unlawfull for Zedekiah and the rest of the Jews in the time of their captivity to resist the tyranny of the Caldeans but likewise before the captivity they could not with a good conscience have resisted or maintain'd the city against them when they had besieged it forasmuch as the Lord commanded them by Jeremy that they should deliver up the city into the hands of the Caldeans and without resistance yeeld themselves to be their servants Chap. 21.2,3,4 27,1,12,13,14 ch 36 ch 37 3. Touching Pharaoh 1. He had not his crown from Israel 2. Pharaoh had not sworn to defend Israel nor became their King upon condition and oath to maintain their Laws Liberties and Rights 3. Israel had their land in Egypt by the meer gift of the King 4. The Israelites were not his native subjects but strangers and sojourners who by the Laws of the King and Princes by the means of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and liberty to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their bondage Exod. 2,23,24 The Kings of England as Kings have stood to England in a four-fold contrary relation they have had their crown by the voluntary and free choise of the People and no otherwise but conditionally that is covenanting and taking their oath to do so and so for the publick good The English are natives not beholding to their Kings for their possessions nor ever held the same as gratis from them The Supream and Soveraign Power of the Kingdom is in their hand the which Israel in Egypt never had nor could lawfully challenge 10. obje Dr. Gouden speaking of putting the King to death saith Never did Christ or his Apostles by practice or precept give the lest intimation of the will of his Father as agreeing to what you declare to be your purpose Christ saith Maxwel Sac. San. Mai. c 5. n. 6. in the cradle taught by practice to flee from Herod and all Christs actions are full of mysteries and our instructions He might have had Legions of Angels to defend him but would rather work a miracle in curing of Malchu's ear as use the sword against Caesar He suffered under Pontius Pilate to commend patient suffering of ill condemn al resistance of superiors would have servants suffer buffets not only for ill doing of good masters but also undeservedly of these masters that are evill and that from his own example 1 Pet. 2.18.21.23 much more are we patiently to suffer of Kings without resistance The monuments of Babels ruin shew farre off to be high and great things but being neer they are very low and little too whatsoever is here if we come up close to it 't is impertinences non-consequences and nothing else And first in general we answer 1. Christ saying His Kingdom is not of the world and refusing to take the Magistracy upon him signifyed thereby that for civil politie he left it to the people to practice according to the humane Law and reason and as it might best serve for every nations safety peace and welfare 2. When the Dr. writes next I would have him set down where Christ and his Apostles by precept or practice taught that any man for murder treason rebellion c. might lawfully be put to death by the higher powers if he find this thing no where directly or by consequence in the New Testament then under favor of his Doctorship it is simply spoken But if he can find such a precept or practice thus far I do ingage and challenge any man to oppose that I will as clearly prove from the same place that the Commons of England may lawfully put their King to death for the like crimes 3. If Christ came not to destroy the Law as the Law of nature Nations then it is not contrary to any precept or practice of his for the Parliament of England to judge to death the King for treason and high misdemeanors against the law of nature and Nations But the first is true therefore the latter 2. For a more particular answer 1. Christ flying into Egypt what mystery soever it had sure I am it contained no prohibition against the lawfull execution of justice and judgment upon any man 2. That Christ might have defended himself with more then twelve legions of Angels but would not it was not because to cut off tyrants is unlawfull 〈…〉 no shadow for that in the Text but because it was Gods will that he should drink the cup his Father gave him 3. That Christ blamed Peter for speaking of drawing his sword Rivetus sheweth the reasons Rivet in dec in mand 6. pag 234. 1. Because it had a kind of revenge in it for so few could not repel such an Army as came to take Christ 2. He waited not on Christs answer 3. He could have defended himself another way 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter Mat. 16,21,22,24 4. To the place in Peter I answer 1. Patient bearing of wrong and punishing wrong doers are compatible in one and the same person One act of grace is not contrary to another Not to respect persons in judgment is as commendable a vertue as patient suffering for a good cause 2. The scope of the place is not to forbid all violent resisting but only forbiddeth revenging resisting as not to repair one wrong with another from the example of Christ who when he was reviled reviled not again and therfore the Argument is a fallacie Ab eo quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a master attempt to kill an innocent servant and invade him with a weapon of death in that case the servant is free from guiltiness if there being no other way to save his life he slay the master than be kild himself because I am neerer by the law of nature and dearer to my self and mine own life then to my brother 3. No Prince hath a mastery or dominion over his subjects but only a free paternal and tutorly over-sight for the good of the people The masters in the Apostles time had a dominion over servants as over their proper goods Ro. 13.4 11. obje But the special Objection of Royallists is Rom. 13.1,2 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God Hence therefore they conclude Grot. de Jur. bel pac l. 1 cap. 4 Barc con mon. l. 3. c 9 Maxwel Sâ—c San. Mai. c. 2 p. 29. 