law of absolute Majesty c. It is said of Paracelsus that the diet he prescribed his patients was to eat what and how often they thought fitting themselves Royallists and Court-flatterers do allow such an absolute prerogative to Kings that if they would make use of their plenitude and unlimitted power there is no wickednesse but they may do viz. violently ravish matrons deflour virgins unnaturally abuse youth cut all their Subjects throats fire their houses sack their Cities subvert their Liberties and as Bellarmin puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority send millions of souls to hel yet no man under pain of damnation may or ought demand of him Domine cur ita facis Sir what do you such a slavery those vermins have sought to bring all Subjects into But to answer 1. The scope and drift of the place is thus Samuel being displeased with the people because they would reject Gods government who was then their King having in his own hand the regal rights and did substitute under him Judges whom he extraordinarily called qualified and inspired them with his spirit shews them the manner of the King ver 9.11 not what they should be and ought to do in right but what they use to be and do in fact and how commonly they demean themselves in Government contrary to Gods Law Deut. 17.15 and the Lawes of the Kingdom and that he speaks not here of the Law or power of a lawfull King but of Saul's tyrannicall usurpation is evident thus 1. The Hebrew word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which as our English rendreth is the manner and so the word usually signifies a 2 K ng 17.26 Gen. 40 13. Exod 21,19 1 Sam 27,11 a custome or manner and as a custom so a wicked b 1 Sam 2,13 1 Kings 18,28 custome Peter Martyr on the place saith He meaneth here of an usurped Law The custome and manner of doing say Junius and Tremellius Clemens Alexandrinus on the place saith non humanum pollicetur Dominum sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum he promiseth not a humane Prince but threatneth to give them an insolent tyrant So saith Beda Lyra expoundeth it Tyranny so Cajetanus And Serrarius he speaketh not here quid Reges jure possint sed quid audeant what they may do by right and Law but what they wil be bold to do and so speaketh Thomas Aquinas Osiander Pelican Borhaius Willet and our last large Annotations take it that Samuel setteth not down the office of a King and what 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 meer tyranny As 1. to make slaves of their sons ver 11. was an act of Tyranny 2. To take their fields and vineyards and oliveyards from them ver 14. was no better then Ahabs cruelty towards Naboth 3. To put the people of God to bondage ver 15 16. was to deal with them as the Tyrant Pharaoh did 4. He speaketh of such a Law the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord because of their King ver 18. but the execution of the just Law of the King Deut. 17. is a blessing not a crosse or curse 3. It is clear that God by his Prophet disswades them from their purpose of seeking a King by fortelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrant for 1. Samuel is to protest against their unlawfull course v. 9. 2. He is to lay before them the tyranny and oppression of their King which cruelty Saul exercised in his time as the history of his life sheweth But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable acts of favour that a just King by his good Government was to do for his people Deut. 17. 3. It is set down ver 19. how in effectual Samuels exhortation was now how could it be said they refused to hear the voyce of Samuel if he had not dehorted them from a King 2. Touching these words and ye shall cry out in that day because of your King 1. Here is not one word of any lawfull remedy for this is not alwayes understood of praying to God by reason of oppression as by many a Is 15.4 Ha. 2.11 Deut. 22.24 Scriptures doth appear 2. Though it were the Prophets meaning they cryed unto the Lord yet it is not the crying of a people truly humbled and in faith speaking to God in their b Zec. 7.12 Psal 18.41 troubles and therefore such prayer as God heareth not 3. It is a rule in Logick and Divinity Ex particulari non valet argumentum negative from one particular place a negative argument 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 al in other places of Scripture But 4. The text sayes not They shall only cry out as if no other course were to be used against a tyrant but crying out which shews a meer fallacy and absurdity in what they speak Because a man must pray for Kings and Rulers Ergo there is no tribute or obedience due to them Again Men must pray for their daily bread and sick persons seek to God for health Ergo they must only pray and not labor for it they must take no phisick but only pray 3. If the Prophets words be rightly understood he is so far from affirming that the power of a King is absolute and uncontroulable as on the contrary he closely admonisheth the people that they should look to him as to restrain and bridle his licentious liberty and keep him within the due limits of law and reason and seeing he is apt to degenerate into a tyrant and cruelly to oppresse the subjects to be therefore prudent and carefull seasonably to prevent so great a mischief and danger Lastly In the whole description here of a tyrant there is not one word against our Conclusion For 1. The peoples power whose Representatives the Ordines Regni the States of the Kingdom are is above the King Polib his l. 6 Such were the Ephori amongst the Lacedemonians the Senate amongst the Romans The Forum Superbiense amongst the Arragonians The Electors of the Emperors the Parliaments in England Scotland France and Spain The Fathers of Families and Princes of Tribes amongst the Jews And for this Soveraign and Supream power of Estates as above Kings I appeal to Jurists and to approved Authors Argu. L. aliud 160. sect 1. de Jur. Reg. l. 22. Mortuo de fidei l. 11.14 ad Mum. l. 3.14 Cornelius Bertramo c. 12. Junius Brutus Vindic. cont Tyran sect 2. Sigonius de Rep. Judaeor l. 6. c. 7. Author Libelli de Jur. Magist in Subd q. 6.
