〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OR The Loyal Subjects Indignation FOR HIS Royal Sovereign's DECOLLATION Expressed in an Unparallel'd PARALLEL Between the Professed murtherer of K. SAUL and the Horrid actual Murtherers of KING CHARLES I. The Substance whereof was delivered In a SERMON Preached at All hallows Church in NORTHAMPTON On the Day appointed for an ANNIVERSARY HUMILIATION in reference to that execrable Fact Jan. 30. 1660. By SIMON FORD B. D. Minister there and Chaplain to his MAJESTY London Printed by J. H. for Samuel Gellibrand at the Golden Ball in St. Pauls Church-yard 1661. To the RIGHT HONOURABLE JOHN Earl of LAUDERDAIL Viscount Metallan Lord Thirleston and Bolton One of the Gentlemen of his Majesties Bed-Chamber Principal Secretary of State in the Kingdom of Scotland and One of His Majesties most Honourable Privy Council in both Kingdoms Right Honourable WHen I had the Happiness to be first known to your Lordship during your Late Tyrannical and tedious Imprisonment at Windsor Castle for which I still acknowledge my self obliged to your own Condescention inviting me thereunto I remember your Lordship was pleased to acquaint me that some Books of mine formerly published had been part of the entertainment of your private hours during the vacancy which that barbarous Persecution gave you from Publick Business And the remembrance hereof emboldneth me to presume that your Lordships Library will afford this Little Piece also a place among its Fellows Nor am I altogether out of hope that it may have the like favour of approbation at your Lordships hands from the experience then given me of the value which your Lordship then assured me you put upon them Especially when I consider that the subject matter of it is Loyalty for which your Lordship then suffered so deeply under the heavy hands of the Late bloudy Tyrant and Usurper and for which I have been for several years persecuted by the Murderers of our Late Sovereign of Glorious Memory for endeavouring to obstruct them in the quiet possession of his vacant Seat by both refusing to subscribe and also bearing publick Testimony from the Pulpit against the Subscription of that accursed Engagement imposed by them in order to a post-justification of that horrid Fact the Extirpation of the Royal Posterity and the Settlement of themselves in their Rights by colour of a publick and National Consent And I assure you my Lord that the Conâ—cience hereof together with that little Contribution which in my low capacity I have through Gods Goodness lived to give towards the Restauration and Settlement of his present Majesty my most Gracious Soveraign and Royal Master whom the Divine Protection long preserve is not the least of my Comforts nor I hope shall be to my dying Day Upon the comfortable experience whereof as also upon the conviction of those Doctrines which in this and my former Parallel I have published to the world I am resolved as long as I live through Gods Grace to seek the Peace and Welfare and Support to my capacity the Crown and Dignity of my most rightful Soveraign and bid a perfect defiance to all Persons and Principles whatsoever that are given to change Now the Lord grant that the guilt of the Late Horrid Murder upon the Lords Anointed may be so wiped off from the Score of these Nations that we be never visited with those very evils or worse for a just punishment thereof to prevent which the Contrivers and Executors of it took so irregular and unlawful a course I mean that the violent revengefulness of some Spirits among us may not re-produce such woful Tragedies as God hath mercifully delivered us from once and again within a few years last past and perpetually honour his just and rightful Successor our present Soveraign with the most Noble and Glorious Title of the Allayer of our mutual heats and animosities the Moderator of all our Differences and the Reconciler of us each to other even whether we will or no by the Interposition of his Royal Authority Let 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be his perpetual Motto and the inviolable Observation of all his Acts of Pardon and Oblivion be his Memorial and Honourable Remembrance to all Generations and may your Lordships Counsels be perpetually assistant to Him as I doubt not but they will in all things of that Tendency which will not only preserve your Name in that Repute which you have hitherto maintained amongst all pious and sober persons but render you a Councellor in whom there will be safety to the Person and Throne of his Sacred Majesty and make good the Character which amongst other your Honourers have been given of your Lordships Wisdom and Temper by Right Honourable Your Lordships most Humble and Affectionate Servant SIMON FORD 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OR The Loyal Subjects Indignation FOR HIS Royal Sovereign's Decollation c. 2 SAM 1. 14. And David said unto him How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lords Anointed THis Chapter contains in it a relation of certain passages The Introduction to the Text. An Amalckites Narrative of the death of Saul concerning the death of King Saul which whether true or false seeing we must take them upon the credit of a fugitive souldier can hardly be put out of question though we as probably David to whom it was made did will at present suppose them true and the carriage of David thereupon The whole story whereof seems to be recorded of purpose for the vindication of the holy man from the unjust imputation of designing and conspiring to take away his Sovereigns life by the defensive Arms which he had formerly born against him And three particulars are therein mentioned as evidences of his innocence 1. His unfeigned grief for that lamentable death which by the relators story he understood had befallen him v. 11 12. 2. His indignation against and justice upon the person who professed he was the instrument to hasten it v. 13 to 17. 3. His pious endeavour to perpetuate the memory of his deceased Sovereign in a mournfull Ditty composed by himself and appointed in succeeding Ages to be sung in a solemn manner by the children of Judah To which purpose he caused it to be recorded in a book kept as it seems by Josh 10. 13. of purpose to preserve the memorials of eminent men called the book of Jasher or the Upright and gave it in remembrance of the weapons of warre which it appears by 1 Sam. 31. 3. were most fatall in that battel wherein Saul received his foyl and first wound the title of Kesheth or the Bow of which you have the particular account from v. 17. to the end My Text comes under the second of these mentioned particulars and is the verse wherein David expresseth his deep resentment of the related fact with a just horrour and indignation David said to him How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand to destroy the Lords anointed Which words because
