Actuall Transgressions But Originally Corruption He was free from because He was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary and Actuall Transgressions he was cleared of not only by the Verdict of St. Peter who tell us from the Holy Ghost He did not sin neither was any guile found in his lips 1 Peter but also by the sentence of Pilate himself who told the Jews who importuned to have him Crucified I have examined him but can find no faults in him And Charles the first King of England John Scotland France and Ireland for whose Commemoration and his 8 Anniversary I chose this Text though he was conceived in sin and questionless guilty of Actual transgressions yet not such Transgressions as made him worthy to be Killed and murthered by the ancient Laws of this Kingdom And that 's a wonder A wonder that King Charles I. should rather with Constantine cover other mens Errors and discover His own A wonder it is P. 146.4 that Charles I. would continue an Angel of Reformation when the Devil of Rebellion was up in Arms against him A wonder it is p. 207.1 that Charles I. would rather suffer himself and his to be destroyed then give way to alter a settled Orthodox Religion A wonder it is p. 186.3 that Charles I. would rather chuse the woe of Vae soli and Solitude then of Vae vobis Hypocritae and Hypocrisie A wonder it is p. 127.28 that Charles I. should chuse rather to be reckoned among the Misfortunate then in the black List of irre ligious and Sacrilegious Princes A Wonder it is p. 165.20 that Charles I. should seek to set up Christs spiritual Kingdom by pulling down his own Temporal Kingdom A Wonder it is p. 135.4 That Charles I. should rather ascribe the setling of Bishops to the wisdom and piety of the Apostle then to the favour of Princes or Ambition of Presbyters A Wonder it is that Charles I. should be so judicious to determine some mens Zeal for Bishops p. 141.8 Lands Houses Revenues set them on work to eat up Episcopacy Root and Branch A Wonder it is p. 103.10 that Charles I. should esteem it his greatest Title and chiefest Glory to be the Defender of the Church both in the true Faith and its just Fruitions and equally abhorr both Sacriledge and Apostacy A wonder it is p. 103.21 that Charles I. should rather chuse to live on the Churches Alms then violently to take the Bread out of Bishops and Ministers mouths A wonder it is p. 104.17 that Charles I. wounld not repair the Breaches of the State by the Ruins of the Church A wonder it is p. 103.6 that Charles I. should rather chuse Pharaohs Divinity and Joseph's true piety then to sell the Priests Lands A wonder it is that Charles I. should esteem the Church above the State and Gods Glory above his own p. 92.13 and the Salvation of his soul above the preservation of his Body Estate and Posterity And yet a greater woâ—der it is That in none of all these nor any thing else neither Judge nor Jury nor Rable could sind any cause in him King Charles I. But now suppose They had found cause of death in him 2a 1ae yet might they desire to have him killed That my 2a 1ae is to tell you and it tells you No It is not awsul for Subjects to desire to have their King killed though â—hey could find cause of Death in him No God forbid we should desire to have Christ the King killed since he came to he killed for us that we might not be killed A most unthankful part this would be and therefore most abominable to requite so much Mercy with so great Injury Yet so unthankful and so abominable were the Jewes They desired to have Christ killed and I would to God some Christians yes and all Christians were not so abominably unthankful But I must tell you so abominable and unthankful are we all that we daily wound him if we do not kill him yes that we daily wound him and kill him Wound him by our Miseries or kill him with our sins we renue his Agony by our consticts or his Passion by our Guilts We never suffer as Christians but He suffers with us we never sin as Beasts or Epicures but we kill him by those sins We have more need to say Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his Son to be killed on Earth for a time that we might not be killed in Hell for ever and Blessed be God the Holy-ghost who did annoint Jesus to be our Christ and gave him Inauguration to his Crown of Thorns and Blessed though most bloody Function and blessed be our Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself up to death that death might not swallow us up yes rather say we Blessed be the Holy Trinity then to desire that Christ should be killed And God forbid again That we should desire to have that King killed whom I in this Text aim at For it is against the Law against the Law of God against the Gospel of Christ and against the Law of men too 1. Against the Law of God Exod. 27.22 Thou shalt not speak evel of the Ruler of thy people says Moses much lesse mayst thou do evil to him Prov. for says Solomon Against the. King there is no rysing up but to desire his death to desire that he may be killed is both to speak evil of him and do evil to him 2. It is against the Gospel of Christ For Christ himself says Give to Caesar the thing that are Caesar and what things are Caesars St. Paul tells you when he says Be subject to him Give him Honour Rom. 13. Tribute Obedience Take not any thing from him and all this for Conscience sake which argues their little or no Conscience which desire to have him killed for in so doing they take all things from him and St. Peter puts it further home when he says next to Fear God Honour the King which shews and it it as if the Apostle had said They have little or no Fear of God that have so little Honour for their King as to dishonour him by desiring to have him killed or as the Royal Expositor hath it They cannot appear good Christians p. 165.20 that approve not themselves good Subjects Nor can it be safe for a King to tarry amongst those men who shake hands with their Allegiance p. 37.15 under pretence of laying faster hold on their Religion and certainly that is no Religion or a very bad one which allows it lawful for Subjects to desire to have their King Killed But I have spoken at full heretofore That no cause whatsoever in the King though Murther Witâ— hâ—raft Idolatry c. can authorise Subjects to Rebellion from the Law of God from the Gospel of Christ from the Judgement of all
Nature wherein he transgressed not and yet his excesse was not punished either by Sacerdotal Synod or by the secular Senate either by an Assembly of Levites or by an Army of Souldiers David for bad it twice in his life time and revenged it after his death and for no other reason but this Quia unctus Domini quia Christus Domini Because he was the Lords annointed Sauls unction was the cause of his immunity Quaero si Saulus non habebat Sacramenti sanctitatem Contr. Patil l. 2. c. 48. quid in eo David venerebatur says St. Augustine If Saul had not the holinesse of unction I wonder what it was that David reverenced in him David reverenced Saul for his holy unction Saul a bad King was Gods annointed though bad and it is to let you know That annointing doth not signifie any spiritual grace or vertue For then Saul had not been King and yet when he was at the worst he was still Gods annointed Nor secondly does Unction signifie Religion For then Cyrus a meer Heathen had not been King yet King he was and Gods annointed too Isa 45.1 Unction or annointing then signifying neither confirming in Religion nor conferring of any spiritual grace it must and will sâ—grisie that Dominion and Sovereignty which God gives that man whom He chooses out of the rest to be King whether he be good or bad either in the beginning of a Royal Race or in the Succession of a a Royal Birth And the Primogeniture of Sovereignty I must tell you is enough to prove one Gods annointed At first God made Kings and his annointed immediatly by himself so Moses Then Mediatly by Men so Joshua by Moses so Saul and David by Samuel and so Solomon by David and these were extraordinary waies The ordinary waies are by Succession or by the Sword For Elective Kings are rather Reguli then Reges Jud. 2 Reg. 24.1 Isa 45.1 and titular then reall Abimelech got it by the Sword so did Nebucadnezzar and so did Cyrus and still they were Gods annointed But this we durst not say to you if Gods word did not say so to us The surest was by Succession or Birth-right which belongs to the eldest Son and thus Rehoboam succeeded Solomon c. and they that so come to the Crown are Gods annointed and therefore may not be resisted deposed or murthered which is my second part and thus proposed Whether such a Person as the King and Gods annointed Part 2. though bad may be resisted deposed or murthered I answer it No and thus I undertake it And that you may clearly and to the full understand the truth of this I shall leave it to your choyce whether you will believe Papists and Puritans without the word of God