unlawfull for Zedekiah and the rest of the Jews in the time of their captivity to resist the tyranny of the Caldeans but likewise before the captivity they could not with a good conscience have resisted or maintain'd the city against them when they had besieged it forasmuch as the Lord commanded them by Jeremy that they should deliver up the city into the hands of the Caldeans and without resistance yeeld themselves to be their servants Chap. 21.2,3,4 27,1,12,13,14 ch 36 ch 37 3. Touching Pharaoh 1. He had not his crown from Israel 2. Pharaoh had not sworn to defend Israel nor became their King upon condition and oath to maintain their Laws Liberties and Rights 3. Israel had their land in Egypt by the meer gift of the King 4. The Israelites were not his native subjects but strangers and sojourners who by the Laws of the King and Princes by the means of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and liberty to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their bondage Exod. 2,23,24 The Kings of England as Kings have stood to England in a four-fold contrary relation they have had their crown by the voluntary and free choise of the People and no otherwise but conditionally that is covenanting and taking their oath to do so and so for the publick good The English are natives not beholding to their Kings for their possessions nor ever held the same as gratis from them The Supream and Soveraign Power of the Kingdom is in their hand the which Israel in Egypt never had nor could lawfully challenge 10. obje Dr. Gouden speaking of putting the King to death saith Never did Christ or his Apostles by practice or precept give the lest intimation of the will of his Father as agreeing to what you declare to be your purpose Christ saith Maxwel Sac. San. Mai. c 5. n. 6. in the cradle taught by practice to flee from Herod and all Christs actions are full of mysteries and our instructions He might have had Legions of Angels to defend him but would rather work a miracle in curing of Malchu's ear as use the sword against Caesar He suffered under Pontius Pilate to commend patient suffering of ill condemn al resistance of superiors would have servants suffer buffets not only for ill doing of good masters but also undeservedly of these masters that are evill and that from his own example 1 Pet. 2.18.21.23 much more are we patiently to suffer of Kings without resistance The monuments of Babels ruin shew farre off to be high and great things but being neer they are very low and little too whatsoever is here if we come up close to it 't is impertinences non-consequences and nothing else And first in general we answer 1. Christ saying His Kingdom is not of the world and refusing to take the Magistracy upon him signifyed thereby that for civil politie he left it to the people to practice according to the humane Law and reason and as it might best serve for every nations safety peace and welfare 2. When the 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 c. might lawfully be put to death by the higher powers if he find this thing no where directly or by consequence in the New Testament then under favor of his Doctorship it is simply spoken But if he can find such a precept or practice thus far I do ingage and challenge any man to oppose that I will as clearly prove from the same place that the Commons of England may lawfully put their King to death for the like crimes 3. If Christ came not to destroy the Law as the Law of nature Nations then it is not contrary to any precept or practice of his for the Parliament of England to judge to death the King for treason and high misdemeanors against the law of nature and Nations But the first is true therefore the latter 2. For a more particular answer 1. Christ flying into Egypt what mystery soever it had sure I am it contained no prohibition against the lawfull execution of justice and judgment upon any man 2. That Christ might have defended himself with more then twelve legions of Angels but would not it was not because to cut off tyrants is unlawfull 〈…〉 no shadow for that in the Text but because it was Gods will that he should drink the cup his Father gave him 3. That Christ blamed Peter for speaking of drawing his sword Rivetus sheweth the reasons Rivet in dec in mand 6. pag 234. 