rhey relate to a preceding Narrative made by an Amalekite a mercenary of Sauls as is likely escaped out of that battel before mentioned concerning the manner of the Kings death We will take a little time before we come to a particular view of them to examine the considerable passages in it and circumstances relating to it And it is observable that the villain expresseth in 〈◊〉 carriage and relation a strange mixture of 1. Confidence Managed with a strange 2. Caution First Confidence in that he took the boldnesse to be the Relator 1. Confidence of such a story concerning himself and that in the face of Authority which an ordinary person would have trembled to have been charged withall by another And that which most sets off his confidence is that the person before whom he confesseth himself guilty of promoting Sauls death was his immediate Successoun David who by his death became actually King Had he been never so slightly read in politicks he might have learned that succeeding Kings however they may look on the news of their Predecessors death as acceptable tidings yet seldom look favourably upon those who have been Instruments in making the royal Seat void for them as considering that the same persons who have been so kind to them upon like inducements may be easily tempted to do the like courtesie for others as occasion serves But it seems the Wretch built his confidence upon three probable Upon mistaken grounds conjectures in all of which neverthelesse he was sorely mistaken 1. That David being by Gods appointment and Samuels unction the next in succession to Saul might by his greedinesse to grasp the Scepter be tempted to make another judgement of the fact then otherwise he would and account his service meritorious who had holpen him to it sooner then in the course of nature it would have fallen He made an ill conjecture it appears at the temper of Davids spirit which was not so sharp-set upon the dish of Royalty however tempting in it self and to vulgar appetites but that he could stay till Gods providence in a regular way carved it to him How much mind soever he had to the golden apple which sets all the world at odds Dominion yet had he no mind to have the Tret on which it grew battered to make it fall before the time 2. That however David might be too mortified to bite at the bait of Ambition yet secret revenge might tickle him into a good humour when he understood in what manner divine vengeance had overtaken his deadly enemy and implacable persecutor But David had learned that a gracious soul is frequently the more endangered by being secure from dangers That a state of persecution well husbanded is the most feracious soil for grace to thrive in That be the benefit accrewing by the fall of ones enemy never so great yet to rejoyce at the destruction of him that hateth us when evil hath found him is not only a vicious disposition in morality but a sin of no ordinary size in Divinity Job 35. 15. and especially when the person so suffering is the Lords anointed and so the private advantage accrewing thereby to any person is too inconsiderable a compensation to be laid in ballance against a publique losse And upon this account his politicks failed the Relator in his second presumption 3. That David had been in Arms against Saul for divers years and was at this time in a posture of defence against him in a frontier Town of an enemies Country These considerations gave very great suspicion that he designed the death of Saul himself and so was at least intentionally a partner in guilt with him who effected it But the Miscreant either knew not or was willing not to know that Davids Arms were meerly defensive not offensive that as his warrant for wearing them was extraordinary and much different from other subjects in like cases so his temper in the use of them was extraordinary also and lastly that he had more then once given evidence of no lesse when both opportunity and tentation from his most intimate friends had put it to the utmost trial 1 Sam. 24. 26. And thus was he mistaken in his third conjecture which bottomed his Confidence And possibly he himself might have some twinges and wrenches of suspicion that he might be so and that in the midst of his boldnesse makes him to manage his relation in the second place with much Secondly Caution Which appears in several particulars observable 2. Caution in his Artifices Pleas for justification or extenuation of the Fact 1. He relates only the death of Saul Davids enemy v. 5. in his carriage and narrative whereby he seems of purpose to design the extenuation of this fact which he assumed the boldnesse thus to relate As 1. That though he brought the tidings of both Sauls and Jonathans death yet he pretends not to have any such particular knowledge of Jonathans death as he had of Sauls though David asked him concerning them both lest David should by the circumstances of his own relation have suspected him guilty of Jonathans death also as he confessed himself of Sauls He knew that friendship which was between David and Jonathan would have endangered him to a more severe scrutiny then he hoped he should undergo for Sauls At least he was not so ready to insist on that part of the story which he knew was the most unwelcome and therefore chose to insist only on that which he hoped would be better entertained He had indeed slain Davids enemy and so could give the most perfect relation of his death but could say little but from the voice of the people concerning the death of his friend 2. That though he confesseth he had an hand in the death of 2. He justifieth his Fact 1. By Sauls request Saul yet he was requested by himself to do it He said unto him stand upon me I pray thee and slay me ver 9. Now volenti non fit injuria and how much lesse roganti No man is injured but against his will and therefore it cannot in any reason come under the notion of Injury to satisfie anothers Request which hath in it a superlative degree of Voluntariness Besides he was his Sovereign and so his Requests adopted the Authority of Commands And if his Soveraigns Command might warrant him to take away the life of another why might it not justifie him rather in the case of his own seeing what is a mans own is more properly and directly in his power to dispose of than what is anothers Add to this that it was the last Office of Love and Service that he was capable of performing towards him and that so great that as he had cause to believe that Saul himself thanked him for it in his dying thoughts so his very Ghost if it were present could not but attest that no man ever merited more highly from Saul than he had done
