moses smote [...]he Egyptian, who wronged the Israelite, that he died, he had no precedent action of like nature to war­rant or justifie his action, yet was it neverthelesse justifiable. Nor did J [...]ojada the Priest, who caused Athalia [...] to be slai [...], act under the Protection of any Parallel. Instances of this kind are without number.

2. As in descents of families, it is a thing frequent andSect. 72 commendable, for those who succeed in the inheritance, to adde to the demesnes, with honourable industrie and thrift, and to transmit the inheritance to their Posterity with augmenta­tion: so for any age, or generation of men, in the course and current of time, to increase the threasury of virtuous and wor­thy Presidents, which they received from their fore-fathers, by casting into it of their own, for the greater benefit of those, to whose turn it comes to receive life and being after them, is (or at least, ought to be) so far from reflecting matter of dis­paragement upon th [...]m, that in rational Construction it must needs be a memorial of honour unto them throughout all ge­nerations.

3. What reason can be given, why it should not be lawfullSect. 73 for the Son to be of the Fathers occupation, supposing this to have been lawfull? or for later ages, yea or this present age, not to make presidents for those that are yet to come, as well as it was for former ages, to serve these with the same commo­ditie? Worthy examples of former times are directive, and ingaging, but not exclusive, or confining. Nay,

4. Considering, that of the Prophet David, Day unto daySect. 74 uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge;Psal. 19 2. [Page 78] i. That every succeeding age hath an opportunity of being wi­ser then the former, by having the experience of the wisdom of the former given in unto it by way of advance, the best and richest capacity of making Presidents ought still to be adjudg­ed to the present age. And therefore as it would be a very simple kind of reasoning to infer thus: A man whilst he was a child, a youth, a young man, did not buy land, govern a fa­mily▪ bear office in a Common-wealth &c. Therefore he ought to do none of these things now he is come to be a man; So is it not an argument of much more conviction, which concludeth thus; The world in the Infancie, youth, middle age of it, did neither so nor so, did not provide for it's own peace and safety by the arreignment of their Kings, when they turned Tyrants, and Destroyers of their people: therefore the world in the ma­turitie and perfection of it, ought not to do it.

5. Christians are in speciall manner injoyned to president good Sect. 75 works (for so the Originall, [...], beareth) i. to [...] 14 make new patterns, or presidents of virtuous and worthy acti­ons, for others to follow, and work by: yea and not simply toV [...]. make such presidents, as these, but, [...], i. to be carefull, or industrious about making them, or, to make them; to inquire where others have been dark, or defective in the knowledge of the will of God, or in the pra­ctice of it, and to supply the one by their diligence in inquiring out the truth, and the other, by their faithfulnesse and consci­entiousnesse in the practising of it being known. ButSect. 76

6. (And lastly, to this) the Truth is, that they do but un­worthily defame the Justice and Wisdom of the world in for­mer ages, who render it as defective in Presidents of the depo­sall, arreignment, and Execution of Kings, upon perpetrations deserving death. There are some pieces published of late, where presidents of this kind, are to be seen as plentifull, as silver, or Cedars were in Jerusalem in the dayes of Solo­mon, who made the one to be as stones, and the other, as Sy­com [...]r [...]-trees, which grow abundantly in the plain. 1 K [...]ng [...]. [...] ‘In one of these you may read, that when the Romans, their Empire de­caying, had quitted and relinquished what right they had by conquest to this Island, and re [...]igned it all into the peoples hands, the people thus reinvested with their original Right, about the year 446, both elected them Kings whom they thought best (the first British Kings that ever reigned here [Page 79] since the Romans) and by the same right, when they appre­hended cause, usually deposed▪ and put them to death. Te [...]re of Kings and Magistrates by J. [...]. pag. [...]4. The same Authour (not long after) reports from Sleidan, that in the ye [...]r, 1546. the Duke of Saxonie, Landgrave of Hessen, and the who [...]e Protestant League, raised open War against Charls the fifth their Emperour, sent him a defiance, renoun­ced all Faith and Allegiance towards him, and debated long in counsel whether they should give him so much as the title of Cesar. Let all men judge what this wanted of deposing, or killing, but the power to do it. He adds, that in the year 1559. the Scotish Protestants claiming promise of their Queen Regent for Liberty of Conscience, she answering that pro­mises were not to be claimed of Princes beyond what was commodious for them to grant, told her to her face at the Parliament then at Sterling, that if it were so, they renounced their obedience, and soon after betook them to arms; glos­sing, that certainly, when Allegiance is renounced, that very hour the King or Queen is (in effect) deposed. And to let the world know (saith my Authour in processe of discourse) that the whole Church and Protestant State of Scotland in those purest times of Reformation were of the same belief [viz▪ that Kings▪ if they offend, have no priviledge to be exempted from the punishment of Laws, more than any other man] about the year 1567, they met in the field Mary their Hereditary and lawfull Queen, took her prisoner yielding before fight, kept her in prison, and the [...]ame year deposed her. And four years after that, the Scots in justification of their deposing Queen Mary, sent Ambassadours to Queen Elisabeth, and in a written Declaration alledged, that they had used to­wards her more lenity than she had deserved, that their An­cestors had heretofore punished their Kings with death or b [...] ­nishment: That the Scots were a free Nation, made Kings, whom they freely chose, and with the same freedom un­kinged them, if they saw cause, by right of ancient Laws &c. Concerning the State of Holland, the same Authour saith, that in the yeer 1681. in a generall Assembly at the Hague, they abjured all obedience and subjection to Philip King of Spain, and in a Declaration justified their so doing; for that by hi [...] tyrannous Government against faith, so often given and bro­ken, he had lost his right to all the Belgique Provinces; th [...] therefore they deposed him, and declared it lawful to [...]h [...]s [...] [Page 80] another in his stead. Elsewhere in the same Discourse, ha­ving given a reason why Tyrants by a kind of naturall in­stinct both hate and fear none more than the true Church and Saints of God, inferrs thus: No marv [...]il then if since the faith of Christ received▪ in purer or impurer times, to depose a King, and put him to death for Tyranny▪ hath been account­ed so just and requisite, that neighbour Kings have both up­held and taken part with Subjects in the action. And Ludo­vi [...]us Pius himself an Emperour, and son of Charls the Great, being made Judge (Du Haillan is my Authour) be­tween M [...]l [...]gast King of the Vultzes, and his Subjects who had depo [...]ed him, gave his verdict for the Subjects, and for him whom they had▪ chosen in his room. (By the way he here bids us note, that the right of electing whom they please▪ is by the impartial testimony of an Emperour, in the people) for, said he, a just Prince ought to be prefered be­fore an unjust and the end of Government before the Prero­gative. And to prove that some of our own Monarchs have acknowledged that their high Office exempted them not from punishment, they had the sword of Saint Edward born before them by an Officer called Earle of the Palace, ev [...]n at the time of their highest pomp and solemnity; to mind them (saith Matthew Paris, the best of our Historians) that if they erred, the sword had power to restrain them.’ The fact of E [...]ud in killing Eglon, and so of Jehu in slaying Jehoram, the said Authour reconcileth with rules for standing practice; with much more to this purpose, which I leave to the Readers peru [...]al in the discourse it self.