or the Primitive Fathers and Doctors with the word of God The Jesuites of Rome tell us That Kings may be deposed by Popes The Puritans of Geneva tell us That Kings may be deposed by the People Both in some cases and the spawn of both the Independents have done it de facto in England without any Case or Cause at all will you hear them speak 1. Say they of Rome If the King be a Tyrant i. e. If instead of protecting the People he destroy them If instead of feeding the People he fleece them If instead of enriching his Subjects Bellar. de he impoverish them If instead of doing them Justice he be unjust unto them Let him be as lawfully he may be deposed Potest Papae 2. If the King usurp power in spiritual things i. e. If he call himself Defender of the Faith or under Christ the Head of the Church If he call a Council without leave of his Holinesse the Bishop of Rome If he shed the bloud of Priests by the Secular Power and Civil Sword If he alienate Monasteries Nunneries and other Demeasus of the Church Let him be as lawfully he may be deposed 3. If he be an Heretique i.e. If he be not of the Romish Faith and Religion If he favour it not If he promote it not Lib. 5. If he practise it not If he persecute the Professors of it If he enact and execute Penal Lawes against them Let him be as lawfully he may be deposed 4. If he be a Fool had I been the Cardinal instead of Fatuity I would have said If he be a Demoniack i. e. If he be possest with the Devil or an evil Spirit if he have compacted with the Devil If he be so sierce that no man may speak unto him If upon every or any light occasion he throw his Javeline to nail men to the wall Cap. 1. and draw his Sword to cut their Throats Let him be as lawfully he may be deposed These are ruled cases in Rome to legitimate that spurious Doctrine of King-deposing and King-killing and all these made good by those hell-hatcht Distinctions of Proprié Improprié of Directé of Simplciter secundam quid of Absolute in ordine ad spiritualiâ— by the Popes Absolute and Relative Authority And the same Doctrine of Sedition of Deposing of Regicide and King-killing Loc. Com. Theol. Loc. 77. p. 845. is as stifly but not so subtly maintained by the Puritans else hear them speak 1. Subditis si sit publica et manifesta savitia licet fieri supplices implorare anxilia ab alijs et suscipere eorum defensionem aliis Regibus licet saith Bucanus when Subjects suffer Publick manifest wrong they may lawfully become Suppliants unto Forreign Magistrates and implore their aid against their own Princes and other Kings ought to take upon them their Defence and Protection 2. Si legibus Dei Magistratus transgrediantur c. says Christopher Goodman If Magistrates transgress Gods Lawes themselves Tract de obed p. 119. and commend others to do the like they loose that honour and obedience which is otherwise due unto them and ought no more to be taken for Magistrates but to be examined and punished as private transgressors 3. Licuit says Eusebius Philadelphus from Edengburgh Dial 2. p. 57 It was as lawful for his Brethren of France to defend themselves from the Tyranny of Charles 9. King of France as for wayfaring-men to resist and repel Thieves and Wolves Nay saith he I am of opinion with the old people of Rome That of all good action the Murther of a Tyrant is most commendable 4. Oritur nobilis quaestie says Danaeus in his Christian Policy Lib. 3. c. 6. Here arises a noble question Whether it be lawful for Subjects to change and alter their Government Yea whether it may be done by godly men with a good Conscience Yes says he It may and his Reason is this Reges summique Magistratus Kings chief Magistrates are the Vassails of the Kingdom Common-wealths where they Rule and therefore may be dispossest and dejected when they attempt any thing against the Fundamental Lawes thereof and as it
Owner of could claim little or no Birth from Flesh and Blood yes before that Mr. Hynderson himself declared him to be A most pious and learned Prince yes and Mr. Caryll confest That he found King Charles another Selomon 4. Look upon him in his Mercy and therein he out-strips that King that forgave his servant 10000 talents Mat. 18.27 Luk. 23.34 and onely comes short of Christ and yet as Christ said Father forgive them so said King Charles I do freely pardon for Christs sake those that have offended me in any kind nor shall my hand ever be against any man to revenge what is past in regard of any particular done to me And this in his Solitudes he said at Holmeby as you may read in the 41 verse of his Penitentialls I could go on but expede Herculem and by these Four His Patience His Content His Wisdom and His Mercy you may see King Charles was Christus Domini and very near a Kin to Christus Dominus in the Unction of his Graces and so you may again in the Unction of his Crosses 1. Look upon him in the Crosse of Conspiracy Men of several minds and manners of divers Sects Factions Sadduces and Pharisees at deadly Feud between themselves yet bandy together against Christ so was King Charles assaulted by men of several Opinions Anabaptists and Antinomians Presbyterians and Independents at Daggers drawing between themselves do yet combine in their oppositions against him and all the difference was this The one brought him to the Block and the other chopt off his head 2. Look upon him in the Crosse of his ignomity The Devil is in him Why hear ye him said the Sanhedrin of Christ Joh 10.20.7.48 I dare not repeat what our Pharisees have said of King Charles and yet I dare not but repeat on speech of theirs Do any of the Worthies of Parliament believe him or give any respect to any things that proceeds from him 3. Look upon him in the Crosse of Cruelty and Malice As Christ was belyed and betrayed bought and buffeted by his own scorned and derided in his very Devotions and numbred amongst the greatest Transgressors and for fear he should make an escape had an Ordinance put out by the Great Council requiring If any man knew where he was he should discover him John 11.57 So was King Charles betrayed by his servaâ—ts bought and sold by his Subjects belyed by his Enemies denied by his Friends and least he should make an escape Look upon the Order of Munday May 4. 1646 where it is said Ordered be it and it is hereby declared by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled That what Person soever shall harbour or conceale or know of harbouring or concealing the Kings Person and shall not reveale it immediatly to the Speaker of both Houses shall be proceeded against as a Traytor to the Common-wealth and forfeit his whole Estate and dye without Mercy 4. Look upon him in the Cross of his Accusers accusation Judge 1. His Accusers many false Witnesses many false Witnesses sought against Christ Mat. 27. and many false Witnesses sought against King Charles 2. His Judge a Heathen Deputy President for the true and sworn Judges of that Kingdom durst not condemn him so because the sworn Judges of this Kingdom durst not and by Law could not therefore Legi-serviens is made his Judge and made to condemn him 3. Because the Evidence of witnesses gave no ground to Pilate to condemn Christ the Souldiers cry out He makes himself a King Joh. 19.12 and therefore is not Caesars friend and his very Accusatition over his Head upon the Cross is no more but this J. N.R.J. and just so is King Charles served because he was a King and would maintain Monarchy he is no friend to the Parliament and His Accusation can bear no Title but this C. A. R. O. was put to death January 30. 1648. for no other cause but because he was the best King England ever had and so like to Jesus Christ in the Unction both of his Graces and also of his Crosses And to make them yet more paralell as God would have it the very pretence of their enemies is the very same In salutem populi Joh. 11.47 The fafety of the people Better one man die thou all the people perish said Caiphas of Christ so that the Common-wealth of England might be preserved let Charles the King of England be condemned said Mr. John Bradshaw and it is a fine way I confesse to preserve the Body by cutting off the Head So like to Christ was King Charles and now very near to Christ is King Charles even at his right hand where that we may also be God of his infinite mercy pardon all our sins past and keep us from all sin to come and especially from this sin which is so fearful a sin Rebelling against Deposing and Murthering of Gods Annointed thorough Jesus Christ Amen And how fearful a sin that is Part. 3. my third and last part will tell you in a word 1. It is Murther and that is a fearful sin For it is not only Peccatum quia prohibitum which is bad enough but it is Prohibitum quia peccatum which is a great deale worse It is not sin only because it is forbidden but is therefore forbidden because it is sin And yet 2. It is far worse in this case because it is in conjunction with