The unlimited PREROGATIVE OF KINGS subverted. Or a Short Treatise grounded upon Scripture and Reason, to prove that Kings ought as well as others to be accountable for their Actions.  MATTHEW 22.21. 
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are Gods.  
By a well wisher to the Church of God, His King and Country.  
And dedicated to all such as love the Truth.  
THere will be times (saith the Apostle) wherein men will not endure sound doctrine, 2 Tim. 1.3. but will give heed to seduceing spirits, and doctrines of devils. 1 Tim. 4.1. And certainly if ever these times shall come to be fulfiled, now they are, when as Court Parasites and ambitious flatterers, Divines as well as others whose chiefest Policy now it is to have men's persons in admiration for advantage sake, jude 16. and to please those by whom they may be dignified or rewarded; care not what falsities they speak, nor what untruths they do maintain; and which is worst of all, are not ashamed to father their lies even upon the very Scriptures of truth themselves, wresting the same (as S. Peter saith, 2 Pet. 3.16. through their willingly wilful Ignorance) to their own destruction. Among which this is none of the least, which they say, That Kings are not responsal to any, save God for their actions: And for this they bring the saying of the Preacher, Eccles. 8.4 where he saith thus, Where the word of a King is there is power, and who may say unto him what dost thou? Which words if they be throughly scanned and examined, you shall find they yield no such construction; but rather the contrary: For in the 2d verse before going, the Wise man gives us this charge to keep the King's Commandment. I suppose, if they understand themselves they will not say that by virtue thereof we are bound to do whatsoever the King enjoins us, whether it be right or wrong: but that it hath respect to those things that are either agreeable, or at least not contrary to the Commandment of God; and the reason thereof is given in the words following in regard of the Oath of God. Now there are none (I think) will say (if Kings come lawfully in with the choice and consent of their People, as all lawful Kings do) that his Oath hath only respect unto the People, as if it did bind only on their part; but also on the part of the King, who Swears to rule and govern them according to the Laws of God, and of the Land; and upon this condition they Swear Obedience unto him. This we may see sufficiently proved by the Covenant of David made with his people, 1 Chron. 11.1. where it is said. All the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron, and David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord: and then it follows, they anointed him King over Israel. And then again we see this proved by the mutual Oath between joash and his people, 2 Chron. 23.11. where it is said, they brought out the King's Son and put upon him the Crown, and gave him the Testimony (that is to say) they made him enter into this Covenant to keep the Law of God, and to Govern them according thereunto: and then it follows, they made him King, and jehojada and his Sons anointed him, and said, God save the King. And so again in the 16. v. of the same chapter. By this you see here was an Oath aswell on the King's part as on the peoples; and thus the people are bound to keep the King's commandment, when he walks according to this rule. And such is the Oath of the Kings of England when they come to their Crowns and Kingdoms.  
Then he saith further in the 3d verse, Be not hasty to g●e out of his sight, stand not in an evil thing, for he doth whatsoever he pleaseth. I hope there are none that dare be so Sacrilegiously bold as from these words to attribute unto Kings an Almighty power as the words seem to import, which is an Attribute only proper unto God to be Almighty, as the Psalmist shows. Psal. 115.3. Our God is in the heavens, he hath done whatsoever he pleased: And Psal 135.6 Whatsoever the Lord pleased that did he in heaven and in earth etc. This were in an high measure to rob God of his glory and to give that to the creature that is only due to the Creator. Yet I know no reason why they may not say from these words (The King doth whatsoever he pleaseth) that Kings have an Almighty power; as well as to say from the other words (who may say unto him what dost thou?) that therefore Kings are accountable to none save God for their actions. For you see how the words follow one another, and what may be said of Kings in one respect, may be said of them in the other. But we may (if we will at least) take notice that these words are brought in as having relation to good or evil; and that this is a phrase applied unto Kings, only to show that their Power is great, and of a large extent. For the good of those that do well, and for the punishment of those that do evil; and that in respect thereof, we should have an awful and reverential regard of them; for so the words run, Stand not in an evil thing, for he doth whatsoever he pleaseth.  
Then for the words following, which are quoted by those that stand for the unlimited Prerogative▪ they have respect also to the same. And so it is most true, That where the word of a King is there is power: If speaking as a King should, performing the Office of a King; having respect to his Oath and Covenant between God and his people, in commanding those things that are good, and punishing those things that are evil, then indeed who may say unto him what dost thou? no man may call him to Question: for as much as God the King of Kings hath put this power into his hands. And what is that indeed that makes Kings many times so slighted, and so little feared of their people but this that they take no care at all to govern them according to their Laws? and what is it on the other side that adds majesty and magnificence unto them, but this, that they make the Laws of God and of the Land the rules of Magistracy and government? Herein consists the power of Kings, which the Wise m●n here so much speaks of. But now that this place is not so to be understood, as the Royalists of our times for their own ends would have it that Kings are n●t accountable unto men for their actions, may easily appear, by comparing this place with that in Dan. 4 35. where Nebucadnezzar after that he was restored again to his senses, and to his Kingdom, makes this acknowledgement concerning the power of God (Who may say unto him what dost thou?) Implying thus much, that howsoever Kings may be great, and their power may reach very fare, as he for his own part was none of the meanest, being the greatest Monarch that was then in the world yet this did not belong unto him nor unto any King else whatsoever but was Gods sole Prerogative only to be responsal unto none for his actions.  
By this you see how weak this place is for their purpose, who from hence would prove Kings unlimited power, as unaccountable to any save God: whereas all that the W●se man aims at, is nothing but this, to show the extent of the power of Kings for their people's good, as by their Oaths they are tied by all lawful ways to advance it; and withal to signify unto us, what an awful regard we ought to have of Kings, whom God hath invested with such a power.  
