THE Execution of the late KING, JUSTIFIED; And the Parliament and Army therein VINDICATED: Published for Satisfaction to the Kingdom,  
By a Wellwisher to the safety and freedom thereof.  
Deut. 16.18. Judges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all the Cities which the Lord thy God giveth thee, etc.  
Deut. 1.17. Ye shall have no respect of person in judgement, ye shall not fear the face of man, for the judgement is Gods.  
Amos 5.24. And let judgement run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty River.  
Jer. 22.17. But thy eyes and thy heart are but only for thy covetousness, and to shed innocent blood, and for oppression and destruction even to do this.  
Levit. 23.17. He that killeth any man, shall be put to death.  
Numb. 35.31, 33. Moreover ye shall take no recompense for the life of the murderer, which is worthy to die: but he shall be put to death. So ye shall not pollute the Land wherein ye shall dwell: for blood defileth the Land, and the Land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.  
Jer. 22.18. Therefore, thus saith the Lord, against Jehoiakim, the Son of Josiah King of Judah, they shall not lament him, saying: Ah, my Brother, or ah Sister, neither shall they mourn for him, saying, Ah, Lord, or ah, his glory.  
LONDON, Printed by M. Simmons, in Aldersgate Street, 1649.   

To the Reader.  
Judicious Reader,  
I Thought good (in times of so great and voluntary distraction and dissatisfaction about our civil rights) to testify my integrity to the good of this my native Country, according to my ability by some following Propositions and resolutions of doubts thereupon in reference to the late transactions of Parliament and Army in justice upon the late King, and the rather (though many more rational and so should have been more satisfactory discourses hereupon hath been published) because some men notwithstanding remain obstinate and perverse under a clear light; therefore as by many witnesses a truth is the more confirmed, so by the multiplicity, diversity, and distinction of arguments and reasons (as for aught I know these are from other men's) a just cause may be more clearly manifested, and the spirits of these men (being satisfied) reduced to an acknowledgement of the past equal proceed of (though the minor part) the Parliament and Army, and the present perseverance of both, in them, therefore when thou readest it, do it not obstinately, but be willing to be convicted by the truth, which is the main end for which I offer up these my first Fruits to thee and the Kingdom, which to attain is the only desire of him, who is thine unknown friend in the people's service, etc.   

THE Execution of the late KING, JUSTIFIED; And the Parliament and Army therein VINDICATED.  
AS wise Men before they build, lay a good foundation; so for a right procession in this discourse, we must consider the constitution of Government from which [not being rightly weighed] springs all our differences and contradictions in this Kingdom; I shall therefore state the constitution of Government two ways, viz. Legal, and Illegal constitutions or ordination of Government, to explain the terms; Lawful ordination of Government is that which [as near as possible] is according to God's prescription: Unlawful, is that which is contrary to, or divers from God's prescription in that way of Government which the people shall choose, which hath been [according to the then immoderate importunity of the people] since Saul, almost hitherto, Kingly Government, and that in three lawful respects, viz. By unction, the people's approbation or election, and lawful succession; so that whosoever is qualified with these three particulars must be [according to the constitution of that Government] a lawful King, but it being clear that the first of these particulars [viz. immediate unction or unction by commandment] is withdrawn [so that in that sense no King now can be called the Lords Anointed] from us; it remains, that he that is King by the people's election or approbation, and lawful succession, is [according to the institution of that Government] a warranted King: But on the contrary, he that is not so elected [lawful succession (to one freely chosen and not that usurped authority and forced submission) being only beneficial to a man for preferment in choice, if he (as well qualified) come in competition with others] his authority is usurped and illegal. For let him plead succession [though lawful] never so much, yet if the people forbear to choose him, because defective in his qualifications; he is, in a degree as incapable as a Fool for the Office; so then lawful succession depending upon the people's election; hence will arise this undeniable Proposition, that that man that assumes the Kingly office only by virtue of [though lawful] succession is a Usurper, and doth presume upon the people's rights; now this was the only plea that our late King had or could have to his Office: seeing he could pretend no right to it from unction, because as (before said) it is