Sacriledge and Rebellion and so in direct opposition against Almighty God himself Davids nolitâ— tangere Christos meâ—s Touch not mine annoinetd Touch not my Christs proves it Sacriledge St. Pauls Qui obsistit whosoever resists the King Rom. 13.2 resists the Ordinance of God proves it Rebellion And whether of these two Sacriledge or Rebellion be the sin against the Holy-Ghost hath been controverted by some Divines but that both concurring are if not the sin against the Holy-Ghost an unpardonable sin hath been determined by many Divines and this Demonstration I offer for it The Antecedent to the sin unpardonable is Knowledge Ignorant men cannot commit it The subsequent to that sin is Irrepentance The Penitent men have not committed it And both these Knowledge and Irrepentance are in Sacriledge and Robellion Knowledge goes before to teach Irrepentance follows after to sinpify Knowledge shews the sweet of Rule in Rebellion and the sweet of Profit in Sacriledge The sweet of profit begotâ— Delight and nurses it to Presumption The sweet of Rule conceives Fear and nurses it to Despair each of which finds Irrepentance upon the bed of Death For the truth of this view all Records Sacred and Prophane read all Histories Canonical Apocriphal and Ecclesiastical and see if you can find one but one either Sacrilegis or Rebell that ever died in an outward possibility of Salvation What sign what Symptom of Repentance in Cain the first in Saul a Second in Jeroboam a third in Ananias a fourth sacrilegious person
over them even Saul of whom Samuel here says See ye not him the King 1 Sam. 10. whom the Lord hath chosen It is still to tell us That God is the efficient of Monarchy and not the People And was it not God that afterward appointed David and after him Solomon and so of all the Kings both of the Jewes and of the Nations was God the efficient 2 Sam. 5. Prov. 8.15 if you will believe Solomons Per me for the Kings of the Jewes By me Kings Reign and Isaiahs Unctus Cyrus for the Nations Isa 43.1 where the Lord calls Cyrus his Annointed or that of Daniel for both Dan. 4 25. The most high ruleth in the Kingdom of men and gives it to whomsoever he will Mark it The Lord gives it not the people and the Lord gives it to whomsoever he will not to whomsoever the people will But soft I have here committed a great Errour and given an open way to a very fair Objection For some Monarchomachoi Objection some Anti-Royalists and Fighters against the King say People are the Author and efficient of Monarchy and they give Scripture for it 1 Reg. 12.20 The people sent and called Jeroboam unto the Congregation and they the People made him King over all Israel Yet now I think upon it again Resp this Errour of mine was not so great nor the Objection so strong but that I can fairly salve the one and easily solve the other and in Answer I confesse That the People did make Jeroboam King and that by God too But How by God and How by them Not by God Efficiente approving of it but only Permittente permitting of it and By them not Authoritate by any Authority they had acquired but Rebellione by Rebellion they had incurred Jeroboam was King indeed and indeed of the Peoples making but in Fact not in Right because not of Gods appointing further then by way of Permission God blest him not Immediatly by himself No Prophet of God annoinaed him nor was there any Ceremony used for and at his Inauguration more then a Rent Ahijah the Prophet rent a new garment in twelve pieces and bid Jeroboam take ten 1 Reg. 11.31 In all which God only punished Solomons sin but did not make Jeroboam King And what a heavy Judgment God intends that people whom he permits to chuse and make a King unto themselves the sad progresse of this Story will demonstrate and that was this in a word When they had made a King of their own why then they and their King would have a Religion of their own and to effect this They banish or silence or imprison all their old Priests and Orthodoâ—al Clergy as absolute impediments to their new intended government and by and by they take as much Anthority over God as before they took Liberty over their King and Jeroboam confesses himself to be but an Usurper though a King of the Peoples making 1 Reg. 12.27 saying This People will return unto their Lord if they do sacrifice in Jerusalem And indeed when they had made an Usurper their King their King and they made a Calfâ— their God and this sin of Idolatry stuck so close to their King and that sin of Rebellion stuck so close unto themselves that He is made an example to Sovereignty they to Subjects least if Kings do as he did and become Idolaters and worship another God or Subjects do as they did and set up another King then whom God hath placed over them the Kings become Castaways and the Subjects first Rebels and ever after Slaves You see This Objection hath done the Objector little good All that it says is God may give way to people to make an Usurper King but punishes them soundly for it and is still himself the Author of lawful Kings and the Efficient of true Monarchy And as it was in the daies of Moses so it was in the daies of Christ He would rather be without his own Right then receive it in a wrong way or from a wrong hand and therefore to let the People know That they had no power to conferr Crowns Joh. he would by no means accept of that Dignity when they the People would by no means accept of that Dignity when they the People would have made him King He likewise acknowledged Pilate though he were but a Deputy-King to have received his power De super from above Joh. 18. and St. Paul maintained the same Doctrine saying The Powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1 Not doth the Reply any way foile this truth where St. Peter saith Replic 1. Pet. 2. That that is the Ordinance of man which St. Paul calls the Ordinance of God For the same Act is often times ascribed both as well to the one as the other sometimes to the Mediate Reasons and sometimes to the Immediate Agent so it is said 1 Sam. 11.15 1 Sam. 10.1 All the people went to Gilgal and there they made Saul King and yet in the Chapter afore it is said The Lord hath annointed thee to be Captain over his inheritance and the like is said of David They the people annointed David King over Israel and yet it is said again 2 Sam. 5.3 The Lord annointed Dauid King over Israel 2 Sam. 12.7 i. e. God as the Master of the Substance makes Kings and gives them their Regall power the Prophets as Masters of the Ceremonies powred on the Oyle and declared them Kings and the People as under-Officers received them into the Possession of that Right and admitted them to the Exercise of that Authority which God had given them Or you may take the Answer thus whereas St. Peter calls the Supream Power or Monarchy the Ordinance of Man there he speaks of the Final cause of Power q. d. Power the Supream power Kingship and Monarchy it self is ordained for the good peace and welfare of man not but that God is the Efficient Cause of this power as St. Paul speaks And Paraeus himself who was no great Royalist indeed no friend at all to Monarchy In Rom. 13. pag. 1327. tells us That the Authority of Kings is primarily the Ordinance of God and he answers this very Objection thus St. Peter saith he calls the Magistrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An humane Creation or Ordination not causally as if it were invented by man or brought and begotten by the Will of man or as if man were the Author of it but this he speaks 1. Subjectively because it is executed by man And 2. Objectively because it is used about the Government of humane Society And 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Finally because God ordained it for the good and help of markinde And in the close he adds The wordused by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creation ad Deum primum autorem nos rev ocat sheweth plainly That God is the first Author of it Hitherto then it