I: But say they Kings are Gods, and therefore are not accountable for any actions they do, and the Scripture calls them so.  
Answ. I● is true the Scripture doth so: yet none I believe will be so blasphemous as to say they are 〈◊〉, such as have an infinite being of and from themselves from all eternity: They will at most confess them to be but Elohim, and this name of God is communicable, and is oftentimes in Scripture applied unto other creatures, both Angels and Men; yet not to such Men only as have Kingly dignity, but unto all Rulers and Governors whatsoever: as we may see Psal. 82.1. where it is said, God stands in the Congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. And in the words following, the Psalmist incites, and stirs them up to the performance of their duties, in their place saying How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked; defend the poor and fatherless, do justice to the afflicted and needy, deliver the poor and needy, rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Then in the 6. verse again he saith, I have said ye are gods etc. In all this here we see there is not a word spoken of Kings in particular, but generally this phrase is applied unto all Rulers and Magistrates whatsoever: and besides we know that the duties before spoken of, are proper to them as well as unto Kings. Moreover, I do not know in all the Scriptures, where this word Elohim is so particularly applied unto Kings as it so be in regard thereof, they should be less accountable for their actions then any other Rulers. So than if this be true, as we plainly out of Scripture see it is that other Rulers as well as Kings are called Gods, than Kings as well as other Rulers are accountable for their actions unless that we will say that all Rulers and Governors whatsoever are not accountable unto men for what they do.  
But say they Kings are the highest powers on earth how then can they be accountable unto those that are inferior and under them, which is not accidental unto other Rulers and Governors because there are higher above them that they may give account unto: but none are above Kings: therefore they are to give account to none, save only God.  
Ans I deny that Kings on earth are the highest powers, and this I say, that the Kingdom is above the King, and so consequently the representative body thereof▪ the whole power of all the body of the people of the Land, being by general consent transmitted over unto it; and I prove it thus: The end is always greater than the means, or the means are subordinate to the end, and therefore must needs be inferior, for the means could never have been but for such or such an end for which they were appointed: no wise man that understands what he saith will deny, but that the cause is greater than the effect: but Kings were ordained for this end; they were chosen and appointed both by God and Man, to be a means for procuring of the good and welfare of their Kingdoms, and had there been no people, there had been no Kings: by which it appears, that Kings have their dependence upon their People, and that they were the primary cause, and Kings but the defects proceeding from them: therefore their Kingdoms are greater than they; and so consequently the representative bodies thereof. And surely there is somewhat in it too, that Kings are called the Ministers and Servants of the State, and so all good Kings and Governors have acknowledged themselves to be.  
Then again Kings are but the ordinance of Man, as the Apostle shows, 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit you● siluis to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme. Where the Apostle gives us this exhortation, to submit to Kings though they be the ordinance of man. How will any say that they which do infuse a power into others are inferior unto them into whom they do infuse it; that the power electing is inferior to the power elected; that the original is inferior to the consequence; that the fountain head is inferior to the streams that flow from it? I believe there are none that are in their right senses will say it. So then, if the people are the original of that power that is in Kings, and that the power they have is borrowed from them, as the streams slow from the Fountain, let any judge whether is greater the King or his people. Not any particular person among the people nor any particular Corporations or Assemblies thereof but the whole body of the people I say considered together; of those that by especial consent of all the people do represent the whole.  
But here it may be said, How say you that Kings are the ordinance of man, doth not the Apostle once and again Rom. 13.1, etc. call all Rulers, and so consequently Kings the ordinance of God? Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, etc. If they be the ordinance of God, how be they the ordinance of Men then?  
Answ Here give me leave to ask one Question: Say any Polity or State choose any kind of Government, whether Kings, or Dukes or Judges, or the like, and by general consent for the good of the people they establish it by Law, is not this then a humane ordinance, this or that kind of Government that they have chosen; yet I suppose you will not deny but that this is the ordinance of God, that now they should submit themselves thereto? Therefore the Apostle speaking concerning Magistrates in Rom. 13. saith not a word concerning Kings, as if they were more a divine Ordinance then other Rulers, but in general terms he saith, that all rulers whatsoever are of God: But when he comes to speak of Kings in particular, as he doth 1 Pet. 2.13. he calls them the ordinance of man, whereby he doth as it were comment upon, and explain the meaning of those words of S. Paul, Rom. 13 as if he should have said thus: It is true, Power, Magistracy and Government is the ordinance of God, and by divine institution: but so are not Kings, nor this nor that nor any other kind of government they are of man, and through his appointment. So that I say Kings, for their kind of government, are the ordinance of man: For God hath not tied any people in his Word, that they shall be governed by Kings, or by Dukes, or by Judges, or Estates or the like, but refers that unto themselves for their choice, according as they shall see most convenient for their good and prosperity; but when this or that kind of government is ordained and established by general consent of the people, this is the ordinance of God, which the Apostle gives a charge, that every one be subject unto (according to the old saying, Vox Populi vox Dei. The voice of the people is God's voice) which they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. So that still you see there is a power on earth above Kings (as I said before) which lies in the generality of the people, from whence they do receive as from their Fountain head their Sovereignty and Kingly dignity.  
Now then from what hath been said, follows this consequence of necessity, that if there be a greater power on earth than Kings are, Then Kings are accountable for their actions thereunto, and aught to be subject as well as others, as appears by that in Rom 13 1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God etc. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. In which words we see the Apostle gives a general charge to all inferiors to submit themselves to their superiors: therefore if Kings be inferior to their Kingdoms, and so consequently to the representative bodies thereof; then Kings ought by virtue of this charge, to be subject thereunto as well as others.  