withdrawn, neither from the people [it is clear in that they have made so much opposition against him] that he continued in it, neither was it from the people's free election, that he reigned so long, in that he never acknowledged such a power to be in them, 'twas only then through an ignorant submission by them (or if they were convicted of their right yet through their impotency) that our late King first assumed and since so long continued in the Office, now therefore, the title that he (on his part) claimed to it, and thereupon entered, was by a pretended right through [though illegal, because originally from conquest] succession: So that the premises considered, there needs no other proof to demonstrate that his title was usurped; yet for further conviction [and not to lay any more burden upon him, or prejudice him in the thoughts of people, he having enough already where ever he be] and satisfaction to men's spirits concerning his Execution, and that we may with more ease and contentedness of mind (in respect of the flesh) forget him from whom we had received, and could expect so little good [though his impenitency should better us] let us consider and review in ourselves, his actions since his reign, even to his very death (which should sadden us to think of) and they have clearly demonstrated that he took it upon no other terms, then to rule according to his will; which [though it lay in his heart from his first possession] was not evaporated till these his latter and last years, wherein [the people claiming their rights] he hath most manifestly and audaciously [though contrary to all reason] declared himself inaccountable to men, [though from them as a people (and so his Master) he had received, if it were Legal, his power and authority] for his actions; than which nothing can more nullify and frustrate the Law of God, which upon a breath thereof, doth include all whatsoever, without exception of persons, under the penalty of it; as to instance several, universal injunctions of God in Scripture, Sine aliqua exceptione & quae ad universos pertinent, without any exception, but belong to all alike as men: as in particular, that in Levit. 20.2. The Lord there speaking unto Moses, said, Thou shalt say also to the Children of Israel, whosoever he be of the Children of Israel, or of the strangers that dwell in Israel, that giveth his Children to Molech, he shall die the death, etc. Moses and all the head Officers of the people being included in [if in this transgression] the punishment thereof, in as much as they were among the Children of Israel; and in the 10. verse of the same Chapter, God saith, The man that committeth adultery with another man's Wife, etc. shall die the death: Now we know, that the Office of any, though never so high, doth not, or at least should not elevate him above his being, he is a man still, though in Office a King, and though in respect thereof, God saith, I said ye are Gods, that is in respect of your Office, be it high or low, which is, to manage your power in the execution of justice and judgement, in which you bear my image, ye are gods in being like God, though I have said so, yet ye shall die like men, which in the general sense of it, may have respect to a temporal death common to all men, whose nature you Magistrates bear, yet may very well bear this interpretation likewise, Ye shall die like men; That is, all sorts of men [if alike qualified] if murderers, ye shall die like men; that is, those men that are murderers; if adulterers, ye shall suffer like adulterers, the rigour (in reference to many sins) not the punishment of the Law being taken away by Christ: Now then, the former interpretation agreeing with the precited Text, shows clearly that the Law of God exempts none (neither high or low, rich or poor Magistrates or Subjects) from the punishment [in case of transgression] thereof; now for any man to plead freedom [because in the highest authority] which notwithstanding is derived, is to contradict the Word of God, which saith, Numb. 35.30. Whosoever killeth any person, the Judge shall slay the murderer through witnesses, etc. And yet such (would be outlaws) will plead exemption; (I speak not (only in reference to this opinion in the late King) but to such that are of his spirit, that connived at, and still approve of such an opinion in him, at least at the impunity of it, whether they be Magistrates or others, ye look more at the privilege and the honour then the care of the Office, and therefore he was, and you are, far from Solomon's spirit, that discerned it to be the hardest matter to govern the people in righteousness, and therefore made it his prayer to God, to beg wisdom, and that not for his own ends, but to rule the people in equity; he made their good the centre of his endeavours, you, the late King's prerogative, his riches, greatness, and long life, the centres of yours; Solomon rejected all these, in competition with the people's good, and how acceptable it was to God, will appear in 1 Kings 3.11. An example we have of the