How wast not Thou afraid II. The Fact is yet rendred more hainous by the Second Emphatical From the Person murdered who was aggravation in the Text taken from the Person slain Saul under a double Consideration He was 1. Unctus 2. Unctus Domini I. He was Unctus in his Civil Quality He was a Person Anointed solemnly separated from other men an Anointed King Anointing or whatever Ceremony of Investiture is by the Customs of Particular Nations equivalent thereunto puts a Note of highest difference between the Persons dignified therewith and others Three high and honourable Functions in the Scripture were conferred by this Ceremony of Anointing and all of them senced and priviledged from Injuries by vertue of that Holy Oyle the Priestly Prophetical and Royal Offices Not to instance in the two former upon which whatever these confused times have suggested to the contrary it were easie to prove that God hath written a Nolitetangere a Priviledge from common handling to be sure the Last the Royal is so highly secured by the holy Scriptures that they exact from Subjects such a special Awe and Reverence towards Kings as not only binds the Hand and Tongue but the very Heart also to the good behaviour Whence in the case of this very Saul when he was once anointed King the Holy Ghost puts the Brand of Sons of Belial upon all those who despised or spake contemptuously of him 1 Sam. 10. 27. And Solomon strictly forbids us to curse or wish evil to the King even in our very thoughts Eccles 10. 20. So that this Consideration was very effectually conducing to the aggravation of the Amalekites in the Text and in him of every King-killers offence For the consequence is a minori ad majus undeniable If the lesser injury may not be done to Kings the greater may not If our Tongues nay Thoughts are not to injure them much less our Hands II. To strengthen this consideration further David cals him And the Lords Annointed not only Unctum Anointed but Unctum Domini the Lords Anointed Which Title peculiarly relates him to God as his Vicegerent and Lieutenant and enhanceth the sin of King-killing to the guilt of High Treason against God himself That the Title of the Lords Anointed is attributed to other Kings besides Saul as to all the Jewish Kings yea and Heathen Kings also instance Cyrus Isa 45. 1 argues that the same security belongs to all other Kings as being no less related to God and commissioned under him That Supreme Authority resides originally in the Body of the People as the Fountain of all just power and is delegated to Kings from Not the Peoples them as their servants intrusted by them and for male-administration accountable to them is a Doctrine that savours so much of a spirit quite alien from the Scriptures that I shall almost as soon turn Mahometan as believe it Surely in that the Holy Ghost cals them Gods he cannot be thought to assign them an humane Original without allowing the Creature a power which he every Ps 82. 6. where denies him of conferring a Divinity upon the work of his hands Man whilst he attempts to make a God doth no other than the Child that attempts with a Bundle of Clouts to make a Babe They that say to the works of their hands ye are gods Hos 14. 3. are no other than blasphemous Idolaters and the gods they make are Elilim vain Idols not Elohim true Gods Jer. 16. 20. Psal 96. 5. Yea it is a strong Scripture-consequence against the Divinity of such Puppet-gods The workman made it therefore it is not God Hos 8. 6. Of like nature is the Presumption of those men who undertake to make and unmake Kings at their own pleasure and that so great that in reference to this very claim the Great Antichrist is justly charged with lifting himself up above all that is called God 2 Thes 2. 4. And to set up Kings without God Kings of humane Constitution contrary to Gods appointed Order of Succession when it was acted by the Ten Tribes in the case of Jeroboam and the succeeding Kings of Israel is yoaked as a parallel piece of presumptuous Impiety in one and the same verse with making Idols of Silver and Gold Hos 8. 4. Indeed a God and a King of mans making are both alike Idols both and they that make them are like unto them It is He alone that hath it to give who confers the least spark of Divinity Political as well as Natural and he that saies to a man of his own setting up Thou art Gods Deputy first robs the True God of that power and then bestows it upon a Counterfeit And although the Constitutions of some Nations where Popular Election disposeth of the Crown may seem to invalidate this Doctrine I must tell you that besides that ab initio non fuit ita the Original of all Governments was from Paternal Jurisdiction and next that hereditary Succession both appointed by God and all Forms varying from those are too novel to prescribe against an ancienter Constitution even there where Election according to Law and Custom designes the Person Gods Ordination confers the Power that he is invested withall for there is no power but from God Rom. Kings even where elected by the People are nevertheless 13. 1. In such Nations the Kings may be Electi Plebis the Peoples Elect but when once regularly chosen they become Uncti Domini the Lords Anointed And with this distinction though it may possibly be orthodox enough to interpret St. Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pet. 2. 13. of a person according to the Laws and Customs of a Nation elected or acknowledged for King that thereby he becomes so far an Ordinance or Creature of man yet when this Creature of man is so far made as mans Votes or Laws or Consents can make him he receiveth over and above this by a Divine Dixi a word of Authority to make him the Object of conscientious Obedience which the same Apostle intimates in the next words Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake i. e. as considering the relation he hath to God The Body of Authority is made by Laws and Customs of Nations but the Soul of it is infused by God Prometheus may make the Image of a man of Clay but it is Fire from Heaven that must animate it or it is but an Image still So till the Word of God come to men as our Saviour phraseth it John 10. 35. and say Gods Anointed Ye are Gods they are but as Sampson bereft of his Locks like other men But when once Gods dixi is past then and then only this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Ordinance of man becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Constitution and Ordination of God Rom. 13. 2. It is true indeed that for the ascertaining of mens Consciences in the Object of their Civil Worship God 's dixi alwaies