1. That the King is the supreamest or highest power here intended There is no Judge above a King on earth 2. Howsoever in those dayes there was a standing and continual Senate which not long before had the Supream power in the Roman State yet now the Emperour was Supream and therefore no power of resistance left to the people 3. The prohibition
the Kings of England have not been absolute Monarchs but the Supreame Soveraignty resided in the people is a thing certainly known and so abundantly proved by other hands as there cannot be any shew of reason brought against it 3. Seeing the King is under law and the representative of the people above the King to proceed in iustice against him hence it will necessarily follow that the King by law may lawfully be put to death for the law saith the highest or supreamest Judge upon earth cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him A. de le l. non ideo minns Rom. 3,4 Deu. 1.17 And the reason is he is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil And if the judgment be the Lords not mans not the Parliaments as indeed it is not he cannot then draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guilty except the would take upon him to be wiser then God respect persons in judgment and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now sure it is God only univocally and essentially as God is judge and God only and essentially and all men in relation to him are ministers legates deputies servants I say in relation to him equivocally and improperly Judges and meer created and breathing shadows of the power of the King of Kings And look as the Scribe following his own devise and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Judge so the Supream Councel of State and Representative of the Kingdom arraigning the King for murder Treason and other high misdemeanors would be but forged intruders and bastard Judges and go contrary to Law so far as they gieve not the very sentence of God and are not the very mouth of the Iudge of Heaven and Earth to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himself would do if he were sitting on the throne or bench 4. Howsoever there be some solemnities of the Law from which the King may be free which indeed are not Laws as Prickman proveth D. c. n. 78 but some circumstances belonging to the Laws Nevertheles if a king commit murder adultery theft and be a traitor a waster and destroyer of his people their goods lives Laws Liberties contrary to his oath and Coronation-Covenant in this case I confidently affirm there is no law that hath reason equity or justice for its bottom and ground against the putting of such a King to death by the great Councel of State as we have formerly shewed above him And the reason is cleer for the people have no power to make a law that the King shall not dy by the hand of Justice what wickednesse soever he should commit 5. I would gladly be informed by any Iurist or Statist If a Tyrant without a title may be killed yea by a private man why a Tyrant that hath lost his right and title to the Crown by the highest Judicature in the Kingdom may not lawfully be put to death Ut L. vim F de Justit jure ubi plene per omnes For the first the law gives it and it is so generally held by Vasquez Barclay and others Vasq l. 1 c. 8. n. 33. Bar. cont Monar l. 4 cap. 10 pag. 286. And for the latter observe what Royalists themselues acknowledge Winzetus against Buchan saith of Nero Wintzet adv Buc. p. 275. that he seeking to destroy the Senate and People of Rome and seeking to make new lawes for himself excidit jure Regni lost all right to the kingdom And Barclay saith a Tyrant such as Caligula spoliare se jure Regni spoileth himself of the right to the Crown So Grotius Groti de jure bell pac l. 1 cap. 4. Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur emittit regnum If he turn enemy to the kingdom for their destruction he loseth his kingdom because saith he Voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi simul consistere non possunt A wil or mind to govern and to destroy cannot consist together in one 6 The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangreen would corrupt the whole body is wel warranted by nature and reason for the safety of the whole is to be preferred before a part But here perhaps it will be objected cut off a mans head and the life of the body is taken away so the King being the head destroy him and the whole body of the Common-wealth is dissolved I answer God cutteth off the spirits of Tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved For 1. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortal thing cannot be referred to the immortal Common-wealth as it is adequate correlate 2. If all the Kings of the earth were removed yet the Common-wealth would not leave off to be a body it would be only a casting off of one form of Government for another the worser for the better but the natural body without the head cannot live Lastly Mr. Pryn citing some Law-Books where the King is said to be the only Supream Governor of this Realm hath no Peer in his Kingdom ought not to be under man Soveraign power of Parl l. 1. p 104 105. Thus answereth 1. That the meaning of al these books is the king is above every one of his Subjects particularly distributively as single men but if we take them collectively in Parliament as they are one body and represent the whole kingdom then they are above the King and may yea ought to restrain and question his actions his male-Administrations if there be just cause 2. Bracton explains himself how he is highest and without a Peer to wit in distributing justice that is he is the highest Iusticiar in the Kingdom but as the Law as any in receiving justice And for the Oath of Supremacy it relates to the Popes forraign Princes authority formerly usurped in this Realm and not at all to be referred to Parliaments or their jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority not so much as once thought of by the subscribers of this Oath which had its creation and authority from the Parliament 15. Obje Some say For people to adjudge their King to death is without example either in Scripture or humane history Answ 1. We argue this negatively this is neither commanded nor practised nor warranted by promise Ergo. It is not lawfull But this is not practised in Scripture Ergo. It is not lawfull It followeth not I read not in all the word of God of a man put to death for lying with a beast for witchcraft for tempting the people to go a whoring and serving a false God yet these things are written and are all divine precepts 2. Physitians say that that Physick which only stirs the humors and doth not carry them away leaves the body worse then it found it so
To the Right Honorable The COMMONS of ENGLAND And His Excellency the LORD FAIRFAX Lord General of all the Forces raised in ENGLAND by authority of Parliament And His General Councel of War IT is well spoken by Philip King of Macedon that the reproaches and injuries of the Athenian Orators should cause him to order his words and deeds so that themselves might be proved lyers Your good beginning promiseth the same to the whole Nation and we have great hopes now that such a further progres will be made in the work of a full Reformation as the righteous shall see it and rejoyce all iniquity shal stop her mouth Psal 107.42 For the mutinous tumult and noise which some men make in the City by reason of their loose tongues and pens to obstruct your good proceedings and to raise a new war and involve the people again in blood it is but a flash and the Lord will suddenly blast it Only it is worth your observing how your enemies in many particulars are like the adversaries of Nehemiah and the honest party with him When Sanballat Tobiah Geshem the Arabian and the rest perceived that all their former Malignant designs took no effect but the building went prosperously forward they drew over to them the Priests by bribery and flattery and by these mens speeches they thought to affright the Governor and bring that to passe which they could not do by other means Neh. 4.1.2,3.11.15 chap. 6.1,2,4,5,9,10,12,13,14 ch 13.28 29. This present conspiracy amongst the Prophets is a bringing up of the rear the last piece of the whole work As we see on a stage severall actors and every one playes his part yet all make but one Tragedy so the rising in Kent Essex Wales the revolting of the Ships the bringing in of the Scots the Personal Treaty and these Pulpit Incendiaries 't is all one plot howsoever acted by several persons and therefore I doubt not but as the Lord hath discovered the treachery of the one so he will the hypocrisie of the other and confound the whole building both first and last Moreover we cannot but take notise in and through what further difficulties and streights the Lord hath held you up and carried you on we are very senceable how some have left you in the work of whom we thought better things did think they would have been more faithfull and reall to their trust the truth and their own principles Aelian reports of Dionysius that he married two wives in one day the one followed him in his wars the other accompanied him only at his return Men are forward enough to come in when the fight is over to have a part and share in the spoil and fruit of the victory but what they deserve is to be considered of and this to be minded Ignavum fucos pecus a praesepibus arcent I have made the more hast to publish this First Part because I perceive not only Royalists and Cavileers accuse you of high injustice against the Person of the King and that the action hath been formerly carried forth meerly by power without Law reason or conscience But also the lawfulnesse of the thing is by some better minded and persons more honest doubted and are not cleerly satisfied therein And for these later I say specially for their sake I have taken in hand not your cause so much as the cause of the whole Nation and have not only given a satisfactory answer to whatsoever may be objected against the act but justified what hath been don by your