1. Because it had a kind of revenge in it for so few could not repel such an Army as came to take Christ 2. He waited not on Christs answer 3. He could have defended himself another way 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter Mat. 16,21,22,24 4. To the place in Peter I answer 1. Patient bearing of wrong and punishing wrong doers are compatible in one and the same person One act of grace is not contrary to another Not to respect persons in judgment is as commendable a vertue as patient suffering for a good cause 2. The scope of the place is not to forbid all violent resisting but only forbiddeth revenging resisting as not to repair one wrong with another from the example of Christ who when he was reviled reviled not again and therfore the Argument is a fallacie Ab eo quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 kild himself because I am neerer by the law of nature and dearer to my self and mine own life then to my brother 3. No Prince hath a mastery or dominion over his subjects but only a free paternal and tutorly over-sight for the good of the people The masters in the Apostles time had a dominion over servants as over their proper goods Ro. 13.4 11. obje But the special Objection of Royallists is Rom. 13.1,2 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God Hence therefore they conclude Grot. de Jur. bel pac l. 1 cap. 4 Barc con mon. l. 3. c 9 Maxwel Sâ—c San. Mai. c. 2 p. 29. 1. That the King is the supreamest or highest power here intended There is no Judge above a King on earth 2. Howsoever in those dayes there was a standing and continual Senate which not long before had the Supream power in the Roman State yet now the Emperour was Supream and therefore no power of resistance left to the people 3. The prohibition
doth not only concern Christians but all the people under these Emperours and howbeit Religion was persecuted the peoples Liberty lost and the Senate then enslaved by Edict and Laws inforced on them by Nero and other Emperors yet notwithstanding the Apostle forbids to resist That I may give a satisfactorie answer to this Objection I desire the Reader to consider the occasion of the Apostles words which I take to be thus The Roman Magistrates being Infidels people newly converted to Christian Religion might think themselves exempted from any subjection or obedience unto them by reason of Gospel-liberty and further that it was not lawful for them to make use of such Magistrates in any civil cause what wrong soever they suffered To refute which error the Apostle informs them that howbeit the Magistrates were unbeleeving Gentiles yet their authority and power was from God Himself and in that regard their profession of Christianity did rather obleige them then exempt them from subjection and they were Gods Ministers appointed by him to punish offenders and to take vengeance on them Now bring this into an argument because Religion exempts not subjects from due obedience to lawful pagan Magistrates and people oppressed may seek redresse of their grievances therefore Tyrants may not be legally arraigned censured and put to death by the highest and supremest Court of the Kingdom 2. If the Apostles words be observed even word for word there is not any thing in them against the arraignment of a tyrant For 1. The Higher Powers must be submitted to and why Because they are ordained of God and are Gods ordinances vers 1 2. That is so far as they govern according to reason and just laws preserve their Peoples liberties persons and estates But where is it said When they prove traitors to the Kingdom and are the Devil's Agents they may not be severely punished for it 2. Because those who resist lawful authority and just commands receive to themselves condemnation is not this a non sequitur that the Parliament whose jurisdiction and power is above the King may not call him to an account for tyranny and mis-government 3. Rulers must be obeyed Because they are not a terror to good works but to evil verse 3. is not this a good consequence when they are profest enemies to all good works and do evil and continually evil with both hands that same power which hath set them up cannot take them down again 4. Obey him saith the Apostle why because he is the minister of God to thee for good v. 4. But can this be applied to a tyrant who hath destroy'd the people in body goods doth it not rather plainly imply that those who are the devils ministers to us for evil rather then Gods for good by a lawful power above them should be thrust out of their place 5. It is said ver 5. But if thou dost that which is evil be afrayd for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil Can any Roialist find any thing here which is not spoken in reference only to faithfull Magistrates in the execution of justice upon malefactors wherein they must not be resisted much lesse punished for well doing And by the rules of contraries a Tyrant that makes war upon his people to ruin spoyl and enslave them protecteth all wicked men gives liberty to all manner of unrighteousnesse bears the sword not only in vain in reference to the publick good but draws it forth only upon those that are good for such cruelty oppression and impiety may lawfully be cut off 3. The text doth include all higher powers not to be restrain'd only to Kings and Emperors but comprehends all kind of civil Rulers Augustin Irenaeus Chrysostom Hierom expound it of Masters Magistrates So doe Calvin Beza Pareus Piscator Rollor Marlorat So do Popish writers Aquinas Lyra Hugo Cardinal Carthus Pierius Toletus Cornel. a Lapide Salmeron Estitius expound the place Hence it must follow that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited but only in the due and legall execution of their offices For no man