AS wise Men before they build, lay a good foundation; so for a right procession in this discourse, wee must consider the constitution of Government from which [not be­ing rightly weighed] springs all our differences and contradictions in this Kingdome; I shall therefore state the con­stitution of Government two wayes, viz. Legall, and Illegal constitutions or ordination of Govern­ment, to explaine the tearmes; Lawfull ordination of Government is that which [as near as possible] is according to Gods prescription: Unlawfull, is that which is contrary to, or diverse from Gods prescription in that way of Government which the people shall choose, which hath beene [according to the then immoderate importunity of the people] since Saul, almost hitherto, Kingly Government, [Page 2] and that in three lawfull respects, viz. By unction, the peoples approbation or election, and lawfull suc­cession; so that whosoever is qualified with these three particulars must be [according to the consti­tution of that Government] a lawfull King, but it being cleare that the first of these particulars [ viz. immediate unction or unction by commandement] is withdrawne [so that in that sense no King now can be called the Lords Anoynted] from us; it re­maines, that he that is King by the peoples election or approbation, and lawfull succession, is [according to the institution of that Government] a warran­ted King: But on the contrary, he that is not so e­lected [lawfull succession (to one freely chosen and not that usurpt authority and forced submission) being onely beneficiall to a man for preferment in choyce, if he (as well qualified) come in compe­tition with others] his authority is usurped and il­legall. For let him plead succession [though lawful] never so much, yet if the people forbeare to choose him, because defective in his qualifications; hee is, in a degree as incapable as a Foole for the Office; so then lawfull succession depending upon the peo­ples election; hence will arise this undenyable Pro­position, that that man that assumes the Kingly of­fice onely by vertue of [though lawfull] succession is a Usurper, and doth presume upon the peoples rights; now this was the onely plea that our late King had or could have to his Office: seeing he could pretend no right to it from unction, because as (be­fore said) it is withdrawne, neither from the peo­ple [it is cleare in that they have made so much op­position against him] that hee continued in it, nei­ther was it from the peoples free election, that hee [Page 3] reigned so long, in that he never acknowledged such a power to be in them, 'twas onely then through an ignorant submission by them (or if they were con­victed of their right yet through their impotency) that our late King first assumed and since so long continued in the Office, now therefore, the title that he (on his part) claimed to it, and thereupon entred, was by a pretended right through [though illegall, because originally from conquest] suc­cession: So that the premises considered, there needs no other proofe to demonstrate that his title was usurpt; yet for further conviction [and not to lay any more burthen upon him, or prejudice him in the thoughts of people, he having enough alrea­dy where ever he be] and satisfaction to mens spi­rits concerning his Execution, and that wee may with more ease and contentednesse of minde (in re­spect of the flesh) forget him from whom wee had received, and could expect so little good [though his impenitency should better us] let us consider and review in our selves, his actions since his reigne, even to his very death (which should sadden us to thinke of) and they have cleerly demonstrated that hee took it upon no other tearmes, then to rule ac­cording to his will; which [though it lay in his heart from his first possession] was not evaporated till these his latter and last yeares, wherein [the people claiming their rights] he hath most mani­festly and audaciously [though contrary to all rea­son] declared himselfe inaccountable to men, [though from them as a people (and so his Master) he had received, if it were Legall, his power and au­thority] for his actions; then which nothing can more nullifie and frustrate the Law of God, which [Page 4] upon a breath thereof, doth include all whatsoever, without exception of persons, under the penalty of it; as to instance severall, universall injunctions of God in Scripture, Sine aliqua exceptione & quae ad universos pertinent, without any exception, but be­long to all alike as men: as in particular, that in Levit. 