same spirit in Christ himself towards the good of his Sheep, John 10.11. Where he saith, I am that good Shepherd, that good Shepherd layeth down his life for his Sheep: But how distant was the spirit of the late King from such a temper, that for a little self accommodation and forcible preservation of a few usurped Privileges, to himself, sought to destroy (if he were as Shepherd) his Sheep. The same example we have of Nehemiah 5.14. that would not burden the people to pleasure himself: By this therefore it is evident that Kings have some earthly power above them, which they serve, and whose good must be the end of their power; to which then, as their superior, they must be accountable, without which their power is usurped, and by which they are deposed, prevented, or punished, according to the demerit of their fault; Now then to confirm this, there is the example of Solomon, who was so fare from pleading any title of his own to the Office, that in the former part of his prayer; he saith, Lord thou hast made thy servant King (speaking of himself) in stead of David my Father; now that it is a righteous act upon just grounds to prevent a successor, it is manifest by this Gods own example, because that Adonijah by right of succession, was heir to the Crown, yet notwithstanding was prevented by God, who foresaw, that the people's good would not be so much aimed at by him as by Solomon: So that here will sitly intervene this observation, that the Authority of all Magistrates depends upon their good behaviour, and that it is lawful in case of misdemeanour either to prevent or dispossess them of their power. The proof whereof, I shall further amplify, in discussing particularly the kingly Office in the quality of it what it is, which I shall briefly resolve in two particulars.  
First, It is a trust.  
Secondly, An Office or Duty.  
A trust in that it is committed (not from God by injunction by which only trust is imposed but by his permission) to a man, from men; so than it cannot be from succession, which if lawful, hath only (in case of good behaviour) a preference to the trust; that is, a man lawfully succeeding (if as well qualified as others) is to be preferred (in choice to the trust) before them; therefore, as it is a trust, so secondly it is a duty, in that he is enjoined to perform that trust, as by God that would have every man (like himself) faithful, so by men from whom he receives his charge, and therefore they must needs be his intrusters, in that likewise the end of his trust is for their own good and welfare, to whom then he must without question be accountable, and therefore a King to a people, is as an accountant to a Company, a Cashkeeper to his Master: Now if a King, or any other Magistrate shall act quite contrary to the end of their trust, viz. the people's good, which was the conditions of their authority, and in stead thereof, make it as a mantle that thereunder they may more securely preadvance their own private interest, though directly prejudicial to the end of their Office; let the meanest capacity judge, whether such a Magistrate or Magistrates have not forfeited their trust, upon which the intrusters may justly cease, as to render to the person or persons so offending according to his or their deserts therein, so to institute that trust, that way the see best to discharge it, seeing the end thereof is their own welfare; it is reason itself therefore, that the Servant should be accountable to his Master (for how ridiculous would it be for any Servant (a King being so to a people) because long entrusted without examination, to refuse accounting, when by his Master called thereunto) wherein if defective he may justly exclude him his service, for otherwise such a servant would be an intolerable burden (and so frustrate the design and end of service which is for good and ease) to his Master, and therefore the reason why God (when he commanded the people to choose themselves a King from among their brethren, Deut. 17. from the 15. to the last verse) prescribed him Laws and rules to walk by, and many things was forbidden him that he might not be exalted above his brethren: And therefore Samuel 2.5.1. the Elders of Israel made this among others as an argument to them to make David their King, in that they were his bones and his flesh: Now I need not make any application of this to the late King, since it is publicly known how much he was (and in his seven year's contention sought to have been) exalted above (not his brethren, because not chosen from among them) the people; but it being before clearly demonstrated that he is guilty of breach of trust herein, I need not appeal to rational men of the justness of the Parliaments and Armies late proceeding against him, or make any further proof of that his and his complices wilful error for an absolute power in him; yet for full and clear conviction, I shall demonstrate another proof of the unlawfulness and perniciousness of such an inaccountable power in any Magistrates, and then clear objections and conclude.  