will deny but inferior lawfull officers illegally endeavoring to subvert Liberties Laws and unrighteously governing the people may be imprisoned arraigned and condemned for their misdemeanor And this granted which cannot be denyed our conclusion is fully proved and thus I make it appear Whosoever is a murderer or a traytor to the State may lawfully be put to death by the civil power that is above him and that by vertue of this text Rom. 13.1,2,3 But the King of England is under a civil power and jurisdiction to wit the Soveraign power of the Parliament Ergo If a murderer or traitor to the State may lawfully be put to death Though there be no Tribunall saith Mr. Rutherfurd formally regall and Kingly above the King yet there is a Tribunal vertual eminently above him in the case of tyranny for the States and Princes are above him 4. That the Romane Emperor when Paul wrote was the Supream and highest power in the Romane State is most untrue Iustinian indeed speaks somewhat that way Dig. l 2. Tit 2. p 146. that the Emperor was absolute but he is partial in this case Bodin proveth Bodin de Rep l 2 c. 5. pag. 221. That the Romane Emperors were but princes of the Common-wealth and that the Soveraignty remained still in the Senate and people Livius Florus Tacitus say the like and to put it out of all doubt the case of Nero that wicked Emperor is proof sufficient whom the Senate judicially condemned and as a publick enemy to the State adjudged him to have his head fastned to a fork and so to be publickly whipt to death and then to be precipitated from a rock upon which sentence he being sought for and forsaken of al to avoyd the execution therof murdered himself with a poinyard 5. As for tyrants and wicked oppressing Magistrates they are not within the intendment of this text neither is there any thing here spoken to prohibit the people from censuring and punishing of them for 1. That which is not the Ordinance of God but rather of the devil and the meer sin and enormity of the Governor himself not of the Government is not within the compasse of this text 2. That which is no point of the Magistrates lawfull power ordained of God but diametrally repugnant to it as tyranny oppression violence c. is not within the verge or compasse of this text 3. All Powers intended in the text are not only ordained of God but also circumscribed and bounded with certain rules of Law justice and honesty within which they must contain themselves and if they passe beyond those limits they are none of Gods Ordinance Now the tyranny and oppression of Kings and Rulers are meer exorbitances arbitrary illegall actions exceeding the bound of justice and honesty prescribed by the Law
it hath been seen by often and wofull experience when the States of a kingdom have only stirr'd their Princes by opposing and resisting their tyranny and misgovernment and not cut them off they have brought upon themselves and the whol Realm the more mischief and misery afterward 3. Former examples are no binding rules to us otherwise then we see men have acted according to reason religion Law for wherein soever they differed from these things therein ought we to differ from them 4. If kings formerly have not judicially been put to death for murder treason and other capital crimes it is the more needfull and usefull that such a thing should now be don that all other Nations far and neer may hence know and learn what their duty is and what they may lawfully do in point of Law and conscience and not stand stil as if they were beasts in a base and sencelesse slavery any longer But Fiftly To speak more directly to the objection There is no new thing under the sun We have many examples of Emperours Kings which have judicially been condemned put to death by the Soveraign power of the people Matth. Par. pag. 273 274 275. Not to speak of Nero mentioned before nor of our King John who was condemned to death by a Parliament in France for slaying his Nephew Arthur treacherously with his own hands and likewise to lose the Crown of England It is said of Amaziah king of Iudah 2 King 14.19 That they made a conspiracie against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent after him to Lachish and slew him there Not privately but openly as acted by publick authority for his great impiety and having broken his Oath and Covenant whereupon we reade not of any complaint inquisition proceeding or punishment inflicted on those that slew him after his death either by the people or his children as there was upon those that slew king Amon but being slain They to wit the persons who had put him to death brought him on horses and he was buried in Jerusalem and all the people of Judah made Ahaziah King Which plainly shews that what was formerly done by the greater part of the State at Jerusalem was afterward confirmed by Common-consent and executed by command of those which might lawfully do it In like manner Andronieus was apprehended deposed put to death by the people for his tyranny and oppression Nic. Chr An nales fol. 52. Grimst Emp. hlst pag. 160. Reg. Sco Buchan lib. 4. pa. 111. So Iulianus not only deprived of the Empire but authoritatively commanded to be slain in his pallace Heliogabulus that monster of mankind was by the Praetorian Soldiers put to death with the Senate and peoples approbation Dardan King of Scotland by the unanimous consent of the Nobles and people had his head