3. That there was Reason enough why Saul should account no By his dangerous condition less of this Service for no man in his condition but would have courted death more amorously than ever he did the dearest Object of his Affections Wounded he was by his own hand and as one that Job 3. 21. longed for death he had digged for it into his own Breast as for hid Treasure But the Channel he had made for Life to run out at was too narrow to give it a speedy Vent which he so earnestly desired And how could his eyes endure to see his Beloved Soveraign lie in that misery wherein Life was his greatest Burden and not ease him of it Besides Had there been any grounds to hope he might recover of the wound he had given himself no Subject he had should have been more ready to have bound it up and attempted the Cure than himself But sure he was that long he could not live V. 10. And to have protracted his Life when there was only so much remaining in him as served to augment the anguish of his death had been the greatest Cruelty So that his condition considered he could not but highly merit by dispatching him quickly Or if his Charity to him in that case might in any construction be interpreted criminal yet the guilt could not be such as to render him the thousandth part of a Murderer seeing he could be no further chargeable with it than that pitiful fragment of life amounted unto which he took away By the Philislims pursuit of him 4. That had he not done him the kindness of releasing his weary soul he had undoubtedly faln into the hands of the uncircumcised Philistines which he professed to be his great fear 1 Sam. 31. 4. And so had doubly died by the Wounds and Sarcasmes of his Heathen Enemies For the Chariots and Horsemen followed hard after him V. 6. 5. That he brought no design with him to the place where he By his unpremeditated and providential coming to the place where he lay did that Unhappy Act. For he was by meer Providence while he fled for his own life cast upon that lamentable Object He happened by chance upon Mount Gilboa V. 6. and there he found Saul leaning upon his Spear And this consideration will clear him from all prepensed malice which is essentially requisite to constitute a Murderer So that in this case killing was no Murder Besides such was his hast that he was in to escape with his own life that he had not the least time to deliberate upon any such course as might have saved Sauls or to debate with himself concerning the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of the Fact being hardly himself through his own fear and the suddenness of the surprize by so unexpected a Providence 6. That whereas it might possibly be supposed that some covetous By his preserving and restoring the Royal spoyles desire of enriching himself with the Royal Spoyles tempted him to the Fact to clear himself from any such suspition he had brought with him and now tendered to his Lawful Successor the Crown that was upon his head and the Bracelet that was upon his Arm V. 10. Which he took off after he was dead to preserve them from worse hands 7. And lastly That it had been and still was his unspeakable By the mouraing habit which he made the Relation in grief that he was so unhappy as to be any way drawn in to be instrumental in so sad a Business That he had already spent more Tears for it than he drew drops of blood in it not because he thought himself in the least criminal but because he had been so unfortunate as to do that which looked like so great a Crime This though it be not recorded as the Language of his Lips yet so much is recorded v. 2. concerning the Garb in which he presented himself to David as may justifie a conjecture that he intended it as no small part of his vindication He had rent his cloaths to testifie the rending of his heart and covered himself with ashes to shew how willingly he could have laid himself down in the dust for his dear Master if by dying he could have redeemed his Life His entertainment from David Pleas as plausible as so hainous a Fact could possibly admit of After which we may suppose him pausing a while and travelling with expectation of some great reward from David before whom he feemed to himself to have so well acquitted himself that he doubted not but his Murder would advance it self to the reputation of Merit But my Text tels you how David disappointed his expectations took down his confidence and answered all his pleadings by setting before him the atrociousness of his Fact nakedly and in it self considered in mitigation whereof no Circumstances ought to be admitted to consideration For be all that thou hast said true replies David yet art thou not in the least excusable For How wast thou not afraid upon whatever Motives or with whatever intentions to stretch forth thy hand to destroy the Lords Anointed And thus have I led you through the Context to the Text by Division of the Text. a Preface somwhat tedious I confess but yet very necessary to the full understanding and profitable improvement of it as you shall see hereafter Mean while may it please you with me to observe in this Reply of Davids these three Parts considerable 1. Quid or what he replies That it was a fearful sin for him to stretch out his hand to destroy the Lords Anointed 2. Quis or the Person that made it David said 3. Quomodo or the manner of his Reply which is by way of vehement Interrogation How wast thou not afriad c. First The Quid or Substance of his Reply importing the Horridness of the sin of this Amalekite To which there is a twofold Evidence I. The Aggravations of the Crime here condemned taken from 1. The Person that committed but ought to have avoided it with holy Fear Thou under a twofold Capacity 1. Thou a Private man 2. Thou a Subject by present relation at least to Saul being his Souldier 2. The Person on whom it was committed and who ought to have been otherwise dealt withal considered in a double Capacity 1. Of his Civil Quality He was Unctus a Person who had received Regal Unction and was thereby separated from the Vulgus or common sort of men a King solemnly inaugurated The Anointed 2. Of his Sacred Relation and so he was Messiah Jehovae the Lords Anointed Gods Deputy and Vicegerent by special Commission 3. The Fact it self which was 1. In its Nature bloudy he destroyed him 2. In its Principle voluntary he stretched forth his hand to do it which imports a purpose and resolution of heart to do it 3. In its Manner it was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without fear He was not afraid to do that Act which he