But how ought they to submit what? in doing only and in matter of obedience, are they discharged there, so as though they abuse their power never so exorbitantly, to spoil oppress and destroy their people, censure may not pass upon them nor punishment be inflicted? surely I find no such distinction in all the word of God: Nay, we are commanded the contrary, and the law of nature teacheth us as much, that if there be a festered and a gangrened member in the body, that would destroy the whole, to cut it off for the preservation of the whose.  
I, it is true will they say, if there be any festered or corrupted member in the body that would destroy the whole we ought to cut it off, rather than to suffer all the body to perish, the Law of God and nature teacheth us thus much: but in case the head should have any Gangrene in it, and you cut that off, you do immediately destroy the body; the life can not be preserved when the Head is gone. So in like manner the King he is the Head of the State, and in that respect he hath such an influence upon the State, that if you cut Him off, you destroy the whole State together with Him, as you destroy the body when you take away the head thereof: therefore be he never so wicked, He is to be suffered and borne withal.  
Answ. This similitude or resemblance here doth not hold good, therefore we must distinguish between a natural head, and a civil head: for if the natural head of the body of man be taken away, the body dies: but it is not so with the civil Head of the State, as experience doth sufficiently show by the death of Kings. But if it were possible in the body of man, when one head is taken away to find another to put in his place, and so to preserve the life as it may be done in the State, surely Heads would oftentimes be changed, and cut off as well as other members. So that if we will thus reason, that the Head of the State should be in respect of His body, as the head of man in respect of the body of man, than it doth necessarily follow, that the Head being dead, the body should die also, as is manifest in the body of man. But it doth not hold so in the head of the State as it doth in the head of the body of man, that if the head of the State be cut off the State dies, as doth the body of man: therefore the King who is the Head of the State, if a corrupted and a festered Member, that may endanger the destruction of the body of the State, aught to be cut off, for the preservation of the whole, for, Salus populi suprena lex: nothing aught to be so much regarded as the People's safety, which is the end of all Law and government whatsoever.  
This similitude, though it hold not good as it is above proposed, yet it doth in the contrary, that if a King by his wicked and Tyrannical courses, doth destroy his Kingdom, he doth destroy himself, as when the natural body is destroyed, the head of necessity must perish with it.  
I but will some say this is strange, Where in all the Scripture do you find that the people have with Gods liking and approbation so much as resisted their Kings, how much less censured them, or brought them to trial or punishment, for any actions that ever they have done?  
For the first of these I Answer, that Kings in their wicked and ungodly courses have been resisted by their people, the Spirit of God speaking by way of commendation of them for it, or at least wise not disapproving the same. This is evident by divers places of Scripture; As first of all we have an example hereof in jonathans' case. 1 Sam. 14 44. where because that lonathan had eaten a little Honey, contrary to the Commandment of his Father Saul, who was then King of Israel he would have put him to death; thereupon the people stand up in his just defence, against Saul his Father, saying. Shall jonathan die who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel, God forbidden, as the Lord lives there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he hath wrought with God this day. Then it follows, the people rescued jonathan that he died not. Did they not think you resist Saul, when the people rescued him out of his hand whether he would or no, and contrary to the Oath that he had sworn?  
Secondly, we have the example of David in Keilah, 1 Sam. 23.7 etc. where David being at Keilah, and Saul hearing of it, thought he had got now his opportunity to take him, that he might kill him, as oftentimes he had before endeavoured: but it so pleased God that this came to David's ears, that Saul secretly practised mischief against him, to come and take away his life. Hereupon David inquires of God, First to know whether it were so or no, as that Saul would come down to Keilah? God answers him, that he would. Thereupon the second time he asks him Whether the men of Keilah would deliver him and his men into the hand of Saul, or no? God answers him that he would deliver him up. By this last it doth clearly appear, that if so be the Keilites would have been true to David, and have stood to him, he would have maintained the Town against Saul, and have defended himself in it: otherwise, why should David ask God the second time, Whether the men of Keilah would deliver him up and his men into the hands of Saul, or no? he might have gone his way, when that he heard Saul would come down, without ask any more questions, unless we will say that the second question, which David propounded to ask of God, was frivolous and vain, and so consequently the answer that God gave it; which I suppose there are none will be so bold as to affirm. (This was the very case of Sir john Hotham in Hull, who for this very action His Majesty was pleased to Proclaim him Traitor.)  
Then again, it may be further said of David, if he had not had a purpose to have resisted Saul in case of exigency, and extremity, what did he with 600. men about him? he might have fled from Saul when he was coming towards him, without such a train and guard of men attending him, and so have saved himself without them. Nay, he might in all probability have escaped his hands better, for had he not had so many with him, he might have kept himself the more close, and secret, so that he could not have been so easily discovered. And besides this we read 1 Chron. 12.22. that There came to David to help him before saul's death an host, like the host of God: and what? was all this preparation and assistance for nothing?  
One more example I will bring out of the Scriptures, and that is of King Vzziah, 2 Chron. 26 16. who encroached upon the Office of the Priests, and would take upon him to offer Incense in the Temple of the Lord, contrary to the express commandment of God: whereupon it is said in the 17. verse, that Azariah the Priest went in after him, and with him fourscore Priests of the Lord, that were valiant men, and they withstood Vzziah the King, and said unto him, it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burn Incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense; go out of the Sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed, neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. Then Vzziah was wroth, and had a Censor in his hand to burn Incense: and while he was wroth with the Priests, the Leprosy even risen upon his forehead, before the Priests in the house of the Lord, besides the Incense altar. Then Azariah the chief Priest, and all the Priests looking upon him, and beholding that he was leprous in his forehead, thrust him out from thence. If this be not resistance, I know not what is.  