cut off which they carried about for a laughing-stock and threw his corps into a jakes after he had reigned 4. years Lucktock the 22 King of Scotland for his vitious and base life was convented before an assembly of the chief men and slain with the instruments of his wickedness ib. p. 113. Eugenius the 8. another of their Kings was for his filthy lusts covetousness and cruelty slain in the assembly of his Lords by their general consent and his companions in villany and wickednesse hanged Et ipsi gratum populo speculatum praebuere pag. 165. which was a greateful spectacle to the people So Agis and Pausanias two Lacedemonian Princes put to death by the people Mun. cos l. 5. c. 37. p. 1248. So the Thracian Kings for their offences by publick consent were punished with death The usual practice of the Saboeans was to stone their Kings if they highly transgressed and went beyond their bounds If need were it might be shewed out of Histories and approved Authors that the Athenians Ionians Melesians Marchomanni Quadi Persians Sicilians Corinthians Parthians Meroes Gardii Medes Paphii Cathians Ethiopians Sidonians Germanes Swedes Danes and antiently even all other Nations not only prescribed laws and limâ—… to their Kings but cald them usually to an account for their misgovernment and oft times put them to death when they saw cause Alex. ab â—… 4. â—… fol. â—… â—uel Gibel pli l. 4. Alex. l. 6. c. 4. Plut. in Arat. Val. 6 The putting to death of Tyrants in former times hath been held so lawful and honorable as large rewards have been propounded to the undertakers and authors thereof and to the living they have given the goods of the Tyrant as to the deliverer of their Country and honored the dead with Epitaphs and Statutes of brasse as in Athens Harmodius and Aristogiton together with Brutus and Cassius Max. l. 2. c. ult L. 3. L. omâ— ne delictuÌ„ Sect. ut F. de re mil. in Greece Aratus the Sycienian and thus by publick Decree of their States because they had freed their several countries from the tyranny of Pasistratus Coesar Nicoebis yea those monuments of Tyrant-killers by antiquity were so honored and highly esteemed of as they placed them in their Temples on sacred banqueting beds And when Xerxes having vanquished the Athenians had carried away with him the Statutes of Harmodius and Aristogiton into his own country Seleucus one of the successors of Alexander the great King of Syria caused them with all diligence to be carried back again and to be set up in their own places In Norway antiently they had this custom That whosoever slew a Tyrant King was thereby made a King Gul. Neu brig l. 3. cap. 6. And what the Poet wrote was the opinion then and common saying of the people Victima haud ulla amplior Potest magisve opima mactari Iovi Quam Rex iniquus To God no better offering can men bring Nor fatter than a wicked Tyrant King For conclusion This only I shall add to say There is not an example any where of the like practice If it be meant not so judicially and according to the strict rule and form of law I confesse there may be much truth in it For commonly heretofore amongst all Nations Iewes Turks Papists Heathens c. People observed not the manner as matter they thought Tyrants so worthy of death as they did not much mind how and in what way to cut them off so they were destroyed hence it came to passe that few tyrannous princes in old time ever died a natural death but either by their subjects or their means were slain in warre or by some private hand made out of the way which gave Iuvenal occasion to say Ad generum Cereris sine caede sanguine pauci Descendunt Reges sicca morte Tyranni Few Tyrants unto Plutoes Court do go But that are thither sent by bloody blow And therefore this late proceeding against the King seeing it was so legal it shall live and remain upon record to the perpetual honor of our English State who took no dark or doubtful way no indirect â—…by-course but went in the open and plain path of Justice Reason â—…w and Religion and in this regard they need not fear the reproaches and falshood of malitious tongues and pens for as God doth approve their work and owns it so he will defend them his and their Cause in spight of all treacherous and wicked Designs either of Men or Devils The end of the First Part.
the Kings of England have not been absolute Monarchs but the Supreame Soveraignty resided in the people is a thing certainly known and so abundantly proved by other hands as there cannot be any shew of reason brought against it 3. Seeing the King is under law and the representative of the people above the King to proceed in iustice against him hence it will necessarily follow that the King by law may lawfully be put to death for the law saith the highest or supreamest Judge upon earth cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him A. de le l. non ideo minns Rom. 3,4 Deu. 1.17 And the reason is he is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil And if the judgment be the Lords not mans not the Parliaments as indeed it is not he cannot then draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guilty except the would take upon him to be wiser then God respect persons in judgment and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now sure it is God only univocally and essentially as God is judge and God only and essentially and all men in relation to him are ministers legates