the forwardnesse of Abishai who offered him the service of smiting Saul dead Destroy him not for either the Lord shall smite him with a disease or his day in the course of nature shall come to die or he shall descend into the battel and perish but the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lords Anointed 1 Sam. 26. 8 9 10. And yet which makes this Answer more considerable the Crown of Saul was not only actually forfeited but adjudged so by God himself and the reversion of it bestowed upon David 1 Sam. 15. 28. Notwithstanding all which you see the holy man will not be perswaded to make a forcible entry but waits till God by his providence devolves that upon him which he had demised by promise Obj. Obj. It will be farther objected that this priviledge belonged indeed deed to Jewish Kings but it may be doubted whether the Gospel This priviledg belongs not to Jewish Kings only but all other Kings Sol. introducing a state of Liberty beyond that which the Jewes enjoyed the same immunity belong to Princes since the coming of Christ Sol. To which I answer again 1. That Gospel liberty dissolves not Natural or Civil duties and those that think it does make it a cloak of maliciousnesse 1 Pet. 2. 13 16. 2. That the immunity of Jewish Kings belonged not to them as such but as Gods Anointed as deputed Gods under the most high And the Gospel owns the Supream power even in the hands of persecuting Heathens as an Ordinance of God Rom. 13. 2. 3. And it is evident that the ancient Christians thought so who after they had adventured their lives in the field for persecuting Emperours as Souldiers laid them down for their Religion in obedience to their commands though unjust and barbarous as Martyrs And thus have I dispatched the second consideration that of the person slain made use of in the Text for the second Aggravation of the sin of King-killing that Saul slain was not only Unctus an anointed King by his civil Quality but Unctus Domini one who was Gods Vicegerent by sacred Relation And by consequence am now at liberty to insist a while on the third Aggravation taken from the fact it self as the Text states it And that is represented notoriously foul by three things From the Nature of the Fact as Bloody 1. That it was in its nature bloody He destroyed the Lords anointed It was not a murther intended only nor a murther barely attempted without successe but an actual murther And yet had he not effected it the very attempt considering the quality of the Person had been so hainous a crime that the Laws of Nature and Nations would have punished it with death But here the guilt is infinitely aggravated by the execution of that which had been so highly criminal but to attempt For a King however attempted against whiles he is but in being fils the Royal Seat and Heads the Commonwealth and animates all Courts of Justice by the Authority of his Name yea laies some restraint upon the most lawlesse and dissolute persons on the account of a possibility of being called to account for their outrages and enormities But the actual taking away of a Kings life exposeth the empty Throne to the next potent Usurper silenceth the Laws annulleth all deputed Powers by the expiration of their Commissions renders every man in a sort his own Master and sets up for the Time as many Lords of misrule in a Nation as there are evil-disposed persons in it And although these evils are not equally felt in hereditary Kingdoms as in others because in such the King never dies yet they are all equally chargeable upon all Regicides seeing that they do not all actually ensue is no thank to them but to the publique constitution rather and the Fact in its own nature being every where of like pernicious tendency and such as even in the best constituted Governments may give advantage of opportunity to the designs of those who shall desire to improve the alteration of affairs to the subversion of the Fundamentals of Government by which succession is secured as we of these Nations have lately found by too sad experience In which respect the fact of this Amalekite was the more hainous as being an actual destroying of the Lords anointed 2. That it was a voluntary or rather wilfull Act. For he stretched wilfull forth his hand and that with a purpose to destroy the King Had the King accidentally rushed upon his drawn weapon or had his armed hand by impression from some external force been made the instrumental cause of taking away the life of the Lords anointed or any other like accident had rendred him the destroyer of the King though besides his intention it had been an infelicity to have been bewailed all the daies of his life But to reach forth his armed hand to lend him a voluntary wound with a purpose to take away his life was a crime not to be expiated with his life it self Every sin receives its degrees of sinfulnesse from the degrees of voluntarinesse appearing in it And the more hainous the sin is the more aggravation doth it admit from the concurrence of the will in any sort because the greater an evil is in it self the more perversion of the will whose only proper object is good must there needs be to render it capable of choosing it 3. and lastly That it was committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was not afraid to do it A modest timorous sinner hath so much at least of the Audacioâ—â— appearance of vertue as abates something of the odiousnesse of the sin he commits But a very strange monster of wickednesse must he needs be who hath arrived at the unhappy pinacle of sinning dedolently To baffle shame and muzzle fear and stifle conscience in sinning implies a kind of absolute Sovereignty and Dominion in wickednesse and renders the person so qualified a kind of omnipotent sinner and by consequence the most remote from all possibility of repentance And such a Wretch doth David imply that man to be whom neither Religion towards God nor reverence to Majesty will restrain from so horrid a crime as this of destroying the Lords anointed let whatever can be pleaded on his behalf Which brings me to the second particular evidence which David gives to the Quid or matter of his Answer the first General part of my Text which hath waited a long while for its dispatch And that is the invalidity of all that had been or might be pleaded 2 2. The second particular evidence in reference to the matter of Davids reply or the doctrine of the hainousnes of King-killing The invalidity of all Pleas made for it on this malefactors behalf implied in the connexion of this sowre and severe expression with the Amalekites garb and Narrative before improved for his vindication Notwithstanding all which David pronounceth him guilty of the