In another discourse lately published, we have this President Sect. 77 recorded. ‘Brutus Generall of the Souldiers▪ & Lucr [...]tius Em­perour of the city of Rome, assembled the people against Tar­quinius Superlus, and by their Authority thrust him from his Royall Throne, his goods were confiscated; and if Tarqui­nius had been apprehended, undoubtedly he should have been according to the publick Laws corporally punished. [...] p [...]4. The same Authour subjoyneth▪ that Christiern lost the Crown of Denmark; Henry that of Sweden; Mary Stuart, (King Charls his Grand-mother) that of Scotland, and Ed­ward the second, that of England, for the same misgovernment as our late King lost his Crown and head. The Parliament in their late Declaration mention this last President of Ed­ward [Page 81] the second; and Peter Martyr concerning that of Chri­stiern King of Denmark writeth thus: In our daies the Daues d [...]pos [...]d their King, and kept him prisoner a long time; * where also he adds out of Pol [...]dore Virgil, that the English [...] P. M [...]. [...] [...]ud [...]. [...] [...]. [...] have sometimes compelled their Kings to give an account of their money or treasure ill disposed of.’ M^r Prynne in his Appendix to the fourth part of the Sovereign power of Par­liaments and Kingdoms, undertakes (in the front of this Lu­cubration, and in the body of it performed the undertaking v [...]ry laudably) ‘to manif [...]st by sundry Histories, and forraign Authorities, that in the ancient Kingdome of Rome, the Ro­man, Gr [...]ek, German Empires, the old, the peresent, Grecian, Indian, Aegyptian, French, Spanish, Gothish, Italian, Hungarian, Polo [...]ian, Bohemian, Danish, Swedish, Scottish, with other forrein Kingdoms, [...]ea in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel and other Gentile Royalties mentioned in Scriptu [...]e; the Su­preme Sovereign power resided not in the Emperours or Kings themselves, but in the whole Kingdom▪ Senate, Par­liament, State, People, who had not onely Authority to re­strain, r [...]sist, yea call their Emperous and kings to account, but likewise when they saw just cause, to censure, suspend, deprive them for their Tyranny, vices, misgovernment, and sometimes CAPITALLY TO PROCEED AGAINST THEM; with a brief answer to the contrary objections, &c.’ Afterwards in pursuit of this his notable ingagement out of Georgius Obrec [...]us, a publick Professour of Law, and Advocate to the City of Strasburg, he furnisheth us with these Presidents (besides that of Tarquinius devested of his kingdom by the people, under the conduct of Brutus & Lucretius) ‘the Roman Senate judged Nero an enemy of the Republick, & condemn­ed him to the Gallows; punished Vitellius with death, ig­nominiously mutilated and dragg'd through the Citie; and spoiled Maximinus of the Empire, setting up Albinus in his place. Thus the French by Authority of a publique Coun­cel thorough the care of the Officers of the Realm, deprived Childerick the first, Sigebert, Theordoric, and Childerick the third of the Government.—In the same manner M [...] [...]f [...] [...]n [...] King­dom▪ A [...] pend▪ p. [...]. (saith the same Authour from Junius Brutu [...]) we read Adolp [...]us depri­ved of the German Empire, An. 1296. because corrupted with money, he had made War with France, in favour of the Eng­lish; & Wenceslaus, A▪ 1400. Although these may be called not [Page 82] so well, evil, as lesse good Princes. Thus in the Realm of England, Edward the second, for his Tyrannic to his Sub­jects, especially the Nobles, whom he destroyed without hearing their cause, was at his Queens request adjudged un­worthy of his Crown by the Parliament. Not long since, Christierne in Denmark, Ericus, in Sweden, Queen Mary very lately in Scotland were deprived; which Histories worthy credit testifie hath been frequently done in the Kidgdom of England, Hungaria, Spain, Portugall, Bohemia, and the rest.’ Thus far▪ M^r Prynne in Precedents of Kings and Emperours deposed and punished with death; to which you may please to add what he relates out of Sozomen and Nicephorus, concern­ing the death of Julian by one of his Souldiers, and the fact of the Christians at Antioch upon it, together with his Annotati­on upon both; as they were formerly presented Sect. 67. of this discourse; beyond whom no man that I know hath travailed with his pen in asserting the Legality of such proceedings a­gainst them. He that will please to read the Historie of the Re­formation of the Realm of Scotland by M John Knox, shal find many like Presidents cited and argued from the Scriptures themselves. So that the Parliament of England in their Judi­ciary processe against the late king, did not walk alone in an un­trodden path, but in an high-way occupied upon like occasion, by all the chief Nations of Europe; yea by the once onely Heaven-beloved Nation of the World.