deputies servants I say in relation to him equivocally and improperly Judges and meer created and breathing shadows of the power of the King of Kings And look as the Scribe following his own devise and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Judge so the Supream Councel of State and Representative of the Kingdom arraigning the King for murder Treason and other high misdemeanors would be but forged intruders and bastard Judges and go contrary to Law so far as they gieve not the very sentence of God and are not the very mouth of the Iudge of Heaven and Earth to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himself would do if he were sitting on the throne or bench 4. Howsoever there be some solemnities of the Law from which the King may be free which indeed are not Laws as Prickman proveth D. c. n. 78 but some circumstances belonging to the Laws Nevertheles if a king commit murder adultery theft and be a traitor a waster and destroyer of his people their goods lives Laws Liberties contrary to his oath and Coronation-Covenant in this case I confidently affirm there is no law that hath reason equity or justice for its bottom and ground against the putting of such a King to death by the great Councel of State as we have formerly shewed above him And the reason is cleer for the people have no power to make a law that the King shall not dy by the hand of Justice what wickednesse soever he should commit 5. I would gladly be informed by any Iurist or Statist If a Tyrant without a title may be killed yea by a private man why a Tyrant that hath lost his right and title to the Crown by the highest Judicature in the Kingdom may not lawfully be put to death Ut L. vim F de Justit jure ubi plene per omnes For the first the law gives it and it is so generally held by Vasquez Barclay and others Vasq l. 1 c. 8. n. 33. Bar. cont Monar l. 4 cap. 10 pag. 286. And for the latter observe what Royalists themselues acknowledge Winzetus against Buchan saith of Nero Wintzet adv Buc. p. 275. that he seeking to destroy the Senate and People of Rome and seeking to make new lawes for himself excidit jure Regni lost all right to the kingdom And Barclay saith a Tyrant such as Caligula spoliare se jure Regni spoileth himself of the right to the Crown So Grotius Groti de jure bell pac l. 1 cap. 4. Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur emittit regnum If he turn enemy to the kingdom for their destruction he loseth his kingdom because saith he Voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi simul consistere non possunt A wil or mind to govern and to destroy cannot consist together in one 6 The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangreen would corrupt the whole body is wel warranted by nature and reason for the safety of the whole is to be preferred before a part But here perhaps it will be objected cut off a mans head and the life of the body is taken away so the King being the head destroy him and the whole body of the Common-wealth is dissolved I answer God cutteth off the spirits of Tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved For 1. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortal thing cannot be referred to the immortal Common-wealth as it is adequate correlate 2. If all the Kings of the earth were removed yet the Common-wealth would not leave off to be a body it would be only a casting off of one form of Government for another the worser for the better but the natural body without the head cannot live Lastly Mr. Pryn citing some Law-Books where the King is said to be the only Supream Governor of this Realm hath no Peer in his Kingdom ought not to be under man Soveraign power of Parl l. 1. p 104 105. Thus answereth 1. That the meaning of al these books is the king is above every one of his Subjects particularly distributively as single men but if we take them collectively in Parliament as they are one body and represent the whole kingdom then they are above the King and may yea ought to restrain and question his actions his male-Administrations if there be just cause 2. Bracton explains himself how he is highest and without a Peer to wit in distributing justice that is he is the highest Iusticiar in the Kingdom but as the Law as any in receiving justice And for the Oath of Supremacy it relates to the Popes forraign Princes authority formerly usurped in this Realm and not at all to be referred to Parliaments or their jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority not so much as once thought of by the subscribers of this Oath which had its creation and authority from the Parliament 15. Obje Some say For people to adjudge their King to death is without example either in Scripture or humane history Answ 1. We argue this negatively this is neither commanded nor practised nor warranted by promise Ergo. It is not lawfull But this is not practised in Scripture Ergo. It is not lawfull It followeth not I read not in all the word of God of a man put to death for lying with a beast for witchcraft for tempting the people to go a whoring and serving a false God yet these things are written and are all divine precepts 2. Physitians say that that Physick which only stirs the humors and doth not carry them away leaves the body worse then it found it so