authority in point of Law and conscience to all rational and indifferent men I confesse it yeelds to the soul but little peace when our actions have no other bottom or foundation but opportunities power advantages successe But when we know it is Gods work and we see it don in Gods way then the present opportunity power and succes is a manifest and infallible witnes that as the Lord owne the work so he will honor the workmen be their mighty protector And this I prove to be your case not that the action was just because you had opportunity and power to do it but being in it self just and you lawfully called thereto the power and opportunity which God gave you did manifest his approving your zeal justice Now the God of peace and the Lord of hosts be ever mightily present with you to counsel direct protect and prosper your endeavors that we may no longer talk of Subjects liberty and right things but know them and enjoy them we and our posterity and this being accomplished he that desires the Publick good resteth Yours to serve JOHN CAN. THE GOLDEN RULE Or Justice Advanced ALCON of Creet as a Dragon was embracing his son shot an arrow into the heart and hurt not the child but the Dragon died immediately Our State-Archers will now shew their skill and art if by Gods blessing on their labor tyranny and oppression may be taken away without prejudice or hurt to the Nation and for the better carrying on of so necessary and good a work I have undertaken to prove that when Princes become Dragons as the Scripture usually stileth great Tyrants Isa 27.1 Ezek 29.3 't is lawful for the supream and Soveraign power of the People to shoot at them and kill them likewise and whatsoever to the contrary is objected either from Scripture Law Reason or inconveniences I have fully answered and refuted 1. Objec First The Rebellion of Korah Dathan and Abiram is mentioned from which example some conclude that all opposition and resistance is unlawfull of the people against their King Ergo this kind of proceeding much more Answ This objection being impertinent I shall speak the lesse to it 1. Because a faithfull officer in the due execution of his office may not be opposed resisted punished will it follow that the unfaithfull and wicked must be left alone Moses was a lawful Magistrate and Aaron a true Minister of God faithfull and good men both and therefore to be obeyed but Kings becoming perjur'd tyrants are not so neither is there any Allegeance or obedience from the people due to them as we shall hereafter shew But 2. If this example be well considered it will sufficiently serve to justify so much as by me is here asserted and thus I prove it For any man or men causlesly to mutiny against the Supream Power of a Kingdom and most unnaturally and impiously invade mens Lives Liberties and Estates oppose Justice and seek to bring a whole Nation to utter desolation such lawfully may be resisted suppressed yea by the example of Korah c. put to death Now certain it is howsoever Kings ruling according to Law are publick Ministers of State neverthelesse degenerating into Tyrants and acting against Law they are in such a case no more then private men because whatsoever at first was confirmed upon them in respect of Office it did not in any sort make a
change upon their persons neither set them at any distance touching subjection to the Law either active or passive more then they were before their personal estate was the same still as before neither are they exempted from corporall punishment if they break the Law more then any other men 2. objec It is further objected Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Again Ecc. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thoughts and curse not the rich in thy bed-chamber If Kings may not be curs'd much less put to death by their Subjects Answ 1. The first text is not properly meant of Kings but pertains rather to Judges and other sort of Rulers and so the Jew Doctors understand the place 2. Solomon well explains the place Prov. 17.26 It is not good to strike Princes for equity that is evil speaking of Magistrates for well doing is a wicked and vile thing Hier. in hunc ver ◠3. The other text by some is applyed unto Christ the King of his Church But take it literally because Kings may not be curs'd which is prohibited under pain of condemnation will it therefore follow that Kings may be theeves murderers traytors tyrants and commit any wickednesse and not be cal'd to an account by such who are above them and have a lawfull Power in their hands to punish them 4. The place comprehends Rich-men as well as Kings and therefore it may be as well concluded from it that no man if rich may be punished for any crime or fault whatsoever 5. Both these if rightly applyed are altogether for us for whosoever whether King or Prince shall curse and revile the Supream and Soveraign State of the Land and that for well doing as call them Rebels and Traytors and violently seek to destroy them he absolutely violateth this Law Thou shalt not revile the gods It is true there is here no punishment set down for him that should thus rail But seeing as one writes on the place Willet Qu. 57. he that railed on his father and mother was to die for it Exod. 21.17 much more worthy of death was he which should curse the fathers of the Countrey 3. objec I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him