The Proposition was this, That the authority of Magistrates depends upon their good behaviour; I shall turn it into the negative, and from thence prove it: so than if the authority of Magistrates, superior as well as inferior, depends not upon their good behaviour, than their power is absolute, and they may do what they will without contradiction or questioning, which is encroachment upon, and directly oppugnant to the rights and liberties of the people, and therefore such a power is unlawful. For first, it is against the Covenant that Magistrates take when they are first invested with power; which signifies that there is some bond or tye upon their will, that they cannot do what they please, else to what purpose should they take a Covenant: whence by the way I note, that that man which assumes an absolute power where it is not given him, at the same time he both breaks his Covenant and usurps that power.  
Secondly, If Magistrates have an absolute power, as some would have had wholly in the King, why then the Kingdom lies at a very great uncertainty; it is upon one perhaps, that if the King or superior Magistrates be good, the Kingdom will be saved: but there are ten perhapses, ten it may bees, for one that is contrary; that the King or Superior Magigistrates are bad [especially they knowing themselves to have such a power] upon which the destruction of the Kingdom lies; now there is no reason [I speak for prevention of danger for future, whatsoever government shall be settled] that we should expose ourselves to chance among such rocks, especially when we know where they are, and how to avoid them, whereunto this is a strong motive, to consider, that though extremity be the fittest season for God to step in and deliver; yet all other means must fail, otherwise it is to tempt God; for though God doth often deliver with the means, yet he saveth not where lawful means is not first used; why so, if there were no means of avoiding this absolute power in Magistrates, we were free from our own destruction: but if we will obstinately venture upon these rocks, as the Israelites upon a K. it may be just with God to split us upon them; for the greatest sin of the Israelites was their desire to return into [after God had released them] Egyptian bondage, which at last proved their greatest plague.  
Thirdly and lastly, If Magistrates have an absolute power over the people, than that general and undeniable maxim, salus populi suprema lex is but a vapour, it vanisheth away: and so that which out of duty they are to prefer as the end of their trust, becomes subject to their unconstant wills and disposions; For, the people's safety [it being really consonant to the word of God, in that it confirms propriety, every man to sit under his own Vine, as a blessing] that should by all (if not ordinary) extraordinary means be endeavoured, is hereby made postrema lex, or rather no law at all, in that it is then dependant upon the wavering disposition of Magistrates; which if good, (as it is ten for one to the contrary, in that they have more abundance of temptations from such an inherent power in them) yet where will appear the supremacy of the people's safety, when it lies in the Magistrate's power▪ Nay, can we repute that people any other than slaves whose rights and liberties lie wrapped up in the will of usurping Magistrates, whether in a King or others. Indeed the rights and liberties of the people are much talked of: but when they come in question of preferment, alas, they gulp down all the liberties, and therein the livelihoods of the people, into the honour, safety, and happiness of such trust-usurping men, whose principles are to maintain such a power, which surely is not derivative, and therefore usurped; then which, nothing can tend more to enslave a people, to whom, while so, to ascribe any rights or liberties, is to mock and deride them. For how can the people, rights and liberties be dissolved into a Kings, or any other Magistrates will and power, and yet be theirs; therefore, when we speak of the people's liberties, we do (or at least should) mean something peculiarly theirs; that for any man to usurp must needs induce the slavery, which is as much contrary to liberty, as light to darkness.  
Now than it being clear, that it is usurpation in Magistrates to assume an absolute power; it follows by consequence, that those that do so, are accountable; for the very motion, life and soul, the marrow, and the nourishment of such a power in Magistrates, is the people's incapacity of opposing and punishing that irruption upon their liberties by them: and to take away this power from the people, is to deprive them of their liberties; for how can those be the poples (in that they are made incapable to maintain them) liberties, when they are subject to the power of outlaws; or wherefore have they a right or a title to them, if they cannot enjoy them; and how can they enjoy them, when they are at others command; therefore seeing the people have a peculiar right and title unto liberties which cannot be enjoyed, unless by their own power maintained, it is clear, that the same law by which they may justly endeavour the enjoyment of (which cannot be but in opposition to those that would usurp) their rights, they may impartially punish such usurpers answerable to their crimes; for the attempt of such a power deserves devestment, and much more the practising of it punishment. I shall proceed now to the objections.  
