To the Right Honourable The COMMONS of ENGLAND: And His Excellency, the LORD FAIRFAX, Lord General of all the Forces raised in ENGLAND, by authority of Parliament: And His General Council of War.  
IT is well spoken by Philip King of Macedon, that the reproaches and injuries of the Athenian Orators should cause him to order his words and deeds so; that themselves might be proved liars. Your good beginning promiseth the same to the whole Nation; and we have great hopes now, that such a further progress will be made in the work of a full Reformation, as the righteous shall see it and rejoice, & all iniquity shall stop her mouth. 
Psal. 107.42.   
For the mutinous tumult and noise which some men make in the City, by reason of their lose tongues and pens, to obstruct your good proceed, and to raise a new war, and involve the people again in blood, it is but a flash, and the Lord will suddenly blast it: Only it is worth your observing, how your enemies in many particulars, are like the adversaries of Nehemiah, and the honest party with him. When Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arabian, and the rest perceived that all their former Malignant designs took no effect, but the building went prosperously forward, they drew over to them the Priests, by bribery and flattery, and by these men's speeches they thought to affright the Governor, and bring that to pass which they could not do by other means. 
Neh. 4.1.2,3.11.15. chap. 6.1,2,4,5,9,10,12,13,14 ch. 13.28 29.  This present conspiracy amongst the Prophets, is a bringing up of the rear, the last piece of the whole work: As we see on a stage several actors, and every one plays his part, yet all make but one Tragedy; so the rising in Kent, Essex, Wales, the revolting of the Ships, the bringing in of the Scots; the Personal Treaty, and these Pulpit Incendiaries, 'tis all one plot, howsoever acted by several persons, and therefore I doubt not, but as the Lord hath discovered the treachery of the one, so he will the hypocrisy of the other, and confound the whole building, both first, and last.  
Moreover we cannot but take notice, in and through what further difficulties and straits the Lord hath held you up, and carried you on; we are very senceable how some have left you in the work, of whom we thought better things, & did think they would have been more faithful and real to their trust, the truth and their own principles. Aelian reports of Dionysius that he married two wives in one day, the one followed him in his wars, the other accompanied him only at his return: Men are forward enough to come in when the fight is over, to have a part and share in the spoil and fruit of the victory, but what they deserve, is to be considered of, and this to be minded. Ignavum fucos pecus a praesepibus arcent.  
I have made the more haste to publish this First Part, because I perceive not only Royalists and Cavaliers accuse you of high injustice against the Person of the King, and that the action hath been formerly carried forth merely by power, without Law, reason or conscience: But also, the lawfulness of the thing, is by some better minded, and persons more honest, doubted, and are not clearly satisfied therein: And for these later, I say, specially for their sake, I have taken in hand, not your cause so much, as the cause of the whole Nation, and have not only given a satisfactory answer to whatsoever may be objected against the act, but justified what hath been done by your authority in point of Law and conscience, to all rational and indifferent men.  
I confess it yields to the soul but little peace, when our actions have no other bottom or foundation, but opportunities, power, advantages, success. But when we know it is God's work, and we see it done in God's way, than the present opportunity, power, and success, is a manifest and infallible witness, that as the Lord own the work, so he will honour the workmen, & be their mighty protector.  
And this I prove to be your case, not that the action was just because you had opportunity and power to do it, but being in itself just, and you lawfully called thereto; the power and opportunity which God gave you, did manifest his approving your zeal & justice. Now the God of peace, and the Lord of hosts, be ever mightily present with you, to counsel, direct, protect, and prosper your endeavours, that we may no longer talk of Subject's liberty, and right things, but know them and enjoy them, we and our posterity; and this being accomplished, he that desires the Public good, resteth Yours to serve,  
JOHN CAN.   

THE GOLDEN RULE, Or, Justice Advanced.  
ALCON of Crect, as a Dragon was embracing his son, shot an arrow into the heart, and hurt not the child, but the Dragon died immediately. Our State-Archers will now show their skill and art, if (by God's blessing on their labour) tyranny and oppression may be taken away, without prejudice or hurt to the Nation: and for the better carrying on of so necessary and good a work, I have undertaken to prove, that when Princes become Dragons (as the Scripture usually styleth great Tyrants) 
Isa 27.1. Ezek, 29.3.  'tis lawful for the supreme and Sovereign power of the People to shoot at them, and kill them likewise; and whatsoever to the contrary is objected, either from Scripture, Law, Reason, or inconveniences, I have fully answered and refuted.  
1. Objec. First, The Rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, is mentioned, from which example some conclude, that all opposition and resistance is unlawful of the people against their King: Ergo, this kind of proceeding much more.  
Answ. This objection being impertinent, I shall speak the less to it. 1. Because a faithful officer in the due execution of his office, may not be opposed, resisted, punished: will it follow, that the unfaithful and wicked must be left alone? Moses was a lawful Magistrate, and Aaron a true Minister of God, faithful and good men both, and therefore to be obeyed; but Kings becoming perjured tyrants, are not so; neither is there any Allegiance or obedience from the people due to them, as we shall hereafter show.  
But 2. If this example be well considered, it will sufficiently serve to justify so much as by me is here asserted, and thus I prove it: For any man or men causelessly to mutiny against the Supreme Power of a Kingdom, and most unnaturally and impiously invade men's Lives, Liberties, and Estates, oppose Justice, and seek to bring a whole Nation to utter desolation, such lawfully may be resisted, suppressed; yea, by the example of Korah, etc. put to death: Now certain it is, howsoever Kings ruling according to Law are public Ministers of State, nevertheless degenerating into Tyrants, and acting against Law, they are in such a case, no more then private men: because whatsoever at first was confirmed upon them in respect of Office, it did not in any sort make a change upon their persons; neither set them at any distance touching subjection to the Law, either active or passive, more than they were before; their personal estate was the same still as before, neither are they exempted from corporal punishment if they break the Law, more than any other men.  
2. objec. It is further objected, Exod. 22.28. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy people. Again, Ecc. 10.20. Curse not the King, no not in thy thoughts, and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber. If Kings may not be cursed, much less put to death by their Subjects.  
Answ. 1. The first text is not properly meant of Kings, but pertains rather to Judges and other sort of Rulers; and so the Jew Doctors understand the place. 2. Solomon well explains the place, Prov. 17.26. It is not good to strike Princes for equity; that is, evil speaking of Magistrates for well doing, is a wicked and vile thing. 
Hier. in hunc. ver. ●  3. The other text by some is applied unto Christ the King of his Church. But take it literally, because Kings may not be cursed, which is prohibited under pain of condemnation, will it therefore follow that Kings may be thiefs, murderers, traitors, tyrants, and commit any wickedness, and not be called to an account by such who are above them, and have a lawful Power in their hands to punish them? 4. The place comprehends Rich-men as well as Kings, and therefore it may be as well concluded from it, that no man if rich, may be punished for any crime or fault whatsoever. 5. Both these if rightly applied are altogether for us: for whosoever (whether King or Prince) shall curse and revile the Supreme and Sovereign State of the Land, and that for well doing, as call them Rebels and Traitors, and violently seek to destroy them, he absolutely violateth this Law, Thou shalt not revile the gods. It is true, there is here no punishment set down for him, that should thus rail: But seeing (as one writes on the place) 
Willet Qu. 57  he that railed on his father and mother was to die for it, Exod. 21.17. much more worthy of death was he, which should curse the fathers of the Country.  
3. objec. I counsel thee to keep the King's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. Be not hasty to go out of his sight, stand not in an evil thing, for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him. Where the word of a King is, there is power, and who may say to him, What dost thou? Ecc. 8.2,3,4. Hence the Royalists argue, If the word of a King must stand, and his power not to be resisted, how can his Subjects lawfully touch his Person?  
Answ. 1. To keep the King's commandment must be understood of things just and lawful: otherwise (as the Apostle saith) We must obey God rather than man. It is well laid down by Philo, 
Philo de vita Mosis.  Regis officium est jubere quae oportet fieri, & vetare a quibus abstinere debet: caeterum jussie faciendorum, & interdictio cavendoru m proprie ad Legem pertinet. Atque ita consequitur, ut Rex animata sit, Lex vero sit Rex justissimus. The office of a King is to command, those things which ought to be done, and to forbid those things which ought to be avoided. But the command of things to be done, and the forbidding of things not to be done, properly belongeth to the Law. And so it followeth that a King is a living Law, and the Law is a most just King.  
2. The oath of God here, is the oath which is taken in the name of God, and whereof God is made a witness: The meaning is, the King is so to be obeyed, as that God is not to be disobeyed, and that the oath made to the King is so to be kept, as that the oath made to God be not broken. Hence Tremellius reads it, sed pro ratione juramenti Dei, but with regard to the oath of God: showing that Subjects are by their Allegiance and Covenant no further obliged to observe the Laws of earthly Princes, then are agreeable to God's commandments.  
3. Whereas it is said, He doth whatsoever pleaseth him: this must be understood only of a good King, and just commands, as if it were supplied with, whatsoever pleaseth God, not licet si libet, as if all were lawful whatsoever a King should do; but the genuine sense of the place is, stand not in an evil matter, for the King hath power to do whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee, if thou continue obstinate in evil courses, to forgive thee, if thou confess, submit and crave pardon of him for the same.  