The premises from first to last considered, that DoctrineSect. 78. which Prerogativeth kings above the stroke of human justice, upon the account of their being unaccountable unto men for whatsoever they do, (which the Parliament taketh notice in their Declaration of March 17. 1648. pag. 13. to have been the late kings Assertion) appears to be very extravagant, and and Eccentricall to all principles both of Reason and Religi­on: Such an unaccountable Officer (as the said Declaration well expresseth it) were a strange monster to be permitted by man-kind. For if the main ground of erecting publick Administrations of justice and Courts of humane judicature in all Polities and States whatsoever, be (both in Reason and Religion) to secure and protect those, who live justly and peaceably, against the violence and injustice of oppressours and unjust men; it must needs be contrary unto both, to exempt such persons from the jurisdiction of these Court and Administrations, who have [Page 83] alwayes the greatest opportunities and temptations, and for the most part) the strongest bent of disposition and will, to practice such unrighteousnesse and oppression. Put case a man hath re­ceived several wounds in fight, amongst which there is one more dangerous, and threatening life, than all the rest; would it not be a solo [...]cisme in reason, for this man with all diligence and care to send for the skilfullest Chirurgion he can get, and when he is come, to limit him in his applications to the wounds that are lesse dangerous, and not to suffer him to touch or med­dle with that, which is most like to prove mortall? Again sup­pose an husband man hath a field of goodly corn, which he great­ly desires to preserve from being either eaten up▪ or troden down, or any wayes amoyed by beasts; would it not be a signall weak­nesse and simplicity in him, to make a tight hedge or fence round about this field on all other parts or sides of it, & to leave that part of it open and without all fence, which lies towards the Common, where all the Beasts in the Town daily feed, and from whence his field is in more danger of receiving damage and spoil, then from any other quarter? The Experience (in a manner) of all Ages, and of all States, which have made triall of the Throne, and advanced Kings over them, issueth out this clear Observation unto us, that the little finger of Kings hath been more heavy in pressures and oppressions in their respective Kingdoms, than the loyns of other Practitioners in these ill artes. The consideration of which misdemeanour (with others) so generally incident to this sort of men, occasioned (doubt­lesse) that sharp saying of an ancient Father: Miror si aliquis Rex salvabitur; I wonder if any King over comes to be sa [...]ed. [...] And upon this account (questionlesse) it was (I mean, of those strong and dangerous tentations unto violence and oppression, wherewith the power of Kings is continually assaulted) that God himself sought to quench the heady spirit in his people, of having a King over them, by casting this water upon it by the hand of Samuel his servant: ‘This will be the manner of the King that shall reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horse­men, and some shall run before his chariots—and will set them to ear his ground, and to [...]eap his harvest—And he will take your fields, and your vine-yards, and your [...]live­yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, & of your vine-yards, [Page 84] and give to his Officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your good­liest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall crie out in that day, because of the King, which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. [...] &c.’ First, when God saith, this will be the manner of your King, &c. he intends nothing lesse, than to assert it as the right, or due prerogative of their King, to do all that which is specified in the Catalogue; this is a most absurd and importune construction put upon the words by some fulsome Royalists, and Throne-servers. Nor 2. doth God, in this large Remon­strance concerning those many grievances, and heavy pressures, which they were like to suffer by the change of their Govern­ment, and by subjecting themselves unto Kings, particularly re­flect upon Saul, or him that should be their first King, as if he were a man more likely to oppresse them with these pressures, than his Successours; Nor 3 doth he intend any propheticall or positive assertion in this passage, that all and every the Kings, that shall reign over them (not haply, that any one of them in particular) should make all these sad encroachments upon them; But (4. and lastly) the clear intent of God in presenting such a particular and ample draught of Regall pressures unto them, was throughly to possesse them (and in them, all other people and Nations of the world besides) with a clear under­standing, and serious consideration, of the many sad inconve­niences and burthens, that are alwayes like to attend upon a Government by Kings, by reason of those many bewitching op­portunities, and temptations, (hard to be resisted by flesh and bloud, especially in the disadvantagious posture of an earthly fulnesse, and Grandure) wherewith the integrity of men of this Interest is perpetually encountered, and endangered above measure. So then to bridle Tyrannous and oppressive disposi­tions in inferiour persons, with the fear of humane Justice and Laws, and to lay the reines upon the necks of Kings, by making them unaccountable in their actions, unto either, is, as if a man being to ride upon a sober, and well managed, or cool metalled horse, should be very provident and carefull to have all his tackling and furniture strong, a sharp bit, tough rains, saddle, girts, stirrups, answerable; but being to mount a steed, whose neck is cloathed with thunder Jo [...] [...]. [...]. (as God himself describeth [Page 85] an horse of War, and fierce courage) and which is not like to be commanded, but with acco [...]trements of the best for such a purpose, should say, he needs no bridle at all, or that a bridle made of a twine threed▪ or a bit made of a wreath of grasse, will serve his turn. To restrain other men by Laws, and fear of punishment▪ and to leave the King free, is nothing else (being in­terpreted) but to invite him to accept of a pattent, or monopo­ly, to practice Oppression. Certainly when God shall bind up all the rest of the Devils in chains, he will not leave Beelzebub at liberty. Unaccountablenesse of actions unto men, is so unrea­sonable, and burthensome above measure to the spirits of all considering men, that God himself, in order (doubtlesse) to that good opinion, which he desireth to raise and to maintain, of himself, in the mind of his creature, man, no where claimeth it, as any prerogative which he intendeth to insist upon, or make use of, in his Government of the world. Nay he fre­quently and in expresnesse of terms disclaimeth it, and most graciously subjecteth himself and his actions to the cognisance and judicature of men. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge between me, and my vine-yard. What could have been done more to my vine-yard, that I have not done in it, &c. Es [...]. [...] [...]. [...] ▪ So Ezek. 18. he appealeth over unto his people, con­cerning the Equity, or equality of his wayes. Hear now, O house of Israel, is not my way equall? And again: O house of Is­rael, are not my wayes equall? are not your wayes unequall? v. 29. Thus Peter and John likewise to the high Priest and Councel; Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than God, jUDGE YE. And Paul to the Corinths, judge ye what I say; and yet the things, which he spake or said, were the things of God. If he did not allow unto men a faculty or priviledge of judging his wayes and actions, would he speak thus unto them? Yea, not with reverence onely, but with the highest admiration of the unspeakable condescention of the glorious God, be it spoken; he subjecteth himself to a depri­vation and losse of all his great Interest of service, honour, and glory, in the world amongst men, in case upon a just and due trial, he shall not be found, in respect of his wayes, actions, and administrations in the world, every wayes worthy of them. For of what other tendencie or import, can those words of the Prophet Eliah be supposed to be? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, than follow him, [...] King. [...] ▪ [...]. Doth not the Prophet [Page 86] (and that by commission from God himself) in these words, give the people a full liberty to desert the worship and service of God, and to turn Proselytes unto Baal, in case God hath not, or should not, in a way of due examination and triall, approve himself unto their judgements and consciences, to be the true God, the omnipotent Jehovah, and Baal should do it? Sometimes indeed God pleads the prerogative of his will in opposition to the wills, or weak conceits of men; and so claims a liberty or power to do what he pleaseth: but still he accounts for the equity or reason ablenesse of what he willeth, or plea­seth to do [as we shall, God granting life and health, demon­strate more at large from the Scriptures, in due time.] There­fore they who would make Kings too great, and of too sa­cred an investiture, to account for their wayes and actions unto men, make him greater than God himself, and crown him with a prerogative (if yet a prerogative it be, and not a mischievous snare rather, or an importune and fullsome attribute) which [...]e that inhabiteth eternity, never judged meet or equitable for himself to claim, or exercise, over his creature.