horrid sin of murthering the Lords anointed and sentenceth him accordingly To clear the Justice of which Censure and Sentence seeing it will much conduce to the main Hypothesis the setting forth the horrid wickednesse of King-killing and be of much use to us in our application we will consider every one of his real or possible Plea's apart and answer them in their order His own plea's are seven before mentioned to which we will adde one made by Interpreters of this Scripture and that shall be the first First though the Amalekite pleads it not yet there may be a The Amalekites pleas answered Plea 1. answered which is the plea of Interpreters for him Question made Whether the Holy Ghost in the relation of Sauls death 1 Sam. 31. 4 5. do not acquit him of having any hand in the Fact though he in hope of reward might take it upon himself For the story tels us that when Saul had desired his Armour-bearer to do him the kindnesse to dispatch him and he had refused Saul took a sword and fell upon it and that he died of that wound by his own hand seems probable by what is immediatly subjoined that Sauls Armour-bearer seeing that he was dead fell likewise upon his own sword and died From hence with much likelihood some Interpreters confidently acquit the Amalekite from the Fact Nor shall I much contend with them about it seeing I shall upon other accounts clear Davids justice upon him anon Though I might tell them that there is no cogent reason to demonstrate a contradiction between the relation of the History and the Amalekites Narrative For what if Saul fell upon his own sword and the Amalekite sayes he found him leaning upon his Spear Both may be true he might first fall on his own Sword and that not dispatching him might scramble up again and make a Second Attempt with his Spear but could not make way through his Coat of Mayle as the Margin to v. 9. renders his words to the Amalekite And what if it be subjoyned after his falling on his Sword that his Armour-bearer saw that he was dead Doth it therefore follow that he died immediately of that Wound The Armour-bearer might conclude him dead seeing him so wounded and faln when yet he might struggle longer with death then he imagined and out-live him that thought him dead even till the Amalekite came and finding him in that sad posture killed him outright But however be it that the Amalekite did the Fact indeed or only boasted in hope of reward that he had done it yet received he no wrong from David 1. Voluntary Confession especially where no Force is used to extort it upon publick arraignment in the presence of a Judge is Conviction sufficient to justifie the condemnation of the person confessing 2. Abundance of Circumstances there were to confirm David in the belief of it As 1. That he was an Amalekite and so one that upon a National quarrel might be supposed to owe Saul a Mischief who had put the whole Nation of which he was excepting only himself and some few more it is probable carried away contrary to Gods Command alive for Slaves 1 Sam. 15. And it may be upon this account in his Examination David asked him again whence he was V. 13. though in his Relation of the Discourse between Saul and himself he had let fall no less before that he might judicially confess that Circumstance so necessary to his Conviction upon Deliberation 2. The Crown and Bracelet which were known to be Sauls gave evidence that in all probability he had the Rifling of dead Saul and probably might kill him that he might plunder him 3. That whether he committed the Fact or no yet was he guilty of it in intention at least otherwise he would not have made so formal a story to gain from David the reputation of having done it and related it with a kind of glorying in it as an act of merit towards David Insomuch that if he were not really guilty of the Fact David was upon these evidences guiltless of his Blood and as he tels him V. 16. that his Blood lay upon his own head And thus hath the first Plea made by Interpreters on his behalf no other strength than this to give farther evidence to the horrid guilt of King-killing even though it be granted For if that person justly died for it who had as the Plea supposeth no other guilt of the Royal Blood upon him than that he esteemed the shedding of it a meritorious Service and shewed his willingness to have done it by boasting that he had done it What a dreadful Crime must it be to be guilty of the Fact indeed the very Intimation of a good will whereunto rendered this Amalekite so criminal His own seven Pleas answered Et passa est Poenas peccandi sola voluntas Plea Answered 2 But it may be further said as was before urged that Saul was a Tyrant a Persecutor of David and his deadly Enemy And it is hard measure that he should die by Davids Command who had by this very Fact saved Davids Life To this the Answer from Davids Principles is easie He was indeed Davids Enemy but he was Davids Soveraign and the Lords Anointed Besides Had David been so desirous to be rid of his Enemy in such a way he needed not to have left that work to be done by an Amalekite seeing he had refused such a Service when offered by better Friends Lastly If he were Davids Enemy he ought the rather to do him Justice upon his Murderer that he might declare himself in the execution of Law the more impartial and learn others that the private Injuries received from our just and lawful Soveraigns ought to make no Impressions upon our Allegiance to the Lords Anointed Plea Answered 3 But Saul himself desired him to put an end to his miserable life the Amalekites Second Plea Grant this too But was he Saul that is himself when he desired it Fear and Guilt and Anguish and Loss of Blood and Spirits and it may be over and above an evil Spirit from the Lord with which he was wont to be haunted may be supposed at this time to intercept the exercise of his Reason And is it the part of a Sober man to kill another at his Request when he is out of his wits and understands not what he saies Will no Law allow a mad-man to dispose of his Goods and Lands and will it warrant him to dispose of his Life Besides Who is there that thinks himself obliged to gratifie the desires or obey the Commands of a private Person in distemper by easing him of his Life whenever he thinks it a burden How much less when the case concerns a publick Magistrate whose Life and Death are of publick concernment and the Lives of whole Nations are bound up in his So that the best obedience in such a case as this had been by Principles of Religion and