4. Who may say to him what dost thou? that is reprove, or censure him for doing justly as Job expounds it, Chap. 34 18. and so must the place be understood: to wit, that no man may presume to question the King's just actions, warranted by the Law of God and men, but otherwise Kings may, and are to be reprehended, as we have sundry examples for it, in Elias reproving Ahab; Elisha, Jehoram; Nathan, David; John Baptist, Herod. 
1 Sam. 13.13. 2 King. 3.14. Jer. 1● 28. chap. 22.3. Ho. 5.1.2  Yea, not only so, but to be resisted, withstood, and opposed in their unrighteous courses. Hence Augustine and Ambrose do affirm, 
Augu. in Psal. 82. Amb. in Offic.  when Herod and Pilate condemned Christ, and caused him to be put to death, howsoever the people lamented it, were sorry for him, and sorely bewailed his death; yet were they all punished: and why so? because when they were able and might have taken him out of the hands of unjust and wicked Magistrates, and so preserved his life, they did it not, in this regard they wrapped themselves in the same guilt of blood and became murderers of him.  
But lastly, This text intends, only private men? not a Parliament, the supremest Judicatory and Sovereign power in the Kingdom: for in this High Court, the King's Person is no other than another subject; I say it again to this Court, He personally stands as a single man to be questioned, censured, punished as the Crime and Cause shall be. And in truth, here lies the stone at which many have stumbled, much like to that long controversy between us and the Church of Rome, about Petros, and Petra; Peter, and the Rock. We distinguish them, taking the person of Peter to be one thing, his faith, or Christ another. Whereas the Papists will allow of no such distinction. So the Title and Office of a King is one thing, the Person another: and howsoever the former comes not into question, yet the latter may. But many by mixing and confounding things together which should be severed and distinguished, apprehend not how the Person of the King, and not the Title and Office of a King can be questioned, censured, and punished. Hugo Grotius, putting down seven cases in which the people may have most real action against the King, to accuse, and punish him: 
Groti. de jure bell. & pac. l. 1▪ cap. 4.  The second is, He may (saith he) be punished as a private man.  
4. Objec. That place in Psal. 105.14.15. is usually objected, Touch not mine anointed. This by Royalists is applied to Kings, as a prohibition, that no man touch them, so as to hurt their Persons.  
Answ. 1. The words in the Prophet, do not at all concern Kings, but were spoken directly and immediately of the Patriarches, their wives, & families, walking as strangers from Nation to Nation; the which is evident by vers. 6. by the whole serious of the Psalm, which is historical; some places of Genesis to which the words relate, 
Gen. 12. 10. to 20. ch. 20. & 26. 1. to 29.  and the general confession of all Expositors on the place. The Cavaliers had in one of their Colours (which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston, July 2. Anno 1644.) the Crown and the Prelate's mitre painted, with these words, Nolite tangere Christos meos: so that it seems the antichristian mitre claims here a share with the crown.  
But 2. Admit this Scripture should be so meant, (which is not so) yet nothing can be hence rightly gathered, that Kings should be exempted from Arrests, Imprisonments, or Sentence of death itself. For 1. If we take it spiritually for the internal oil of the Spirit, as this anointing is common to subjects as well as Kings, so it must follow necessarily that in their persons they are no more exempted from arraignment and capital censures than other men.  
2. Admit it be meant of an actual external Anointing, yet that in itself affords Kings no greater privilege, than the inward unction of which it is a type, neither can it privilege them from the just corporal sentence of all kinds: and this is manifest in Sihon, Og, Adonibezek, Eglon, Agag, Joram, Ahaziah, Jehoaz and others, who by Princes and subjects of another nation, were apprehended, and slain, and justly, as all grant without exception. Besides, Kings who are subordinate homagers, and subjects to other Kings and Emperors, though anointed, may for treasons and rebellions against them, be lawfully judged to death, and executed; as appears by sundry precedents in our own and foreign Histories. Yea, the Roman, Greek, and German Emperors, have been Imprisoned, Deposed, and some of them judicially judged to death by their own Senates, Parliaments, and States for their oppression and tyranny: So the ancient Kings of France, Spain, Arragon, Britain, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Bohemia, India etc. & that justly notwithstanding any pretence of being anointed Sovereigns: And it is by Grotius confessed, 
Grot. de Jur. bell. & pac. l. 1 cap. 4  That the People may punish the King to death for matters capital, if so it be agreed on betwixt king and the people, as in Lacedemonia.  
3. If the Scope and Sense of this Text be duly weighed, it is so far from affording Kings any corporal immunities, or exemption from punishment, as it clearly speaks the contrary: For the words are not spoken of Kings, but by God Himself spoken unto Kings, that they should not touch his Spiritual anointed Saints, men consecrated unto him by the oil of the Spirit. But you will say, What if they touch Gods anointed, even spoil and murder them for his sake? I answer, The Law (Gen. 9.6.) excepteth none: the dearest that nature knoweth are not excepted. Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. The Supreme Court of Justice is here highly concerned. Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction; therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. 
1 King. 20.42.   
5. object. David's often sparing of Saul, though in his hand is often object. And Dr. Gauden in his late Letter to his Excellency, says, You cannot be ignorant of David's both conscientious and generous respect to saul's safety, and life, whom he leaves to God's justice, by no usurpation of power, successes, or opportunities of revenge. page 7.  
Ans. 1. There is nothing from David's carriage towards Saul in this particular, but to bring it into a short account is thus: Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the person of the King, specially in their cold blood when he doth not actually assault them, nor have a lawful power judiciously to proceed against him.  
2. But more particularly I answer. The difference was but private and personal between Saul & David, David being saul's private subject, servant and son-in-law; not public between Saul and his Parliament or Kingdom. Now many things are unlawful in private quarrels, which are just and honourable in public differences. Saul intended no Arbitrary government, nor to make Israel a conquered people, nor yet to cut off all the godly, under the pretence of heretics and sectaries; neither to destroy laws, liberties and Parliaments: nor came Saul against these Princes, Elders, and People who made him King; only David's head would have made Saul lay down his arms.  
3. Howsoever some reasons may be given wherefore David spared Saul, as, 1. Being his father-in-law, and lord too, and so it would have been thought somewhat an unnatural act in him, and savoured too much of private revenge and ambition, aspiring to the Crown before due time. 2. By his lenity to convince Saul, and reclaim him from his bloody pursuit, and clear his innocency to the world.  
And lastly, Manifest his dependence upon God, and his special promise, that he should enjoy the crown after Saul, by divine appointment: nevertheless, if these and other Scriptures be well perused, Saul and David soldiers (if not David himself) conceived that David might with safe conscience have punished him, as well as pitied him. 
1 Sam. 24.10.11 12.17.18 & 26.23.24.  Expedient I confess it was (for the considerations mentioned) to spare him, but whether the thing in soro Dei and in itself altogether unlawful had he slain him (specially after he had killed the Priests, and destroyed both men and women, children and sucklings in Nob) 
1 Sam. 22.18.19  I leave to the judicious Reader to think of.  
6. Objec. That place 1 Sam 8.9. and ver. 11. is much alleged to prove both the absolute power of a King, and the unlawfulness of resistance. 
a Grot. de Jur. bell. & pac. lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3.  Hugo Grotius, 
b Barcl. count. mon l. 2. p. 64.  Barclay, 
c Arnis. de fur. 6. Mai. c. 1. n. 3. p. 157, 158.  Arnisaeus, 
d Dr. Fern 3. p. Sect. 2. p. 10.  Dr. Fern, and others argue thus; that by this place, The People oppressed with the injuries of a tyrannous King, have nothing left them but prayers and tears to God, and will have us distinguish inter officium Regis & potestatem, between the King's office and the King's power; and it cannot be ver. 9.11. the custom and manner of the King, but must be the law of absolute Majesty, etc.  
It is said of Paracelsus that the diet he prescribed his patients, was to eat what, and how often they thought fitting themselves. Royalists and Court-flatterers do allow such an absolute prerogative to Kings, that if they would make use of their plenitude and unlimited power, there is no wickedness but they may do. viz. violently ravish matrons, deflower virgins; unnaturally abuse youth, cut all their Subjects throats, fire their houses, sack their Cities, subvert their Liberties, and (as Bellarmin puts the case of the Pope's absolute irresistible authority) send millions of souls to hell; yet no man under pain of damnation, may or ought demand of him, Domine, cur ita facis? Sir, what do you? such a slavery those vermins have sought to bring all Subjects into.  
But to answer, 1. The scope and drift of the place is thus: Samuel being displeased with the people because they would reject God's government, who was then their King, having in his own hand the regal rights, and did substitute under him Judges, whom he extraordinarily called, qualified, and inspired them with his spirit; shows them the manner of the King, ver. 9.11. not what they should be, and aught to do in right, but what they use to be, and do in fact, and how commonly they demean themselves in Government, contrary to God's Law, Deut. 17.15. and the Laws of the Kingdom; and that he speaks not here of the Law or power of a lawful King, but of Saul's tyrannical usurpation: is evident thus.  