That confessionate strain of David unto God, Tibi soli pe [...] ­cavi, Against thee, thee onely have I sinned, is too sandy a founda­tion to bear the weight of such a tower as we now speak of, whose top reacheth up, not unto, but into, yea and above, Hea­ven (as had been sheewed) For

1. It is sencelesse to imagine, that David should think, that in those sins, for which he humbleth himself before God in the Psalm, as viz. his adultery with the wife, and murther of the Husband, he sinned not against his neighbour, as well as a­gainst God. Certainly there is no such thing as sinning against men, if such acts as these be not. Nor

2. Can it be proved, (nor is there the least colour of reason for it) that David in that clause pleaded any priviledge or ex­emption for himself from suffering the penalties of those Laws, which God himself had enacted against murtherers and Adul­terers. David at this time was in no case, either in respect of the frame or temper of his heart and soul, being sorely shaken and afflicted with the sence of the guilt, under which he now [...]ay▪ or in respect of his obnoxiousnesse unto the heavy displea­sure of God, to claim priviledges, to plead regal prerogatives, or to stand upon terms of Royalty with God. Therefore

3. Calvin upon the place, importeth [...]e words thus: Lord, [Page 87] though the whole world should acquit me, yet for me [...] think and [...] D [...] t [...]t [...] [...]s [...], [...] ­ [...]i tamen pl [...] sa [...] est qu [...] [...] s [...]um [...] ­dio [...] s [...]. feel that thou alone judgest me, or wilt judge me, [...] more than I am able to bear. This is the Interpretation also of most of the Fa­thers.

4. Lyra glosseth the words, as if David should therefore say unto God, against thee onely have I sinned, because God onely could pardon him: Hugo Cardinalis, because God onely could wash Sect. 80 him, (which he asketh in the text) Junius and Tremellius upon the place conceive, that David, in saying that he sinned onely a­gainst God, meaneth nothing but what the Prophet Nathan chargeth him with, 2 King 12. 12. Thou didst it secretly, i. thou despisedst the inspection and all-seeing eye of God, and because there was none conscious to thy sin, but those whom thou sup­posedst would be secret enough in concealing it, therefore thou expectedst to escape the shame and punishment due to it. But (saith God by his Prophet) I wil do this thing (1. punish thee, as I have said) before all Israel, and before the sun. This last ex­position hath credit and countenance from the words imme­diately following, And done this evill in thy fight. As if he should have said unto God, so foolish was I above measure, and so desperately full of my wickednesse, that I took care only to secure my self from the knowledge or sight of men, but never remembred that the eyes of thy Holinesse were broad-looking upon me in the whole perpetration. In which respect I somewaies honoured men; and thou onely wast he, whom I despised therein.