Besides all this, the more to stop the mouths of such ill affected persons in our times, that will take upon them to make much more of Kings, than ever God made or did intent there are examples even in the Primitive times among the Christians, who have resisted their Kings in their sinful and unlawful actions. As to instance in Lycinius the Emperor who had granted to the Christians to enjoy their Religion, yet afterwards turning persecutor, they sent for Constantine the great to assist them against him, and overthrew him. And again being persecuted by the King of Persia, the Christians sent for Theodosius the Emperor to help them against him. And I doubt not but if the Ecclesiastical Histories of those times were searched there might more examples of this nature be found out.  
But besides all this, we have seen and known the like in our own times, as lately in the Scots, whom the King himself, that now is, acquitted, when he came to a right understanding. So the Protestants in France, England all Queen Elizabeth's days did help them. In our days again in King Charles his own reign, we sent over a great Force, in show at least, to help Rochel against the King of France. So in High jermanie. the Princes there maintain their right against Charles the 5, and were helped by France and England. In the Neatherlands it is evident from the beginning. Now shall we take upon us to condemn all these Churches for so doing?  
Then for the second, which is the principal point here in dispute, Whether Kings in case they do Tyrannize over their People Oppress, Spoil and Destroy their Subjects, and do other such like wicked and unnatural actions may have Censure and Punishment inflicted upon them, according to the nature of their several Offences? They say where is there any example or express command in Scripture for this?  
Answ. It is true, there are no examples, or Commands in Scripture for this particular case, or at least not as I know of; yet that matters not, so long as we have a rule to walk by, and Commands in general that reach to all particulars. And for this the like may very well be said, as may for Parents murdering of their Children, there is no direct Law set down, either divine or humane, for the punishment of such▪ the thing is so detestable and contrary to very nature, that it may be conceived, that there would be none such found: but if there be, there are general Laws in force for their censure and punishment, as in case of Murder; and by how much the nearer the relation is, the greater being the bond and tye for procuring the peace and welfare of such and such parties, so much the greater is the offence, and so much the more liable are they to punishment. So I say though there are no particular Laws set down, for the correcting and punishing of such Kings and Princes as do Oppress Spoil and Destroy their People, yet so much is included in those general Laws both of God and Man; and so much the more liable are they to Censure and punishment, by how much they are Ordained, to be greater instruments of the good and well being of their People than others are. (For this is the very nature and being of a King. He is such a one as cares and provides for the Common vealth, takes pleasure in the commodity and profit of His Subjects; and in all his do hath respect to the prosperity of those over whom He ruleth.) Now what those general Laws are, it is well known; As for example This God hath said. He that sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, Gen 9 6. And He that blasphemes the Name of the Lord, shall surely be put to death. Levit. 24 16. And again If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, (the King himself may be within the compass of these or most of these relations, as the case is put) entice thee secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers, thou shalt not consent not him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him neither shalt thou spare neither shalt thou conceal him but thou shalt surely kill him thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death; and afterwards the hand of all the people and thou shalt stone him with stones that he die Deut. 13.6 etc. In which words the Spirit of God plainly shows, that in this case, the greatest and nearest relation of friendship love and duty, that we can owe to any whatsoever they be, of what dignity or degree soever should not make us desist from the execution of Justice. These things are spoken you see without the least exception that may be, that in case the Rulers or the King should do thus, that the like should not be done unto them: but God requires that Equity and Justice be done alike upon all without respect of persons; as we well know that this is the charge that God hath given Deut. 16.19. Thou shalt not wrest judgement, thou shalt not respect persons. Where God shows thus much unto us, that to respect the persons of any in matter of Judgement, or Justice, is to wrest Justice, and to go aside from that which is right. God will have equal and impartial judgement administered alike unto all: And the reason hereof is given by the Holyghost in the place before cited. Deut. 13.11. That all Israel may hear and fear and do no more any such wickedness. Now there is none that will deny, but that Kings by nature are as bad as any, and are subject to be worse than any others, by reason of those Flatterers and evil Counselors, that usually are about them, as we may see in the examples of joash, 2 Chron. 24 17. and of Rehoboam, 2 Chron 10.8 etc. should it be so then that there were no Laws in force binding unto them as well as unto Us, and examples of true and equal Justice made upon them as well as upon others, it were the very next way to open a gap to all Kings and Princes to all manner of wickedness and licentiousness, and to make them Tyrants that otherwise would be good and gracious towards their People. Whereas this would be a very good means to keep Kings in as well as others, from running into such extravagant courses to the dishonour of God, and the destruction of their people as usually they are wont to do; unless we will say that God hath given unto Kings and Princes a dispensation above all others, to run headlong unto Hell without control. They that teach such Doctrine by this now it appears what friends they are unto them whatsoever they may pretend, who would make Kings of all others the most miserable, by ascribing unto them an unrestrained liberty to all wickedness whatsoever, to their destruction.  
But here comes in another Objection, for will some say again, Kings are Gods anointed: therefore men may not question them much less may they touch their lives whatsoever their actions be: And thus much saith David concerning Saul, who was King of Israel though he were a wicked King and his enemy that sought his life; and that for no just cause neither; yet when David had an opportunity to slay him, 1 Sam. 24 6. he speaks thus, The Lord forbidden that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord. So again, 1 Sam. 26.9. Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltless?  