of the Kingdom and first here I shall examine what is meant by these words They despised him The meaning of this consists in three branches and they are these 1. They did Male-cogitare think evil of him in their hearts and so came within the compasse of Solomons prohibition Curse not the King in thy thought Eccle. 10.20 A thought of despising the King is Treason as well as a Word and a Word as well as an Action so says the Scripture of the Intention of Bigthan and Teresh Traytors they were and yet they never came to an Insurrexerunt or any Act of Treason Ester 2.21.23 but only to a Voluerunt an Intention they sought or they thought to lay hands upon King Ahasuerus and for this very thought of Treason they were hang'd And as the Law of God so the Law of this Kingdom doth construe a bare purpose against the King a despising thought of the King to be Treason and makes it deadly My prayer therefore is Convert them O God if they will not be Converted confound them O God and let them perish as many as have evil will against the King and do Male-cogitare despise him in their thoughts 2. They did Male-dicere despise the King with their tongues and speak evil of him saying How shall this man save us and this is the second Branch whereby the meaning of this word is explained They despised him i.e. they speak evil of the King and so came within the compasse of Moses's prohibition Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Deut. 27.16 A Word against the King is Treason as well as a thought or Action Greater Treason then a thought and lesser Treason then an Action And they that Word it against the King if they be of the Clergy they are of Balaams Ordination Numb 23. because they Curse whom God hath blessed and he was killed with the Sword If they be of the Layety they are of Shimei's condition 2 Sam. 16.5 because they revile whom God hath annointed and he was put to death And of late by the Law of this Nation there stood one Pym condemned for saying He would if he could embrue his hands in the blood of King Charles the first and many more in good time may be condemned and executed for saying They will if they can embrue their hands in the blood of King Charles the Second My Prayer again therefore is Convert them O Lord if they will not be converted confound them O God and let them perish as many as speak evill of my Lord the King and do Male-dicere Despise Him with their Tongues 3 They did Male facere Despise the King with their Hands for they brought him no presents and so came within the compasse of King Davids prohibition 1 Sam. 26.9 Thou shalt not stretch forth thy hand against the Lords annointed I know King David there speaks by way of Interrogation Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed and be guiltlesse but I know withal that Interrogative Quis Who can is a most triumphant Negative and says Nullus No man can and be guiltlesse or No man ought unless he will bring Guilt upon his own Soul Absolon did was hang'd 2 Sam. 10.9 Robert late Earl of Essex did against Elizabeth our late Queen of England and was beheaded and how many that were in the same Conspiracy were hang'd you may read in that Chronicle My prayer therefore is gain Convert them O Lord Convert them and return them to their Duty of Loyalty to thine Annointed If they will not be converted confound them O Lord confound them and as many as lift up their hands against or withdraw their hands from my Lord the King Amen You see what is meant by these words 1 a. 2 a. They despised him will you now see Why they despised him why it was Because they lookt upon him as a single man How shall this man save us Happily they thought him greater then any of themselves in particular but they thought themselves in a collective or Representative Body greater then him the King and this brings me to the unfolding of the second Question which is Whether the King be singulis major Question 2 greater then single persons but Universis minor lesse then collected Persons or the Body Representative I shall not need to speak of the first Branch of this Question viz. Whether the King be Singulis major Greater then any single Person For it is not denied by any or if by any yet only by such who are more Beasts then Men and live more by Sense then by Reason or Religion or rather have lost both their Sense their Reason and their Religion The enquiry therefore here must be upon the other branch of this Question viz. Whether the King be Universis minor lesse then the Body Representative For this was the thing in agitation in this late wicked Age and affirmed by these wicked men the Children of Belial who did de facto murther King Charles I. of blessed memory and would have done as much upon King Charles II. if they could have fastened upon him at Worcester but God I trust hath preserved him for better times I must at first take leave to tell them That the Ground on which they build is false and meer Sophistry That the assumption and Inference which they build is weak and meer Fallacy For thus they argue The Fountain or Cause of a King is greater then the King but the People Representative is the Fountain and Casue of the King Therefore the People Representative is greater then the King And here I say The Ground is false the Assumption is untrue and the Inference therefore is so too 1. The Ground is taken from an old Axiome Quickquid efficit tale est ma gis tale whatsoever effects a thing is greater then the thing effected This though true Ante effectum productum before the effect produced yet it is often false Post effectus productionem after the production of the effect v. g. The Fountain was once bigger then the River but now the River is bigger then the Fountain A spark of fire was once more Fire then all the Wood in the Chimney but when the Wood becomes one Flame the Wood is more Fire then the Sparke You see the Ground is not ever true and sure I am the Assumption laid upon this Ground-work is never true viz. The People is the Fountain or Cause Efficient of the King For God as I have shewed you before and whether I referr you is the only Efficient of Monarchy Only I add thus much Were it so that the People did make the King yet it would not follow That therefore the People is greater then the King For this Axiome is true only in those Agents in whom the Quality by which they work is Inherent and from whom it cannot be separated But the People if they had Power to make the
Power is equal to his Will The Crown is trampled upon the Mytre is thrown to the Dunghil The Garter is laid in the Dirt No Law but Power and Lust No Justice but spoile and Rapine No Religion but Schism and Heresy Tâ—i was Englands case once when Henry III in the Barons Wars at the Battle of Lewis in Sussex was overthrown by them I pray God the Issue of that may be Englands case again when not long after at the battle of Eversham in Worstershire the King defeated the Barons became the Conqueror rid his Neck from the yoâ—k of the Twelve Peers that had been put upon him and had long time been grievous to Him and to the whole Kingdom For whosoever parted not with his inheritance to their side and yeilded not to their Arbitrary Government was presently made a pretended Delinquent and brought under a Sequestration for his Estate and a pretended Malignant and brought under an Execution for his Life whereas in truth They themselve were all the while the true Delinquents and the true Malignants which is my second general part in the Person of Achab. And what signifies Achab Pars 2. I find but one signification of his Name and that is Frater Patris The Fathers Brother Nor can I in this signification fasten upon him the Truth of malignancy unlesse it be in the Poets transposition and observation Fratrum quoque gratia rara est The Love the Friendship the courtesie of Brethren is a very rare thing in this World and seldom to be seen And in this sense I find the first eldest Brother in this world a true Malignant Cain who pretended Malignity to his Brother Abel because he seâ—ved God better then himself and slew him for it and so were Ten Sons of Jacob who pretended Malignancy to their Brother Joseph because Jacob loved him best because Iacob their Father loved him best and prescribed Ruben But this is not an Universal Truth and therefore I shall not fasten the Title of Malignant upon Achab from the signification of his Name the rather because the Interposition of Non makes the verse false though the English true non Rebus conveniuâ—t nomina saepè suis And therefore I shall seek for another Appellation is given him whereby we may call him the true Malignant and that is in tâ—â—â— first Book of Kings where it is said Achab malum in conâ—pâ—â—â—â—â— Domini super omnes qui fuerunt ante â—um fecit Achab 〈◊〉 worse in the sight of the Lord C. 16. v. 30. then all that were before him How worse then all that were before him why so I beseech you An quia Idololatra fuit Was it because he was an Idolater Not so For Solomon fell into Idolatry 1 Reg. 11 4 An quia vineam alienam Or was it because he took away another mans Vineyard and did more then Decimate the Royal Party This indeed was one cause which made him a true malignant but this was not the cause which made him the worst in Gods account for Jeroboam did Decimate over and over 1 Reg. 12.20 when he took away the whole Kingdom of Israel from the right heir An quia unum Naboth injustissimè occidit Or was it because he put Naboth to death most unjustly This indeed was another cause which made him a true Malignant but yet this was not the cause which made him the worst in Gods account For Saul killed fourscore and five Priests which wore a linnen Ephod in one day 1 Sam. 28.18 Why then was Achab accounted the worst of the Kings of Israel Quia plurimis non solúm suppliciis sed etiam beneficiis excitatus fuerat ad impietatem deserendam et ad sanctitatem