1. The Hebrew word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the which as our English rendereth, is the manner, and so the word usually signifies 
a 2 King. 17.26 Gen. 40 13. Exod, 21,19. 1 Sam, 27,11.  a custom or manner; and as a custom, so a wicked 
b 1 Sam, 2,13, 1 Kings 18,28,  custom. Peter Martyr on the place saith, He meaneth here of an usurped Law. The custom and manner of doing, say Junius and Tremellius. Clemens Alexandrinus on the place saith, non humanum pollicetur Dominum, sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum, he promiseth not a humane Prince, but threatneth to give them an insolent tyrant. So saith Beda. Lyra expoundeth it Tyranny: so Cajetanus. And Serrarius, he speaketh not here, quid Reges jure possint, sed quid audeant; what they may do by right and Law, but what they will be bold to do; and so speaketh Thomas Aquinas, Osiander, Pelican, Borhaius, Willet and our last large Annotations, take it, that Samuel setteth not down the office of a King; and what he ought to be, but what manner of Kings they should have, such as would decline to tyranny, be tyrants, not Kings, rule by will, not by Law.  
2. He speaketh of such a power as is answerable to the acts here spoken of: but the acts here spoken of, are acts of mere tyranny. As 1. to make slaves of their sons, ver. 11. was an act of Tyranny. 2. To take their fields, and vineyards, and oliveyards from them, ver. 14. was not better than Ahabs cruelty towards Naboth. 3. To put the people of God to bondage. ver. 15, 16. was to deal with them as the Tyrant Pharaoh did. 4. He speaketh of such a Law, the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord because of their King. ver. 18. but the execution of the just Law of the King, Deut. 17. is a blessing, not a cross or curse.  
3. It is clear, that God by his Prophet dissuades them from their purpose of seeking a King, by foretelling the evil of punishment, that they should suffer under a tyrant. for 1. Samuel is to protest against their unlawful course, v. 9 2. He is to lay before them the tyranny and oppression of their King, which cruelty Saul exercised in his time; as the history of his life showeth. But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable acts of favour, that a just King by his good Government was to do for his people, Deut. 17. 3. It is set down, ver. 19 how in effectual samuel's exhortation was: now how could it be said, they refused to hear the voice of Samuel, if he had not dehorted them from a King.  
2. Touching these words, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your King. 1. Here is not one word of any lawful remedy, for this is not always understood of praying to God by reason of oppression, as by many 
a Is. 15.4. Ha. 2.11. Deut. 22.24.  Scriptures doth appear. 2. Though it were the Prophet's meaning, they cried unto the Lord, yet it is not the crying of a people truly humbled, and in faith speaking to God in their 
b Zec. 7.12. Psal. 18.41.  troubles, and therefore such prayer as God heareth not. 3. It is a rule in Logic and Divinity, Ex particulari non valet argumentum negative; from one particular place a negative argument is not good. To apprehend, imprison, and put a tyrant to death is not written in this particular place: therefore it is not written at all in other places of Scripture. But 4. The text says not They shall only cry out, as if no other course were to be used against a tyrant, but crying out, which shows a mere fallacy and absurdity in what they speak. Because a man must pray for Kings and Rulers; Ergo, there is no tribute or obedience due to them. Again, Men must pray for their daily bread, and sick persons seek to God for health. Ergo, they must only pray, and not labour for it, they must take no physic but only pray.  
3. If the Prophet's words be rightly understood, he is so far from affirming that the power of a King is absolute, and , as on the contrary he closely admonisheth the people, that they should look to him, as to restrain and bridle his licentious liberty, and keep him within the due limits of law and reason, and seeing he is apt to degenerate into a tyrant, and cruelly to oppress the subjects, to be therefore prudent and careful seasonably to prevent so great a mischief and danger.  
Lastly, In the whole description here of a tyrant there is not one word against our Conclusion. For 1. The people's power (whose Representatives the Ordines Regni, the States of the Kingdom are) is above the King. 
Polib. his. l. 6,  Such were the Ephori amongst the Lacedæmonians, the Senate amongst the Romans: The Forum Superbiense amongst the Arragonians: The Electors of the Emperors: the Parliaments in England, Scotland, France, and Spain: The Fathers of Families, and Princes of Tribes amongst the Jews. And for this Sovereign and Supreme power of Estates, as above Kings, I appeal to Jurists, and to approved Authors. Argu. L. aliud. 160. sect. 1. de Jur. Reg. l. 22. Mortuo de fidei. l. 11.14. ad Mum. l. 3.14. Cornelius Bertramo, c. 12. Junius Brutus, Vindic. count. Tyrant. sect. 2. Sigonius de Rep. Judaeor. l. 6. c. 7. Author Libelli de Jur. Magist. in Subd. q. 6. Althus. Pol. c. 18. Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 20. Pareus in Rom. 13. Peter Mart. in lib. Judic. c. 3. Joan Marianus, de Rege, lib. 1. c. 7. Marius Salamonius Lib. 1. de Principatu Hottaman de jure. Antiq. Reg. Gallica. l. 1. c. 22. Danaeus Polit. Christ. l. 3. c. 6. Buchanan de Jure Regni apud Scotos.  
2. The King is under Law, and punishable by Law, as we shall manifest more fully hereafter. It is the Law▪ 
Imp, l. 4, dignavox C, de leg. & tit.  Quod quisque Juris in alium statuit, eodem et ipse utatur. What a man of right enacteth for another, the same he himself should do. If otherwise, proving a Tyrant, he may (saith Bartol) 
In tractat, de Tyrant, & in tract, de re, Ci. Jun. Bru, vind, con, tire. l, 3.  be justly deposed by his superior, or according to the Julian law, by force of the whole Commonwealth most deservedly punished. I will end this point with the words of Junius Brutus. A Tyrant (saith he) is more outrageously wicked, than any thief, high-way-robber, murderer, or sacrilegious person, and therefore deserves a far greater, heavier, and severer punishment.  
7 object, I find some to frame their objection thus. None of the Prophets in the old Testament reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for their gross Idolatry, cruelty, and oppression, did call upon the great Council of State, to convent, censure, & put their Kings to death upon any of these grounds, therefore to put them to death is unlawful.  
Answ. 1. It is a great Non-consequence, Aristoteles aut Plato hoc non dixerunt, hoc Ergo ita se non habet. 
Fra, Bur●… Instit, L●, l. 1. c. 18.  This duty is not practised by any example out of the Prophets in God's word. Ergo, It is no duty. Practise in Scripture, is a narrow rule of faith: show a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she enticed him to follow strange gods. Yet it is commanded, Deut. 13.6. when a man lying with a beast was put to death. Yet it is a law, Exod. 22.19. so many other laws, the practice of which we find not in Scripture.  
But 2. Seeing none of the Prophets did forbid the thing, or dehorted the people from proceeding this way, therefore it was lawful, and the people freely might have done it, if they had been zealous of the law, and had a heart to it. And to make this clear, take notice what the Law saith, 
Levit. 19.35,36, Deut. 25,13.  Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure: just balances, just weights, etc. Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. These ordinances taught men justice. Ye shall not respect persons in judgement, ye shall not be afraid of the face of man: 
deu. 1.17.  so that whosoever was a murderer, an adulterer, a witch, a Sodomite etc. he was to be put to death. And questionless, had the Lord intended, that some, (namely Kings, howbeit murderers, adulterers, witches,) should be exempted from the punishment of such laws, as being no power or Court on earth to reach them, it would have been some where set down. And therefore whereas it is objected, that the Prophets speak not where of putting their Idolaters & wicked Kings to death, the truth is, it needed not, neither was there any reason for it, for it was never questioned in the Prophet's times, whether Kings might be put to death if they did such things as by the law was death.  
3. Not only is it evident by the History of the Kings and Chronicles in sundry places, 
2 Kin. 21.11.12. & 23.26. & 24.3. Jer. 15.1,2,3.4.  that God did punish the people for the wickedness of their Kings: but likewise the Prophets have threatened so much: the which thing surely God in justice would not have done, neither the Prophets so have spoken, had not the people power to have removed them, and put them to death for their capital crimes, according to the Law.  
4. When the Prophets exhorted the People to repent, and to execute justice and judgement, and to deliver him that was spoiled out of the hands of the oppressor. 
Jer, 7.5. & 21.12. & 22,3.  Here they did call upon the great Council of State to punish their tyrannous, murderous, and idolatrous Kings with death, according to the law: for otherwise, how could the people truly repent, or have answered what the Prophets exhorted them unto in point of justice.  
5. That tyrannous Princes, not only by command of God's Prophets, but of God himself, and by his special approbation have been put to death by their subjects, 'tis apparent in Scripture: thus Nadab by Baasha, Elah by Zimry, Jehu by Gods own appointment puts to death Joram and Ahaziah Kings of Israel and Judah: And say, that it was extraordinary to Jehu that he should kill Joram, yet there was an express law for it, that he that stirreth up others to idolatry, should die the death. Deut. 13.6. And mark what Mr. Rutherfurd writes in this very point, 
Preem Elect, qu 34. p. 364  THERE IS NO EXCEPTION OF KING or Father in the Law: For to except Father or mother in God's matters is expressly against the zeal of God. Deut. 33.9.  