To this I answer, David was a private man (notwithstanding he was saul's successor by God's appointment to the Crown) and so had no warrant to do such a thing as this, as to take away the life of Saul the King, though he had done him, or should seek to do him never so much harm. For in a case fare Inferior to this, we know that if a private man be a Thief, and by Law is condemned to die, yet no man may lay violent hands upon him to take away his life, but only in a Legal way, and by the executioner that is by authority appointed for this purpose, if any man should, he would be accounted a murderer for so doing, and be liable to suffer the Law in that case provided. So than if this cannot be justifiable upon a private person condemned by Law, much less than upon a public person, especially such a one as a King is, and uncondemned too. Therefore in this case had David taken away saul's life, who was then King of Israel, he had been much to blame, and had sinned exceedingly in the sight of God, wherefore David would not do it.  
But we do not know what David would have done, or what he might have done, in case Saul should forceibly have come upon him to have taken away his life, in his own just defence for his own safety and preservation: for else for what end had David those 600. men with him? Surely it will be answered, and I believe the most malignant among them all will not deny it, that he had them for his Defence; was it so? Then truly I think that they that will defend themselves, by Arms and armed men, must needs offend, when they are offended. For this is a mere conceit that even very children will be ready to laugh at, to say that when a man's enemy comes against him to do him a mischief he must only defend himself, but must not strike again. For how is this possible, for a man to defend himself from his enemy, and yet not offend his enemy?  
Then for as much as Kings are called the anointed of the Lord; they are so called in two respects. First either in regard of the Anointing Oil that was poured upon them, by the performance of which Ceremony they were inaugurized into their Functions and Offices. Or else, in regard of that authority, which by their people they are elected unto, whereby they become Gods Deputies and Vicegerents here on earth, in ruling and governing of his people.  
For the first of these, in as much as Kings are called the anointed of the Lord, because of the Anointing Oil that was poured upon them, by the performance of which Ceremony they were inaugurized into their Functions, whereof some there were that God did in a more especial manner thus institute and ordain, even by His own immediate appointment, as to wit Saul, David, Solomon, jehu, and Hazael, whom he commanded Elijah to Anoint King over Syria. Yet I see no ground, nor reason, why even these should not be responsal to the Laws and to their Kingdoms, for their Actions. For I do not perceive that God did any whit hereby exempt them from the observance of his Laws, either Actively or passively. If not, then surely they that would attribute thus much unto them, do exalt and set them above the Laws and Commandments of God (for you must understand that the judicial Laws in those times, whereby God would have his people to be governed, were immediately ordained of God; as well as any other Laws whatsoever) which therefore for my own part I conceive to be no less than blasphemy; at least I am sure it is a high contempt of God's ordinance. Wherefore now (with submission to better judgements) whereas it is said, Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltless, I suppose this to be the meaning of it; That this is a thing not to be rashly or unadvisedly done by any, and that it belongs to none but to the Magistrates only, and that in a legal way, having herein an awful and reverential regard of the Commandment of God.  
Yet further I will not deny but that it may probably be, that there may be somewhat extraordinary in the case of these 5 Kings before mentioned, their persons being of God's immediate choice, and by his especial appointment inducted into that Function, as the rather it seems so to be, because this term of the Lords anointed, I find it applied in Scripture to no King else, that was anointed with Oil, but only these, though we read of divers Kings else besides these, that were anointed with Oil.  
Then for the other, in that Kings are called Gods anointed with respect to the authority, which by their people they are elected unto, whereby they become Gods Deputies and Vicegerents here on earth, in ruling and governing of his people, Thus, and no otherwise then thus are our Kings called the Anointed of the Lord; Now as much as this is proper and belonging to other Rulers as well as to Kings, to be called Gods Deputies and Vicegerents, and therefore it is that they, as I shown before, are called Gods as well as Kings, which little is applied unto them, in this regard, because they represent the place of God, and have his Image stamped upon them in a more especial manner, by means of that authority that God, by the consent of his people hath conferred upon them for their good: From hence therefore neither do I see any ground, why Kings should not be accountable for their actions. For if so be that they are not accountable in this regard because they are Gods Deputies and Vicegerents, why then I say, nor any other Rulers, nor Magistrates besides, because they are Gods Vicegerents as well as Kings? The which, I think there are none will be so simple as to affirm.  
So now by what hath been said, we see that even Kings in a legal way may be resisted, neither do we want examples among ourselves of this kind and yet it is thought no grievance or unlawful thing, or unbeseeming the profession of good Christians, as some do say. For it is not manifest that the King himself is impleaded by his own Subjects, and hath many times trials at Law with them at the King's bench, and is divers times too overthrown: And if this be done in slighter matters, then certainly much more it ought to be done in matters, of fare greater weight and consequence, as in cases of oppression, Tyranny, or Destruction of his People.  
But here again say they, should we grant you this, that other Kings may be resisted, as you have declared, and may Legally be accountable for their actions, yet the case is not alike between other Kings and ours of England, for as much as they have their right to the Crown by Conquest, as is evident by William the Conqueror, whose Successors they are, and therefore there is no other way for us now, but either to obey what they command us, or else to submit ourselves to suffer.  