the Holy Ghost called by the Name of David as his most sutable Type Jer. 30. 9. Hosea 3. 5. Nor do the Characters given him in that kind speak more then his own practise justified Every morning his waking thoughts conversed with God Psal 139. 8. Yea he was one who over and above the seventh day reserved by God for his publique service which he as constantly attended as the door-keepers of Gods house themselves Psal 84. 10. consecrated seven petty Sabbaths a day to devotion Psal 119. 164. and broke his sleep at midnight to spend time in religious duties Psal 119. 62. and one of so raised a spirit in his pious meditations and devotions that his remains have been ever since made use of as Forms of publick Devotion in the Church in which Notion he is called the sweet Psalmist of Israel 2 Sam. 23. 1. And for the tendernesse of his conscience there needs no other and notably tender-Conscienced evidence then that one instance already touched at the disturbance he felt in himself for cutting off but one thred of Sauls garment though done for a testimony of his own innocency 1 Sam. 24. 5. This is the person whom the relation of this Amalekite concerning his murthering of Saul doth so transport into an holy passion that he cries out How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand to destory the Lords Anointed And herein he sets a fair copy for all persons who pretend to Saintship and plead Tendernesse of Conscience to write after and gives us of this Age a liberal occasion to wonder at that new-fashion'd or rather new-fangled garb of Sanctity which some have assumed to cloak the actual guilt of farre more horrid Villanies than this the very relation whereof so startled David in my Text and at that paradoxical notion of tendernesse of conscience which admits Murthers and Treasons of the most horrid aggravation imaginable into the reputation of most heroical vertues and elevated acts of Religion For surely if David were such an eminent Saint these persons who so directly walk Antipodes to his principles and practise can pass with all sober Christians for no other then incarnate devils and if Davids Conscience were so truly and remarkably tender the Consciences of these men must needs be harder than Adamants and seared into an incurable dedolency whose principles and tempers carry so irreconcileable a contradiction to his and that in a matter of so high a concernment as blood and that not of ordinary persons but of the Lords Anointed 2. Consider him as a King in his politick and publick capacity In his politick Capacity by the death of Saul King which by Sauls death he was now vested withall The Intelligence which this Miscreant brought him it is probable gave him the first glimpse the first intimation of the actual devolution of the Crown upon him and now as a publick Magistrate he gives the Relator himself the first handsell of his new Royalty a severe increpation in the Text and a deserved execution in those that follow And a like piece of Justice doth he a while afterwards execute upon the murtherers of Ishbosheth the son of Saul who had for two years been set up by a Faction as Competitor with him in the Kingdom chap. 4. Examples followed by Amaziah King of Judah upon the murtherers of his father Joash 2 King 14. 5. and very ordinarily to be paralell'd in all Histories wherein there is no piece of Justice more commonly taken notice of then the severe inquisition and recompense made by succeeding Princes for the blood of their Predecessors And indeed both the Law of God which admits Upon occasion whereof no compensation for humane blood but the blood of him that sheds it and that upon good reason too because in the murther of man the Image of God is defaced Gen. 9. 6. allows and requires this severity in such cases and the Law of man conformably allots an exemplary addition of poenal circumstances to that severity in the case of King-killing upon weighty reason seeing in that prodigious crime there is a defacing of a double Image of God both Natural and Political So that if it were possible to inflict a double death upon such malefactours their double yea manifold guilt for he that murthers a Supream Magistrate virtually and in effect murthers a Community would abundantly justifie the rigour of such an execution Juven Sat. 8. Horum supplicio non debuit una parari Simia non serpens unus non culeus unus One death indeed is too little for such Paricides as kill the Father of an whole Kingdom Severity in such a case is such a piece of righteousnesse as establisheth the Throne Prov. 16. 12. by scaring those of succeeding Ages from doing so presumptuously Upon consideration whereof as those Princes are abundantly The severe circumstances of the execution of Traitors justified justified who in this piece of justice follow Davids example so are those persons as much to be blamed whose either good nature and softness of disposition or evil Principles and partnership of guilt prejudiceth them against the severe executions of Regicides which humane Laws every where appoint and humane Authority in terrorem for others terrour somtimes practiseth For it is but meet that exemplary severity should teach men the difference between the value to be put upon the persons of Princes and Subjects Otherwise Assasinations would be as frequently acted upon Soveraigns as Murders upon Private men yea hardly would any King that hath an enemy daring enough to adventure a bare life be translated into Heaven siccâ morte with an unbloudy death Whereas on the other side experience tels us that those who can contemn a single death yet dread it cloathed with such Circumstances as carry a Brand of eternal ignominy with them by a Blot upon the Memory and a Tincture upon the Bloud to all posterity II. Consider David according to the Presumptions on which the And as he was mistaken by the confident Presumptions of the Murderer Murderer grounded his Confidence and we shall find an ample Ground for the farther improvement of his Example herein For if a David persecuted by a Tyrannous King and that without any colour of Justice for so many years be thus affected with the Murder of his Implacable Persecutor if a David who had fled to Arms for shelter against his Soveraigns unjust violence neither dared himself to use those Arms to the prejudice of his Person when he had him within his power nor would dismiss his actual Murderer without exemplary vengeance and lastly if the undoubted right of Succession in his Throne and the long expected news of an avoydance thereof could not soften the radicated Principles of Loyalty in David so far as to induce him to admit of a secret titillation of complacency in that Fact when done to his hand which made his way plain to the possession of a just Royalty or