observandam because God sought to reclaim him by many Punishments and by many Benefits In li. 1. Reg. cap. 12.11 12. and yet he still remained obstinateâ— as Mendoza notes with whom Paulus Burgensis agrees saying Magis fuit rebellis et contumax có quód tempore suo sloruit Helias qui quam plurimis signis et prodigiis ipsum exhortaretur et tamen semper remansit in abstinatione suâ He was therefore the most wicked because God by the ministery of Elias would have reclaimed him but he still remained stubborn And with both these agrees St. Ambrose saying Debuit intelligere quód Helias vero Deo serviebat In Ps 35. cùm videbat in verbo Heliae clausum coelum tribus aâ—nis et trilus mensibus et ad preces ejus pluvias esse demissas ut arida omnia rigarentur seâ—â—oluit intelligere Achab saw Heaven shut up three years and three Moneths at the word of Helias and upon his prayers he saw the Heaven opened by both whicâ— he might have understood that Helias served the true God and therefore he should have repented but he would not understand And hereupon my Author concludes him to be the worst of men because he would not be frighted by Punishments nor wooed by Favours Now lay all these together He robbed Naboth of his Vineyard He robbed Naboth of his life He despised the Prophets and would have silenced the Clergy He was the worst of men And then tell me or rather tell your selves Whether Achab were not the true malignant If you ask why my prima secundae tells you in Quia occideriâ— Hast thou killed An occideris An tu occideris An tute occideris Hast thou killed Hast thou thy self with thine own hands killed for so the Prophet intends to bring Achab to the Bar and to implead him guilty of the murther And yet it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He killed him with his own hands though Covetousnesse like wrath be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a self Executioner But this of Elijah to Achab is somewhat like that of Nathan to David There was the hand of the Ammonite that killed Uriah there was the hand of Joab that set him in the Fore-front of the Battail and there was the hand of David that invented and commanded all this and yet Nathan past by them and said to David Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the Sword So here were the false witnesses who testified against Naboth and stoned him here were false and new erected Judges that condemned him here was Jezabel the Queen who commanded this and here was Achab the King whose Seal gave Authority to all this and yet Elijah past by all the rest and said to Achaâ— only Hast thou killed i. e. Thou hast killed Thou who shouldst have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Shepherd and feeder of my People art 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pest and Butcher of my People Thou who shouldst have been Pater patriae thy Peoples Father art Lanio thy Peoples Killer Thou who mightst have in some cases Tondere fleece and clip thy Subjects wooll didst what in no case thou shouldst do Deglubere flawe and shed thy good Subjects blood But is it not lawful to
be accursed and saies Origen propter hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis Traditionem accepit etiam parvulis dare Baptissimum Rom. 6. Because we are all conceiv'd and born in sin the Church hath received a Tradtion from the Apostles to Baptise Children and saies St. Austin Consuetudo matris Ecclesia c. The Custome of our Mother the Chu ch in Baptizing Infants is not to be slighted because it is an Apostolicall Tradition De Gen. ad li. c. 23. That 's a ninth Invention 10. If we believe and have Faith It is no matter for good VVorks or how we live a meer Invention this For saies St. James faith without work is dead and saies St. Paul Jac. 2. neither Circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but Faith which worketh by Love That 's a tenth Invention He is gone to Hell For he dyed of the Plague A meer Intention This For many of Gods dear Servants do dye of the Plague 2 Sam. 24. David was desirous to dye of it when he prayed Let thy hand I pray thee be against me and my Fathers house but sure he would not have been so desirous to dy of the Plague if he must have gone to Hell for it That is a 11th Invention Subjects may take up Arms against their King For the King is Universis minor though he â—e singulis major Lesse then the Collective Body though greater then any particular Person If he be a Tyrant If he be Sacrilegious If he be an Idolater He may be Resisted He may be Deposed A meer Invention's this For Saul was greater then all the People because he was their King and Saul was a Tyrant a sacrilegious person an Idolatar a Consulter with Witches and yet David durst not resist him durst not depose him and only for this cause Because he was the Lords Annointed and therefore the Lords Annointed because the King And this hath been the Judgement of all Divines until of late and therefore This is another twelfth Invention Bishops and Presbyters are of equal Authority They are all one For Bishops are called Presbyters in the word of God A meer Invention This and a false Conclusion For Presbyters are never called Bishops either in the Book of God or in any other book unlesse in the Books of Hereticks or Schismaticks And that is a Thirteenth Invention A King may be Deposed by an High Court of Justice and unjustly sentenced to death as a Tyrant Traytor and Murtherer and Publick enemy by severing his Head from his Body A meer Invention This though pronounced by John Bradshaw Lord President so called Oliver Crumwel L. General Henry Ireton Commis General Col. Hardresse Waller Col. Harrison Col. Whaley Col. Pride Col. Ewer Lord Gray of Grooby Sir John D'Anvers with many more who are not worth the remembring unlesse Dr. Dorislaus and Justice Aske Councellours for the Common-wealth Cook Sollicitor General Broughton and Phelps Clarks to the Court Danby Mace-Bearer Humphrey Sword-Bearer and King Cryer And this was an Invention beyond all the Jewes Inventions And a great many more Inventions yet have we found out but I have tyred you and my self already with these and by these though there were no more I am sure we have provoked God to wrath for the Plague is broken in upon us It is my fourth and last consideration in resolving that Question What is the fruit and effect of these Inventions Pars. 4. of these Provocations The Plague brake in upon them Irruit It brake in Magno impetu invasit It came with a mighty violence and could not be resisted Tanquam aqua exundas like a suddain Flood of water Maltiplicata est in eis ruina A multiplyed destruction came upon them Factis est in eis gravis ultio God took an heavy and grievious revenge upon them twenty four thousand of the common people and Princes were slain and this tells you what Plague it was is here meant It was not the Plague of Pustules or the Plague of the Pestilence or as the common people call it the Plague of Gods Tokens or as we of late have had the Plague of the Guts which was never heard of in any Kings Reign but only in the first Reign of a President and in the second Reign of a Protector but it was the Plague of a Civil commotion raised by the Madness of the people for a former madness of their provocation and the small number of the slain then but 24000 shews and proves their provocations to be lesse then ours because the Plague of an Uncivil civil war amongst us hath slain many score of Thousands some Hundreds of thousands and proves our provocations to be greater then theirs However I wish not the rest of the Rebels may either Hoyle or Phane themselves I wish them not confusion here or Damnation hereafter The worse that I wish is That God would be pleased to take them as the Rods of his Justice into the Hands of Mercy and bring in King Charles II. with power to recover his own Dominions and to sit upon the Throne of his Father King Charles Is the Royal Martyr of blessed memory who upon this day January 30. Anno Dom. 1648 was murthered by barbarous hands for seeking to preserve the Churches Rights and the Peoples Liberties and Reign over us and our childrens children in peace and prosperity thorough Jesus Christ Amen GOD Save King CHARLES II. Anno Dom. 1658. ACTS 13.28 And though they found no cause of death in him yet desired Pilate to kill him THere are not many steps betwixt Princes Prisons Graves Mat. 2. Christ was the King of the Jews so confest by the Magi and the People would have proclaimed him so But Pilate the Lord President and Cajaphas the High Preist having Him delivered into their hands by the Treason of Judas for a far less price then 200000 l. even 30. pieces of Silver and though they found no cause of death in him unless it were Negatively because he had not Ahab-like took away Naboths Vineyard or plundered any of his Subjects Illegally nor Jesabel-like took away Naboths life or put to death any of his Subjects Extrajudicially or Affirmatively had healed their sick cured their lame and their blind ear'd their deaf raised their dead delivered them all from the Kings Evil and made them happy to their Enemies Envy and their Friends Admiration yet they desired Pilate to kill him That 's my Text and in it I observe two parts and they are these 1. A VVonder they found no cause of death in him for a VVonder it is that a King who hath so many Prerogatives and Advantages to Blaspheme to Rob to Rabe to Murther to Idolatry and more causes I find not to kill any man should have no cause of death found in him 2. A Murther and a monstrous Murther Yet they desired Pilate to kill him for a monstrous Murther it is that Subjects who have so many tyes of Obedience upon them