to save any man who should commit such crimes as by the Law of God and nature deserveth death I say such a power the people never had never gave him and so consequently a King hath it not 3. The Law saith Illud possimus quod jure poscimus Again it is no power which is not a lawfull power and therefore if a King murder the innocent and do acts of sinfull iniustice this tyrannicall power is not from God otherwise then by way of permission as a power to sin in devils and men is and therefore such a power is restrainable and punishable by the subiect as being a power I say not from God at all 4. Note the conditions tacite or expresse upon which the Prince receiveth the crown For soedus conditionatum aut promissio conditionalis mutua facit vis alteri in alterum a mutual conditional covenant giveth Law and power over one to another I ask then why a subject breaking his covenant with the King by treason or rebellions should be punished for it justly and the King breaking his covenant and oath with the people in degenerating into a tyrant and murdering the innocent should not be punished likewise Specially seeing it is acknowledged That the States of the Kingdom who gave him the crown are above him and they may take away what they gave him as the Law of Nature and God saith Qui habet potestatem constituendi etiam jus adimendi Rutl plea for the people quest 26. pag. 234. l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg jur l. ille a quo 13. S. 5. If the King turn a paricide a lyon a waster and a destroyer of the People as a man he is Subject to the coactive Laws of the land if any thing should hinder that a Tyrant should not be punished by law it must be either because he hath not a superior but God or nemo potest a se ipso cogi but this ground is false and absurd for a politick society as by natures instinct they may appoint a head or heads to themselves so also if their head or heads become ravenous wolves the God of nature hath not left a perfect society and free people remedilesse but they may arraign and punish the head or heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good not for their destruction 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 ingagement the father was not oblieged but only by the law of nature to give a patrimony to his son yet now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is so oblieged to his son to pay a thousand pound that by the Law of Nations and the civil law the sonne hath now a coactive power by law to compel his father though his superior to pay him so much of his patrimony Even so though it should be granted which I shall never grant that the King stands superior to his Kingdom and States yet if the King come under covenant with his Kingdom as ours have don he must by that come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum what any man doth promise falleth under debt If the Covenant be politique and civil then the King must come under a civil obligation to perform the covenant and though there be none on earth superior to King and people to compel them both to perform what they have promised yet de jure by the law of nations each may compel the other to mutual performance And this is cleer 1. By the law of Nations if one nation break covenant with another though both be Independant yet hath the wronged Nation power de jure to presse performance and to force the other to keep covenant or punish them for violation 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant described by Solomon Pro. 6.1,3 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 contrarywise destroys their persons goods cities by sword plunder and fire by his commissions granted to inhumane malignants and bloody Irish they have power to compel him to give satisfaction 3. The law shall warrant to loose the vassal from his lord when his lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in L. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quoest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Boltol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de Offic. Magist Imperatores Reges esse Primarios vassallos imperii Regni proinde fi feloniam contra Imperium aut Regnum committant feudo privari proinde ut alias vasallos 14 obie I find this to be a main objection That there is no law for subjects to put their Kings to death for any crime It is saith Bodin a great difference 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 spiders web that catcheth the little flies and lets the greater escape But to answer 1. It is an error and a great mistake to say that the Commons in the house of Parliament or the representative Kingdom are subjects to the King This I utterly deny to wit as they are Judges there to be subjects to the King neither doe they Judicially convent his Person before them censure and iudge him to death quatenus as subiects but thus He being a minister a steward or servant of the people and they representing the whole body of the people doe call him to an account not as Subiects to him but indeed as his lord and master and so have a Soveraign power to iudge him to death if his crimes deserve the same 2 In point of law Bodin gives us the whole cause Ibid. for he confesseth Where the Prince that bears rule is not an absolute Soveraign but the Soveraignty is either in the people or Nobility in such a case saith he there is no doubt but it is lawfull to proceed against a Tyrant in way of justice and to put him to death and gives for it the example of Nero and Maximinius That