What dost thou Ecc. 8.2,3,4 Hence the Royallists argue If the word of a King must stand and his power not to be resisted how can his Subjects lawfully touch his Person Answ 1. To keep the Kings commandment must be understood of things just and lawfull otherwise as the Apostle saith We must obey God rather than man It is well laid down by Philo Philo de vita Mosis Regis officium est jubere quae oportet fieri vetare a quibus abstinere debet caeterum jussie faciendorum interdictio cavendoru m proprie ad Legem pertinet Atque ita consequitur ut Rex animata sit Lex vero sit Rex justissimus The office of a King is to command those things which ought to be don and to forbid those things which ought to be avoyded But the command of things to be don and the forbidding of things not to be don properly belongeth to the Law And so it followeth that a King is a living Law and the Law is a most just King 2. The oath of God here is the oath which is taken in the name of God and whereof God is made a witnesse The meaning is the King is so to be obeyed as that God is not to be disobeyed and that the oath made to the King is so to be kept as that the oath made to God be not broken Hence Tremellius reads it sed pro ratione juramenti Dei but with regard to the oath of God shewing that Subjects are by their Allegeance and Covenant no further obliged to observe the Laws of earthly Princes then are agreeable to Gods commandments 3. Whereas it is said He doth whatsoever pleaseth him this must be understood only of a good King and just cōmands as if it were supplyed with whatsoever pleaseth God not licet si libet as if all were lawfull whatsoever a King should do but the genuine sence of the place is stand not in an evill matter for the King hath power to do whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in evil courses to forgive thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon of him for the same 4. Who may say to him what dost thou that is reprove or censure him for doing justly as Job expounds it Chap. 34 18. and so must the place be understood to wit that no man may presume to question the Kings just actions warranted by the Law of God and men but otherwise Kings may and are to be reprehended as we have sundry examples for it in Elias reproving Ahab Elisha Jehoram Nathan David John Baptist Herod 1 Sam. 13.13 2 King 3.14 Jer. 1◠28. chap. 22.3 Ho. 5.1.2 Yea not only so but to be resisted withstood and opposed in their unrighteous courses Hence Augustine and Ambrose do affirm Augu. in Psal 82. Amb. in Offic. when Herod and Pilate condemned Christ and caused him to be put to death howsoever the people lamented it were sorry for him and sorely bewail'd his death yet were they all punished and why so because when they were able and might have taken him out of the hands of unjust and wicked Magistrates and so preserv'd his life they did it not in this regard they wrapt themselvs in the same guilt of blood and became murderers of him But lastly This text intends only private men not a Parliament the supreamest Judicatory and Soveraign power in the Kingdom for in this High Court the Kings Person is no other than another subject I say it again to this Court He personally stands as a single man to be questioned censured punished as the Crime and Cause shall be And in truth here lies the stone at which many have stumbled much like to that long controversie between us and the Church of Rome about Petros and Petra Peter and the Rock We distinguish them taking the person of Peter to be one thing his faith or Christ another Whereas the Papists will allow of no such distinction So the Title and Office of a King is one thing the Person another and howsoever the former comes not into question yet the latter may But many by mixing and confounding things together which should be severed and distinguished apprehend not how the Person of the King and not the Title and Office of a King can be questioned censured and punished Hugo Grotius putting down seven cases in which the people may have most real action against the
doth not only concern Christians but all the people under these Emperours and howbeit Religion was persecuted the peoples Liberty lost and the Senate then enslaved by Edict and Laws inforced on them by Nero and other Emperors yet notwithstanding the Apostle forbids to resist That I may give a satisfactorie answer to this Objection I desire the Reader to consider the occasion of the Apostles words which I take to be thus The Roman Magistrates being Infidels people newly converted to Christian Religion might think themselves exempted from any subjection or obedience unto them by reason of Gospel-liberty and further that it was not lawful for them to make use of such Magistrates in any civil cause what wrong soever they suffered To refute which error the Apostle informs them that howbeit the Magistrates were unbeleeving Gentiles yet their authority and power was from God Himself and in that regard their profession of Christianity did rather obleige them then exempt them from subjection and they were Gods Ministers appointed by him to punish offenders and to take vengeance on them Now bring this into an argument because Religion exempts not subjects from due obedience to lawful pagan Magistrates and people oppressed may seek redresse of their grievances therefore Tyrants may not be legally