towards their Kings should first desire Pilate a Judge and having obtained leave upon their desire should add to their desire endeavour and to that endeavour the act and actuall Execution to kill him it is a monstrous Murther This If it be a monstrous Murther for Servants to kill their Master If it be a monstrous Murther for Sons to kill their Father If it be a monstrous Murther for a VVife to kill her Husband why look ye here are all Subjects which are but serci Domini Regis Servants to their Lord the King Subjects which if more then Servants are but Filij Patri Patriae Sons to the Father of the Country the Kings Subjects which if more then Sons are but sponsa Marito Gentis the Spouse to the Husband of the Country the King yet these Servants these Sons this VVife desire to kill and kill their Master their Father their Husband and that which makes this monstrous Murther more then and above measure monstrous they can find no cause of death in their Master in their Father in their Husband in their King which is all In the first of these the wondea I enquire 1. VVhy there was no cause of death in him 2. If there had been cause of death in him whether they might desire to have him killed In the second The monstrous Murther I enquire 1. VVhy they desired Pilate to kill him 2. VVhat end they had in killing him I begin with the first the wonder they found no cause of death in him Pars 1. The Jews had four sorts of death in use amongst themselves 1. Lapidatio Stoning 2. Combustio Burning 3. Decollatio Beheading 4. Suffocatio Strangling Other sorts of death in number six they borrowed from other Nations 1. Crux the death on the Cross 2. Damnatio ad bestias to dye by wilde Beasts 3. Serra dissectio cutting one in sunder with the Saw These three they borrowed from the Romans 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the VVheel 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 udgelling one to death 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drowning one in the Sea They borrowed from the Greek and this they borrowed from the Greeks and Romans These severall sorts of death had their several causes of inflicting them I shall but name them 1. There were eighteen Causes for Stoning one to death 1. He that lieth with his own Mother 2. He that lieth with his Fathers VVife 3. He that lieth with his Daughter in Law 4. He that lieth with a betrothed Maide 5. He that Coupleth with a Male 6. He that Coupleth with a Beast 7. The VVoman that lieth down to a Beast 8. The Blasphemer 9. He that worshippeth an Idol 10. He that offereth his Seed to Molech 11. He that hath a familiar spirit 12. The Wisord 13. The private intiser to Idolatry 14. The publique drawer to Idolatry 15. The VVitch 16. The prophaner of the Sabboth 17. He that Curseth his Father or his Mother 18. The Rebellious Son Now of none of these 18. did they accuse him but only of Prophaning the Sabbath and Blaspheming in calling himself the Son of God in neither of which they found no cause of Death in him For he disproved his profanation of the Sabbath by works of Charity and proved himself guiltless of Blaspheamy by his own constancy and by his Fathers Testimony His Father witnessed twice that he was his Son once at his Baptisme Mat. 3.15 Mat. 17.3 and againe at his Transfiguration at both which times a Voyce was heard from Heaven saying this is my beloved Son His own Constancy also quitted him since his first words and his last words when he died Luk. 23.34 Luk. 23.46 were Father forgive them and Father into thy hande I commend my Soul No cause therefore to stone him to death and as little cause could they find to burn him to death for none but 10. sorts were adjudged to burning 1. The Preists Daughter which committed Whordome 2. He that lieth with his own Daughter 3. He that lieth with his Daughters Daughter 4. He that lieth with his Sons Daughter 5. He that lieth with his Wives Daughter 6. He that lieth with his VVives Sons Daughter 7. He that lieth with his VVives Daughters Daughter 8. He that lieth with his Daughter in Law 9. He that lieth with the Mother of his Mother in Law 10. He that lieth with the Mother of his Father in Law None of these ten did they accuse him of at all and less cause did they find of death in him to be burnt to death And less cause they had to behead him for they beheaded only two sorts of Malefactors 1. The Murtherer 2. He that stole a Soul of Israel But of Murther they accused him not nor indeed could they since he rather chose a Crown of Thornes then to exchange that of Gold for one of Lead whose embased Flexibleness might be forced to comply and bend to the various Ps 33.20 and oft-contrary dictates of any Factions nor did they accuse him of stealing any Soul of Israel Ps 36.10 since he complained the difference in Religion was the only thing that troubled him Neither of these two did they accuse him of and less cause of death did they find in him to be beheaded And less cause yet had they to strangle him For they strangled but six sorts of Malefactors 1. He that smote his Father or his Mother 2. He that stole a Soul of Israel 3. An Elder which contradicted the Consistory 4. A false Prophet and he that prophesied in the name of an Idoll 5. He that lay with another mans Wife 6. He that abused the Body of a Preists Daughter Now none of these six was he accused of and therefore no cause did they or could they find in him of death to be strangled to death And for the other six punishments they borrowed from other Nations the Cross 1 The Saw 2. The Beasts 3. The Wheel 4. The Sea 5. The Cudgell 6. They found as little cause of death in him And if you aske why they could find no cause of death in him my prima seconde will tell you and it tells you thus 1. Becauses the Hearts of Kings are in the Hands of God and Christ was a King yet and He was God too and so had his Heart in his own hands therefore Impeccable because God cannot sin for if he could he were not God And for the King that my discourse in this Anniversary and Text aimes at though he were not Impeccable because a Man yet such a man he was that his most malitious Enemies could find no cause of death in him and therefore framed or caused Petitions to be made in the Names of the Soldery and common-people to cry out for Justice that he might be killed though they could find no cause of death in him Christ the King in my Text was free from all cause of death for no cause of death but Originally Corruptions or
a Magazine of strength in that and we shall have relief enough El if we believe in him as He is a strong God Were it but Shaddai there is a Panacea of sufficiency in that and we shall have Succour enough if we believe in him as He is God All-sufficient Were it but Elion there is a Mountain of Hope in that and we shall have supply enough if our Heart standeth fast in him as He is the most High God Were it but Tsebaoth there is an Army of Protection in that and we shall have Victory enough if our Heart standeth fast and believeth in Him as He is the Lord of Hosts Were it but Adonai there is a Rock of Preservation in that and we shall be upheld enough If we believe in Him as He is the strong Foundation But it is more then all this for it is Jehovah the most Essential Excellent Name of God If El implies His Omnipotency If Elion implies his Soveraignty If Shaddai implies his Immutability If Tsebaoth implies his Irresistability If Adonai implies his Fidelity sure I am Jehovah implies all whether you take it in the construstion of our own Divines or in the Derivation of others 1. In the Construction of our own Divines it signifies three things First Habere esse a seipso that he hath his Being of himself Secondly Dare esse omnibus that He gives a Being to all things that be Thirdly Dare esse Verbo that He gives a Being to his word and we therefore need not fear if we believe the truth of his word but He will give the Rebells their due and settle the Crown to flourish upon the Kings Head 2. Or if you take the meaning of Jehovah in the derivation of others either with Oleaster as it is derived from Hovah which signifies Destruction then we have reason to believe He will be