us our sins as we forgive them that sin against us For there is no reason from the nature of sin and the nature of Gods Law why we can say more the subjects and sons sin against the King and Father then to say the Father and King sin against the sonnes and subjects 3. The King killing his Father Jesse should sin only against God but not break the fift commandment nor sin against his Father 2. As all Emperors Kings and Princes are subject to the Lawes of God of nature and Nations so are they bound in conscience to give satisfaction and recompence to their subjects against whom they sin in this nature and David himself determines so much in his own cause And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man the man was himself 1 Sam. 12.7 thou art the man and he said to Nathan as the Lord liveth the man that hath don this shall surely die 3. For the reason of Davids speech in saying against thee thee only have I sinned Expositors are diversly minded some say he meaneth none durst judge or punish him but God onely Lorinus the Jesuit observeth eleven interpretations of Ancient writers all to this sence It is true Beda Euthymius Ambrose Chrysostome Basil Theodoret do acknowledge from the place de facto there was none above David to judge him so Augustine Basil Gregory Arnobius Dydimus Hieronim But the simple meaning is Against thee only 1. As my eye witnesse and immediate beholder for he conceal'd his sin from men but could not from God 2 Sam. 12.12 2. Because as the cause stood God only could remit the punishment of his sin 3. By only he means comparatively as if he should say principally and especially against thee Isa 43 5 Psal 41.3 and the word a 1 King 15.7 Josh 1.7.18 1 Sam. 18.17 only is often so taken 4. The Sanedrim did not punish David Ergo it was not lawful for them nor is it lawfull for a State to punish a King for any act of injustice is logick which we may resist 5. Had the adultery and murder been publickly known and complained of to the Great Councel of the Kingdom I do affirm and will stand to it that they might judicially have proceeded against him for it And because some wil be ready to brand this under the scornful terme of a new light or think I am singular herein I shall here set down the judgment of a judicious and learned professor of Divinity Mr. Sam. Rutherfurd a Scotchman Preem of Elect of King qu 26 p 241 The Prelate saith he draweth me to speak of the case of the Kings unjust murder confessed Psal 51. To which I answer He taketh it for confessed that it had been treason in the Sanedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his adultery and murder but he giveth no reason for this nor any word of God and truly though I will not presume to go before others in this Gods law Gen. 9.6 compared with Numb 35.30,31 seemeth to say against them Nor can I think that Gods law Deut 1,17 2 Chr. 19 6,7 or his deputy the Judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great and we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not The Lord speaks to under-Judges Levit. 19.15 Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor the honor of the person of the mighty or of the PRINCE for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King should draw the sword against himself but yet it follows not that if we speak of the demerit of blood that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or small and if the STATE BE ABOVE THE KING as I conceive they are though it be a humane politick constitution that the King is free from all coaction of law because it conduceth for the peace of the Common-wealth yet if we make a matter of conscience FOR MY PART I SEE NO EXCEPTION THAT GOD MAKES OF IT if men make I crave leave to say A facto ad jus non sequitur Thus that Reverend Author Lastly This sin against Vrijah was personal and a private injury into which David fell by occasion and out of humane frailty it was the first and only sin that he committed in this kind that ever we reade of he made no trade of it he repented for it and never relapsed after into it Whereas Charles Steuart in a hostile and publick way hath murdered many thousands of his best subjects by giving Warrants and Commissions under his own hand to Atheists and Papists personally appeared in many battles to destroy the people caused sundry villages towns and cities to be ruinated by fire plunder rapine authorised villanous Pirates of other nations not to mention his own Son nor Rupert that monster of mankind to rob and kill his own subjects at sea gave Ormond commission and the bloody Irish to kill and massacre not so few as two hundred thousand men women and children of the Protestant religion in Ireland not to speak of fifteen hundred widowes which he made in one morning as Mr. Henderson told him nor the losse of Rochel in France by his lending ships to the French King and this was his trade and constant practice many yeers together and doubtlesse would have continued so to this day had not the Lord of Hosts by a powerfull hand using our Army as instrumental means supprest him and for all this his heart never smote him as it could be perceived but remain'd impenitent and incorrigeble in his sins 9. obiect It is likewise objected Jer. 29,7 That the children of Israel were commanded by God himself to pour out supplications prayers for the peace and prosperous estate of Nebuchadnezer a most cruel tyrant and that it was not lawfull for the Jewes to withdraw themselves from the subjection which they did owe unto his Empire Neither would the Lord authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Moses a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a stretched out arm Nor did the Lord deliver his People by the wisdom of Moses or strength of the People or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and Power Hence conclude that subjects may not punish their Kings for any misdemeanour Answ 1. The Jews were not only subjects and of a private condition but likewise most of them servants and bond-men under the power and Empire of the Caldeans and therefore for private men to rise up against the Magistrates or to resist them with force of arms had been unlawfull 2. And let it be observed that the Jews came by the immediate appointment of the Lord under the power of the Caldeans of which thing they were often preadmonished and fore-told by the Prophets so that it was not only
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.