8 object. That passage in Psal. 51.4. is much taken hold of, where King David confessing his sin of adultery and murder to God, useth this expression, against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: 
Sac. Mai. p. 148. de author prin. c. 4. num. 5. p. 73  Hence Maxwell, Arnisaeus, and others conclude, That the King is above all Law, and all earthly Tribunals; accountable to none for his actions, but to God, and that there was not any on earth, who might punish David.  
I have somewhere read how Calisthenes Lucullus servant, gave his Master poison, not of any evil intent, but supposing the poison had power to make his Master love him the more; but it put him out of his wits, and killed him. Fawning Sycophants, and Court-flatterers, have usually thus served Kings and Princes, in hope of more love, and greater preferment from them, have powered into them the venomous doctrine of absolute Monarches, Arbitrary power, to be responsable to none but God only, for what they do; by which means they have grown mad Tyrants, and afterwards cut off by some visible and sensible stroke of justice.  
But to the objection, I answer, 1. It is most certain that David by his adultery and murder (being sins against the second table) did sin not only against God, but against Vriah, his wife, children, and kindred, and against his own soul. And this must needs be so, for otherwise, 1. The King because a King is free, not only from all punishing Laws of men: but from the duties of the second Table simply, and so a King cannot be under the best and largest half of the law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  
2. He shall not need to say, forgive us our sins as we forgive them that sin against us. For there is no reason from the nature of sin, and the nature of God's Law, why we can say more the subjects and sons sin against the King and Father, then to say, the Father and King sin against the sons and subjects. 3. The King killing his Father Jesse should sin only against God, but not break the fift commandment, nor sin against his Father.  
2. As all Emperors, Kings, and Princes, are subject to the Laws of God, of nature, and Nations; so are they bound in conscience to give satisfaction and recompense to their subjects against whom they sin in this nature; and David himself determines so much in his own cause. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man (the man was himself, 1 Sam. 12.7. thou art the man) and he said to Nathan, as the Lord liveth the man that hath done this shall surely die.  
3. For the reason of David's speech, in saying, against thee, thee only have I sinned. Expositors are diversely minded, some say, he meaneth none durst judge or punish him, but God only. Lorinus the Jesuit observeth eleven interpretations of Ancient writers all to this sense. It is true, Beda, Euthymius, Ambrose, chrysostom, Basil, Theodoret, do acknowledge from the place de facto, there was none above David to judge him: so Augustine, Basil, Gregory, Arnobius, Dydimus, Hieronim. But the simple meaning is, Against thee only. 1. As my eye witness and immediate beholder: for he concealed his sin from men, but could not from God. 2 Sam. 12.12. 2. Because as the cause stood, God only could remit the punishment of his sin. 3. By only he means comparatively, as if he should say, principally and especially against thee: 
Isa. 43 5 Psal. 41.3  and the word (
a 1 King 15.7. Josh 1.7.18, 1 Sam. 18.17.  only) is often so taken.  
4. The Sanedrim did not punish David: Ergo, it was not lawful for them; nor is it lawful for a State to punish a King for any act of injustice, is logic which we may resist.  
5. Had the adultery, and murder been publicly known, and complained of to the Great Council of the Kingdom, I do affirm, and will stand to it, that they might judicially have proceeded against him for it. And because some will be ready to brand this under the scornful term of a new light, or think I am singular herein, I shall here set down the judgement of a judicious and learned professor of Divinity, Mr. Sam. Rutherfurd a Scotchman. 
Preem of Elect of King. qu 26, p, 241  The Prelate (saith he) draweth me to speak of the case of the King's unjust murder confessed, Psal. 51. To which I answer, He taketh it for confessed, that it had been treason in the Sanedrin and States of Israel, to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his adultery and murder, but he giveth no reason for this nor any word of God: and truly, though I will not presume to go before others in this, God's law (Gen. 9.6. compared with Numb. 35.30,31.) seemeth to say against them.  
Nor can I think that God's law, 
Deut, 1,17 2 Chr. 19 6,7,  or his deputy the Judges are to accept the persons of the great, because they are great: and we say, we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not. The Lord speaks to under-Judges, Levit. 19.15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor the honour of the person of the mighty, or of the PRINCE, for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth. I grant it is not God's meaning that the King should draw the sword against himself; but yet it follows not, that if we speak of the demerit of blood, that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or small, and if the STATE BE ABOVE THE KING, as I conceive they are, though it be a humane politic constitution, that the King is free from all coaction of law, because it conduceth for the peace of the Commonwealth, yet if we make a matter of conscience▪ FOR MY PART, I SEE NO EXCEPTION THAT GOD MAKES OF IT; if men make, I crave leave to say, A facto ad jus non sequitur. Thus that Reverend Author.  
Lastly, This sin against Vrijah was personal, and a private injury into which David fell by occasion, and out of humane frailty: it was the first and only sin that he committed in this kind that ever we read of, he made no trade of it, he repent for it, and never relapsed after into it. Whereas Charles Stevart in a hostile and public way hath murdered many thousands of his best subjects, by giving Warrants and Commissions under his own hand to Atheists, and Papists, personally appeared in many battles to destroy the people, caused sundry villages, towns, and cities to be ruinated by fire, plunder, rapine, authorised villainous Pirates of other nations, (not to mention his own Son, nor Rupert that monster of mankind) to rob and kill his own subjects at sea: gave Ormond commission, and the bloody Irish, to kill and massacre, not so few as two hundred thousand, men women, and children, of the Protestant religion in Ireland; not to speak of fifteen hundred widows which he made in one morning, as Mr. Henderson told him; nor the loss of Rochel in France, by his lending ships to the French King; and this was his trade and constant practice many years together, and doubtless would have continued so to this day, had not the Lord of Hosts by a powerful hand (using our Army as instrumental means) suppressed him: and for all this his heart never smote him as it could be perceived, but remained impenitent and incorrigeble in his sins.  
9 object. It is likewise objected, 
Jer. 29,7.  That the children of Israel were commanded by God himself to pour out supplications & prayers for the peace and prosperous estate of Nebuchadnezer a most cruel tyrant, and that it was not lawful for the Jews to withdraw themselves from the subjection which they did owe unto his Empire: Neither would the Lord authorise the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh, but made Moses a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a stretched out arm: Nor did the Lord deliver his People by the wisdom of Moses, or strength of the People, or any act that way of theirs, but by his own immediate hand and Power. Hence conclude, that subjects may not punish their Kings for any misdemeanour.  
Answ. 1. The Jews were not only subjects and of a private condition, but likewise most of them servants and bondmen under the power and Empire of the Chaldeans, and therefore for private men to rise up against the Magistrates, or to resist them with force of arms had been unlawful.  
2. And let it be observed, that the Jews came by the immediate appointment of the Lord, under the power of the Chaldeans, of which thing they were often preadmonished and foretell by the Prophets: so that it was not only unlawful for Zedekiah and the rest of the Jews in the time of their captivity to resist the tyranny of the Chaldeans, but likewise before the captivity, they could not with a good conscience have resisted, or maintained the city against them when they had besieged it; forasmuch as the Lord commanded them by Jeremy that they should deliver up the city into the hands of the Chaldeans, and without resistance yield themselves to be their servants. 
Chap. 21.2,3,4, & 27,1,12,13,14, ch 36, ch, 37   
3. Touching Pharaoh, 1. He had not his crown from Israel. 2. Pharaoh had not sworn to defend Israel, nor became their King upon condition and oath to maintain their Laws, Liberties, and Rights. 3. Israel had their land in Egypt by the mere gift of the King. 4. The Israelites were not his native subjects, but strangers and sojourners; who by the Laws of the King and Princes, by the means of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling, and liberty to serve the God of Abraham, to whom they prayed in their bondage. 
Exod. 2,23,24.  The Kings of England (as Kings) have stood to England in a  contrary relation: they have had their crown by the voluntary and free choice of the People, and no otherwise but conditionally; that is, covenanting and taking their oath to do so and so, for the public good: The English are natives, not beholding to their Kings for their possessions, nor ever held the same as gratis from them: The Supreme and Sovereign Power of the Kingdom is in their hand; the which Israel in Egypt never had, nor could lawfully challenge.  
10. obje. Dr. Gouden speaking of putting the King to death, saith, Never did Christ or his Apostles by practice or precept give the  intimation of the will of his Father as agreeing to what you declare to be your purpose. Christ (saith Maxwel) 
Sac. San. Mai. c, 5. n. 6.  in the cradle taught by practice to flee from Herod, and all Christ's actions are full of mysteries and our instructions: He might have had Legions of Angels to defend him, but would rather work a miracle in curing of Malchu's ear, as use the sword against Caesar. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, & to commend patiented suffering of ill, & condemn all resistance of superiors, would have servants suffer buffets not only for ill doing of good masters, but also undeservedly of these masters that are evil, and that from his own example, 1 Pet. 2.18.21.23. much more are we patiently to suffer of Kings without resistance.  