mighty in the Destruction of His Enemies or whether you take it with Galatinus as it is derived from Hajah which signifies to Be then we have reason to believe He will be mighty amongst us in our preservation Let your Hearts then stand fast in Jehovah And e're long He will either divert our Enemies from thirsting after any more of our Blood as He did Saul from hunting after David or He will divide our Enemies in their Consultations as He did destroy the Counsel of Achitopel by the Counter-Counsel of Hushai or He will give our Enemies to Self-Destruction as He did Abimelech and the House of Millo and as He hath one of the late King-Tryers to Hoyle himself or He will call back our Enemies by strange rumours next time the present KING comes to claim his own as He did the Assyrians All these wayes and many more God can do it so we may have no need to be afeard of any evil Tydings and He will be perswaded to do it if we fear him For when we fear him then as it was when the Dictator Ruled in Rome all other Offices ceased so when the Fear of God is in us then all other Fears vanish This was acknowledged by that once magnanimous Earle of Essex but afterwards the Rebel-Father of a Rebel-Sonne Sometimes said he when I have been in the Feild and encountered the Enemy the Weight of my sins have layn so heavy upon my Conscience because I was not reconciled to my GOD that my Spirits were quelled and I have been the most timerous man upon the Earth I wish our Gentlemen of the Sword when King Charles II. shall have occasion to use them that they would not batter our walls more within by sins then the Rebell enemy can do without by Guns that they would not storm themselves more by Oaths and ruine themselves more by Mutining and undo themselves more by Treachery then a Rebel enemy can do by strength And you that hear me this day January 30. 1650. Let your hearts stand fast and believe in the Lord And that all our hearts may and that the Heart of King Charles II. may Pray we for Him and for our selves Help the King O God and help us O God for vain is the help of man Though thou hast cast him a great way off and seasoned the morning of His daies with bitternesse yet be not displeased too long but turn thee unto Him again and return Him unto us again but return Him either with an Olive of Peace or with a Laurell of Conquest And as thou hast strangely and wonderfully delivered Him from those who eagerly hunted after his Life so let it appear to them that thou hast not done this to make him more miserable or to continue him in the condition of an Exile but rather that thou hast reserved him for faithfuller hands then the Scots for fairer opportunities and more prosperous successes then in the year 1650. for Jesus Christ his sake Amen Anno Dom. 1651. 1 SAM 10.27 But the Children of Belial said How shall this man save us and they despised him and brought him no presents THis latter and therefore this wicked Age hath broached three Seditious Questions the false resolving of which was a chief cause of the Decollation and Martyrdom of our late and blessed King Charles I. and the true resolving whereof will I trust be a leading cause for the Restauration of our present and glorious King Charles II. The Questions were brewed heretofore by Bellarmine and his fellow-Jesuites by Bucanan and his fellow-Puritans and this Age this Jesuitical Puritanical Age hath Practically broached what they speculatively brewed viz. 1. Whether God or the People be the Author and Efficient of Regality of Monarchy of Kingship 2. Whether the King be only singulis Major and Universis Minor greater then every particular man but lesse then the Assembly of men 3. Whether it be lawful to contribute for the maintenance of a War against the King And this Age this wicked Age resolves these Questions just to the Peoples humours 1. The People are the Author and Efficient of Monarchy 2. The whole People or the People in a Body Representative are above and greater then the King 3. It is lawful to contribute to a War against the King But to make good that old Adagy Quod vulgo placet sapienti displicet That which pleaseth the People displeaseth the wise the Prophet Samuel in this Chapter in this Text resolves clean contrary Samuel's Rosolve 1. That God not the People is the Efficient of Monarchy so he says See ye him quem elêgit Deus not quem populus whom the People have chosen Ver. 24 No but See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen The King hath his power not precariò by the curtesie of the People but Dei graciâ by the Grace of God 2 That the King is greater then the Body not only in peice-meale and particulars but also in grosse and in the whole so he says He the King stood amongst the people and was higher then all the People by the Shoulders and upwards
kill why 2 a. 2 a. that my secundae secundae shall tell you and it tells you It is lawful for some men to kill in some Cases but it is not lawful for any man to murther in any Case Clamitat in Goelum vox sanguinis Murther is the first and loudest crying sin of the four and who dare say It is lawful to have a Scritch-owle in ones Conscience Diabolum habet Patrem The Devil is the Father of it as appears by that Increpation of Christ upon the Jewes when he told them They were of their Father the Devil who was a murtherer from the beginning Et quis occidit John 8.44 And who dares say It is lawful to be the Devils Son The Discoveries of it are many and wonderful commonly the Wound it self bleeds a fresh in the Presence of the Murtherer and in a manner cryes out for vengeance Apoc. How long Lord how long dost thou cease to be avenged Jacob would not part with God without a blessing I will not let thee go except thou blesse me Gen. 32.16 Murther will not part with God without a curse The voice of thy Brothers Bloâ—d cryeth out unto me from the ground Gen. 4.10 and now thou art cursed from the Earth Et quis occidet and who dares say It is lawful to deserve a â—urse Murther is most severely punished of all other sins Adams sin was not so severely punished as was Cains For the Earth yielded her strength to Adam upon his good hâ—sbandry but to Cain though he did till the Earth it did not Adam for all his sin had leave to eat his bread in the sweat of his face Gen. 3.18 but Cain was a vagabond Gen. 4.12 had neither leave nor leasure to eat his bread In a word Murther is a sin against Nature For Omnia appetunt esse Nature seeks her own preservation Murther deprives her of it It is a Beastly sin Ferina Rabies est sanguine et vulnere delectari None but Beasts delight in Bloud It seeks to annihilate God and to destroy his very Essence In the Image of God God made man and therefore he that kills man unlawfully does the best he can to kill God As Phydias painted the Image of Minerva and his own so cunningly together that be said whosoever should marr the Image of Minerva should marr the Image of Phydias and whosoever should marr the Image of Phydias should marr the Image of Minerva so hath God so place his Image in man that whatsoever defaceth his Image defaceth man and whosoever killeth man killeth his Image The Image of God I confesse is in the Soul tanquam in proprio objecto and that cannot be killed yet it is in the Body too you will not deny tanquam in Orgaâ—o and in the Blood tanquam in copula et per concomitantiam both which are destroyed by Murther And because the Soul depends upon the Sences and the Sences upon the Vital Spirits and the Vital Spirits are carried by the Blood Therefore he that taketh away the Bloud causeth the Vital Spirits to fail He that takes away the Vital Spirits causes the Sences to fail He that takes away the Sences causeth the Reasonable Faculty to fail and he that causeth that to fail destroyeth the Image of God so doth every Murtherer and so did Achab. Achab the Magistrate the King did better acquaint himself with θ to take away life against his Duty then with ζ to preserve life which was his Duty And that which adds â—o his sin he did not do it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interficiendo which a King may in some cases do but by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trucidando which a King may not do in any case No may â— might not Achab a King shed blood yea he might so he did it as he might and there are 4 grounds that make it lawful Si ex justâ— causâ If the occasion be just and the Crime so requires I instance in this particular whosoever shedeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Gen. 9.6 not that every man may be his own Judg but in necessitate instanti as Moses tells us If a thief be breaking up a house in the dark and he be smitten that he dye In this case God requires not the shedding of blood for him Exod. 22.2 The same Rule holds in the defence of our lifes when it once comes to this push either kill or be killed else if there be not a Necessity an Absolute Necessity It is