5. The import of the words in hand may be this; Against Sect. 81 thee, or unto thee, thee only have I sinned: 1. I do not value or weigh any trouble, shame, or sufferings in any kind, that may come upon me for my sin, from any other hand whatsoever, in comparison of the losse of thy favour and displeasure; which I have cause to fear is kindled in thy breast against me. I can bear the ignominie and reproach, or whatsoever punishment it be, that men shall, or can inflict upon me for my sin: onely the sence and dread of thy displeasure is unsupportable unto me. But,

6^ly. (And lastly) the clearest and best interpretation of theSect. 82 clause, is (doubtlesse) this. Against thee, thee only have I sinned; i. I am deeply and dreadfully sensible of those many and mighty ingagements wherein I stood obliged in consci­ence unto thee above all others, to walk uprightly, and to have [Page 88] not only refrained, but even abhorred all such abominations, as those whereof I now stand guilty in thy sight. So that though the love which thy people (my Subjects) have expressed unto me, and more particularly, the friendly respects and faithfulnesse of my servant Uriah towards me, were bands and ties upon me, sufficient in a way of ingenuitie and humanity it self, to have restrained me from those most odious and shamefull practices wherein I have now miscarried; yet am I so above measure (in my present agony) astonished, with the consideration of the number and weight of those infinitely­greater bands, wherein I stood bound in duty and conscience unto thee (all which I have des [...]ised and trampled upon in these provocations) that I am sensible of no wrong, no injury I have done to men, but onely of that measure of vilenesse and unthankfulnesse, which I have measured out unto thee. A­gainst thee, thee onely &c. This interpretation might be con­firmed by many reasons, as first by considering that the restri­ctive particle onely, is frequently used in Scripture in such a comparative sence, as the interpretation given puts upon it in the clause under debate. See Psal: 71 16. Mat: 4. 10, &c. Se­condly, by weighing the sequel of the context, in these words, That thou mightest be justified, &c. there being nothing more proper to clear the justice of God in punishing, than the vouchsafement of means and motives in abundance, to keep men from sinning. Thirdly (and lastly,) by considering that nothing doth more deeply pierce or wound the conscience un­der the guilt of sin, than the rememberance of those great and many ingagements, which God hath laid upon the sinner, to abstain from all iniquity; as there is nothing more sovereign or efficacious to preserve men from the perpetrating of sin, under tentation, than such a consideration or rememberance. Gen. 39. 9 2. Sam. 12, 7, 8, 9. Mat. 18, 32, 33. &c. But I hasten.

Enough (I presume) with advantage hath before this beenSect. 83 argued, to wash off the colour of this plea: The proceedings against the King are not justifiable, because he had no reasona­ble ground or means, whereby to conceive or judge, that his life could lawfully be taken from him for those crimes, for which he was sentenced. To omit severall other things, which have received a just debate, sufficient to reconcile this pretence, with the sentence awarded against the King; that the Law of God against Murtherers and unjust shedders of bloud, [Page 89] so oft repeated in the Scriptures, so fully explained and vindi­cated in this Discourse, gave light in abundance unto the King, whereby to see and understand, that for those very crimes and bloudy perpetrations, of which he was arreigned, his life was obnoxious to the hand of humane Justice, or rather of Divine Justice executable by the hands of men. So that if he were ignorant of his liablenesse unto death for the misdemeanours committed by him, it was Ignorantia Juris, non facti, which (as Aristotle saith) excuseth no man. Besides, the frequent cases and examples of Justice executed upon Kings by their Subjects, obvious as well in the Records of Scriptures, as in the Histo­ries of many Nations, (a first-fruit whereof hath been present­ed in this Treatise) were abundantly sufficient to give the light of this information unto him, that if he sinned against the bloud of his people, it would render him ipso facto a child of death. Besides, had he not defaced that writing, which was written by the finger of God himself in the tables of his own heart, here might he have read it in characters legible enough, that he that unjustly takes away the life of another, makes a present for­feiture unto Justice of his own.

Nor was the taking of the Protestation or National Cove­nant Sect. 84 by the Parliament and Kingdom, after the Kings ingage­ment in bloud, any sna [...]e upon him in this kind, as ministering any sufficient ground unto him to conceive or judge, that Kings might destroy the lives of their Subjects as they pleased▪ with­out being countable unto the Justice of their Laws, for the same. It is contrary to all principles of reason, or common sence, to think▪ that either the Parliament, or Kingdom, should do any such act, which in the direct and native tendencie of it should either flatter, or incourage the King in wayes so out [...]a­giously destructive to their lives, Liberties, Estates, as those were, wherein he was now driving furiously, when the Prote­station and solemn Covenant were taken by them. But such an Act as this do they pretend to be done by them, who affirm, that by their taking the Protestation and Covenant for the Pre­servation of the Kings Person, after he had lift up his hand unto bloud, they ministered a sufficient ground unto him to conceive, either that for what he had already done in that way, he was not obnoxious, either to the Law of God, nor to the Laws of the Land, inflicting death; but especially to conceive, that what progresse or advance soever he should make in the same [Page 90] way, yet they meant never to question him, but to make the [...]hoicest threasure of his life, though he should make the [...]se [...] dong [...]e of all theirs. But the substance of this plea was former­ly weighed in the balance and found too light, when we clearly proved, that there was no ingagement made by any man, in taking either the Vow, Prot [...]station or Covenant for the Preser­vation of the Kings life, or Person, but onely conditionall; & that none of those conditions (for there were more than one) upon which the takers of any of the three, became actually ingaged o [...] bound to the said Preservation, were performed by the King. And the truth is, that all that was ministered by way of occa­sion, or ground, unto the King, by those Acts of the Parliament and Kingdom lately mentioned, was for him to judge and con­ceive, 1. that they both affectionately desired his honour, life, and happinesse: 2. That in case they could not procure or ob­tain them in conjunction with the liberties, peace and safety of the Kingdom, that they meant to provide for these, whatsoever became of the other.