Answ. It goes beyond my apprehension to coneive, how this kind of arguing can hold good, and I do admire upon what ground it should be built. But besides it is not here amiss, to take notice of the baseness and servility of the spirits of these men, who can be so well content to argue themselves into a very vassalage and slavery: Therefore for satisfaction in this point as well as in the rest, we must take notice that there is a two fold conquest; one is Absolute, and the other is Conditional. For the first of these, will they affirm it, that we are absolutely conquered, and so overcome by an altogether overruling and Tyrannical power, that our Lives, Persons and Estates lie at the mercy of the Conqueror, all that ever we have being at his will and pleasure, that he may make a prey of them how he list, and when he list; without any bonds or ties at all on his part, towards his people, but that by virtue of the Conquest, we are wholly become his Vassals and slaves: I say in this case a people may by force of Arms, nay they are bound to do it (for as much as all people ought both by the Law of God and nature to provide for their own welfare and salvation) when they have a fit and convenient opportunity, and strength sufficient, to rescue themselves from under the power of such a Tyranny, and free themselves from such a Yoke, though it should be even with the personal destruction of those Kings, that should usurp such a power over them. And I prove it clearly by the examples of the people of God in the times of the judges, approved by the Spirit of God; as, judg. 3 8. Israel there rebelled against the Lord, by turning unto Idols, whereupon it is said, the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hands of Cushan Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia, and the Children of Israel served Cushon Rishathaim eight years (that is to say, they served him in a servile slavish way) than it follows, that the Children of Israel cried unto the Lord, and the Lord raised up a deliverer unto the Children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the brother of Kenaz, Kalebs' younger brother, and the spirit of the Lord came up●n him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war, and the Lord delivered Cushan Rishathaim, into his hand, and his hand prevailed against Cushan Rishathaim, and so the Land had rest 40 Years.  
By which words you see, that the people of God by force of Arms were violently overcome, and kept powerfully under a Tyranny, for the space of eight years but see when God had raised up unto them a deliverer, that is to say, one that would stand up in defence of them against the King of Mesopotamia, who had them under, and they now had a convenient opportunity to redeem themselves from under this Tyranny, they take it; and by force of Arms recover their liberty again. It is needless to instance in any more particulars at large, I will therefore only point out the several places that for your better satisfaction you may read them at your leisure. The ensuing Story doth manifestly prove it beginning at the 12. verse, etc. so again, judges 4. the whole Chapter is a Story to this purpose: This is clear also in the example of Gideon, who delivered Israel from the hand of the Midianites, the Story is in the 6. and 7. Chap. of judges. It is clear also by the example of jeptha, who delivered Israel from the hand of the Ammonites judges the 19 and 11. Chapters. So much in brief may be said concerning absolute Conquest. And now I hope they will take heed, how they say, we were absolutely conquered. Then for the other, and that is Conditional Conquest. So say they we were Conquered, and it is not denied: That is to say; when William the Conqueror invaded the Land, we were content to submit ourselves unto him, (for the prevention of blood shed and destruction, that otherwise might have ensued) to serve him as our Liege Lord, and Sovereign, so that he would promise to govern us, according to these and these Laws and Customs, to which covenant he consented, as all the Kings of England have done since. And so we are become not his slaves to be destroyed at his pleasure, but his Subjects, having sworn him and his Successors Allegiance upon these conditions. If this be so; then here we plainly see, we are not bound to submit to the Kings will and pleasure, in all his commands, but only so fare forth as he commands according to his Laws, which is the condition upon which we swear him Allegiance, and become his Subjects. Therefore if the conditions of the Covenant be broke, and instead of governing his people by his Laws, he rules them as he list, according to his will and pleasure; is it not manifest, that the King doth absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance, nor are they any longer, legally bound to obey him. For this every one knows, that when the condition, whereby the Covenant is tied to each party, is broken, the Covenant itself by virtue thereof is quite dissolved, or at least dissolvable at the party's pleasure with whom the Covenant was made. By this it appears that the King is as much bound to the Subjects as the Subjects to the King, and that in this case the Subjects may make lawful resistance to recover their undoubted Liberties and Privileges, and yet not be termed Rebels against their Prince. For none but they only can be called or esteemed such, as violate their oaths of Allegiance, which we do not, if the King break with us his Covenant, whereby he hath bound himself to us and upon performance whereof we swear him Allegiance.  
But now besides all that hath been said, let us a little look into the foul absurdities that follow upon this tenant, that people must so submit themselves unto their Kings, as either to obey their commands, though never so unlawful, or else to suffer whatsoever they shall inflict upon them, and not to take up defensive Arms against them: but in case their Kings come against them in a hostile manner seeking their destruction; all that they must do say they, is to run away from them. But, say they do so, they may so follow and pursue their people, or encompass them in that they can be able to run no further, so that then they must either perforce stand upon their defence, or submit themselves unto their mercy. Why? I say they, so they must, all the weapons they must use in this case are prayers and tears. So that then, if Nero like they should wish that the whole body of their people were but one neck, that he might cut them off at one blow, they must as we say, lay their necks upon the block, and submit themselves to their own destruction. And so now consequently it follows, be their Kings never so great Tyrants, not only over their bodies, but over their souls too (as the case may be, they may set up Popery and Idolatry in their Kingdoms, as the Kings of Israel and judah did: nay if they will, bring in very Heathenism, and what not, utterly depriving their people of all the outward happiness, and comfort of their lives, and also as much as in them lies, prostituting their souls to utter ruin, by denying them the means of their salvation) yet they may not do any thing in this case to help themselves by way of just defence or Legal Justice. If this be so, then indeed we are beholding only to the King's good nature, for every thing that we have and do enjoy, and not at all unto the Laws, and that will prove good doctrine that hath not long since been so freely taught among us, That our lives, our Liberties, our Estates, our Wives and our Children, and all we have, are at the King's mercy, and that we do enjoy any of these, it is of his mere favour and bounty towards us: And then what need at all is there of any Laws, or why should the Parliament trouble themselves to make any more Statutes or Ordinances, whereby to govern us? the which how ridiculous it is, and how abominably false, and contrary to God's word, you have already heard.  