Althus Pol. c. 18. Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 20. Pareus in Rom. 13. Peter Mart. in lib. Judic c. 3. Joan Marianus de Rege lib. 1. c. 7. Marius Salamonius Lib. 1. de Principatu Hottaman de jure Antiq. Reg. Gallica l. 1. c. 22. Danaeus Polit. Christ l. 3. c. 6. Buchanan de Jure Regni apud Scotos 2. The King is under Law and punishable by Law as we shal manifest more fully hereafter It is the Law Imp l. 4 dignavox C de leg tit Quod quisque Juris in alium statuit eodem et ipse utatur What a man of right enacteth for another the same he himself should do If otherwise proving a Tyrant he may saith Bartol In tractat de Tyran in tract de re Ci. Jun. Bru vind con tyr l 3. be justly deposed by his superiour or according to the Julian law by force of the whol Common-wealth most deservedly punished I will end this point with the words of Junius Brutus A Tyrant saith he is more outragiously wicked than any thief high-way-robber murderer or sacrilegious person and therefore deserves a far greater heavier and severer punishment 7 obiect I find some to frame their objection thus None of the Prophets in the old Testament reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for their grosse Idolatry cruelty and oppression did call upon the great Councel of State to convent censure put their Kings to death upon any of these grounds therefore to put them to death is unlawful Answ 1. It is a great Non-consequence Aristoteles aut Plato hoc non dixerunt hoc Ergo ita se non habet Fra Burâ—… Instit Lâ— l. 1. c. 18. This duty is not practised by any example out of the Prophets in Gods word Ergo It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she enticed him to follow strange gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13.6 when a man lying with a beast was put to death Yet it is a law Exod. 22.19 so many other laws the practice of which we find not in Scripture But 2. Seeing none of the Prophets did forbid the thing or dehorted the people from proceeding this way therefore it was lawful and the people freely might have done it if they had been zealous of the law and had a heart to it And to make this cleer take notice what the Law saith Levit. 19.35,36 Deut. 25,13 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement in meteyard in weight or in measure just ballances just weights c. Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights a great and a small These ordinances taught men justice Ye shall not respect persons in judgment ye shall not be afraid of the face of man deu 1.17 so that whosoever was a murderer an adulterer a witch a Sodomite c. he was to be put to death And questionless had the Lord intended that some namely Kings howbeit murderers adulterers witches should be exempted from the punishment of such laws as being no power or Court on earth to reach them it would have been some where set down And therefore whereas it is objected that the Prophets speak no where of putting their Idolaters wicked Kings to death the truth is it needed not neither was there any reason for it for it was never questioned in the Prophets times whether Kings might be put to death if they did such things as by the law was death 3. Not only is it evident by the History of the Kings and Chronicles in sundry places 2 Kin. 21.11.12 23.26 24.3 Jer. 15.1,2,3.4 that God did punish the people for the wickedness of their Kings but likewise the Prophets have threatned so much the which thing surely God in justice would not have done neither the Prophets so have spoken had not the people power to have removed them and put them to death for their capital crimes according to the Law 4. When the Prophets exhorted the People to repent and to execute justice and judgment and to deliver him that was spoiled out of the hands of the oppressor Jer 7.5 21.12 22,3 Here they did call upon the great Councel of State to punish their tyrannous murderous and idolatrous Kings with death according to the law for otherwise how could the people truly repent or have answered what the Prophets exhorted them unto in point of justice 5. That tyrannous Princes not only by command of Gods Prophets but of God himself and by his special approbation have been put to death by their subjects 't is apparent in Scripture thus Nadab by Baasha Elah by Zimry Jehu by Gods own appointment puts to death Joram and Ahaziah Kings of Israel and Judah And say that it was extraordinary to Jehu that he should kill Joram yet there was an expresse law for it that he that stirreth up others to idolatry should die the death Deut. 13.6 And mark what Mr. Rutherfurd writes in this very point Preem Elect qu 34. p. 364 THERE IS NO EXCEPTION OF KING or Father in the Law For to except Father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeal of God Deut. 33.9 8 obiect That passage in Psal 51.4 is much taken hold of where King David confessing his sin of adultery and murder to God useth this expression against thee thee only have I sinned and don this evill in thy sight Sac. Mai. p. 148. de author prin c. 4. num 5. p. 73 Hence Maxwell Arnisaeus and others conclude That the King is above all Law and all earthly Tribunals accountable to none for his actions but to God and that there was not any on earth who might punish David I have somewhere read how Calisthenes Lucullus servant gave his Master poyson not of any evill intent but supposing the poyson had power to make his Master love him the more but it put him out of his wits and kill'd him Fawning Sycophants and Court-flatterers have usually thus served Kings and Princes in hope of more love and greater preferment from them have powerd into them the venemous doctrine of absolute Monarchs Arbitrary power to be responsable to none but God only for what they do by which means they have grown mad Tyrants and afterwards cut off by some visible and sensible stroke of justice But to the objection I answer 1. It is most certain that David by his adultery and murder being sins against the second table did sin not only against God but against Vriah his wife children and kindred and against his own soul And this must needs be so for otherwise 1. The King because a King is free not only from all punishing Laws of men but from the duties of the second Table simply and so a King cannot be under the best and largest half of the law Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self 2. He shall not need to say forgive
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
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