20.2. The Lord there speaking unto Moses, said, Thou shalt say also to the Children of Israel, who­soever he be of the Children of Israel, or of the strangers that dwell in Israel, that giveth his Children to Molech, he shall dye the death, &c. Moses and all the head Officers of the people being included in [if in this transgression] the punishment thereof, in as much as they were among the Children of Israel; and in the 10. verse of the same Chapter, God saith, The man that committeth adultery with another mans Wife, &c. shall dye the death: Now we know, that the Of­fice of any, though never so high, doth not, or at least should not elevate him above his being, he is a man still, though in Office a King, and though in respect thereof, God saith, I said yee are Gods, that is in respect of your Office, be it high or low, which is, to manage your power in the execution of justice and judgement, in which you beare my image, yee are gods in being like God, though I have said so, yet yee shall dye like men, which in the generall sense of it, may have respect to a temporall death common to all men, whose nature you Magistrates beare, yet may very well beare this interpretation likewise, Yee shall dye like men; That is, all sorts of men [if alike qualified] if murtherers, ye shall dye like men; that is, those men that are murtherers; if adulterers, yee shall suffer like adulterers, the ri­gor (in reference to many sinnes) not the punish­ment [Page 13] of the Law being taken away by Christ: Now then, the former interpretation agreeing with the precited Text, shewes clearly that the Law of God exempts none (neither high or low, rich or poore Magistrates or Subjects) from the punishment [in case of transgression] thereof; now for any man to plead freedom [because in the highest authori­ty] which notwithstanding is derived, is to con­tradict the Word of God, which saith, Numb. 35.30. Whosoever killeth any person, the Judge shall slay the murtherer through witnesses, &c. And yet such (would bee outlawes) will plead exemption; (I speake not (onely in reference to this opinion in the late King) but to such that are of his spirit, that connived at, and still approve of such an opi­nion in him, at least at the impunity of it, whether they be Magistrates or others, yee looke more at the priviledge and the honour then the care of the Office, and therefore he was, and you are, far from Solomons spirit, that discerned it to bee the hardest matter to governe the people in righteousnesse, and therefore made it his prayer to God, to begge wise­dome, and that not for his owne ends, but to rule the people in equity; he made their good the cen­ter of his endeavours, you, the late Kings preroga­tive, his riches, greatnesse, and long life, the centers of yours; Solomon rejected all these, in competition with the peoples good, and how acceptable it was to God, will appeare in 1 Kings 3.11. An example we have of the same spirit in Christ himselfe to­wards the good of his Sheep, John 10.11. Where he saith, I am that good Shepheard, that good Shep­heard layeth downe his life for his Sheepe: But how distant was the spirit of the late King from such a [Page 4] [...] [Page 13] [...] [Page 6] temper, that for a little selfe accommodation and forcible preservation of a few usurpt Priviledges, to himselfe, sought to destroy (if hee were as Shep­heard) his Sheep. The same example wee have of Nehemiah 5.14. that would not burthen the people to pleasure himselfe: By this therefore it is evident that Kings have some earthly power above them, which they serve, and whose good must bee the end of their power; to which then, as their superiour, they must be accountable, without which their pow­er is usurpt, and by which they are deposed, preven­ted, or punished, according to the demerit of their fault; Now then to confirme this, there is the ex­ample of Solomon, who was so farre from pleading any title of his owne to the Office, that in the for­mer part of his prayer; he saith, Lord thou hast made thy servant King (speaking of himselfe) in stead of David my Father; now that it is a righteous act up­on just grounds to prevent a successor, it is manifest by this Gods owne example, because that Adoni­jah by right of succession, was heyre to the Crowne, yet notwithstanding was prevented by God, who foresaw, that the peoples good would not bee so much aimed at by him as by Solomon: So that here will sitly intervene this observation, that the Au­thority of all Magistrates depends upon their good behaviour, and that it is lawfull in case of misde­meanour either to prevent or disposesse them of their power. The proofe whereof, I shall further amplifie, in discussing particularly the kingly Office in the quality of it what it is, which I shall briefly resolve in two particulers.