To draw towards a Conclusion of the present debate; ifSect. 85 the righteousnesse of the Sentence passed upon the King be not impleadeable by the office of a King vested in him, much lesse is it impeacheable by his innocencie. Doubtlesse never was there any person under heaven sentenced with death upon more equi­table or just grounds in respect of guilt, and demerit. As for Ner [...], Maximinus, and other Heathen Tyrants, though the let­ter of their guilt might possible be as deep, or deeper, than his, yet the spirit of it was but light and shallow, in comparison, They wanted the light of that knowledge, without which, though men may be monstrously wicked, yet are they not ca­pable of admission into the Congregation of the first-born of sin­ners. The King abounded with this light; (at least compa­ratively) & wrought in the face of it works of darknesse, horrid works of darknesse. Oh, how great was the darknesse of such works! Some rise up early to commend and praise him▪ for his parts of knowledge, wisdom, understanding &c. but do these men know, that speaking these things, they put him to the greater rebuke, and justifie his Judges, who condemned him, so much the more? That servant (saith the great and righteous Judge of all the earth) which knew his Lords will, and prepared not him­self, neither did according to his will, shall be [...]eaten with many stroaks. Luk. 12. 47. Knowledge and [...]derstanding are the great inh [...]n­sers [Page 91] of sin, and cause the fo [...]ace of hell to be h [...] s [...]ven times hotter than ordinary. But for the criminal demerits of the King, which make the righteousnesse of the Sentence against him, like unto the light at noon-day, I shall not mention th [...] in words of mine own, l [...]st I be charged with undue aggrava­tions; but shall present them in such [...]ms, wherein his best and most cordiall Friends (at least in appearance) and such who took hold of shield and buckler for his Defence in the time of his greatest danger, have before me represented them unto the world.

M^r. Prynne, who in zeal to the Kings cause, attempted toSect. 86 shake Heaven and Earth, and who because he could not (with Joshua) cause the Sun to stand still in the midst of heaven, untill he had acted his part in favour of him, procured (in stead there­of) the turning of a naturall night into an artificial day made of candles, for the design; speaking of the King whilst yet his hands were but half full of the violence and bloud, which were found in him at the time of his arraignment, expresseth himself in the businesse, thus: ‘What severe judgement may such Chri­stian Kings expect from the God of Heaven, who contrary to their own frequently reiterated solemn publick Vowes, Prote­stations, Imprecations, MOST INHUMANELY DESTROY their own flourishing Christian Realms, with fire and sword; plunder, pillage, captivate, slay, MURTHER their most pious Pro­testant Subjects every where without pitie, or remorse.Popish Royal Favo­ritie Epist. to the R [...]a­der▪ pag [...]. Im­mediatly after: If Ahab, Jezabel, with all their Royal Po­sterity, were utterly cut off, e [...]tirpated in a moment, for countenancing Idolaters, and putting Naboth unjustly to death, onely for a pretended blasph [...]ie against God and the King, of purpose to gain his single vine-yard, then what will become of those Kings, Jezabels, and their Posterities, who not onely cherish and protect many Romish Idolaters, Priests, Jesuites; but likewise use their armed power to murther, plunder, ruin many thousands of innocent Protestant Na­boths, yea seize upon their whole Estates as forfeited, under a pretence of Treason or Rebellion, &c.’

The Authour of these passages, was not [...]ender of arraigning the King as a Murtherer, because he never murthered or s [...]ew any with his own hands. The Prophet Nathan by Commission from God chargeth David with slaying [...]ri [...] [...]ith the sword, Sa [...]. [...]. 9. though he was so far from slaying him with his own hands, [Page 92] that he gave no expresse order or warrant to have him slain by others, but onely to have him set in a place of danger in the battel, with an intent that he might be slain by the sword of his Enemies. Yea and David himself in his humiliation before God, upon the same account prayeth to be delivered from bloud-guiltinesse. Ps [...]l. [...]. 14. To murther with the hand is too servile, and small a game of wickednesse, for Kings to play at: He that murthereth with the hand, must take pains; and besides, is like to be weary before he can dispatch many; the way and Method of murther appropriate unto Kings▪ is to murther thousands without striking a stroak, and whilst themselvs take their [...]ase, onely by speaking a word, or subscribing a Commis­sion: and in this sence the King may be said to have murthered many thousands of his poor Subjects even with his own hands, inasmuch as he signed those Commissions, by means whereof many thousands of them were murthered, with his own hand, as the late mentioned Aut [...]our (besides many others) frequent­ly chargeth him. The best and most zealous Protestants (both he) ‘Ministers, People, both in England and Ireland, have been every where most cruelly Ma [...]acred, Pludered, Tortured, Imprisoned, Ruined by the blood-thirsty Popish Cavaliers, many of their houses, and almost whole Towns fired and sackt, by his speciall COMMISSION. [...]pish [...] ▪ vo [...] [...]p▪ [...] the Rea­der. A little after, since this unhappy civill▪ War, the Papists both in England and Ireland have been armed against the Parliament BY HIS MA­JESTIES SPECIALL COMMISSION &c. In another place he af­firms that the Irish Rebels, (whom the King calls his good Roman Catholick Subjects in the Articles of Pacification) were authorized by COMMISSIONS FROM HIS MAJESTY un­der the Great Seal; now at last (if not at first) to take up Arms against all Protestants, who shall not submit to this strange Pacification there, after the bloudy slaughter and butchery of above an hundred and forty thousand innocent Protestants, (whose bloud must passe altogether unrevenged by the hands of publick Royall Justice) and by SPECIALL COMMISSIONS (as we are most certainly informed; a very probable Argument they had not onely pretended, but reall COMMISSIONS FROM THE KING at first for what they acted against the Protestants in Ireland) are now sent for over into England, (where thousands of them are lately arrived, and more daily expected) to fight against the Parliament, and Mas­sacre [Page 93] English Protestants in their own countrey, as freely as they did in Ireland, his Majesty making base Irish moneys current in England by speciall Proclamation, in favour of the Irish Rebels to be transported and made current Subjects here to MURTHER us;—By all these, our whole three King­doms, if not the very blindest and incredulous Malignants (unlesse given over to a Reprobate sence) must of necessity see and acknowledge▪ that there is and hath been all his Maje­sties Reign till this instant, a most strong, cunning, desperate confederacie prosecuted to set up Popery in perfection, and extirpate the Protestant party and religion, in all his Majesties Dominions: which Plot now visibly appears above ground.The Po­pish Ro [...] F [...]vorite. [...]. 39.’