It will not be improper for this discourse to look a little into the case and condition, which wicked King Ahaz brought his people into by his abominable Idolatry which he established in the land, 2 Chron. 20.3. It is said, He burned incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. He sacrificed also and burnt incense in the high places, and on hills, and under every green tree: wherefore the Lord his God, it is said, delivered him into the hand of the King of Syria, and they smote him (that is to say, his people) and carried away a great multitude of them captive, and brought them to Damascus; and he was also delivered into the hand of the King of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. For Peca the son of Remaliah slew in judah 12000. in one day, which were all valiant men: and the reason follows, because they had forsaken the Lord God of their fathers. By whose means was this that they had done it, was it not by reason of their Idolatrous King Ahaz? Then in the 8. verse, the children of Israel carried away captive of them 200000. women, sons and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria. Again in the 16. verse, Ahaz sends to the King of Syria to help him against the Edomites that came and smote judah, who carried them away captive; the Philistims also had invaded the Cities of the low Countries, and of the south of judah, and had taken divers Towns from them, as there they are reckoned up, and dwelled there: for it is said, The Lord brought judah low because of Ahaz King of Israel, for he had made judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord. So in the 20. verse again it is said, That Tilgath Pilnezer, King of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not, for Ahaz took a portion out of the house of the Lord, and out of the house of the King, and of the Princes, and gave it unto the King of Assyria, but he helped him not. There you see was also so much of the treasure of the land lost. Again it is said, that in the time of his distress he did trespass yet more against the Lord. (This is that King Ahaz,) for he sacrificed unto the Gods of Damascus which smote him: and he said, because the Gods of the Kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me: but they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel. To this lamentable condition was Israel now brought, through the wickedness of this man. How much better had it been for them to have executed the judgement of the Lord upon him, who in his most just and righteous Law required, that all Idolaters, without respect of persons, should be destroyed; and had given more than an ordinary charge concerning this particular, then, by the neglect of the execution of justice, to have brought themselves to that miserable condition wherein they were, both in respect of their souls and bodies. And who knows whether God might not lay the heavier load upon them, for this their contempt, in not obeying his Commandment; whereas if so be they had done this, they might still have continued in the favour of God, and been a blessed and renowned people as their predecessors were.  
But if it shall be said, Why did they not execute justice in this kind upon him, and other their Idolatrous Kings, it seems there was somewhat more than ordinary in it, in that it was omitted?  
I answer. It was no marvel they did neglect the execution of justice in this regard upon their Kings, when as they were so careless to do it upon common and private persons: for we never read that ever there was so much as any one person, after they were come into the promised possession of the Land of Canaan, that they did put to death for their Idolatry, of what kind or condition soever they were: and if this were thus omitted upon persons of ordinary and mean rank and quality, how should it be expected that it should be executed upon their Kings.  
Yet besides all this that hath been said, to show the unreasonableness and falseness of this Deposition (that Kings are unaccountable for their actions, and may not be resisted, though they do those things that are never so dishonourable to God, and prejudicial and hurtful to their Subjects) there may somewhat more be said with reference to the Wisdom of God. For how is it possible to be imagined, that He who is so infinitely wise (having in His unsearchable understanding appointed Government as the only means for his people's happy and well being here on earth, should leave His people in such a condition, that if so be the means and instruments, which he hath ordained for their good, should rise up against them to their destruction, they should have no power lest them to help themselves, nor means to provide for their own safety, but must be feign to submit themselves to their wills and pleasures. How doth this exceedingly reflect upon the Wisdom and Providence of God; and is it not manifest and apparent that God's ends and intentions in Government are hereby quite frustrated and void, so as that, that which he hath appointed for his people's greatest benefit and security, should turn to their greatest hurt and mischief. And this were the next way, instead of making God the author of peace, 1 Cor. 14 33. to make him the chiefest author of all disorder and confusion. For let any man judge that hath but the ordinary understanding of a man, if this be not occasion sufficient to make even the best of Kings (if God do not give them more than an ordinary measure of his Grace) to become Tyrants, and to live as they list, when they are persuaded that they may do what they list, and none may control them.  
Therefore for the more full clearing of that which hath been already said, it will not be amiss to search a little narrowly into the meaning of that place, Rom, 13.1 etc. and so to acquaint ourselves what that power is, which the Apostle there calls the ordinance of God, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. They are Magistrates that are here meant by these powers, and these powers the Apostle saith are of God. Now I ask, did ever God give a power unto any for the destruction of his people, and of those that are committed to their charge? is this the Ordinance of God for Kings and Rulers to seek the undoing and ruin of their people? Surely no. God did appoint them for his people's good, as before was showed; and thus much also the Apostle declares to us here in the words following, verse 3. Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou not be afraid of the power? do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same for he is the minister of God to thee for good, etc. (Here by the way this shows unto us, that the acts of Kings for the good of their people, are not acts of Grace, as some flatterers would make them, but they are acts of Duty, which God requires from them towards their people.)  