First, It is a trust.

Secondly, An Office or Duty.

A trust in that it is committed (not from God by injunction by which onely trust is imposed but by his permission) to a man, from men; so then it cannot bee from succession, which if lawfull, hath onely (in case of good behaviour) a preference to the trust; that is, a man lawfully succeeding (if as well qualified as others) is to be prefer'd (in choice to the trust) before them; therefore, as it is a trust, so secondly it is a duty, in that hee is injoyned to performe that trust, as by God that would have e­very man (like himselfe) faithfull, so by men from whom hee receives his charge, and therefore they must needs be his intrusters, in that likewise the end of his trust is for their owne good and welfare, to whom then he must without question be accounta­ble, and therefore a King to a people, is as an ac­countant to a Company, a Cash-keeper to his Ma­ster: Now if a King, or any other Magistrate shall act quite contrary to the end of their trust, viz. the peoples good, which was the conditions of their au­thority, and in stead thereof, make it as a mantle that thereunder they may more securely preadvance their owne private interest, though directly preju­diciall to the end of their Office; let the meanest capacity judge, whether such a Magistrate or Ma­gistrates have not forfeited their trust, upon which the intrusters may justly cease, as to render to the person or persons so offending according to his or their deserts therein, so to institute that trust, that way the see best to discharge it, seeing the end thereof is their owne welfare; it is reason it selfe therefore, that the Servant should bee accountable to his Master (for how ridiculous would it be for a­ny Servant (a King being so to a people) because [Page 16] long intrusted without examination, to refuse ac­counting, when by his Master called thereunto) wherein if defective he may justly exclude him his service, for otherwise such a servant would bee an intollerable burthen (and so frustrate the designe and end of service which is for good and ease) to his Master, and therefore the reason why God (when he commanded the people to choose themselves a King from among their brethren, Deut. 17. from the 15. to the last verse) prescribed him Lawes and rules to walke by, and many things was forbidden him that hee might not be exalted above his bre­thren: And therefore Samuel 2.5.1. the Elders of Israel made this among others as an argument to them to make David their King, in that they were his bones and his flesh: Now I need not make any application of this to the late King, since it is pub­liquely knowne how much he was (and in his seven yeares contention sought to have been) exalted a­bove (not his brethren, because not chosen from a­mong them) the people; but it being before clear­ly demonstrated that he is guilty of breach of trust herein, I need not appeale to rationall men of the justnesse of the Parliaments and Armies late pro­ceeding against him, or make any further proofe of that his and his complices wilfull errour for an ab­solute power in him; yet for full and cleare con­viction, I shall demonstrate another proofe of the unlawfulnesse and perniciousnesse of such an inac­countable power in any Magistrates, and then cleare objections and conclude.

The Proposition was this, That the authority of Magistrates depends upon their good behaviour; I shall turne it into the negative, and from thence [Page 17] prove it: so then if the authority of Magistrates, supe­riour as well as inferiour, depends not upon their good behaviour, then their power is absolute, and they may doe what they will without contradiction or questioning, which is incroachment upon, and directly oppugnant to the rights and liberties of the people, and therefore such a power is unlawfull. For first, it is against the Covenant that Magistrates take when they are first invested with power; which signifies that there is some bond or tye upon their will, that they cannot doe what they please, else to what purpose should they take a Covenant: whence by the way I note, that that man w ^ch assumes an abso­lute power where it is not given him, at the same time he both breaks his Covenant and usurps that power.