The monuments of Babel's ruin, show fare off to be high and great things, but being near they are very low and little too: whatsoever is here, if we come up close to it, 'tis impertinences, non-consequences and nothing else. And first in general we answer, 1. Christ saying, His Kingdom is not of the world, and refusing to take the Magistracy upon him signified thereby, that for civil polity he left it to the people, to practise according to the humane Law and reason, and as it might best serve for every nations safety, peace, and welfare. 2. When the Dr. writes next, I would have him set down where Christ and his Apostles, by precept or practice taught, that any man for murder, treason, rebellion, etc. might lawfully be put to death by the higher powers: if he find this thing no where directly or by consequence in the New Testament, then under favour of his Doctorship, it is simply spoken: But if he can find such a precept or practice, thus far I do engage, and challenge any man to oppose, that I will as clearly prove from the same place, that the Commons of England may lawfully put their King to death for the like crimes. 3. If Christ came not to destroy the Law, as the Law of nature, Nations, than it is not contrary to any precept or practice of his, for the Parliament of England, to judge to death the King for treason and high misdemeanours against the law of nature and Nations. But the first is true, therefore the latter.  
2. For a more particular answer: 1. Christ flying into Egypt, what mystery soever it had, sure I am, it contained no prohibition against the lawful execution of justice and judgement upon any man.  
2. That Christ might have defended himself with more than twelve legions of Angels, but would not, it was not because, to cut off tyrants is unlawful, 〈…〉 no shadow for that in the Text, but because it was Gods will, that he should drink the cup his Father gave him.  
3. That Christ blamed Peter for speaking of drawing his sword: Rivetus showeth the reasons, 
Rivet, in dec. in manned. 6. pag, 234.  1. Because it had a kind of revenge in it: for so few could not repel such an Army as came to take Christ. 2. He waited not on Christ's answer. 3. He could have defended himself another way. 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter. 
Mat. 16,21,22,24   
4. To the place in Peter I answer: 1. Patient bearing of wrong, and punishing wrong doers are compatible in one and the same person. One act of grace is not contrary to another: Not to respect persons in judgement, is as commendable a virtue as patiented suffering for a good cause. 2. The scope of the place, is not to forbid all violent resisting, but only forbiddeth revenging resisting, as not to repair one wrong with another, from the example of Christ, who when he was reviled, reviled not again: and therefore the Argument is a fallacy, Ab eo quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a master attempt to kill an innocent servant, and invade him with a weapon of death, in that case the servant is free from guiltiness, if (there being no other way to save his life) he slay the master than be killed himself: because I am nearer by the law of nature, and dearer to myself and mine own life, then to my brother. 3. No Prince hath a mastery or dominion over his subjects, but only a free, paternal, and tutorly oversight for the good of the people. The masters in the Apostles time, had a dominion over servants as over their proper goods. 
Ro. 13.4.   
11. obje. But the special Objection of Royalists is, Rom. 13.1,2. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God: and whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. Hence therefore they conclude, 
Grot. de Jur. bell. & pac. l. 1 cap. 4 Barc, con mon. l. 3. c, 9 Maxwel S●c. San. Mai. c. 2 p. 29.  1. That the King is the supremest or highest power here intended. There is no Judge above a King on earth. 2. Howsoever, in those days there was a standing and continual Senate, which not long before had the Supreme power in the Roman State, yet now the Emperor was Supreme, and therefore no power of resistance left to the people. 3. The prohibition, doth not only concern Christians, but all the people under these Emperors, and howbeit Religion was persecuted, the people's Liberty lost, and the Senate then enslaved by Edict and Laws enforced on them by Nero and other Emperors, yet notwithstanding, the Apostle forbids to resist.  
That I may give a satisfactory answer to this Objection, I desire the Reader to consider the occasion of the Apostles words, which I take to be thus. The Roman Magistrates being Infidels, people newly converted to Christian Religion, might think themselves exempted from any subjection or obedience unto them, by reason of Gospel-liberty and further, that it was not lawful for them to make use of such Magistrates in any civil cause what wrong soever they suffered: To refute which error, the Apostle informs them, that howbeit the Magistrates were unbelieving Gentiles, yet their authority and power was from God Himself, and in that regard, their profession of Christianity did rather oblige them, then exempt them from subjection; and they were God's Ministers appointed by him, to punish offenders, and to take vengeance on them. Now bring this into an argument, because Religion exempts not subjects from due obedience to lawful pagan Magistrates, and people oppressed may seek redress of their grievances, therefore Tyrants may not be legally arraigned, censured, and put to death by the highest and supremest Court of the Kingdom.  
2. If the Apostles words be observed (even word for word) there is not any thing in them against the arraignment of a tyrant. For 1. The Higher Powers must be submitted to: and why? Because they are ordained of God, and are Gods ordinances. vers. 1, 2. That is so far as they govern according to reason and just laws, preserve their People's liberties, persons, and estates. But where is it said, When they prove traitors to the Kingdom, and are the Devil's Agents, they may not be severely punished for it. 2. Because those who resist lawful authority, and just commands, receive to themselves condemnation, is not this, a non sequitur, that the Parliament whose jurisdiction and power is above the King, may not call him to an account for tyranny and misgovernment.  
3. Ruler's must be obeyed, Because they are not a terror to good works, but to evil. verse 3. is not this a good consequence, when they are professed enemies to all good works, and do evil and continually evil with both hands, that same power which hath set them up, cannot take them down again.  
4. Obey him saith the Apostle, why? because he is the minister of God to thee for good. v. 4. But can this be applied to a tyrant, who hath destroyed the people in body & goods; doth it not rather plainly imply, that those who are the devils ministers to us for evil, rather than Gods for good; by a lawful power above them, should be thrust out of their place.  
5. It is said, ver. 5. But if thou dost that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath on him that doth evil: Can any Roialist find any thing here, which is not spoken in reference only to faithful Magistrates, in the execution of justice upon malefactors, wherein they must not be resisted, much less punished for well doing. And by the rules of contraries, a Tyrant that makes war upon his people, to ruin, spoil, and enslave them, protecteth all wicked men, gives liberty to all manner of unrighteousness, bears the sword, not only in vain, in reference to the public good, but draws it forth only upon those that are good; for such cruelty, oppression and impiety, may lawfully be cut off.  
3. The text doth include all higher powers, not to be restrained only to Kings and Emperors, but comprehends all kind of civil Rulers: Augustin, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Hierom, expound it of Masters, Magistrates. So do Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Rollor, Marlorat, So do Popish writers, Aquinas, Lyra, Hugo Cardinal, Carthus. Pierius, Toletus, Cornel. a Lapide, Salmeron, Estitius, expound the place. Hence it must follow, that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited, but only in the due and legal execution of their offices. For no man will deny but inferior lawful officers illegally endeavouring to subvert Liberties, Laws, and unrighteously governing the people, may be imprisoned, arraigned and condemned for their misdemeanour. And this granted (which cannot be denied) our conclusion is fully proved: and thus I make it appear.  
Whosoever is a murderer or a traitor to the State, may lawfully be put to death by the civil power that is above him, and that by virtue of this text, Rom. 13.1,2,3. But the King of England is under a civil power and jurisdiction; to wit, the Sovereign power of the Parliament. Ergo, If a murderer or traitor to the State may lawfully be put to death. Though there be no Tribunal (saith Mr. Rutherfurd) formally, regal, and Kingly above the King, yet there is a Tribunal virtual, eminently above him, in the case of tyranny; for the States and Princes are above him.  
4. That the Roman Emperor (when Paul wrote) was the Supreme and highest power in the Roman State, is most untrue: justinian indeed, speaks somewhat that way, 
Dig. l, 2. Tit, 2. p, 146.  that the Emperor was absolute, but he is partial in this case. Bodin proveth, 
Bodin de Rep, l, 2 c. 5. pag. 221.  That the Roman Emperors were but princes of the Commonwealth, and that the Sovereignty remained still in the Senate and people. Livius, Florus, Tacitus, say the like; and to put it out of all doubt, the case of Nero that wicked Emperor is proof sufficient, whom the Senate judicially condemned, and as a public enemy to the State adjudged him to have his head fastened to a fork, and so to be publicly whipped to death, and then to be precipitated from a rock; upon which sentence he being sought for (and forsaken of all) to avoid the execution thereof, murdered himself with a poniard.  
5. As for tyrants and wicked oppressing Magistrates, they are not within the intendment of this text, neither is there any thing here spoken to prohibit the people from censuring and punishing of them. for 1. That which is not the Ordinance of God, but rather of the devil, and the mere sin and enormity of the Governor himself, not of the Government, is not within the compass of this text.  
2. That which is no point of the Magistrates lawful power ordained of God, but diametrally repugnant to it, as tyranny, oppression, violence, etc. is not within the verge or compass of this text.  
3. All Powers intended in the text are not only ordained of God but also circumscribed and bounded with certain rules of Law, justice, and honesty, within which they must contain themselves, and if they pass beyond those limits, they are none of God's Ordinance. Now the tyranny and oppression of Kings and Rulers are mere exorbitances, arbitrary, illegal actions exceeding the bound of justice and honesty, prescribed by the Law of God and men: therefore not within the limits of this text, and therefore to be resisted, and the Person punishable.  
4. Howsoever the lawful power of Princes be of God, yet the tyranny itself, and abuse of this power is of Satan, and therefore though the power itself which is good and profitable, be to be honoured and continued, yet the tyrant justly may be condemned to death, as not within the compass of this text.  