he represents as authorizing him to such enormities which the power received from him only capacitateth him to act yet is he still because of the Anointing a priviledged person not to be violated by thy hands or mine whatever evils we suffer under him and what capacity soever we may be in to revenge them I will evidence this to you by a familiar Instance Adulterated Coyn that bears the Princes Image without the warrant of his own Mint to attest it any man may refuse to receive in payment and knock to pieces or nayl to a Post because it is adulterate But good and lawful Coyn stamped by just Authority how much soever it may be battered or defaced whilst any Print remains of the Royal Inscription to declare it such may challenge a free passage and may not be refused or wilfully abused So whatever becomes of Tyrants by Title who bear Gods superscription only by adulteration and are meer By-blows of Supremacy those that are not so however Tyrannous actions may blemish and deface them yet because they are the Legitimate Issue of a Divine Commission and so truly Filii Excelsi the Sons of the most High having the true stamp of his Image upon them must be still owned as such and respected according to their Authority 3. But be it supposed that notwithstanding all that is said such a Forfeiture may be made as the Objectors pretend I would fain know who shall be Judge when and by what Acts this Forfeit is incurred Shall the Prince himself I doubt they will think that unreasonable because in this case he is a meer Party and so will undergo the suspicion of Partiality to himself from a Principle of self-Love Who must then The Collective body of the Subjects And do not the Objectors see that the same reason excludes them Will not the Principle of Self-Love and Self-revenge be as apt to corrupt them in taking cognisance of the Injuries they feel But there is an higher exception against them yet and that is the offending Israelites Question to Moses Who made thee a Judge Exod. 2. 14. By what Law either Divine or humane was the Question of our Late martyred Soveraign can the Subject be impowered to sit in Judgment upon his King And indeed as there is no such Law so is it most unreasonable there should be For grant the Subjects such a power and considering the prevalency of prejudices against Governours and the frequency of successeful attempts of ill-meaning persons to spread those prejudices together with the incapacity of the People to know and judge of the true reason of State-Actions c. and tell me whether it would ever in likelihood be the felicity of any King how just soever without a miracle to escape being deposed or murthered at one time or other by his subjects The Complices and Partners in guilt of every malâ—factor whom he hath put to death though never so justly would before a Popular Judicatory arraign him for Murther the persons concerned in confiscated Estates would Indite him for theft and robbery the Fanatick punished by his Laws for never so horrid Blasphemies and pretended consciencious Conspiracies c. would prosecute him for a Persecutor insomuch that the only way for a King to be secure in such a Kingdom were to let all justice go at sixes and sevens and then he would be obnoxious to the displeasure of none but those who though by this dissolution of Government they would be the deepest Sufferers yet by their conscientious Principles are remotest from all likelihood of revenging themselves upon their Sovereign the truly Godly Nay I will speak a big word for once it would be hard for the most righteous Governour of the whole world to carry himself so inoffensively towards his Subjects but that the major part of them were his actions to be scanned by their Judgement would think it fit to Vote the reins out of his hand for male-administration And if neither Prince nor subjects in general be fit to determine in this Controversie who shall then Will they say the Representatives of the People If so in what capacity shall they undertake it Not of Inferiors surely or Equals for par in parem much less inferior in superiorem non habet imperium Of Superiors From whence shall they derive that power If from Law shew that Law If from popular election then their power can be no other then before was in the body collective by whom they are chosen so that except the people be superiour to their Sovereigns which hath before been disproved they cannot delegate that superiority to others which they never had themselves And now there remains only one shift imaginable for the judging this case and that is recourse to a Forreign power which indeed is so farre from amending the matter that it makes it farre worse For besides that Sovereign Princes are equals in Authority though not in Dominions it may be and so the former maxim recurres Par in parem non habet imperium and that none is likely because of the precedent to be courted to such an Imployment except the Pope who challengeth a Supremacy over Princes as Christs universal Vicar and whose claims in this kind have been over and over refuted how shall a Forreign Prince be enabled to excercise this Jurisdiction but by the success of a Warre And for subjects to call in a Forreign force to arbitrate the differences between them and their Sovereign what can it amount unto but the highest of traiterous Conspiracies 4. and lastly Suppose the case were unquestionable and the forfeiture made and justly so judged yet to whom doth the seizure upon this forfeited Authority belong Not to man certainly for it hath been before proved that all Authority is Gods Ordinance a Flower of his Prerogative a Jewel of his Crown and so can fall upon forfeiture only into his hands who derived it So that it will clearly follow that if God himself for the chastisement of a sinfull people or for other holy ends of his own shall think fit for a while not to enter upon the forfeiture it will be high presumption in any men to precipitate the judgement of God and enter before his time though in his Name and right upon his peculiar Hence the Saints of God in former and latter times have suffered under the bloodiest Tyrants with admirable patience as under Gods scourges and referred their cases to him who judgeth uprightly and even in their complaints to him have expressed so much Christian temper and moderation that they have rather praied for the conversion and pardon of their persecutors than wished vengeance upon them And when they have foreseen the vengeance coming have not desired the wofull day Jer. 17. 16. but deprecated it rather However to be sure they never put forth their hands to the iniquity of self-reparation but patiently expected the coming of the Lord Ja. 5. 6 7. And upon this ground David checks