Secondly, If Magistrates have an absolute power, as some would have had wholly in the King, why then the Kingdome lies at a very great uncertainty; it is upon one perhaps, that if the King or superiour Magistrates be good, the Kingdome will be saved: but there are ten perhapses, ten it may bees, for one that is contrary; that the King or Superiour Magi­gistrates are bad [especially they knowing themselves to have such a power] upon which the destruction of the Kingdome lies; now there is no reason [I speake for prevention of danger for future, whatsoever go­vernment shall be setled] that wee should expose our selves to chance among such rocks, especially when wee know where they are, and how to avoid them, whereunto this is a strong motive, to consider, that though extreamity be the fittest season for God to step in and deliver; yet all other meanes must faile, otherwise it is to tempt God; for though God doth often deliver with the meanes, yet hee saveth not [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 10] where lawfull means is not first used; why so, if there were no meanes of avoiding this absolute power in Magistrates, we were free from our own destruction: but if we will obstinately venter upon these rockes, as the Israelites upon a K. it may be just with God to split us upon them; for the greatest sin of the Israel­ites was their desire to return into [after God had re­leased them] Aegyptian bondage, which at last pro­ved their greatest plague.

Thirdly and lastly, If Magistrates have an abso­lute power over the people, then that generall and undeniable maxime, salus populi suprema lex is but a vapour, it vanisheth away: and so that which out of duty they are to prefer as the end of their trust, be­comes subject to their unconstant wills and disposi­ons; For, the peoples safety [it being really conso­nant to the word of God, in that it confirmes pro­priety, every man to sit under his owne Vine, as a blessing] that should by all (if not ordinary) extra­ordinary meanes be endeavoured, is hereby made postrema lex, or rather no law at all, in that it is then dependant upon the wavering disposition of Magi­strates; which if good, (as it is tenne for one to the contrary, in that they have more aboundance of temptations from such an inherent power in them) yet where will appear the supremacy of the peoples safety, when it lies in the Magistrates power▪ Nay, can we repute that people any other then slaves whose rights and liberties lie wrapt up in the will of usurp­ing Magistrates, whether in a King or others. In­deed the rights and liberties of the people are much talked of: but when they come in question of pre­ferment, alasse, they gulp downe all the liberties, and therein the livelihoods of the people, into the [Page 11] honour, safety, and happinesse of such trust-usurp­ing men, whose principles are to maintaine such a power, which surely is not derivative, and therefore usurpt; then which, nothing can tend more to enslave a people, to whom, while so, to ascribe any rights or liberties, is to mocke and deride them. For how can the people, rights and liberties be dissolved into a Kings, or any other Magistrates will and power, and yet be theirs; therefore, when wee speake of the peoples liberties, we doe (or at least should) meane something peculiarly theirs; that for any man to u­surp must needes induce the slavery, which is as much contrary to liberty, as light to darknesse.

Now then it being clear, that it is usurpatiō in Ma­gistrates to assume an absolute power; it follows by consequence, that those that doe so, are accompta­ble; for the very motion, life and soule, the mar­row, and the nourishment of such a power in Magi­strates, is the peoples incapacity of opposing and pu­nishing that irruption upon their liberties by them: and to take away this power from the people, is to deprive them of their liberties; for how can those be the poples (in that they are made incapable to maintaine them) liberties, when they are subject to the power of out-lawes; or wherefore have they a right or a title to them, if they cannot enjoy them; and how can they enjoy them, when they are at o­thers command; therefore seeing the people have a peculiar right and title unto liberties which cannot be enjoyed, unlesse by their own power maintained, it is cleare, that the same law by which they may just­ly endeavour the enjoyment of (which cannot be but in opposition to those that would usurpe) their rights, they may impartially punish such usurpers [Page 20] answerable to their crimes; for the attempt of such a power deserves devestment, and much more the practising of it punishment. I shall proceed now to the objections.

And the first is this; say some, have we not taken an oath of obedience to the late K. how then could it stand with our oath to disobey him; to which I shal adde (because both of a nature) that of another party, viz. Have not we covenanted to maintaine and de­fend and preserve the honour, safety, and happines of the late Kings person; how then hath it consisted with our Covenant in taking away his life? To both which I shall answer but a little, because I refer the Reader to be more fully and amply satisfied herein, by a Booke which I shall suddenly publish, entituled, Illumination to Sion. Colledge, by a moderate reply to their Letter delivered to the Generall, January 18. last.