13. Obje▪ And thus much for the first sort of Objections: we come now to the rest. Kings (some say) are in dignity and power above tho people, their persons sacred, not criminal or obnoxious to any tribunal but that of God. King Theodor. in Cassidore speaking of himself, 
Cassi. var. l. 6, var. 4.  hac sola ratione discreti, quod alteri subdi non possimus, qui Judices non habemus. In this respect we are distinguished from others, that we cannot be subject to another, who have no Judges over us. Impune quidvis facere, id est, Regem esse.  
I have read in Plutarch, that Alexander Magnus published he was the son of Jupiter Hammon; yet when he saw the humour running down from his wounds, was constrained to say, this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blood of man not of God: and smelling the stench of his own flesh, asked his flatterers, if the gods yielded such a stench. Princes (specially of late) have deemed themselves to be None-such, and altogether unlike other men, but when they shall see themselves as prisoners stand at the bar, and justice done upon them, they will think otherwise of their condition. I know what the common saying is: 
Quidquid delirant Reges plectuntur Achivi.  
What fault soever Kings commit,  
The subject must be hanged for it.   
A practice against Scripture, reason, and conscience: It is no Law grounded upon any divine principle, That the King doth no wrong, only his wicked Councillors and bad instruments must be punished, but he not: the Lord saith, the soul that sinneth, it shall die; and in all ages hath punished the author of sin, and persons commanding such and such wickedness, more severely and extremely, than the agent, who acted by the others warrant, commission, and authority. We see daily the mother punished for her whoredom, yet the bastard spared; but that the bastard should suffer, and the mother escape, it is such a thing as I think was never heard of.  
Now touching the objection I answer, 1. Simply, absolutely the people are above and more excellent than the King, and the King in dignity inferior to the people and the whole Kingdom: and this I prove. 
2 Sam. 19.9. Psa, 78.70.71. 1 Sa. 10,1 Ro. 13.4.  1. Because he is the mean, ordained for the people, as for the end, that he may save them: a public shepherd to feed them, the captain and leader of the Lords inheritance to defend them; the Minister of God for their good. 2. The pilot is less than the whole passengers, the General less than the whole Army, the physician less than all the living men, whose health he careth for; the Master or Teacher, less than all the Scholars; because the part is less than the whole. The King is but a part or member of the Kingdom.  
3. Those who are given of God as gifts for the preservation of the people, to be nursing-fathers' to them; those must be of less worth before God, than those to whom they are given, for the gift, as a gift, is less than the party on whom the gift is bestowed: But the King is a gift for the good and welfare of the people, as is manifest, Esa. 1.26.  
4. People though mortal in the individuals, yet in the species cannot die, 
Ecc. 1.4.  but the King as King may and doth die, and therefore more excellent than that which is accidental temporary, and mortal.  
5. The people are before the King, and may be without the King, and therefore must be of more worth than that which is posterior, and cannot be a King without them.  
2. The people in power are superior to the King, and that upon these reasons: 1. Because every efficient and constituent cause is more excellent than the effect: every mean is inferior in power to the end. But the people are the efficient cause, the King is the effect; 
Isa. 3.7.  the people are the end both intended of God to save the people, to be a healer and physician to them.  
2. Common reason, Law, and experience, manifests that the whole, or greatest part in all politic or natural bodies is of greater power and jurisdiction, than any one particular member. Thus in all corporations the Court of Aldermen and Common-Councel is of greater power than the Major alone, though the chief officer: so the whole Bench, than the Lord chief Justice, and the whole Council than the Precedent. And it is Aristotle's express determination, 
Pol, lib. 1 C. 2. & l. 3. c. 8.  Majorum rerum potest as jure populo tribuitur. The King (as we said just now) is but a part or member (though I grant a very noble and eminent member) of the Commonwealth.  
3. The Sovereign Power to make Laws, and so a power eminent in their states representative, to govern themselves, is in the people. Ergo,  
4. Those who can limit power, and bind royal power in elected Kings, they in power are superior to Kings. Peter speaking of Kings and their Supremacy, calls them a creature or humane ordinance, because it took its original and rise from men, and can be bound, limited, or restrained, as they see occasion. 
1 Pe, 2.13   
Coverrunias' a great Lawyer saith, 
Cover. Tom. 2. pra. quest, c. 1. n. 2. 3.  That all civil power is, penes remp. in the hands of the Commonwealth; and it is a received principle, That Sovereign Power, eminently, fontaliter, originally, and radically, is in the people.  
But it is objected, The people have made over their right, and whole power to the King, all is freely given up into his hands, and so may not retract or take back what they have once given.  
Answ. 1. It is a thing neither probable nor credible that any free people when they voluntarily incorporated themselves into Kingdoms, and of their own accord set up an elective King over them, that there was such a stupidity and madness in them, as absolutely to make away their whole power to the King and his heirs for ever, and to give him an entire, full, and incontroulable Supremacy over them, and so to make the Creature superior to the Creator, the derivative greater than the primative, the servant more potent than themselves, and so of freemen to make themselves slaves, and for their more safety to be more enslaved.  
2. People cannot by the Law of nature resign up their sovereign and popular power, authority and right, into the hand of a King: for neither God, nor nature's Law, hath given them any such power.  
3. He who constituteth himself a slave is supposed to be compelled to that unnatural fact of alienation of that liberty which he received of God, from the womb, by violence, constraint, or extreme necessity, and so is inferior to all freemen: but the people do not make themselves slaves, when they constitute a King over them.  
4. If the people give all power away: 1. What power is then left them to make a new King when this man dies? 2. If the King turn distracted, or like Nebuchadnezer his reason be taken from him: what then? or if he turn Tyrant, and destroy his subjects with the sword? In a word, If the King be absent and taken captive, the people having given all their power away, there can be nothing done in such and many the like cases, for their own safety.  
5. He who sweareth to the people to be regulated by law and taketh the Crown Covenant-wise, and so as the people would refuse to make him their King, if either he should refuse to swear, or if they knew certainly that he would break his oath, he had never the whole power of the people resigned up unto him.  
6. Though the people should give away their power, and swear, though the King should kill them all, they would not resist, nor defend their own lives though he should commit the vilest wickedness that was ever heard of, yet they would not question him for it; this should not oblige the conscience, for it should be intrinsically sinful, and an oath directly against the law of God.  
7. These are known rules in law, nature, and reason, Nemo plus iurus ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet. No man can give to another of right more than that which he hath. Again, Non debet actori licere, quod reo non permittitur: so Alterius circumventio alii non praebet actionem. So likewise, Non debet alteri per alterum iniqua conditio inferri. If the father have resigned his whole right of liberty in the hand of the King, yet could he not take in his posterity with him, neither oblige them in point of equity and conscience to confirm and observe what against the law of nature he had done, but his children afterwards might lawfully, yea and aught to stand fast in the liberty which the law of God, nature, and nations had made them free, and not be entangled in the slavish yoke and bondage of their father. Nullus videtur dolo facere, qui suo jure utitur  
I shall here conclude this point with a few observations. 1. Seeing the servant is no better than his Lord: Kings may as lawfully be punished for their crimes as other men: because in dignity and power they are inferior to the people: they are the Ministers and Servants of the Commonwealth, not Masters of the State, which title good Kings did never scorn, nay evil Princes have affected that name, and for some ages none of the Roman Emperors (unless those who were most manifest wicked, and notorious professed tyrants, as Caligula, Nero, Domitian) would be called Lords.  
2. If the King as King, be the people's Creature, they his Creator, then by the same power they may un-king him: For eodem modo quid constituitur dissolvitur, in what manner a thing is constituted it may be dissolved. Again, Omnia quae jure contrahuntur contrario jure pereunt.  
3. Whosoever grants that the King in power is inferior to the people, he must necessarily grant that by this power duly and rightly administered, a King for treason and murder may lawfully be put to death, for it is absurd and irrational to say, there may be a power, and the due executing of it unlawful.  
4. If our forefathers in times past have given away all their power and right to Kings, and have sworn not to punish them for tyranny and misgovernment, it concerns us not, neither are we tied to such engagements, oaths, promises which they have made, but in point of conscience, law and reason, are free to use our own due power, as occasion shall be offered  
13 object As the King is above the people in dignity and power, so say Royalists, he is absolute, and hath a prerogative above all law. Such a plenitude and fullness of power (saith Sanches) 
Th. San. Ma. Tom 1. l. 2. dis. 15. n. 3.  as subject to no necessity, Nulliusq. publici juris regulis limitatus and bounded with rules of no public law. And so Baldus before him. 
Bald. l 2. n 40. c. de s. & aqua.  Ulpian saith, 
Ulpian. l. de regib.  The Prince is loosed from laws. Bodin 
Bodin de Rep. l. 7. cap. 20.  Nemo imperat sibi, no man commandeth himself. Tholosanus saith, Ipsius dare non accepere: the Prince giveth laws, but receiveth none. Donellus distinguisheth betwixt a law, and a Royal law proper to the King. 
Don. l. 1. come. c. 17  Trentlerus saith, 
Trens, vol 1. ●…9. 8.  The Prince is freed from laws, and that he obeyeth laws, de honestate non de necessitate, upon honesty, not of necessity: And with him Soto, Gregorius de valentia and other Schoolmen, subject the king to the directive power of the law, and liberate him of the coactive power of the law.  