And besides, let us have a respect unto Kings and Governors too, as they are a humane ordinance, as the Apostle calls them, as you heard before, 1 Pet. 2.13. etc. Did ever the people who elected them, give them any such power as to rule them according to their wills and pleasures? If they have, what made they those good Laws for, according to which they Covenanted for to govern them? And therefore as the Apostle before saith, they are the ordinance of God with respect to their people's good; so here the Apostle saith, they are the ordinance of man with respect to the same: For so he saith, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether unto the King as supreme, or unto Governors, as they that are sent by him; What for? Or to what end? (surely not for their destruction, but to be instruments of their well being, for so it follows) for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. Therefore hence I say, If Kings who are Ordained by God, and Chosen by Men, for this end, to be instruments of good to their People, do contrarily abuse their Authority, wherewithal they are entrusted both by God and Man, to the hurt and destruction of their People: if in this case the People to preserve themselves do stand upon their own Defence, and take up Arms for their own protection, they do not resist the ordinance of God, nor come within the reach of the Apostles censure, as those that for so doing shall receive damnation.  
Here is one thing yet more that I have to say concerning the Unlimited Prerogative; and so I shall finish this Discourse; and that is, What good can there come by ascribing such a Power? For every circumstance in point of Government must have respect unto some good or other, either for the glory of God, or for the benefit of the People: if so be that they conduce not to these ends, they are utterly to be rejected, as sinful and obnoxious. For God never gave Magistrates any such power, as to be unlimitable in breaking his Commandments; or to become terrible and dreadful to their People: but this He requires, that they especially, whom He and His People have trusted with power and Magistracy, should by their example honour God in a holy and godly conversation, and be comfortable and profitable to their People, through their pious, peaceable, and Religious government.  
But how or which way doth it appear that the unlimited Prerogative hath, or can have respect to any such ends: nay reason tells us the contrary; and We have learned as much by the best of Schoolmasters, to wit, experience; And if the Spirit of God say true, a great deal of evil and mischief may come by it, but no good at all as ever I could read. Thus much we may perceive, if we will look into that place in the 17. Deut. 18. where the Spirit of God speaking concerning the King, when he shall come to sit upon the Throne of his Kingdom, He shall write (saith he) a copy of this Law in a Book, out of that which is before the Priests the Levites, and it shall be with him; and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law, and these Statutes to do them. Here we see the rule, which God would have Kings apply themselves unto in governing of their People, but here is no grant or Charter that God at all hath given them, to rule them according to their wills and pleasures; and he binds them within the compass of His Law. And it cannot be denied but that these Statutes and Commandments of God before spoken of, require passive as well as active Obedience. For what is here said unto Kings, is oftentimes in this Book, and else where, said unto the People; and I believe there is none will say, but that they are required thereby to obey in both kinds: why not Kings then as well as others, for here is no exception. Nay the Spirit of God here gives us a sufficient reason, that they ought so to do, in the words following, for so it is said, lest his heart be lifted up above his brethren. He foresaw what mischief would come of it, if Kings should have any such Unlimited Power allowed them. And indeed how can it otherwise be, but they must needs exceedingly swell with Pride, when they shall be made like God, subject to no Laws. And what do they else, that ascribe such a power unto them, as that they are no ways accountable, or punishable for any actions that they do? Is not this the very next way to cause them to despise and trample their People under their feet, as if they were so exceedingly beneath them (though in truth they be the same, and equal with them, in respect of their nature and being, (therefore the Spirit of God here calls them their Brothers) the difference only lying in their power and Magistracy) and to make them forget themselves and their humane condition, as if they were a degree above Men, by exalting them above all Laws, as if by virtue of their place and Dignity, their very nature were changed into the Divine.  
Besides this, it is further worth the marking, what other evil consequence will be ready to follow, if such a power, as is said before, should be ascribed Therefore it is said in the next words (that he turn not aside from the Commandment, to the right hand or to the left) as who should say to give Kings such a power as is Unlimited and disresponsable, it is the very next way to cause them to presume and take liberty to themselves, how they list and when they list to break the Commandments of God and to cast his Precepts behind their backs.  
Here we see now the evil that comes by this Prerogative, I would any one could show me what that good is that doth from it arise; or where in all the Scripture it is said, that Kings shall not be accountable for what they do. I persuade myself that it will be a task too hard for any man to undertake.  
By this it appears, what Enemies they are to the Commonwealth, and what a deal of mischief they do, that teach such Doctrine as Kings Unlimited Power, and how abominable they must needs be both in the sight of God and Men, that teach men to err from God's Commandments; and to conclude all in a word, I may here say to such as our Saviour doth, Math. 5.19. Whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments, and shall teach men so to do, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven. And here also I may well remember them of the words of that prediction of the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2.11. which are truly verified in these men. God shall send them strong Delusions that they may believe a lie, that all they might be damned that believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.  
I do not much question but that this paper may light of those that will not spare to lay Censure hard enough upon it; and it is not unlikely but it may suffer under that terrible name of Treason; yet I say it would be well for them before they shoot their bolt, to consider wisely with themselves what they do least otherwise they prove to be such as fall foul upon the Truth of God, and so be found to be such as fight against Him, which if they do, let themselves judge how it is like to be with them. But let it be as it will, yet the comfort is, it is not the first time that Truth hath suffered under as bad a Censure as this can be: and let them that are enemies to this Truth do what they can, yet let me tell them that Truth is strong, and shall prevail; and that howsoever it may be blamed by those that hate it, yet it shall never be ashamed. And as all Truth ought to be known, so especially every Truth in its chiefest time and season: for as the Wise man saith, Pro. 25.11. A word spoken in due season, is like apples of gold in pictures of silver, than it is most like to do good, and then most acceptable and delightful. I have spoken a few words upon this theme the rather, that hereby at least I might provoke those of better judgements, and are able to say fare more of this point then myself, according to the necessity of the times to speak in this behalf, if they be lovers of their King, of the Truth, and of their Country: And so I commend it to the blessing of GOD.  
FJNJS.