But to the first of the precedent objections, I an­swer, that our oath of obedienee to superiour Ma­gistrates is, not was not absolute, or without condi­tions; for then (as I said before) to what purpose should wee take an oath of him or them: and if our oath was absolute, we swore our selves slaves, and therefore not a good oath, because taken in ignor­ance: but how irrationall it is to think that we swore obedience universally, I need not demonstrate; ther­fore it being cleare, that our oath was conditionally to yeeld obedience unto superiour Magistrates in the execution of judgement and righteousnesse, which is the very end and cause of their authority and our o­bedience: and which if they omit, we are as disinga­ged from subjection to them as to a private person; because that in this their duty the become as (and [Page 21] more incapable of power because offenders, then] private persons: And therefore like to this was the Covenant that David made with Israel when he was made King, 2 Sam. 5.3. Where it is said, that all the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron, and King David made a Covenant with them before the Lord (a Covenant that he must keep if he would continue in his office) and (then) [after hee had Covenanted with them to make things sure for the people] they anoynted David King over Israel: Now the very substance [which he accordingly per­formed] of his Covenant to them is manifest in the 1 Chron. 18.14. So David reigned over all Israel and executed judgement and justice to all his people; there is a great deale of emphasis in that particle so, So David reigned over all Israel in the execution of Judgement and Justice, [as that the very being of his authority depended upon the keeping of that his Covenant] to all his people, his people, how? Why [not that they were at his pleasure, but he at theirs, as in 2 Sam. 18.3, 4. Where the people [not seeing it best for themselves] told David he should not goe forth in the Battell; to whom hee answered in the 4. Verse. What seemeth you best, that will I doe; and David remained in the City, not for his owne safety but for the peoples, (in that they saw it) good] but they were his people while he performed his Covenant, after he had executed Judgement and Justice unto them: I have been long­er in this answer then I thought, for satisfaction sake.

I shall very briefly answer that Objection of the other party in reference to the Covenant, that they say we made to preserve the late Kings person, &c. [Page 22] To this therefore I reply, that this clause in the Covenant is qualified with the subsequent end thereof, which [they willingly slip over] is, in the preservation of our Religion and Liberties, the safety whereof is the end of our Covenant, and which we have sworne to endeavour in opposition to all the enemies thereof; now if the Parliament should, or as the late King did [notwithstanding our Cove­nant to preserve them, which was no otherwise then they should comply with us in endeavouring that end] turne enemies to what wee have Covenanted solely to endeavour, we are ingaged by our Cove­nant to oppose them as enemies and impediments of attaining our end; but for more ample satisfacti­on herein, I refer the Reader to that prenomitated Book, and proceed to answer two or three objections more and then conclude.

Object. 2 Doth not God generally throughout the Scrip­ture injoyne obedience to Magistrates as his Ordi­nance? I answer, That though God doth frequent­ly in Scripture injoyne obedience to Magistrates, yet it is not to all Magistrates, or to good Magi­strates in all cases: First, not to all Magistrates, for then Gods immediate command to Jehu, 2 Kings 9.6, 7, 8. to doe what hee did to his Master Jeho­ram the King, would directly contradict his owne Word if he should injoyne us obedience to all, and command disobedience in him; Againe, God in­joynes not obedience to unlawfull Magistrates, such as come not duely to their Office, and therefore the Apostle, Peter 1.2, 13. injoynes obedience to Ma­gistrates, as being the ordinance of man; For saith he, Submit your selves unto every Ordinance of man [Page 23] for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King as unto the superiour: Superiour, what? not as the Monarch, none to contradict him, but as the superiour Ordi­nance of man, or unto Governours as unto them that are sent of him, for the punishment of evill doers, and for the praise of them that doe well; here is likewise a limitation to our subjection, it is not to obey in all cases, but when they execute ju­stice in the punishment of evill doers, and the praise of them that doe well; for this is their place, and if they doe not discharge this duty, they cease to be Magistrates; and this I conceive to be the meaning of that place, because it agrees with other Texts, 2. Samuel 5.3. Thus David was ordained, Deut. 1 [...].18. and Deut. 17.15. And Officers shalt thou make thee in all the Cities, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, &c. And they shall judge the people with righte­ous judgement: Now then it is cleare that the Lord injoynes obedience to none but lawfull Magistrates and that in the just execution of their Office. I pro­ceeed now to the,