It is reported of one Licas and Thrasilius, being cured by Physicians of the Frenzy and fantastical conceits, grew afterwards very angry with their friends because they left them not alone in their former foolish condition. I know there is little thanks to be expected from the Kings of the earth, by seeking to remove that State destroying principle which their Court-flatterers have put into them, as, Absoluteness, a prerogative above law, not under power of any jurisdiction etc. nevertheless, the work being useful and necessary for the public good, it is fit it should be taken in hand.  
That God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a King above law, is clearly proved thus:  
1. He is appointed of God, even when he sitteth on the throne, to take heed to read on a written copy of God's Law, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep all the words of this Law. 
Deut. 17,18,19.  Notwithstanding the greatness of the affairs of his Kingly office, he must read the Law, the more carefully to observe and obey it in every particular, for the ordering of his own life, and for the government of the people.  
2. Whatsoever power a King hath, he hath it from the people, and all the power they gave him, is a legal and lawful power, to guide themselves in peace and godliness, and save themselves from unjust violence, by the benefit of Rulers; and therefore to claim a power above Law, or to use a tyrannical power against the people for their hurt and destruction, or to be exempted from punishment; is not only against the people's intention in their election, but such a power as they never gave him, never had, never could give; for they cannot give what they never had, and power to destroy themselves, they never had, nor to save any man, who should commit such crimes, as by the Law of God and nature deserveth death. I say such a power the people never had, never gave him, and so consequently a King hath it not.  
3. The Law saith, Illud possimus quod jure poscimus. Again, it is no power which is not a lawful power, and therefore if a King murder the innocent, and do acts of sinful injustice, this tyrannical power is not from God, otherwise then by way of permission, as a power to sin, in devils and men is; and therefore such a power is restrainable and punishable by the subject, as being a power, I say, not from God at all.  
4. Note the conditions  or express, upon which the Prince receiveth the crown: For soedus conditionatum, aut promissio conditionalis mutua, facit vis alteri in alterum; a mutual conditional covenant giveth Law and power over one to another: I ask then, why a subject breaking his covenant with the King by treason or rebellions should be punished for it justly; and the King breaking his covenant and oath with the people in degenerating into a tyrant, and murdering the innocent, should not be punished likewise? Specially seeing it is acknowledged, That the States of the Kingdom who gave him the crown are above him, and they may take away what they gave him, as the Law of Nature and God saith, Qui habet potestatem constituendi, etiam & jus adimendi. 
Rutl plea for the people. quest. 26. pag. 234. l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg, jur l. ille a quo 13. S.   
5. If the King turn a parricide, a lion, a waster, and a destroyer of the People, as a man he is Subject to the coactive Laws of the land; if any thing should hinder that a Tyrant should not be punished by law, it must be, either because he hath not a superior, but God, or nemo potest a se ipso cogi: but this ground is false and absurd, for a politic society, as by nature's instinct, they may appoint a head or heads to themselves, so also if their head or heads become ravenous wolves, the God of nature hath not left a perfect society, and free people remediless, but they may arraign and punish the head or heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good, not for their destruction.  
6. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt two equals; yea, or superiors and inferiors, the one hath some coactive power over the other. If the father give his bond to pay the son a thousand pounds, as his patrimony; though before this engagement the father was not obliged, but only by the law of nature to give a patrimony to his son: yet now by a politic obligation of promise, covenant, and writ, he is so obliged to his son, to pay a thousand pound, that by the Law of Nations, and the civil law, the son hath now a coactive power by law to compel his father, though his superior, to pay him so much of his patrimony. Even so (though it should be granted (which I shall never grant) that the King stands superior to his Kingdom and States, yet if the King come under covenant with his Kingdom (as ours have done) he must by that come under some coactive power to fulfil his covenant: for omne promissum (saith the Law) cadit in debitum, what any man doth promise falleth under debt. If the Covenant be politic and civil, than the King must come under a civil obligation, to perform the covenant, and though there be none on earth superior to King and people to compel them both, to perform what they have promised; yet the jure by the law of nations each may compel the other to mutual performance. And this is clear, 1. By the law of Nations, if one nation break covenant with another, though both be Independent, yet hath the wronged Nation power, de jure, to press performance, and to force the other to keep covenant, or punish them for violation.  
2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant, described by Solomon, 
Pro. 6.1,3  My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger: Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, and art taken with the words of thy mouth. The meaning is, by a word of promise and covenant, the creditor hath coactive power, though he be an equal or an inferior to the man who is surety, even by law to force him to pay, and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the debtor, that he may force the creditor to pay. If then the King (giving, not granting he were superior to his whole Kingdom) come under a covenant to them, to preserve their rights, lives, liberties: but contrariwise destroys their persons, goods, cities, by sword, plunder, and fire, by his commissions granted to inhuman malignants and bloody Irish, they have power to compel him to give satisfaction.  
3. The law shall warrant to lose the vassal from his lord, when his lord hath broken his covenant. Hippolytus in L. Si quis viduam, col. 5. & dixit de quoest. l. Si quis major, 41. & 161. Boltol. n. 41. The Magdeburgens. in libel. de Offic. Magist. Imperatores & Reges esse Primarios vassallos imperii, & Regni, & proinde fi feloniam contra Imperium, aut Regnum committant, feudo privari, proinde ut alias vasallos.  
14 obie. I find this to be a main objection, That there is no law for subjects to put their Kings to death, for any crime. It is (saith Bodin) a great difference to say that a King may be lawfully slain, by a strange Prince, or by his Subjects  
It is no commendation or grace given to the law, that it should be like the spider's web, that catcheth the little flies, and lets the greater escape.  
But to answer. 1. It is an error and a great mistake, to say, that the Commons in the house of Parliament, or the representative Kingdom are subjects to the King. This I utterly deny, to wit, as they are Judges, there, to be subjects to the King, neither do they Judicially convent his Person before them, censure and judge him to death, (quatenus) as subjects: but thus, He being a minister, a steward, or servant of the people, and they representing the whole body of the people, do call him to an account, not as Subjects to him, but indeed as his lord and master, and so have a Sovereign power to judge him to death, if his crimes deserve the same.  
2 In point of law Bodin gives us the whole cause, 
Ibid.  for he confesseth Where the Prince that bears rule is not an absolute Sovereign, but the Sovereignty is either in the people or Nobility: in such a case (saith he) there is no doubt, but it is lawful to proceed against a Tyrant in way of justice, and to put him to death: and gives for it the example of Nero and Maximinius. That the Kings of England have not been absolute Monarches, but the Supreme Sovereignty resided in the people, is a thing certainly known, and so abundantly proved by other hands, as there cannot be any show of reason brought against it.  
3. Seeing the King is under law, and the representative of the people above the King to proceed in justice against him, hence it will necessarily follow, that the King by law, may lawfully be put to death: for the law saith, the highest or supremest Judge upon earth, cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him. 
A. de le. l. non ideo minns. Rom. 3,4 Deu. 1.17   
And the reason is, he is, but the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. And if the judgement be the Lords, not man's, not the Parliaments, as indeed it is not, he cannot then draw the sword against the innocent, nor absolve the guilty, except the would take upon him, to be wiser than God, respect persons in judgement, and dispose of that which is proper to his master. Now sure it is, God only univocally and essentially as God, is judge; and God only and essentially, and all men in relation to him, are ministers, legates, deputies, servants, I say, in relation to him, equivocally and improperly Judges, and mere created, and breathing shadows of the power of the King of Kings. And look as the Scribe following his own devise and writing, what sentence he pleaseth, is not an officer of the court in that point, nor the pen and servant of the Judge: so the Supreme Council of State, and Representative of the Kingdom arraigning the King for murder, Treason, and other high misdemeanours, would be but forged intruders and bastard Judges, and go contrary to Law, so far as they gieve not the very sentence of God, and are not the very mouth of the judge of Heaven and Earth, to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himself would do, if he were sitting on the throne or bench.  
4. Howsoever there be some solemnities of the Law, from which the King may be free, which indeed are not Laws (as Prickman proveth) 
D. c. n. 78  but some circumstances belonging to the Laws: Nevertheless, if a king commit murder, adultery, theft, and be a traitor, a waster, and destroyer of his people, their goods, lives, Laws, Liberties, contrary to his oath and Coronation-Covenant, in this case I confidently affirm, there is no law (that hath reason, equity, or justice for its bottom and ground) against the putting of such a King to death by the great Council of State (as we have formerly showed) above him. And the reason is clear, for the people have no power to make a law, that the King shall not die by the hand of Justice what wickedness soever he should commit.  
5. I would gladly be informed by any jurist, or Statist, If a Tyrant without a title may be killed, yea by a private man; why a Tyrant that hath lost his right and title to the Crown, by the highest Judicature in the Kingdom, may not lawfully be put to death. 
Ut L. & vim F de Justit. & jure ubi plene per omnes.  For the first, the law gives it, and it is so generally held by Vasquez, Barclay and others. 