unlawful Nay though there be a Necessity an Absolute Necessity yet in some Cases it is not lawful I propose the Case of Duels Rebels Tyrants 1. Duels that for private Revenge shed the Blood of Peace in War 2. Rebells that for Publick Revenge shed the Blood of War in Peace 3. Tyraâ—ts that for publick or private Revenge shed the Blood of Innocence by turning Peace into War no pretence whatsoever can make shedding of Blood lawful in these cases To affect Magnanimity is Heroical and lawful but to forget Christianity is Diabolical and unlawful let Duellists remember Cain Gen. 4. Kill and Despair To affect Liberty is Generous and Lawful but to purchase it by disloyalty is odious unlawful Let Rebels remember Corah Absolon Num. 16.2 Sam. Rom. 13.1 Sheba Resist the Powers of God and receive damnation To settle Crowns becomes Kings and argues spirit but to do it by Cruelty and Injustice becomes not Kings and argues an evil spirit Let Tyrants remember Pharaoh Achab Heâ—od secure their Crowns by Blood and loose their Souls for ever The King himself sins if he kills sine justâ causâ It was King Achabs fault For what cause in Naboth that he should be killed Capiat qui capere potest And secondly Si sine ordinariâ potestate If his Power be not Good and Right and such Power is only in the Magistrate in the Supream Magistrate and such as are delegated from him None but the Supream hath the Sword borne before him No may he for all that Sword take away every mans life Rom. 13. The life of the Innocent he may not the life of Malefactors he may and must Solomon was not Reus homicidiâ— guilty of murther for shedding Adonijahs though his Brothers Blood because he was a Malefactor the worst of Malefactors a Rebel But Achab was guilty of Murther for shedding Naboths blood though his Subject because Naboth was Innocent and guilty of nothing that we read of but his Inheritance which made him a Delinquent and merited a sequestration and his goodness in not yielding to an Arbitrary Government which made him a Malignant and merited a Trucidation And thirdly Is he guilty of murther who kills sine justo ordine without true proceedings and herein was Achab guilty again Due proceedings I confesse he observed by way of Formality For the Court was erected and Naboth was Arraigned but Due proceeding there was not
for want of Reality For it was a new Court not a true Court of Justice that was erected Had the Execution issued without any Conviction it had been Judicium temerarium a Rash Judgment but because the Execution issued upon a Formal Conviction only it was Judicium hypocriticum a false Judgment and therefore doth this man of God Elijah from the God of man question him for it and charge him with it saying An occideris Hast thou killed i. e. Thou hast murtheredâ— And fourthly He was guilty of murther in killing Naboth Quia non ex recto animo for want of Regular intention For a King inflicting Death upon true proceeding a just Cause may yet be guilty of murther when he doth it rather Ex libidine irae Timoris Vindictae Avaritiae then ex amorâ— Justitiae more for Revenge for Anger for Fear for Convetousnesse then for Justice And three of these Vices were very eminently in Achab. 1. He desired Naboths Vine-yard There was his Covetousnesse 2. He was displeased with Naboth for denying his Vine-yard there was his Aâ—ger 3. And then He engrossed his Covetousnesse and reak'd his Anger by murthering of Naboth There was his Revegene And now Beloved Judge your selves who was the true Malignant Naboth that was murthered or Achab who murthered him But withal Judge again If the murthering of Naboth but a Subject made Achab a Malignant though a King whether then Naboth the Subject had not been a Malignant if he had murthered Achab the King though a bad King Certainly the Position holds more strongly A majore adminus then a minore admajus And if you add to the murther of Naboth the Plundring the sequestring and robbing of Naboth It is too evident That Achab was a very great Malignant Which is my tertia secundae 3 a. 2 ae and last Consideration in these words An etiam jure haereditaâ—io possèdisti Hast thou killed and also taken possession i. e. Thou hast killed and that was enough to make thee a Malignant but thou hast yet done more Thou hast also taken possession i. e. Thou hast robbed robbed not only the Father and the Husband but also the Wife and Children and this makes thee the greater Malignant The words are worth your marking For it is Jure haereditario possèdisti It is not Impetivisti Thou hast made an Invasion like a Thief but Thou hast taken Possession like an Heire and yet thou hast no right to it no Inheritable right A man may have a Title to what he doth not as yet Possessè and a man may wrongfully Possesse what he hath no Title to Naboth had a Title to his Vineyard It was saith he the Inheritance of my Fathers At length Achab possest it without any Title for ought I know I am sure without any lawful or just Title unlesse perhaps It were some new Law in that Apostate Kingdom That the Husband should succeed him whom the wife had murthered or the Son should succeed him whom the Father hath murthered or the Lievetenant should succeed him whom the General had murthered The General should succeed him whom the President had murthered And therefore doth the Prophet here increpate and chide him for it saying Hast thou killed and also taken possession Hast thou broken two Commandements at once the sixth by murther and the eighth by theft For theft or stealing is the taking away another mans Goods against his will whether it be by unlawful getting or by unjust detaining or as the Schoolmen speak In ablato or In deposito And Achab was guilty of every branch in this Definition of theft because he took away Naboths Vine-yard against his will by an unlawful Ablation and kept away Naboths Vine-yard by an unlawful Detention Nor was there any way to excuse his will or to ease his Conscience whatsoever Not the consent of the Absolute and Supreme Lord for the Egyptians could not complain of the Israelites for theft though they took away their Jewels and Ear-rings without their consent and against their will because God himself who was the Absoute and Supreme Lord both consented to it and commanded it and there it is very Emphatical in the Original where it is said Vaniat Zelu Eth Mizrajim They spoyled the Egyptians Exod. 12.36 q.d. They had as good right to those Jewels as Soldiers in a lawful War have to the spoyl of their enemies But here Naboth the Inferiour Lord consented not Nay he denied it and God the Superiour Lord disallowed it yes and condemned it and therfore sent his great Prophet Elijah with this Increpation Hast thou killed and also taken Possession Was it not enough for the to play the Murtheâ—er but thou must also play the Thief Nor Secondly had he any Necessity to excuse him in the supply of his wants For in Necessity Absolute necessity it is not Theft though a man take his Neighbours goods away against his consent because Division of goods was brought in after the Fall whereas before the Fall all things were common and the Second must give place to the First Institution in the Case of a Mans extream Necessity to save his life and therefore as before the Fall every man might take as much as would suffice him without wrong to another so in extream necessity a man may take as much of another mans goods as will supply his wants without the Owners consent and not be guilty of Theft This is implyed in the Law given by Moses which though it be in it self Judicial and Judaical yet the Morality of it belongs to and lyes upon us A man might go into his Neighbours Vine-yard and eat as many Grapes as he pleased and this he might do Jure charitatis by the Right of Charity but he might not carry any away with him because he had not Jus proprietatis any Right of propriety This is also exemplified in David 1 Sam. 21. who in his Necessity are the Shew-bread to satisfy his Hunger Mat. 12. and this is alleadged by Christ to justify his Disciples for pulling the Ears of Corne. By all which it appears That Christians may do the same But Achab had no excuse of Necessity and therefore no Jus charitatis to Naboths Vine-yard and Dominium unius rei penes plures in sâ—lidum jura non patiuntur say the Jurists The Law suffers not many to have the Absolute Dominion of one thing Much lesse had he Jus proprietatis in it because Naboths Plea of Inheritance to it was no way dissolved therefore was Achab guilty of theft as well as of Murther which made this great Prophet thus increpate him Hast thou killed also taken possession Nor thirdly had he any Prescription to excuse him in this Case For Praescriptio est adjectio Dominii per continuationem Possessionis a lege definiti Prescription is a long continuation of Possession which the Law presumeth equivalent to the tacite consent of the former Possessor says Modestenus and truly