Last Objection, and that is this, If Magistrates Object. 3 offend, where is there any power to punish them; this objection hath in effect been cleared already, but I shall answer it now more formally; in case a Magistrate, though the superiour, transgresse, there is a power above himselfe (from whence he receives his Commission) to which he is accountable, he be­ing (as it were) but the peoples Factor; for God commands a people to execute Justice and Judge­ment among themselves, no man to wrong his neigh­bour, and many other civill Lawes to be observed, of which to ease themselves and avoyde confusion, [Page 24] they commit their trust to Magistrates, and herein they promise particularly to obey them while they righteously discharge their Office; but now when to advance selfe, they begin to respect persons in judgement, they become accountable to the people, or those whom they shall choose to represent them­selves in this judgement; and therefore wee often read that the avenger of blood appointed on pur­pose thereunto, was to slay the murtherer whoever he was, and when ever he met him, Deut. 35.21. Levit. 24.17. In other cases likewise we finde that the Congregation it selfe was to give judgement; as when a man had accidentally (not voluntarily) com­mitted murther, he was to remaine in the City of refuge till he did stand before the Congregation in Judgement; that is, before such as they should ap­point thereunto, Joshua 20.6. And therefore when GOD so often commands the people to execute Judgement and Justice without respect of persons, it lyes upon their score [though God will likewise reckon with those whom they intrust to doe it for them] if they omit it, Levit. 20.2. Whosoever hee be of the Children of Israel or of the strangers that dwel­leth in Israel that giveth his Children unto Molech, he shall dye the death: Now here comes in the objecti­on: What if a Ruler give his Children to Molech? Who shall kill him? Why the close of the Verse answereth it, The people of the Land shall stone him to death. But in the 4. Verse. What if the people of the Land hide their eyes, and wink at that man, &c. and kill him not? why in the 5. Verse, Then (saith God) will I set my face against that man and against his fa­mily, and will cut him off, &c. But how sad a thing is [Page 25] it when God shall finde none in a Land to make up the hedge, to worke righteousnesse, and thereby prevent God from taking the Sword himselfe to ex­ecute judgement; the Lord will power forth his in­dignation upon them, and consume them with the fire of his wrath, their owne wayes will he render upon their heads, Ezek. 22.30, 31.

Now then the result of all will be this;

That Kings if lawfull [under which title I com­prehend all Magistrates] are freely elected by the people, and accountable to them for their trust:

But the late KING was not freely elected by, neither would be accountable to the people:

Therefore he was not a lawfull King, and his dis­possession was just.

Againe,

Gods Law injoynes the execution of Justice and Judgement:

The Parliament in their late Transactions, have executed Justice and Judgement:

Therefore they have obeyed Gods Law.

For how absurd is that opinion in some, that have complyed with the Parliament in punishing of De­linquents, and yet they would leave the cause of them all unpunished.

For how unjust would that be in any Authority to punish the Servant for ill doing, and yet leave the Master [at whose command he was and whom hee obeyed therein] unpunished; I could multiply examples of the like kinde, but to rationall men the premises will be sufficient; but as for that par­ticuler [Page 26] way of Government by a King, it is not in­joyned in Scripture as a necessary way of Govern­ment, in that the Prophet Samuel 1.11. to the 18. so much dehorted the Prophet from it, and so high­ly discovered the evill of it, and that it was a sinne in the people so immoderately to desire it; therefore it is left to a people to establish what way of civill Government they see safest for themselves, and in which, Judgement may run downe as Waters, and righteousnesse as a mighty River.