And the first is this; say some, have we not taken an oath of obedience to the late K. how then could it stand with our oath to disobey him; to which I shall add (because both of a nature) that of another party, viz. Have not we covenanted to maintain and defend and preserve the honour, safety, and happiness of the late King's person; how then hath it consisted with our Covenant in taking away his life? To both which I shall answer but a little, because I refer the Reader to be more fully and amply satisfied herein, by a Book which I shall suddenly publish, entitled, Illumination to Zion. College, by a moderate reply to their Letter delivered to the General, January 18. last.  
But to the first of the precedent objections, I answer, that our oath of obedienee to superior Magistrates is, not was not absolute, or without conditions; for then (as I said before) to what purpose should we take an oath of him or them: and if our oath was absolute, we swore ourselves slaves, and therefore not a good oath, because taken in ignorance: but how irrational it is to think that we swore obedience universally, I need not demonstrate; therefore it being clear, that our oath was conditionally to yield obedience unto superior Magistrates in the execution of judgement and righteousness, which is the very end and cause of their authority and our obedience: and which if they omit, we are as disengaged from subjection to them as to a private person; because that in this their duty the become as (and more incapable of power because offenders, then] private person's: And therefore like to this was the Covenant that David made with Israel when he was made King, 2 Sam. 5.3. Where it is said, that all the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron, and King David made a Covenant with them before the Lord (a Covenant that he must keep if he would continue in his office) and (then) [after he had Covenanted with them to make things sure for the people] they anointed David King over Israel: Now the very substance [which he accordingly performed] of his Covenant to them is manifest in the 1 Chron. 18.14. So David reigned over all Israel and executed judgement and justice to all his people; there is a great deal of emphasis in that particle so, So David reigned over all Israel in the execution of Judgement and Justice, [as that the very being of his authority depended upon the keeping of that his Covenant] to all his people, his people, how? Why [not that they were at his pleasure, but he at theirs, as in 2 Sam. 18.3, 4. Where the people [not seeing it best for themselves] told David he should not go forth in the Battle; to whom he answered in the 4. Verse. What seemeth you best, that will I do; and David remained in the City, not for his own safety but for the peoples, (in that they saw it) good] but they were his people while he performed his Covenant, after he had executed Judgement and Justice unto them: I have been longer in this answer than I thought, for satisfaction sake.  
I shall very briefly answer that Objection of the other party in reference to the Covenant, that they say we made to preserve the late King's person, etc. To this therefore I reply, that this clause in the Covenant is qualified with the subsequent end thereof, which [they willingly slip over] is, in the preservation of our Religion and Liberties, the safety whereof is the end of our Covenant, and which we have sworn to endeavour in opposition to all the enemies thereof; now if the Parliament should, or as the late King did [notwithstanding our Covenant to preserve them, which was not otherwise then they should comply with us in endeavouring that end] turn enemies to what we have Covenanted solely to endeavour, we are engaged by our Covenant to oppose them as enemies and impediments of attaining our end; but for more ample satisfaction herein, I refer the Reader to that prenomitated Book, and proceed to answer two or three objections more and then conclude.  