The Commissioners of both Kingdoms spake thus unto the King in their answer of Jan. 13. 1645. ‘Concerning the Personall Treaty by your Majesty, there having been so much innocent bloud of your good Subjects shed in this War by your Majesties Commands and Commissions, Irish Rebels brought over against the Parliament and Kingdom by your Majesties COMMISSION; the War in Ireland fomented and prolonged by your Majesty, whereby the three King­doms are brought near to utter ruin and destruction; we conceive that untill satisfaction and security be first given to both your Kingdoms, your Majesties comming hither cannot be convenient, nor by us assented unto.See the Collectio [...] of all the publick Or­ders Ordi­nances, and Declarations of both Houses in f [...] Append. pag. [...].’

By the way, these things considered, with ten times more ofSect. 87 like tendency, which might readily be cited from M^r Prynne, especially what he hath written concerning the Kings most solemn and avowed ingagements to the Pope, avouch­ing these for the root and spring of all our late troubles and blood-shed; can he be looked upon as a person worthy to breath in English ayre, or to tread upon E [...]glish ground, much more to sit in an English Parliament; who in the face of so many pregnant circumstances, breathing out nothing but certain ruin and destruction to the Peace and Liberties of the English Nation, in case the King should ever have reposses­sed his Throne; set himself with all his might, called up his heart and soul, all his parts, Wit, Learning, Law, and all that was within him, to Re-inthrone him, and that without the least colour or shew of the least touch of Repentance in him, for those his most disloyall, and disroyal enslavements and ingagements of himself to the Pope, and popish Interests. He [Page 94] talks at random of I know not what Jesuiti [...]all undermining projects swaying in all the consultations and proceedings of the Ar­my, and of the Armies being spurred on and ridden with a full car­rier, by Jesuiticall furies, The Sub­stance of a Speech [...] by [...] &c. but certainly those Counsels, by which M^r. Prynne and his Partisans were acted and swayed in their attempt to advance into a three-Kingdom'd Throne, a person, so deeply and desperatly devoted, as the late King was, to the Papall chair, who had sold himself under the Popes feet, smelled far ranker of the Jesuit, and of a Roman-Catholick brain, than any, than all the Counsels, actings, or proceedings what­soever of the Army. But this by the way.

But M^r. Prynne is not alone amongst the late Kings Advocates,Sect. 88 and Friends, who in drawing up the charge of his guilt and de­merit, abundantly justifie (as to that point) the Sentence passed upon him: I meet with severall expressions from others of them, of the same accommodation. The Ministers of London themselves, and the Church of Scotland, charge him with being the greatest Delinquent, guilty of the bloud of hundreds of thousands of Protestants, the bloudiest man under heaven, &c. M^r. Christ­lover (I) Hope (but a Christ-hater, I fear, upon too sufficient grounds) in his Uxbridge Sermon, pag. 37. represents him in ‘those dayes as a man lying under the guilt of much innocent bloud, as a person not meet to be at peace with, till all the guilt of bloud be expiated, and avenged, &c. He was not one­ly made (saith J. M.) obnoxious to the doom of Law by a charge more than once drawn up against him, and his own Confession to the first Article at Newport, but summond and arraigned in the sight of God and his people, curst and de­voted to perdition worse than any Ahab or Antioch [...], with exhortation to curse all those in the name of God, that made not War against him, as bitterly as Meroz was to be cursed, that went not out against a Canaanitish King, all most in all the Sermons, Prayers, and Fulminations, that have been uttered this seven years by those cloven tongues of falshood and dis­sention, who now, to the stirring up of new discord, acquit him: and against their own Discipline, which they boast to be the Throne and Sceptre of Christ, absolve him, unconfound him, though unconverted, unrepentant, unsensible of all their precious Saints and Martyrs, WHOSE BLOUD THEY HAVE SO OFT LAID UPON HIS HEAD: and now again with a new so­vereign anointment can wash it all off, as if it were as v [...]e, no [Page 95] more to be reckoned for, than the bloud of so many dogs in the time of a pestilence. Ministers of sedition, not of the Gospel: who while they saw it manifestly tend to civil War and bloud-shed, never cea [...]sed exasperating the people against him: and now they see it is likely to breed new commotion, cease not to incite others against the people, who have saved them from him; as if sedition were their onely aim, whe­ther against him, or for him. But God (as we have cause to trust) will put other thoughts into the people, and turn them from looking after these fire-brands, of whose fury, and false prophecies we have enough experience, Ten [...] of Ki [...] and M [...]gistrates, pag. 3 [...]. 3 [...] ▪ &c.’ The same Au­thour elsewhere chargeth these Ministers with oft citing him [the King] under the name of a Tyrant in the hearing of God and Angels and men, and charging him with the spilling of more inno­cent bloud by far, than ever Nero did, with oft terming him Agag, &c. I [...]dem pag [...] Not long after, to the same point, thus: He who [...]re­while in the Pulpit was a cursed Tyrant, & enemy to God and Saints, LADEN WITH ALL THE INNOCENT BLOUD SPILT IN THREE KINGDOMS, and so to be fought against, is now, though nothing penitent, or altered from his principles, a lawfull Magistrate, a Soveraign Lord, the Lords anointed, not to be touched, though by themselves imprisoned. Ibid. p. 6.