arraigned censured and put to death by the highest and supremest Court of the Kingdom 2. If the Apostles words be observed even word for word there is not any thing in them against the arraignment of a tyrant For 1. The Higher Powers must be submitted to and why Because they are ordained of God and are Gods ordinances vers 1 2. That is so far as they govern according to reason and just laws preserve their Peoples liberties persons and estates But where is it said When they prove traitors to the Kingdom and are the Devil's Agents they may not be severely punished for it 2. Because those who resist lawful authority and just commands receive to themselves condemnation is not this a non sequitur that the Parliament whose jurisdiction and power is above the King may not call him to an account for tyranny and mis-government 3. Rulers must be obeyed Because they are not a terror to good works but to evil verse 3. is not this a good consequence when they are profest enemies to all good works and do evil and continually evil with both hands that same power which hath set them up cannot take them down again 4. Obey him saith the Apostle why because he is the minister of God to thee for good v. 4. But can this be applied to a tyrant who hath destroy'd the people in body goods doth it not rather plainly imply that those who are the devils ministers to us for evil rather then Gods for good by a lawful power above them should be thrust out of their place 5. It is said ver 5. But if thou dost that which is evil be afrayd for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil Can any Roialist find any thing here which is not spoken in reference only to faithfull Magistrates in the execution of justice upon malefactors wherein they must not be resisted much lesse punished for well doing And by the rules of contraries a Tyrant that makes war upon his people to ruin spoyl and enslave them protecteth all wicked men gives liberty to all manner of unrighteousnesse bears the sword not only in vain in reference to the publick good but draws it forth only upon those that are good for such cruelty oppression and impiety may lawfully be cut off 3. The text doth include all higher powers not to be restrain'd only to Kings and Emperors but comprehends all kind of civil Rulers Augustin Irenaeus Chrysostom Hierom expound it of Masters Magistrates So doe Calvin Beza Pareus Piscator Rollor Marlorat So do Popish writers Aquinas Lyra Hugo Cardinal Carthus Pierius Toletus Cornel. a Lapide Salmeron Estitius expound the place Hence it must follow that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited but only in the due and legall execution of their offices For no man will deny but inferior lawfull officers illegally endeavoring to subvert Liberties Laws and unrighteously governing the people may be imprisoned arraigned and condemned for their misdemeanor And this granted which cannot be denyed our conclusion is fully proved and thus I make it appear Whosoever is a murderer or a traytor to the State may lawfully be put to death by the civil power that is above him and that by vertue of this text Rom. 13.1,2,3 But the King of England is under a civil power and jurisdiction to wit the Soveraign power of the Parliament Ergo If a murderer or traitor to the State may lawfully be put to death Though there be no Tribunall saith Mr. Rutherfurd formally regall and Kingly above the King yet there is a Tribunal vertual eminently above him in the case of tyranny for the States and Princes are above him 4. That the Romane Emperor when Paul wrote was the Supream and highest power in the Romane State is most untrue Iustinian indeed speaks somewhat that way Dig. l 2. Tit 2. p 146. that the Emperor was absolute but he is partial in this case Bodin proveth Bodin de Rep l 2 c. 5. pag. 221. That the Romane Emperors were but princes of the Common-wealth and that the Soveraignty remained still in the Senate and people Livius Florus Tacitus say the like and to put it out of all doubt the case of Nero that wicked Emperor is proof sufficient whom the Senate judicially condemned and as a publick enemy to the State adjudged him to have his head fastned to a fork and so to be publickly whipt to death and then to be precipitated from a rock upon which sentence he being sought for and forsaken of al to avoyd the execution therof murdered himself with a poinyard 5. As for tyrants and wicked oppressing Magistrates they are not within the intendment of this text neither is there any thing here spoken to prohibit the people from censuring and punishing of them for 1. That which is not the Ordinance of God but rather of the devil and the meer sin and enormity of the Governor himself not of the Government is not within the compasse of this text 2. That which is no point of the Magistrates lawfull power ordained of God but diametrally repugnant to it as tyranny oppression violence c. is not within the verge or compasse of this text 3. All Powers intended in the text are not only ordained of God but also circumscribed and bounded with certain rules of Law justice and honesty within which they must contain themselves and if they passe beyond those limits they are none of Gods Ordinance Now the tyranny and oppression of Kings and Rulers are meer exorbitances arbitrary illegall actions exceeding the bound of justice and honesty prescribed by the Law