Object. 2 Doth not God generally throughout the Scripture enjoin obedience to Magistrates as his Ordinance? I answer, That though God doth frequently in Scripture enjoin obedience to Magistrates, yet it is not to all Magistrates, or to good Magistrates in all cases: First, not to all Magistrates, for then Gods immediate command to Jehu, 2 Kings 9.6, 7, 8. to do what he did to his Master Jehoram the King, would directly contradict his own Word if he should enjoin us obedience to all, and command disobedience in him; Again, God enjoins not obedience to unlawful Magistrates, such as come not duly to their Office, and therefore the Apostle, Peter 1.2, 13. enjoins obedience to Magistrates, as being the ordinance of man; For saith he, Submit yourselves unto every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King as unto the superior: Superior, what? not as the Monarch, none to contradict him, but as the superior Ordinance of man, or unto Governors as unto them that are sent of him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well; here is likewise a limitation to our subjection, it is not to obey in all cases, but when they execute justice in the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well; for this is their place, and if they do not discharge this duty, they cease to be Magistrates; and this I conceive to be the meaning of that place, because it agrees with other Texts, 2. Samuel 5.3. Thus David was ordained, Deut. 1●. 18. and Deut. 17.15. And Officers shalt thou make thee in all the Cities, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, etc. And they shall judge the people with righteous judgement: Now than it is clear that the Lord enjoins obedience to none but lawful Magistrates and that in the just execution of their Office. I proceed now to the,  
Last Objection, and that is this, If Magistrates Object. 3 offend, where is there any power to punish them; this objection hath in effect been cleared already, but I shall answer it now more formally; in case a Magistrate, though the superior, transgress, there is a power above himself (from whence he receives his Commission) to which he is accountable, he being (as it were) but the people's Factor; for God commands a people to execute Justice and Judgement among themselves, no man to wrong his neighbour, and many other civil Laws to be observed, of which to ease themselves and avoid confusion, they commit their trust to Magistrates, and herein they promise particularly to obey them while they righteously discharge their Office; but now when to advance self, they begin to respect persons in judgement, they become accountable to the people, or those whom they shall choose to represent themselves in this judgement; and therefore we often read that the avenger of blood appointed on purpose thereunto, was to slay the murderer whoever he was, and when ever he met him, Deut. 35.21. Levit. 24.17. In other cases likewise we find that the Congregation itself was to give judgement; as when a man had accidentally (not voluntarily) committed murder, he was to remain in the City of refuge till he did stand before the Congregation in Judgement; that is, before such as they should appoint thereunto, Joshua 20.6. And therefore when GOD so often commands the people to execute Judgement and Justice without respect of persons, it lies upon their score [though God will likewise reckon with those whom they intrust to do it for them] if they omit it, Levit. 20.2. Whosoever he be of the Children of Israel or of the strangers that dwelleth in Israel that giveth his Children unto Molech, he shall die the death: Now here comes in the objection: What if a Ruler give his Children to Molech? Who shall kill him? Why the close of the Verse answereth it, The people of the Land shall stone him to death. But in the 4. Verse. What if the people of the Land hid their eyes, and wink at that man, etc. and kill him not? why in the 5. Verse, Then (saith God) will I set my face against that man and against his family, and will cut him off, etc. But how sad a thing is it when God shall find none in a Land to make up the hedge, to work righteousness, and thereby prevent God from taking the Sword himself to execute judgement; the Lord will power forth his indignation upon them, and consume them with the fire of his wrath, their own ways will he render upon their heads, Ezek. 22.30, 31.  
Now than the result of all will be this;  
That Kings if lawful [under which title I comprehend all Magistrates] are freely elected by the people, and accountable to them for their trust:  
But the late KING was not freely elected by, neither would be accountable to the people:  
Therefore he was not a lawful King, and his dispossession was just.  
Again,  
God's Law enjoins the execution of Justice and Judgement:  
The Parliament in their late Transactions, have executed Justice and Judgement:  
Therefore they have obeyed Gods Law.  
For how absurd is that opinion in some, that have complied with the Parliament in punishing of Delinquents, and yet they would leave the cause of them all unpunished.  
For how unjust would that be in any Authority to punish the Servant for ill doing, and yet leave the Master [at whose command he was and whom he obeyed therein] unpunished; I could multiply examples of the like kind, but to rational men the premises will be sufficient; but as for that particular way of Government by a King, it is not enjoined in Scripture as a necessary way of Government, in that the Prophet Samuel 1.11. to the 18. so much dehorted the Prophet from it, and so highly discovered the evil of it, and that it was a sin in the people so immoderately to desire it; therefore it is left to a people to establish what way of civil Government they see safest for themselves, and in which, Judgement may run down as Waters, and righteousness as a mighty River.  
FINIS.