Vasq. l. 1 c. 8. n. 33. Bar. count. Monar. l. 4: cap. 10 pag. 286.  And for the latter, observe what Royalists themselves acknowledge, Winzetus against Buchan, saith of Nero, 
Wintzet. adv. Buc. p. 275.  that he seeking to destroy the Senate and People of Rome, and seeking to make new laws for himself, excidit jure Regni, lost all right to the kingdom. And Barclay saith, a Tyrant such as Caligula, spoliare se jure Regni, spoileth himself of the right to the Crown. So Grotius, 
Groti. de jure bell. & pac. l. 1 cap. 4.  Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur emittit regnum, If he turn enemy to the kingdom for their destruction he loseth his kingdom: because (saith he) Voluntas imperandi, & voluntas perdendi, simul consistere non possunt. A will or mind to govern and to destroy, cannot consist together in one.  
6 The cutting off of a contagious member, that by a Gangreen would corrupt the whole body is well warranted by nature and reason: for the safety of the whole is to be preferred before a part. But here perhaps, it will be objected, cut off a man's head, and the life of the body is taken away; so the King being the head, destroy him, and the whole body of the Commonwealth is dissolved. I answer. God cutteth off the spirits of Tyrannous Kings, and yet the Commonwealth is not dissolved: For 1. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortal thing, cannot be referred to the immortal Commonwealth, as it is adequate correlate. 2. If all the Kings of the earth were removed, yet the Commonwealth would not leave off to be a body, it would be only a casting off of one form of Government for another, the worse for the better; but the natural body without the head cannot live.  
Lastly, Mr. Pryn citing some Law-Books, where the King is said to be the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, hath no Peer in his Kingdom, ought not to be under man. 
Sovereign power of Parl, l. 1. p 104, 105.  Thus answereth, 1. That the meaning of all these books is, the king is above every one of his Subjects particularly & distributively as single men: but if we take them collectively in Parliament, as they are one body, and represent the whole kingdom, than they are above the King, and may, yea, aught to restrain and question his actions, his maladministrations, if there be just cause. 2. Bracton explains himself how he is highest and without a Peer, to wit, in distributing justice, that is, he is the highest justiciar in the Kingdom, but as the Law as any in receiving justice. And for the Oath of Supremacy, it relates to the Pope's foreign Princes authority, formerly usurped in this Realm, and not at all to be referred to Parliaments, or their jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, not so much as once thought of by the subscribers of this Oath, which had its creation and authority from the Parliament.  
15. Obje Some say, For people to adjudge their King to death, is without example, either in Scripture or humane history.  
Answ. 1. We argue this negatively, this is neither commanded, nor practised, nor warranted by promise: Ergo. It is not lawful, But this is not practised in Scripture: Ergo. It is not lawful, It followeth not. I read not in all the word of God, of a man put to death, for lying with a beast, for witchcraft, for tempting the people to go a whoring and serving a false God; yet these things are written, and are all divine precepts.  
2. Physicians say, that that Physic which only stirs the humours, and doth not carry them away, leaves the body worse than it found it: so, it hath been seen by often and woeful experience, when the States of a kingdom have only stirred their Princes by opposing and resisting their tyranny and misgovernment, and not cut them off, they have brought upon themselves and the whole Realm the more mischief and misery afterward.  
3. Former examples are no binding rules to us, otherwise than we see men have acted according to reason, religion, Law; for wherein soever they differed from these things, therein ought we to differ from them. 4. If kings formerly have not judicially been put to death for murder, treason, and other capital crimes, it is the more needful and useful that such a thing should now be done, that all other Nations far and near may hence know and learn, what their duty is, and what they may lawfully do, in point of Law and conscience, and not stand still as if they were beasts in a base and senseless slavery any longer.  
But Fiftly. To speak more directly to the objection, There is no new thing under the sun. We have many examples of Emperors & Kings which have judicially been condemned & put to death by the Sovereign power of the people. 
Matth. Par. pag. 273, 274, 275.  Not to speak of Nero mentioned before: nor of our King John who was condemned to death by a Parliament in France, for slaying his Nephew Arthur treacherously with his own hands, and likewise to lose the Crown of England. It is said of Amaziah king of judah 2 King. 14.19. That they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish, but they sent after him to Lachish and slew him there. Not privately, but openly, as acted by public authority for his great impiety, and having broken his Oath and Covenant: whereupon we read not of any complaint, inquisition, proceeding, or punishment inflicted on those that slew him after his death either by the people, or his children, as there was upon those that slew king Amon: but being slain, They (to wit, the persons who had put him to death) brought him on horses, and he was buried in Jerusalem: and all the people of Judah made Ahaziah King. Which plainly shows that what was formerly done by the greater part of the State at Jerusalem, was afterward confirmed by Common-consent, and executed by command of those which might lawfully do it.  
In like manner Andronieus, was apprehended, deposed, & put to death by the people for his tyranny and oppression. 
Nic. Chr An nails fol. 52. Grimst. Emp. hlst pag. 160. Reg. Sco Buchan. lib. 4. pa. 111.  So julianus, not only deprived of the Empire, but authoritatively commanded to be slain in his palace. Heliogabulus (that monster of mankind) was by the Praetorian Soldiers, put to death with the Senate and people's approbation. Dardan King of Scotland by the unanimous consent of the Nobles and people had his head cut off (which they carried about for a laughingstock) and threw his corpse into a jakes, after he had reigned 4. years, Lucktock the 22 King of Scotland, for his vicious and base life was convented before an assembly of the chief men and slain with the instruments of his wickedness. 
ib. p. 113.  Eugenius the 8. another of their Kings, was for his filthy lusts, covetousness, and cruelty, slain in the assembly of his Lords, by their general consent, and his companions in villainy and wickedness hanged: Et ipsi gratum populo speculatum praebuere: 
pag. 165.  which was a greateful spectacle to the people.  
So Agis and Pausanias two Lacedaemonian Princes put to death by the people. 
Mun. cos. l. 5. c. 37. p. 1248.  So the Thracian Kings for their offences by public consent were punished with death. The usual practice of the Saboeans was to stone their Kings, if they highly transgressed and went beyond their bounds. If need were, it might be showed out of Histories and approved Authors, that the Athenians, jonians, Melesians, Marchomanni, Quadi. Persians, Sicilians, Corinthians, Parthians, Meroes', Gardii, Medes, Paphii, Cathians, Ethiopians, Sidonians, Germans, Swedes, Danes; and anciently even all other Nations, not only prescribed laws, and lim●… to their Kings, but called them usually to an account for their misgovernment, and oft times put them to death when they saw cause. 
Alex. ab ●… 4. ●… fol. ●…. ●uel. & Gibel. pli l. 4. Alex. l. 6. c. 4. Plut. in Arat. Val.   
6 The putting to death of Tyrants in former times hath been held so lawful and honourable, as large rewards have been propounded to the undertakers and authors thereof, and to the living they have given the goods of the Tyrant as to the deliverer of their Country, and honoured the dead with Epitaphs, and Statutes of brass, as in Athens, Harmodius, and Aristogiton, together with Brutus, and Cassius: 
Max. l. 2. c. ult. L. 3. & L. om● ne delictum, Sect. ut F. de re mil.  in Greece Aratus the Sycienian, and thus by public Decree of their States, because they had freed their several countries from the tyranny of Pasistratus, Caesar, Nicoebis, yea, those monuments of Tyrant-killers by antiquity were so honoured and highly esteemed of, as they placed them in their Temples on sacred banqueting beds: And when Xerxes (having vanquished the Athenians) had carried away with him the Statutes of Harmodius and Aristogiton into his own country: Seleucus one of the successors of Alexander the great King of Syria, caused them with all diligence to be carried back again, and to be set up in their own places.  
In Norway anciently they had this custom, That whosoever slew a Tyrant King, was thereby made a King. 
Gul. Neu brig. l. 3. cap. 6.  And what the Poet wrote was the opinion then, and common saying of the people. 
— Victima haud ulla amplior  
Potest, magisve opima mactari jovi  
Quam Rex iniquus.  
To God no better offering can men bring,  
Nor fatter, than a wicked Tyrant King.   
For conclusion: This only I shall add, to say, There is not an example any where of the like practice. If it be meant not so judicially and according to the strict rule and form of law, I confess there may be much truth in it: For commonly heretofore, amongst all Nations, jews. Turks, Papists, Heathens, etc. People observed not the manner as matter, they thought Tyrants so worthy of death, as they did not much mind how and in what way to cut them off, so they were destroyed; hence it came to pass, that few tyrannous princes in old time ever died a natural death, but either by their subjects, or their means were slain in war, or by some private hand made out of the way: which gave juvenal occasion to say, 
Ad generum Cereris sine caede & sanguine pauci  
Descendunt Reges & sicca morte Tyranni.  
Few Tyrants unto Pluto's Court do go  
But that are thither sent by bloody blow.   
And therefore this late proceeding against the King, seeing it was so legal, it shall live and remain upon record to the perpetual honour of our English State, who took no dark or doubtful way, no indirect ●…by-course, but went in the open and plain path of Justice, Reason, ●…w, and Religion: and in this regard they need not fear the reproaches and falsehood of malicious tongues and pens; for as God doth approve their work, and owns it, so he will defend them, his, and their Cause in spite of all treacherous and wicked Designs, either of Men or Devils.  
The end of the First Part.