It were easie from the mouths and pens of these MinistersSect. 89 and others, so affectionately, so conscientiously zealous over the King, to muster up many other passages and expressions be­sides these, wherein they have deciphered him, as Opprobriun [...] generis Humani, as the Reproch of man kind, the most bloudy Monster and Miscreant under heaven: but those already men­tioned, are sufficient to make measure, [...]eaped up, and running [...]ver, of this truth, that without all controversie there never was, for matter of guilt, and death-deserving crimes, a Sentence more just and righteous awarded in any Court of Judicature in any age throughout the whole world, than that which passed in the High Court of Justice against the late King. We might insist upon his own Confession (for, habemus Consitentem r [...]um) not long before his death, at Newport, wherein he adjudged him­self worthy death, by taking upon himself the guilt of all that bloud, which hath, since the beginning of th [...]se late bloudy Combestions, been shed in the Land. But because this Con­fession was so provisioned and conditioned, that it seemed ra­ther a politick Concession, than a Religious Confession, (espe­cially [Page 96] there being so many noon-day evidences touching mat­ters of fact besides,) we shall grant him the benefit of his pro­vidence about the making of it, and not make use of it against him; unlesse it be, to stop (in part) the mouth of that pretence, which exempts him from murther, upon this account, viz. because all the bloud he spilt, was the bloud of War. I had rather make use of it for him, and on his behalf; as viz. by in­terpreting it to be a manifest Argument and sign, that he was not the man for reach or strength of understanding, which his Friends, though to his dishonour, and greater aggravation of his unworthinesse (as was formerly noted) please themselves with boasting him to have been. For will any man of much wisdom make a publick acknowledgement or Confession of some notorius crime or wickednesse, with a clause of reserva­tion publickly likewise expressed; as viz. that such his acknow­ledgment shall not be made use of against him, unlesse in such, or such, a case; especially when it is in the power of others, whether they will accept of his condition specified in such a clause, or no; or whether they will not make use of his ac­knowledgement to all ends and purposes against him, absolutly, and without limitation? Doubtlesse that conditional clause, wherewith he incumbered his Confession, declared him to be a man scarce sound either morals, or intellectuals. But his de­fect in the one, is somewhat (I confesse) the more excusable be­cause of the sympathy in the other: whereas they who magnifie him for his wisdom, abase him more than the full proportion for his wickednesse. As for the Book which passeth up and down by the title of [...]IK [...]N [...]A [...]IAIKH, which strains so ma­ny mens wits to invent, so many mens Consciences to exhibit, elogies of honour, admiration, astonishment, commensureable with the Seraphicall worth of it, whether he were the positive, or onely putative Authour of it, though some make it their great Interest, yet to me it is a meer impertinencie, to determine. Were it the legitimate issue of his own pen onely, we know men may be skilfull in limming, able to give comelinesse of face and feature to their artificial productions, whose naturall Chil­dren in the mean time are full of deformity. Yet let me say thi [...] ▪ that Kings have opportunities above other men, to adorn their names and reputations with the choiest plumes of what wits, parts, or learning (all most) they please, as if they were their own. By that houres discourse or more with him, [Page 97] whereunto both he (I conceive) as well as my self, were rather importuned by others, than led by either of our respective de­sires▪ a few dayes before his death, I found an experiment of truth in that common saying,

But (to conclude) for the bloud which he shed, it is so farSect. 90 from being the bloud of War (in the sence of the Objectours, i. such bloud, the shedding whereof criminizeth not unto death) that M^r. Prynne himself, Advocate to the said King in chief, and who understands the Laws of the Land (in this point) sufficiently, every where (as we heard) speaking of it, cries out, murther, murther, murther. See Sect [...] Yea our Subscripturient London Ministers, though Monarchicall all over, frequently ar­raign him (as we lately also heard) under the name of a Ty­rant, and a shedder of innocent bloud: which, being inter­preted, amounts to M^r. Prynnes murther, murther, murther. Be­sides, the bloud of Uriah, which David shed by the sword of the Children of Ammon, was (in a sence) the bloud of War (for U­riah was slain in battell) yea and that War, wherein he was slain, was lawfull on their parts, (at least) who slew him (for it was in defence of their Citie) yet David, by his own Con­fession [...] [...] 1 [...] ▪ [...] P [...]l [...] 14. deserved death for the hand which he had in the shed­ding of it notwithstanding. No War, but that which is ne­cessarie, honourable, and just, hath any Facultie or Autho­ritie to conferre the honour of innocencie, upon the shedding of bloud: in all others, the sword makes as many murtherers, as man-slayers. Yea he that is the Architect and Master­work-man in raising an unnecessary, or unjust War, makes himself the first-born of murtherers, and is responsible both unto God and men, for all the bloud that is shed in this War. If Kings might make War upon their Subjects, when and upon what pretences they please, and then be justified and acquitted from all the outrages of bloud, and other villanies, perpetrated in this War, upon the bare account, that they are perpetrated in War, one sin might make an atonement for another; yea one great sin a cloak and covering for many. The late Wars, wherein the King, by the sword of those men of bloud, who cast in their lot with him, shed so much innocent bloud in the Land, being causlesly, and contrary to the frequent obtestations, humble Petitions, earnest Sollicitations, [Page 98] grave Advisements of his great Councel, the Parliament) commenced by himself, are so far from mediating for the bloud shed, on his behalf, that they open the mouth of it the wider, and cause it to crie so much the louder for ven­geance upon him, and his, both unto God, and men. For with how much the greater pomp, and solemnity of prepara­tions, wickednesse is committed, so much the more abomin­able must the perpetration of it needs be, in the sight of God, and of all serious and considering men.